Posts Tagged ‘Media’

If You Were REALLY A Liberal, You’d Vote Straight-Ticked Republican. Here’s Why.

October 24, 2014

There are a lot of people – and I’m one of them – who find it distasteful to have to describe my opponents as “liberals.”  They AREN’T “liberal” in the political sense.

Liberalism in the classical sense – and I’M a liberal in that sense – has nothing whatsoever to do with modern American “liberals.”

Note the definition of classical liberalism:

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. The philosophy emerged as a response to the Industrial Revolution and urbanization in the 19th century in Europe and the United States.[1] It advocates civil liberties with a limited government under the rule of law, private property rights, and belief in laissez-faire economic liberalism.[2][3][4] Classical liberalism is built on ideas that had already arisen by the end of the 18th century, including ideas of Adam Smith, John Locke, Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Malthus, and David Ricardo. It drew on a psychological understanding of individual liberty, natural law, utilitarianism, and a belief in progress.[5]

Do modern American “liberals” want limited government?  No, they want the opposite; they are the OPPOSITE of liberals.  Do they want to emphasize private property rights?  Do they believe in laissez-faire free markets?  Do they believe in individual liberty and natural law?  Absolutely not.  Do Democrats believe in “progress” in this classical sense?  No.  In fact they demonize it as evil:

This painting (circa 1872) by John Gast called American Progress, is an allegorical representation of the modernization of the new west. Here Columbia, a personification of the United States, leads civilization westward with American settlers, stringing telegraph wire as she sweeps west; she holds a school book as well. The different stages of economic activity of the pioneers are highlighted and, especially, the changing forms of transportation.[1]

So-called “liberals” don’t want ANY of the things that actual, real liberalism embraces.

What modern American “liberals” actually are is “fascist.”

The only component of “fascism” that is NOT directly embraced by the modern American left is the doctrine of racism, which of course these leftists exploit to demonize their opponents.  I submit that yes, in face, modern American “liberals” ARE racist and exploit race and race-baiting and racial politics at every turn to document their racism.  And I submit that “fascism” and “racism” do not need to be connected in any way.  As an example, while Nazi fascism was fundamentally racist, Italian fascism was NOT.

So, while I submit that modern American “liberals” are in fact even fascist in the NAZI sense – and if there were a “National Socialist American Workers Party” you’re d damn FOOL if you don’t believe it would be the Democrat Party in America today – let’s exclude that from our calculus.  Because when it comes to all the other criteria for membership as a fascist – belief in a leader with dictatorial powers, belief in the exaltation of the state, belief in the right of the state to dictate to corporations what should be produced and at what price produced goods should be sold, belief in “corporatism” in which people organize into groups a la unions that then negotiate with other groups within the dominance of the state to make “progress” in the fascist sense of “progress,” belief in the power of the state to extend its influence into every sphere of society – modern American liberals are not only fascist but enthusiastically fascist.

Let me quote a remark the Hollywood liberal actress Gwyneth Paltrow recently made at a fundraiser she hosted for our so-called “Democrat” president:

“It would be wonderful if we were able to give this man all of the power that he needs to pass the things that he needs to pass.”

That’s right.  If the Führer only had more power, he’d be a much better Führer.  And think how wonderful the world would be.

The only problem is that’s actually been tried as socialists banded together in Germany under a man to whom they gave all of the power that he needed to pass the things that he needed to pass.

Now, some liberal is going to come here and say that it’s unfair to associate liberals with this big-time major liberal who just hosted a major fundraiser for Obama.  Kind of like all the Democrats running for re-election saying its unfair to associate them with Obama after they spent the last six years voting with Obama an average of 95% of the damn time.  But in fact Gwyneth Paltrow is not some idiot bimbo here, but an informed leftist describing the mindset of intellectual leftism here.  Let me quote a great liberal of a former era – in fact the Godfather of American liberalism – H.G. Wells:

In a talk at Oxford provocatively titled “Liberal Fascism,” he called for liberalism to be “born again.” After his customary denunciation of parliamentary politics as an anachronism, he let out his frustrations, calling for fascist means to serve liberal ends by way of a liberal elite as “conceited” and as power-hungry as its rivals. “I suggest that you study the reinvigoration of Catholicism by Loyola,” Wells said. “I am asking for a Liberal Fascisti.” It was also to Communism that “we shall have to turn—we outsiders, that is, the young people with foresight for enlightened Nazis; I am proposing that you consider the formation for a greater Communist Party; a western response to Russia.”

Wells thought he had found that Western response in 1934, when he met with President Franklin D. Roosevelt and with key members of FDR’s Brains Trust. “My impression of both him and Mrs. Roosevelt,” he wrote, “is that they are unlimited people, entirely modern in the openness of their minds and the logic of their actions.” Here, for a time at least, was another political hero with whom he could identify wholeheartedly. FDR was “continually revolutionary in the new way without ever provoking a stark revolutionary crisis,” wrote the ever-certain Wells. “I do not say that the President has these revolutionary ideas in so elaborate and comprehensive a form as they have come to me, [but] unless I misjudge him, they will presently possess him altogether.” Indeed, FDR was “the most effective transmitting instrument possible for the coming of the new world order,” and in Brains Trusters Raymond Moley, Felix Frankfurter, and Rex Tugwell, Wells found the nucleus of the new elite, those who were destined to take full power in time.

Consider another of the great fathers of modern American liberalism, Woodrow Wilson:

“If any trait bubbles up in all one reads about Wilson,” rites the historian Walter McDougall, “it is this: he loved, craved, and in a sense glorified power.”

Wilson’s fascination with power is the leitmotif of his whole career.  It informed his understanding of theology and politics, and their intersection.  Power was God’s instrument on earth and therefore was always to be revered.  In Congressional Government he admitted, “I cannot imagine power as a thing negative and not positive.”  Such love of power can be found in many systems and men outside the orbit of fascism, but few ideologies or aesthetics are more directly concerned with the glory of might, will, strength, and action.  — Modern Fascism, by Jonah Goldberg, p. 84

Gwynet Paltrow simply stated what is necessarily true about what modern American “liberals” believe and HAVE believed.

Now with that awareness of ACTUAL American “liberal” history, consider Obama.  Consider the massive, sweeping executive orders that the man has passed by dictatorial fiat.

This is a president who has been smacked down by UNANIMOUS Supreme Court rulings condemning his totalitarian power grabs THIRTEEN TIMES.  That has NEVER happened in the entire history of our republic.

Just as a Senate Majority leader seizing more power to block amendments than all the previous Senate Majority Leaders COMBINED TIMES TWO has never happened before.

We live in an age of raw, distilled FASCISM that is coming out of the Democrat Party.

As we speak, Obama is waiting until after the election – because otherwise he would be held accountable for his raw, naked fascist power-grab - to give amnesty to as many as 34 million “future Democrat voters.”

Fascist.

I was nearing the end of my long walk two nights ago and was walking in the parking lot of a gym that I belonged to.  I was four-tenths of a mile from my home in a public place.  A police officer flashed me with his lights and demanded I show my ID.

As I gave the officer my information I gave him a piece of my mind, pointing out that I don’t have the right to walk near my house in a public area in the parking lot of an establishment that I am a member of without being required to produce identification.  But I can vote for the God damned president of the God damned United States – and I used that then as now as a technical term to denote the damnation of this president and the country he represents by the God of the Bible – without being required to produce any identification whatsoever.  And that this is a patently immoral and fascist system.

I mentioned the shenanigans that were taking place as we speak in Colorado and other states by fascists who have bought and rigged the system.

The officer said he completely agreed with me.  “What can we do?” He asked me.

I didn’t have an answer.  Democracy has been perverted by perverted, fascist people with a perverted, fascist end and a perverted, fascist means to achieve that perverted, fascist end.  Because these are the last days and the beast is coming.

As much as the left demonizes the Koch brothers, they are not even ON the list of the top fifty political donors with said list leaning overwhelmingly DEMOCRAT.

Right now, with Obama so far down in the polls and so unpopular with Democrats running for office that Chris Matthews was forced to state on MSNBC:

“It’s like Obama has ebola.”

Obama has “moral Ebola.”  He is a wicked man with a wicked ideology and a wicked means to attain his wicked ends.

But filthy rich leftist who demonize the other side for giving any money to support their values have pumped MILLIONS into the Democrat Party attack machine to try to buy elections.  The money is coming almost entirely from the uber rich because every poll is demonstrating that the Republican base is FAR more energized than the Democrat base.  So where the hell else is the damn money coming from?  Because it sure as hell isn’t coming from the rank and file.

Obama was the first major candidate in history to refuse federal matching funds as he raised over a billion dollars.  It was Barack Obama and the Democrat Party who fundamentally perverted and broke the campaign finance system.

Democrats KNOW they’re liars as they demonize Republicans as being responsible for elections being bought when THEY’RE THE ONES WHO INVENTED IT AND THEY’RE THE ONES WHO ARE DOING IT TO THE TUNE OF TWENTY-TO-ONE.  Look again at the damn list of donors, the numbers, the amounts.

You liberals say you want money out of politics.  Because you are incredibly cynical hypocrites and liars and frauds.

And if these hypocrites and  liars and frauds can’t buy their elections, they’ll do it with fraud.  Because they will stop at nothing to impose their fascist agenda on America any more than Obama will let Congress or the Constitution stop him from imposing his fascist agenda on the American people with the most sweeping and far-reaching and illegal executive order power-grabs in history.

That is why they so rabidly and so militantly oppose ANY ATTEMPT WHATSOEVER NO MATTER HOW REASONABLE IT IS to have any kind of voter identification whatsoever.

I keep hearing Democrats saying there’s no evidence of voter fraud.  WHEN YOU CAN’T CHECK IDs, HOW THE HELL CAN YOU EVER PROVE ANY KIND OF VOTER FRAUD???

Remember refusing to say whether she voted for Obama?  Remember how she punted to some higher principle of being allowed to cast your vote privately rather than admit something that would hurt her as she runs for an office in which all of her votes would necessarily be public when she herself proudly declared that she had voted for Hillary in the primary???  Democrats do the same thing when they punt to some higher principle of voting and that it is immoral to in any way suppress voter turnout.  BECAUSE THEY ARE DOING EVERYTHING THEY CAN TO SUPPRESS THE REPUBLICAN VOTE.

Democrats are on the record desperately searching for “effective messaging to degrade Republican enthusiasm” and thus keep Republicans out of the voting boothsThat from the TOP donor in American politics who by himself contributed more than the top 31 Republican donors COMBINED.

Get off your damned high-horse when you talk about voter suppression, you so-called “liberal.”

So allow me to simply state it as a bald FACT: if you want money out of politics, you vote straight-ticket REPUBLICAN.  Or you’re a hypocrite and a liar like the fascist party you support is a bunch of hypocrites and liars.

Here’s another one.  Do you want “transparency”???

Then don’t you DARE vote for a single damn Democrat.

First of all, let’s talk about the Obama administration’s “transparency.”

Oh, wait.  There ISN’T any.  As even leftist writers in “Democracy Now!” openly admit.  Barack Obama is “the least transparent president in American history.”

An Associated Press analysis called the Obama administration “the least transparent in 2013.”  You get to 2o14 and the change of year was just “One more reason why the Obama administration is the least transparent EVER.”

But let’s move beyond the fact that the Democrat Party machine is the party of opaque fascism.

Let’s move to expose “liberalism” itself as an ideology as being inherently non-transparent.

As a blogger who is openly partisan, I know what it’s like to encounter facts that are either unpleasant to me or hostile to my point-of-view.  And the tendency is to simply ignore it and refuse to talk about it.  And the more rabidly partisan you are, the more you will refuse to deal with facts that you don’t like.

Which is what the mainstream media is doing with the mid-term elections.

When Bush was unpopular, the “news” covered Bush’s unpopularity with glee.  Now that Obama’s every bit as unpopular, all we hear is the crickets chirping.

When Republicans were in danger, the media rushed in to cover the story massively in hopes of finishing Republicans off.  Now that its Democrats in trouble, SILENCE.  ABC ran 36 stories on the 2006 mid-term elections.  How many have they ran now that Democrats are in danger?  ZERO.

You find that a decidedly liberal partisan political agenda outstrips and outweighs any objective reporting of the news by a SIX-TO-ONE MARGIN – 159 stories then when Democrats were ascendant to 15 stories now when Republicans are ascendant.

The mainstream media is nothing short of a Democrat fascist propaganda machine that reports what the Democrat Party wants them to report the way the Democrat Party wants them to report it.

History overwhelmingly proves that if you want a media that will investigate and report on the activities of a presidency and a political party, you will vote to ensure that that president and those politicians are REPUBLICAN.  Because otherwise the fascist so-called “liberal” media will NOT investigate and will NOT report the facts.

So if you’re in any way an honest person and you want openness and transparency, you will NEVER vote Democrat.

Of course, the fact of the matter is that Democrats DO NOT want openness or transparency.  They most certainly do NOT want money out of politics.  They do NOT want any of the things that actual “liberals” would want and in fact they want what only FASCISTS want.  Which is why they vote the way they do for the people who do what the Democrat Party machine does.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Liberals Put Yet Another Feather In Their Fascist Cap In Ouster Of Jill Abramson For The Crime Of Daring To Speak The Truth

May 15, 2014

It was only yesterday that I published the article, “America’s Enemy-in-Chief And The Pseudo-Journalist Enemies Of Truth Who Attack Any Of Their Own Who Would Expose Him.”  I pointed out in that article how journalists had been personally destroyed for trying to report the truth.  I mentioned some names, such as Sharyl Attkisson – award-winning investigative journalist who resigned in despair when CBS refused to air her stories after praising her for the same tough investigative reporting when the president happened to be a Republican.  Having resigned, she was free to speak the truth: namely, the truth that a fascist propaganda-press WILL NOT report the truth about Obama that they eagerly drooled to report about Bush.  And I mentioned a few courageous journalists – from the New York Times of all places – who dared to call a spade a spade and decry this fascist administration and its destruction on the 1st Amendment.

One of those New York Times journalists that I named  yesterday was Jill Abramson.

Abramson pointed out that Barack Obama was – despite all of his arrogant lies to the contrary – the most secretive president she had ever encountered in a career of covering presidents that dated back to the Reagan years.  She pointed out that Obama was in fact THE most destructive president of the 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States in all of American history.

And now she’s gone, purged the way ALL who in any way defy the left get purged.  Because the left is now pathologically fascist.  And the urge to purge is the hallmark of fascism.

Now, before I cite the article (I read the story in USA Today) that “explains” Abramson’s ouster, allow me to reproduce the same portion of the article I cited yesterday:

Let me move on to another topic in the Obama administration. How would you grade this administration, compared to others, when it comes to its relationship with the media.

Well, I would slightly like to interpret the question as “How secretive is this White House?” which I think is the most important question. I would say it is the most secretive White House that I have ever been involved in covering, and that includes — I spent 22 years of my career in Washington and covered presidents from President Reagan on up through now, and I was Washington bureau chief of the Times during George W. Bush’s first term.

I dealt directly with the Bush White House when they had concerns that stories we were about to run put the national security under threat. But, you know, they were not pursuing criminal leak investigations. The Obama administration has had seven criminal leak investigations. That is more than twice the number of any previous administration in our history. It’s on a scale never seen before. This is the most secretive White House that, at least as a journalist, I have ever dealt with.

And do you think this comes directly from the president?

I would think that it would have to. I don’t know that, but certainly enough attention has been focused on this issue that, if he departed from the policies of his government, I think we’d know that at this point.

So it makes it more difficult for The New York Times to do its job.

Absolutely.

The White House does?

The White House does. And in the case of specific journalists, I would talk for a minute about Jim Risen, who is one of my most valued colleagues. In 2005, he is the reporter who, along with Eric Lichtblau, broke the story about the NSA’s warrantless eavesdropping, which was, in a way, the first view we had into the world of the NSA’s collection of data and communications. He has had this leak investigation hanging over his head for years now.

Allow me to simply state as a FACT that THIS is why Jill Abramson is gone.

Now read the article detailing her ouster and tell me where you see the real reason Abramson was purged:

‘NYT’ editor: Abramson out, deputy Baquet in
Roger Yu, USA TODAY 7:53 a.m. EDT May 15, 2014

The New York Times abruptly ousted its executive editor, Jill Abramson, Wednesday, citing “management” issues in the newsroom and sparking a firestorm of speculation across the media industry.

Managing editor Dean Baquet was appointed as her successor, making him the paper’s first African-American newsroom leader. Abramson and Baquet were among the top trending topics on Twitter on Wednesday afternoon, reflecting the intense interest the paper still generates among online readers.

The changes, effective immediately, came as a surprise for the rank and file and to company watchers, though there have been reports that her management style had rubbed some insiders and staffers the wrong way.

The company declined to elaborate on why Abramson, 60, left the company where she had worked for 17 years so suddenly. She was so devoted to The Times that she has a tattoo of the letter “T,” signifying her ties the paper.

In an e-mail, Times spokeswoman Eileen Murphy said Arthur Sulzberger Jr., the publisher of The Times and chairman of The New York Times Co., “made the decision because he believed that new leadership would improve some aspects of the management of the newsroom.”

“You will understand that there is nothing more that I want to say about this,” Sulzberger told the newsroom Wednesday afternoon, according to a Times report. “We had an issue with management in the newsroom. And that’s what’s at the heart of this issue.”

Widely respected for her journalistic skills, Abramson made history as the paper’s first female editor when she was promoted to the job in 2011. She has a reputation for a hard-charging, and at times, prickly personality.

Under her tenure, the paper had to deal with a series of high-profile defections by writers and editors — celebrated blogger Nate Silver to ESPN being the most cited example — who left for competitors and media start-ups.

But she is credited with guiding the organization at a time of deep changes, including the paper’s aggressive shift toward digital journalism and its decision to charge readers for digital content. Like other digital-first media organizations, its reporters are now tasked to write quickly online and update as stories develop, but they continue to produce high-quality enterprise stories and deeply reported features on multiple platforms, which allow the company to grow its circulation revenue.

“I’ve loved my run at The Times,” Abramson said in a statement. “We successfully blazed trails on the digital frontier, and we have come so far in inventing new forms of story-telling. Our masthead became half female for the first time, and so many great women hold important newsroom positions.”

Abramson was not immediately reachable for comment, and the company said she was “no longer here.”

Baquet, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist who previously worked as editor of The Los Angeles Times, has been managing editor at the Times since September 2011 and was seen as an eventual successor to Abramson.

A native New Orleanian, Baquet is well-liked in the newsroom for his engaging personality and easy rapport with staffers. “I think he’s the perfect choice,” said Jim Amoss, editor of The Times-Picayune in New Orleans, who’s been friends with Baquet for decades. “As a manager, he’s a rare combination of inspiring, empathetic and even-keeled. He know instinctively how to respond journalistically to news. The newsroom will naturally gravitate toward him.”

When he addressed the staff Wednesday afternoon, Baquet received a minute-long round of applause from employees, the Times report said.

That was where the print version ended.  The digital version I found online continued with this:

“He’d remember a conversation you had with him six months earlier,” said a newsroom employee who spoke anonymously because he wasn’t authorized speak publicly about internal matters. “He’s personable, charming.”

Citing “the confidence and support” Baquet receives from his colleagues, Sulzberger said in the company’s statement that “there is no journalist in our newsroom or elsewhere better qualified to take on the responsibilities of executive editor at this time than Dean Baquet.”

Baquet has had run-ins with Abramson, though it remains unclear if their relationship may have influenced Sulzberger’s decision.Citing people in the company briefed on the situation, The Times reported Wednesday that Abramson sought to hire Janine Gibson, editor-in-chief of the Guardian’s U.S. operation and its global website, and name her co-managing editor alongside Baquet. The move angered Baquet and the tension was brought to the attention of Sulzberger.

Gibson confirmed to the Guardian that Abramson tried to hire her: “The New York Times talked to me about the role of joint managing editor, but I said no.”

Politico also reported that Abramson and Baquet once engaged in an argument that drove Baquet to slam his hand against a wall and storm out of the newsroom. “In recent months, Abramson has become a source of widespread frustration and anxiety within the Times newsroom,” said the story, written in April 2013 by Politico media reporter Dylan Byers. “More than a dozen current and former members of the editorial staff, all of whom spoke to Politico on the condition of anonymity, described her as stubborn and condescending, saying they found her difficult to work with.” The story was widely derided at the time as sexist.

The sudden masthead changes also may be driven by shifting priorities in the fast-changing newsroom, where digital strategizing can be overwhelmed by the daily demands of story production.

Last week, the company released an internal memo, following a 6-month review of its digital strategy, that called for more urgency in the implementation of its digital goals. Among them was a recommendation to create newsroom teams that tracked audience development and formed new strategies, as well a call to prioritize digital hiring.

“The report concludes that the masthead needs to make further structural changes in the newsroom to achieve a digital-first reality,” Abramson and Baquet wrote last week in a memo.

Sulzberger noted on Wednesday that Baquet was “closely involved” with the team that produced the memo.

Whatever precipitated her departure, Abramson doesn’t have “any journalistic apologies to make,” says Alex Jones, a former Times reporter who teaches media and public policy at Harvard University and is co-author of The Trust: The Private And Powerful Family Behind The New York Times.

“She was the head of the newsroom at a difficult time,” he said. “I worked for several top editors (at the Times). Every single one of them is pushy and demanding. I don’t think she is any more difficult than others. I think, overall, that just goes with the territory. It’s a demanding, high-standards place.”

Nowhere – NOWHERE – is her recent comment about the Obama regime mentioned.  You know, the thing that ACTUALLY led to her ouster.

She delivered these remarks in a late-January interview.  But that interview was given to al Jazeera, and of course nobody heard about it for a while.  Until it was discovered and pointed out by Fox News late last week (which was how I heard about what Abramson said).  That’s when the fascist wheels at the New York Slimes started grinding – and kept grinding until Abramson was out.

You can see the clues about how rushed this “ouster” – because let’s call it the “purge” that it clearly is – was:

The changes, effective immediately, came as a surprise for the rank and file and to company watchers, though there have been reports that her management style had rubbed some insiders and staffers the wrong way.

Well, I cite that “management style” stuff in the article I wrote yesterday.  It amounted to a hit job AFTER she made her remarks about Obama’s thug presidency.

The minute-long applause was for the purging of a woman who had dared speak the truth about Messiah Obama.  You can only imagine how the doctrinaire liberals who make up the New York Times must have gnashed their teeth for two and a half months waiting for her to be forced out for her blasphemy of their god-king.

One of the claims (that doesn’t appear in the USA Today piece above but which is going around) is that Jill Abramson asked for more money:

“Several weeks ago, I’m told, Abramson discovered that her pay and her pension benefits as both executive editor and, before that, as managing editor were considerably less than the pay and pension benefits of Bill Keller, the male editor whom she replaced in both jobs. “She confronted the top brass,” one close associate said, and this may have fed into the management’s narrative that she was “pushy,” a characterization that, for many, has an inescapably gendered aspect.

But that was shortly after the New York Times ran a series spouting how working women could and should ask for more damn money.  Which means that the New York Times would be saying, “Women should ask for more money, so long as they don’t dare ask for it from US.”

The New York Times’ stock valuation DOUBLED during her three years at the helm as executive editor:

Times Co. shares extended earlier losses today, falling 4.5 percent at the close. The stock, which more than doubled during Abramson’s tenure, is still down 71 percent from a 2002 peak.

So maybe she deserved to be paid as much as the MALE who held her job and took the paper downhill was paid.  But to be a liberal is to be an abject hypocrite who calls upon other people and other people’s money to do what they themselves refuse to do.

The two quintessential ingredients of modern progressive liberalism – abject hypocrisy and rabid fascism – here go hand in hand: “Don’t do what WE do; do what we TELL you to do.”

We’ve seen this sort of hypocrisy regarding women and their pay before.  From the New York Times’ master in the White House.

I leave it up to you.  You can choose which meme you like: The New York Times, as the moral and intellectual leader in the liberal progressive world, fired Jill Abramson because they are blatant hypocrites who don’t give a flying damn about women’s equality.  Or The New York Times, as the moral and intellectual leader in the progressive world, are blatant fascists who fired Jill Abramson because they can’t tolerate any dissent whatsoever.

Of course, if you’ve been following me so far, you know I take the latter position (to the extent that I don’t point out liberals are BOTH of the above).  I submit that while Jill Abramson may have been an uppity woman whom the creators of liberals’ “war on women” hypocritically resented for wanting what liberals deceitfully claim they believe women ought to have; her real crime in their eyes was that she was an uppity woman who committed the unpardonable sin of speaking out against the fascism of the Obama regime.

What we’ve seen in both journalism and academia is a trend in which progressive liberals got their feet into the door, “progressively” and systematically began to hire more and ONLY liberals, and attained to a level of power in which they were able to dominate the agenda and shut down any and all opposition to their ideology.  And then the purges.  What worked well for Stalin works equally well for American progressive liberals.

The homosexual movement is a microcosm of the above.  Homosexuals – citing the American tradition and the constitutional freedom of speech – demanded a voice.  And Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians and Independents alike shrugged their shoulders and agreed that, yes, everybody deserves the right to speak freely and represent their cause or their view.  But the moment they were allowed in the door, they began to slam it shut on everyone who disagree with THEM.

In other words, the “free speech” crap was merely that, rhetorical jiu-jitsu by fascists as a ploy to get as much as they could before seizing the rest.

It’s really no different from Hitler – who got to power largely by the homosexual movement in pre-WWII Germany.  Hitler was quite willing to talk his way to power until he had garnered all the power he could by talking and it was time to seize complete power and then crush and exterminate his rivals (sadly for homosexuals, they ironically ended up on the wrong side of his subsequent purges).

I don’t even have to try to prove that the media is biased any more (as easy as it is to do); the American people OVERWHELMINGLY believe the media is biased to the left.  You’ve got to be a damned fool not to believe that at this point.

And of course the same exact phenomena has occurred in academia.  The doctrinaire biased ideology in the name of “free thinking” is beyond astounding.

And I submit to you that the identical phenomena has now metasticized in heavily unionized (and therefore leftist) government bureaucracy as top Obama-appointed liberals are routinely using their positions to advance their ideology -

A letter sent last year to Solis by the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, an independent agency that investigates allegations of administrative violations of fundraising rules by federal officials, said it began an inquiry after receiving a complaint that Solis had solicited a donation from a Labor Department employee. According to the letter, the complaint alleged that in March 2012, Solis “left a voicemail message on a subordinate employee’s government-issued Blackberry in which you asked the employee to contribute toward and assist with organizing others to attend a fundraiser for the President’s reelection campaign.”

Solis has declined to comment on the investigation, but a spokesman reiterated Friday that she believes she has done nothing wrong.

The January 2013 letter, which was reviewed by The Times, noted that Solis had resigned from her federal position earlier that month. As a result, the office said it was closing its inquiry into possible violations of the Hatch Act, which prohibits certain political activities by federal workers and imposes administrative penalties. The letter said the administrative inquiry could be reopened if Solis takes an executive branch job in the federal government.

- and crush all opponents of their ideology:

Despite assurances to the contrary, the IRS didn’t destroy all of the donor lists scooped up in its tea party targeting — and a check of those lists reveals that the tax agency audited 10 percent of those donors, much higher than the audit rate for average Americans, House Republicans revealed Wednesday.

Republicans argue that the Internal Revenue Servicet come clean about the full extent of its targeting, which swept up dozens of conservative groups.

“The committee uncovered new information indicating that after groups provided the information to the IRS, nearly one in 10 donors were subject to audit,” Rep. Charles W. Boustany Jr., Louisiana Republican and chairman of the Ways and Means Committee’s oversight panel, told IRS Commissioner John Koskinen at a hearing Wednesday.

And we’re now learning that in stark contrast to the Obama administrations LIES, the targeting of conservatives was NOT the result of “rogue agents out of Cincinnati,” but rather a campaign that began out of WASHINGTON as conservatives have been pointing out all along.

The quintessential fascism that is the heart of the left is emerging in every area and every arena across the board.  If you are a liberal, YOU ARE A FASCIST.  I’ve been pointing out – literally for years now – that “NAZI” stood for “National Socialist German Workers Party,” and that if there were a “National Socialist American Workers Party” there is absolutely NO QUESTION that it would be the progressive left.  To wit: the Democrat Party today is the Nazi Party in everything BUT name.  And if liberals were anything other than completely dishonest, they would call themselves what they truly are.

A few weeks ago I wrote a piece titled, “I Keep Pointing It Out: The ESSENTIAL Nature Of Homosexual Liberalism Is Pure Rabid FASCISM. And Here It Is Again…”  I described – actually allowed a couple of horrified liberals to describe - the systematic campaign of targeting and punishing free speech from the heart of the left.  I also documented the purging of the Mozilla CEO for the “crime” of exercising his free speech right to donate to the political causes of his choice.  And I preserved the incredible, galling hypocrisy of the left that views itself as being so “tolerant” – until they are confronted by “the other” and the fangs come out.

A few weeks before that I wrote an article titled, “The Inherent, Pathological Fascism Of The Left. It Took Nazism Decades To Fester In Germany And American Liberals Are Ahead Of Schedule” that featured the rabid hatred of the left for free speech that has become the quintessential essence of liberalism.

And just this morning I wrote “Just In Case You Want To Know Why Progressive Liberalism Is In Bed With Islamic Fascism. Because Basically, They’re One And The Same” to document how the progressive liberal and the Islamic fascist basically have the same ideology on four crucial areas.

It is amazing to watch in these days shortly before the Antichrist prophesied by the Bible comes to a worshiping world the self-righteous left that praises itself for “tolerance” when they define “tolerance” as: thinking and acting as we say or else we’ll destroy you.

 

 

 

America’s Enemy-in-Chief And The Pseudo-Journalist Enemies Of Truth Who Attack Any Of Their Own Who Would Expose Him

May 14, 2014

This is the New York Times.  And we’re getting journalists who are calling Obama “the greatest enemy of press freedom that we have encountered in at least a generation” and “the most secretive White House I’ve ever covered.”

Barack Obama is a genuine FASCIST.  I’ve been saying it over and over and over again.  And now I can even point to the New York Times for confirmation.

The Democrat Party in general and the Obama presidency in particular have become the party of rabid, cancerous fascism in America.

NYT reporter: Obama administration ‘the greatest enemy of press freedom’ in a generation
Posted By Brendan Bordelon On 5:12 PM 03/24/2014

New York Times reporter James Risen called the Obama administration “the greatest enemy of press freedom that we have encountered in at least a generation” on Friday, explaining that the White House seeks to control the flow of information and those who refuse to play along “will be punished.”

Poynter reports that Risen made the remarks while speaking at Sources and Secrets conference — a meeting of journalism , communication and government professionals held in New York City. The foreign policy reporter, who is currently fighting a fierce court battle with the federal government over his protection of a confidential source, warned that press freedom is under serious attack in today’s America.

In a speech kicking off the conference, Risen claimed that the Obama administration wants to “narrow the field of national security reporting” and “create a path for accepted reporting.” Those who stray from that path, he cautioned, “will be punished.”

The result is a “de facto Official Secrets Act,” Risen explained, making the current White House “the greatest enemy of press freedom that we have encountered in at least a generation.” And the media has been “too timid” in pushing back against the onslaught.

Some of that timidity was on display at the conference. Jeffrey Toobin, a writer for The New Yorker, denied that any constitutional protections for his profession even existed. “It won’t take me long to alienate everyone in the room,” he declared. “For better or worse, it has been clear there is no journalistic privilege under the First Amendment.”

Robert Litt, the administration’s top lawyer for the national intelligence community, agreed with that statement. At the same conference, he likened reporting on national security leaks to drunk driving, arguing that we ban the practice despite the fact that there isn’t always a victim.

“Not every drunk driver causes a fatal accident,” he explained, “but we ban drunk driving because it increases the risk of accidents. In the same way, we classify information because of the risk of harm, even if no harm actually can be shown in the end from any particular disclosure.”

[h/t Poytner]

Follow Brendan on Twitter

Do you know what it will take to make liberal “journalists” like Jeffrey Toobin realize that “journalists” actually DO have constitutional freedom to report the truth even when an administration doesn’t like it?  A Republican president.  Nothing more.

Liberal journalists are not “journalists” at all – at least the overwhelming majority never are and the few who become “journalists” only do so to a small degree; rather, they are overwhelmingly ideological fascist defenders of their Führer’s official propaganda.  And they will carry the government’s water unless and until a Republican is elected president – in which case they will rabidly turn on that president.

Jill Abramson is not merely a journalist with the NY Times; she is the paper’s EXECUTIVE EDITOR Listen to what she has to say about America’s Enemy-in-Chief during an interview:

Let me move on to another topic in the Obama administration. How would you grade this administration, compared to others, when it comes to its relationship with the media.

Well, I would slightly like to interpret the question as “How secretive is this White House?” which I think is the most important question. I would say it is the most secretive White House that I have ever been involved in covering, and that includes — I spent 22 years of my career in Washington and covered presidents from President Reagan on up through now, and I was Washington bureau chief of the Times during George W. Bush’s first term.

I dealt directly with the Bush White House when they had concerns that stories we were about to run put the national security under threat. But, you know, they were not pursuing criminal leak investigations. The Obama administration has had seven criminal leak investigations. That is more than twice the number of any previous administration in our history. It’s on a scale never seen before. This is the most secretive White House that, at least as a journalist, I have ever dealt with.

And do you think this comes directly from the president?

I would think that it would have to. I don’t know that, but certainly enough attention has been focused on this issue that, if he departed from the policies of his government, I think we’d know that at this point.

So it makes it more difficult for The New York Times to do its job.

Absolutely.

The White House does?

The White House does. And in the case of specific journalists, I would talk for a minute about Jim Risen, who is one of my most valued colleagues. In 2005, he is the reporter who, along with Eric Lichtblau, broke the story about the NSA’s warrantless eavesdropping, which was, in a way, the first view we had into the world of the NSA’s collection of data and communications. He has had this leak investigation hanging over his head for years now.

Abramson could also be talking about Fox News reporter James Rosen.  Obama sicked his rabid law thug Eric Holder on Rosen and literally had Rosen FALSELY called a criminal co-conspirator so the Obama regime could monitor not only Rosen’s calls, but his PARENT’S phone calls.

Note what Abramson points out: every Democrat on earth is a vile, twisted liar and hypocrite.  You people DESPISED Bush as an enemy of freedom, et al.  AND NOW YOU ARE MINDLESSLY DEFENDING A MAN WHO MAKES GEORGE W. BUSH LOOK LIKE A SNOW WHITE PURE CHOIRBOY.

Barack Obama’s criminal thug abuse of journalism and of the 1st Amendment is frankly stunning.  But like cockroaches whose mother eats them, liberals still flock to their messiah roach.

And because Democrats are liars without shame, without honor, without integrity, without decency and absolutely without virtue, they call people who take a principled stand against this tyrant “racists.”  Because that’s the kind of fascists that they are.

What is truly interesting is how the left does when their is criticized: they get rabid fast and the fangs come out and it doesn’t matter if you are black or a woman or a black woman or WHAT.  Of course it is EVIL for a conservative to attack a black person, or a woman.  But you just watch what happens when a black person or a woman or a black woman in any way, shape or form opposes the doctrines of liberalism.  You will see naked hate and you will FEEL that hate if you are their target.

And so leftist shrills at the Politico heard that a liberal woman had criticized Obama and so they tried to take her down in the most vicious, rabid, sexist terms they possibly could.  And Abramson admitted the sexist hit job made her cry.

The mainstream media did what it does when someone dares attack liberalism: they circled their wagons and made her persona non grata.  They published ugly photos of her to tarnish her the way that Joseph Goebbels would have done.

And this is nothing compared to what the left did to female journalist Lara Logan.  Her crime was daring to report on Obama’s lies in Benghazi.  And in her reporting, she made one mistake that should have been caught by CBS (which has a former FBI guy who literally could have caught this with a phone call) and put a man on the record who turned out to have lied about having been in Benghazi.  In the minds of liberals, of course, that one error not only obliterated all the GOOD reporting she’d done, but it somehow had a metaphysical power to obliterate ALL journalistic investigation into Benghazi.

Anyway, the left went vicious, war-on-women psycho on Lara Logan in an incredibly savage piece titled, “Benghazi and the Bombshell” – which goes into vile detail into Logan’s alleged sex life from numerous anonymous sources.  And they ask the question in the subtitle – as a warning to any journalist who would dare report the facts about Obama – “Is Lara Logan too toxic to return to 60 Minutes?”

The subtitle would have properly read: a warning to any who would dare to challenge the Obama narrative on Benghazi.

Note that hit job was written by a man.  And ask yourself if a man had written such a piece so “exposing” a true ideological liberal “journalist” in such blatantly sexist and sexual terms, how would the mainstream media have responded if not in frenzied outrage akin to the Donald Sterling stuff?

Award-winning journalist Sharyl Attkisson finally recently resigned in disgust and is blowing the whistle that Obama administration officials routinely gave her “misinformation” and “false information” and pressured CBS into not airing her stories. The former CBS News correspondent said her investigative pieces died “the death of a thousand cuts” and were much harder to get on the air under Obama than they had ever been under George W. Bush (when she was PRAISED for hard investigative reporting on an administration).

Let me give you another flavor of the diseased soul that is the heart of this presidency:

In her recently published memoir, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) relays a chilling anecdote about how Washington really works. In 2009, she was running a congressional panel to oversee the Treasury Department’s bailout of the financial industry, and the new Obama administration was unhappy that she was being as tough on them as she had been on its Republican predecessors. So the president’s top economic advisor, Lawrence H. Summers, took Warren out for a friendly dinner.

“Late in the evening, Larry leaned back in his chair and offered me some advice,” Warren writes. “I had a choice. I could be an insider or I could be an outsider. Outsiders can say whatever they want. But people on the inside don’t listen to them. Insiders, however, get lots of access…. But insiders also understand one unbreakable rule: They don’t criticize other insiders.”

Warren decided to remain an outsider and went right on flaying then-Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner for failing to help distressed homeowners while he was rescuing big banks. When President Obama decided against nominating Warren to run the new Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, she ran for the Senate instead. And last year, from that seat, she was one of several senators who helped kill Summers’ likely nomination as chairman of the Federal Reserve.

There are those on the inside and there is everybody else.  And under thug-tyrant Obama, you’d better shut your mouth the way a Mafia gangster does or you will find yourself on the outside.

When an Obama official like Jay Carney pats the administration on the back for being “the most open administration in history,” you know that they have to frankly be Nazis to even SAY such a ridiculous thing.  You have to be a rabid liar to work for a rabid liar like Obama.

Consider the warning of extremely-liberal legal scholar Jonathon Turley has said about Obama and his “sin eater” law thug Eric HolderConsider:

Liberal progressive legal expert Jonathan Turley (along with a number of other constitutional experts) had this to say about Obama’s action in setting aside the rule of law for his political expedience:

“The president is using executive power to do things Congress has refused to do, and that does fit a disturbing pattern of expansion of executive power under President Obama. In many ways, President Obama has fulfilled the dream of an imperial presidency that Richard Nixon strived for. On everything from (the Defense of Marriage Act) to the gaming laws, this is a president who is now functioning as a super legislator. He is effectively negating parts of the criminal code because he disagrees with them. That does go beyond the pale.”

Obama’s strategy is to set aside and flatly ignore the law for his own political benefit.  Every American who is not deeply troubled by that – troubled enough to not vote for this fascist – is UN-American.

What Obama has done is provide an example of out-and-out lawlessness on the part of the president of the United States.

The essence of progressive liberalism is and always has been rabid personal hypocrisy and the assertion that “It’s not fascist when we do what we called you ‘fascist’ for doing when you did a fraction of what we’re doing now.”

What do you say when 96% of the journalists at a significant mainstream media outlet voted for Obama?  You say that there is a climate of out-of-control bias.  And it CONSUMES all of media today.

I think of the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese Army troops; they died at the rate of nineteen to every one American soldier killed in action.  NVA troops would get tattoos that read, “Born in the North to die in the South.”  But they kept coming.  Because in their nihilist worldview their lives meant nothing and all that mattered was the survival of the State.

That was how the leftists viewed things in World War II (when 20 million Soviets died defending Stalin), it was how they viewed it in North Korea (where 2 million died defending Kim Il-Sung) and it was how the left viewed things in the Vietnam War (where 1.1 million gave their last full measure of communist devotion to the State defending Ho Chi Minh).  And it is how leftist journalists view things now when they are willing – frankly eager – to throw themselves on every grenade that could harm their messiah Obama.

Obama is protected an army of cockroaches who will throw their “journalistic objectivity” and even their careers onto whatever grenade would blow up to expose their messiah.  And America is doomed because of these traitors to truth and to their profession.

 

New Fascist Outrage From Old Fascist Obama: FCC To ‘Study’ Media

February 21, 2014

Some time back – going on three years ago now – I wrote an article titled, “Why I Call Obama A Fascist.”  That was before the IRS was turned into a political weapon against conservatives, before Obama’s profoundly unconstitutional lawless abuse of power as he simply changed the law (when only CONGRESS has the power to change or make law) with ObamaCare and numerous other times such as gay marriage and illegal immigration.

The essence of liberalism IS fascism.  It is LIBERALS who want to create economic and political fascism in America.  Fascism is ALL ABOUT government control.  As a conservative, for instance, I am pro-American founding fathers, pro-grammatical-historical Constitution, pro-laisssez faire free market, pro-individual liberty and pro-limited federal government.   And for liberals to claim that it is conservatives who want to expand government control of society in a fascist way is as irrational as it is evil.  Because just how in the HELL am I like Hitler when it is YOU DEMOCRATS who want what Hitler wanted (MORE government power; more power for the government to impose, less power for the people to resist government tyranny, fewer guns in the hands of the people versus the State)???

If you want to see a fascist, go look at a Democrat.  If you are a Democrat and you want to see a fascist, go look in the damn mirror.

There have been so many instances in which Barack Hussein Obama has revealed himself as a naked fascist since I wrote this article it is beyond unreal.  Let it be said that I was RIGHT as usual when it comes to Barack Obama.  When he was running for president and I heard his “reverend” of 23 years say, “No, no, no, NOT God bless America!  God DAMN America!”  I knew that only a truly evil man would have sat in that church under such demon-possessed “preaching.”  And I had what turned out to be a very accurate vision of the wicked man who has plunged America onto the path of dodo-bird-extinction.

When did George Bush propose anything like this?  When did George Bush – who never proposed anything like this – sick his DOJ attack dog on a reporter the way Obama had Eric Holder spy on Fox News reporter James Rosen???  Which revealed nothing short of a fascist agenda with the media.  When did Bush threaten reporters the way Obama threatened Watergate-fame reporter Bob Woodward???  When did Bush try to target and boycott a news outlet he didn’t like the way Obama tried to do with Fox News before all the rest of the journalists pointed out that Obama was being a fascist???

The correct answer, ye Democrat fascists, is NEVER.  And yet had Bush done one-fifty-thousandth the fascism Obama has done you people would have been riotously burning cars in the street in protest.  Because you are the worst kind of hypocrites who ever lived.  “Period.  End of story,” to quote Obama’s words.

Even LIBERALS are now understanding the threat of this naked fascist president.  The New York Times’ James Risen observed, “I think 2013 will go down in history as the worst year for press freedom in the United States’ modern history.”

And it was a LIBERAL legal analyst who pointed out what a godawful CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Barack Hussein Obama has been as he described a nakedly fascist hijacking of the constitutional role of Congress by a dictator-in-chief:

  • The great concern I have for this body is that it is not only being circumvented, but it is also being denied the ability to enforce its inherent powers. Many of these questions are not close in my view; the President is outside the line. But it has to go in front of a court and that court has to grant review, and that’s where we have the most serious Constitutional crisis I view in my lifetime. And that is, this body is becoming less and less relevant.
  • “I have great trepidation of where we are headed, because we are creating a new system here – something that is not what was designed. . . . Within that system, you have the rise of an Uber-Presidency. There could be no greater danger for individual liberty. I really think that the Framers would be horrified by that shift, because everything they dedicated themselves to was creating political balance – and we’ve lost it.”

You know,

This fascist hypocrite Nazi Stalinist thug Obama made all KINDS of false promises to America when he was lying his way into power.  In 2008 he said:

I taught constitutional law for ten years. I take the Constitution very seriously. The biggest problems that we’re facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all, and that’s what I intend to reverse when I’m President of the United States of America.”

Now he’s our Nazi thug-in-chief.  And the American people should be acting like the people of Ukraine while we still have the freedom to act.  Because Barack Obama is a clear and present danger to America BY HIS OWN STANDARD.

And now this:

Monday, 17 February 2014 19:00
FCC to Investigate How Broadcasters Select News Stories
Written by  Warren Mass

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will soon launch an initiative — the Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs (CIN) — “in order to assess whether government action is needed to ensure that the information needs of all Americans are being met, including women and minorities.”

When the FCC’s Office of Communications Business Opportunities (OCBO) announced the initiative in a release last November 1, it stated it had selected Columbia, South Carolina, to field-test the Research Design for the CIN. OCBO expects to complete this next phase of its Critical Information Needs Research no later than July 2014.

Citing the FCC, Jason Pye (the editor-in-chief for the United Liberty website and former legislative director for the Libertarian Party of Georgia) wrote that the stated purpose of the CIN is to collect information from television and radio broadcasters about “the process by which stories are selected” and how often stations cover “critical information needs,” as well as to assess “perceived station bias” and “perceived responsiveness to underserved populations.”

The FCC will also ask reporters: “Have you ever suggested coverage of what you consider a story with critical information for your customers that was rejected by management?”

The  FCC attempts to justify the intrusive fact-finding mission by asserting that the results are necessary to complete a report that the FCC “is obligated under § 257 of the Communications Act of 1934 … to review and report to Congress on: (1) regulations prescribed to eliminate market entry barriers in the provision and ownership of telecommunications services and information services, or in the provision of parts or services to providers of telecommunications services and information services by entrepreneurs and other small businesses; and (2) proposals to eliminate statutory barriers to market entry by those entities, consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity.”

However, Pye quotes the FCC’s Ajit Pai: “This claim is peculiar. How can the news judgments made by editors and station managers impede small businesses from entering the broadcast industry? And why does the CIN study include newspapers when the FCC has no authority to regulate print media?”

The statement came from an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal for February 10 written by Ajit Pai, who is a commissioner of the FCC. In the article, Pai noted that news editors often disagree about which stories are important enough to be covered and which stories are not. But, stated Pai, “everyone should agree on this: The government has no place pressuring media organizations into covering certain stories.”

Then Pai makes an amazing admission, especially since he was nominated to his post by President Obama: “Unfortunately, the Federal Communications Commission, where I am a commissioner, does not agree.”

As part of the process to uncover the information it wants, notes Pai, the FCC selected eight categories of “critical information,” including the “environment” and “economic opportunities,” that it believes the local news media should cover. The FCC will ask station managers, news directors, journalists, television anchors, and on-air reporters to tell the government about their “news philosophy” and how the station will assist the FCC’s quest to (as we noted previously) “ensure that the information needs of all Americans are being met.”

As an indication of the egregious intrusiveness of the CIN study, the FCC’s follow-up questions will ask for “specifics about how editorial discretion is exercised, as well as the reasoning behind the decisions.”

But Pai’s assessment of the FCC’s new program becomes more ominous:

Participation in the Critical Information Needs study is voluntary — in theory. Unlike the opinion surveys that Americans see on a daily basis and either answer or not, as they wish, the FCC’s queries may be hard for the broadcasters to ignore. They would be out of business without an FCC license, which must be renewed every eight years.

A frank acknowledgment, coming from an Obama nominee! If a broadcast media outlet is dependent on not running afoul of FCC bureaucrats in order to keep its license and remain in business, what we have, in effect, is a fascist system not too different from what existed in Italy under Mussolini. Though fascism has multiple characteristics, a hallmark of the system is that instead of openly nationalizing private property, as did the communists, fascists allowed private property to exist in name — while controlling it via regulation. Under fascism, entrepreneurs have only the illusion of private property, since the government dictates how their property is to be used.

In his book, Propaganda: The Art of Persuasion: World War II, Anthony Rhodes noted that Italian fascist authorities seized control of some newspapers on the grounds that they published false information likely to incite class hatred or express contempt for the government. In contrast, pro-fascist periodicals were subsidized. By 1926, government permission was needed for a publication to operate. From 1937 to 1944, the Italian Ministry of Culture exercised control of all channels of communication in Italy, both print and broadcast.

Fascist dictator Mussolini personally chose all newspaper editors in Italy, and those who did not possess a certificate of approval from the fascist party could not practice journalism. Though Mussolini created the illusion of a “free press,” no such freedom existed.

Even more repressive control of the media existed in fascist Italy’s sister state, Nazi Germany, where censorship was implemented by Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels. Under Goebbels, newspapers, radio, and all forms of media were put under the control of the Nazis. Radios capable of receiving uncensored broadcasts from outside Germany were confiscated.

The U.S. government’s interest in regulating the broadcast media began with commercial radio broadcasting itself. The Radio Act of 1912, which mandated that all radio transmissions be licensed, was superseded by The Radio Act of 1927, which transferred most of the responsibility for regulating radio to the newly created Federal Radio Commission (FRC). The five-person FRC was given the power to grant and deny licenses, and to assign frequencies and power levels for each licensee. The Commission was not given any official power of censorship, but programming could not include “obscene, indecent, or profane language.”

The first commercially licensed radio station in the United States, KDKA in Pittsburgh, began broadcasting in 1920. The March 1, 1922 issue of the Commerce Department’s Radio Service Bulletin listed 67 stations, but by the end of that year that number would increase to more than 500. (Today there are around 15,000 commercial radio stations in the United States.)

The FRC was replaced by the FCC when the Communications Act of 1934 was passed. The proliferation of radio stations was used as a rationale for federal policing of the airwaves to prevent radio signals from overlapping and interfering with each other. But what is the rationale for federal regulation of broadcast content?

The First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” Does not freedom of speech and the press apply to radio and TV broadcasting as well?

Allow me to tie the Obama IRS thug scandal to the Obama FCC thug scandal.  Jay Sekulow who represents many of the tea party groups who were politically targeted by the Obama thug IRS has pointed out that the questions journalists are now being asked are the SAME DAMN QUESTIONS that the Obama thug IRS was asking of tea party groups as our nation’s tax agency got turned into a rabid Obama enforcement agency.

The FCC – which under Obama has becomes the Fascist Communications Commission – is trying to strong arm its way into dictating the coverage of the media.  Even when it is a now-thoroughly documented FACT that the media is overwhelmingly biased to the leftMedia bias is a real fact and it is from the left.  But with a naked fascist like Obama, all voices of opposition must be silenced.

Here’s the Democrat New York Mayor de Blasio blatantly disregarding traffic laws on his way to the gym just yesterday.  The Democrat Party is the party of entitlement to naked power and the abuse of that power.  Democrats seized control of our entire health care system why?  To “control the people,” that’s why.  Democrats crave totalitarian power so that they can get to decide who wins and who loses and now even who wins and who dies.  They want to have the power to “punish their enemies and reward their friends,” in Obama’s words.

The beast is coming.  And Barack Hussein Obama is his useful idiot.

Chick-fil-A: Why Do I Keep Calling Liberals Fascist? Because THEY KEEP BEING FASCISTS, That’s Why

July 30, 2012

If you use my search engine to explore my use of the word “fascist,” you’ll see I “liberally” apply it to liberalism.  And to Obama and his liberal thugs.  What the Obama administration did with DOMA – passed by the House and Senate and signed into law by President Clinton – and what he has since done with illegal immigration in an incredibly illegal and cynical attempt to win the Hispanic vote are just a couple of your more obvious examples.

The thing is, I’m completely right to do so, and liberals keep proving that I’m completely right.

Chick-fil-A is the latest (well, there are a thousand examples every day, so let’s just say it’s the latest mass media example) example of liberal fascism.

Let me first just ask this question: when was the last time a religious conservative mayor went after a business for its anti-BIBLICAL views???

Emanuel goes after Chick-fil-A for boss’ anti-gay views
BY FRAN SPIELMAN City Hall Reporter fspielman@suntimes.com July 25, 2012 11:12AM
Updated: July 26, 2012 8:44AM

The anti-gay views openly espoused by the president of a fast food chain specializing in chicken sandwiches have run afoul of Mayor Rahm Emanuel and a local alderman, who are determined to block Chick-fil-A from expanding in Chicago.

“Chick-fil-A’s values are not Chicago values. They’re not respectful of our residents, our neighbors and our family members. And if you’re gonna be part of the Chicago community, you should reflect Chicago values,” Emanuel said Wednesday.

“What the CEO has said as it relates to gay marriage and gay couples is not what I believe, but more importantly, it’s not what the people of Chicago believe. We just passed legislation as it relates to civil union and my goal and my hope … is that we now move on recognizing gay marriage. I do not believe that the CEO’s comments … reflects who we are as a city.”
 
Ald. Joe Moreno (1st) is using the same argument to block Chick-fil-A from opening its first free-standing restaurant in Chicago’s Logan Square neighborhood.

Chick-fil-A already has one Chicago store — at 30 E. Chicago near Loyola University’s downtown campus.
 
“Same sex marriage, same-sex couples — that’s the civil rights fight of our time. To have those discriminatory policies from the top down is just not something that we’re open to. …We want responsible businesses,” Moreno said.

“If he’s in the business of selling chicken in Chicago, he should be in the business of having equal rights for everyone. Period …. If it looks like a chicken, talks like a chicken, walks like a chicken, it’s a chicken. If you’re saying you don’t respect the values and rights of same-sex couples, that trickles down through the organization. … That’s paramount to the way the company behaves.”
 
Don Perry, vice president of corporate public relations for Chick-fil-A, and senior manager Jerry Johnston could not be reached for comment on the opposition from the mayor and Moreno.
 
Chick-fil-A has already obtained zoning approval to build a restaurant in the 2500 block of North Elston. But, the company still needs City Council approval to divide the land and purchase a lot near Home Depot.

Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy was quoted last week as saying he was “guilty as charged” for supporting, what he called the “biblical definition” of marriage as between a man and a woman.

“We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that,” Cathy was quoted as saying.

Appearing on the Ken Coleman Show, Cathy was further quoted as saying, “I think we’re inviting God’s judgment when we shake our fist at him, you know, [saying], ‘We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage.’ And I pray on God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we would have the audacity to try and redefine what marriage is all about.”
 
Cathy’s comments have infuriated gay rights activists across the nation, prompting their political allies to take a stand against the company.
 
Boston Mayor Thomas Menino has said Chick-fil-A “doesn’t belong in Boston” because of Cathy’s discriminatory stance.
 
On Wednesday, the tag team of Emanuel and Moreno joined the chorus, citing Cathy’s anti-gay views. The only question is whether they have a legal leg to stand on.
 
“Absolutely not,” said former Ald. William Banks (36th), the longtime chairman of the City Council’s Zoning Committee who presided over a massive re-write of the city’s 1957 zoning ordinance.

“Any alderman can hold a development issue for virtually any purpose. But if he’s doing it for the wrong reasons — if he’s citing a gay rights issue — there’s nothing illegal about that.”
 
Moreno said he has an ace in his back pocket if he runs into legal trouble: traffic and congestion issues caused by the store that have been the subject of behind-the-scenes negotiations for the last nine months.

Obama’s former chief-of-staff says people who believe the Bible are evil, but long-documented racist bigot haters like Louis Farrakhan and his Nation of Islam is exactly what this most violent and corrupt of cities needs for their “values.”

“Chicago values” rightly understood is a pejorative, as in, “How DARE you insinuate that my mother has ‘Chicago values’!”

Tell us that you recognize that a man sodomizing another man is a beautiful thing or we’ll take your business away from you!”  Those are values I don’t need.

For the record, it isn’t just Obama’s home city and Obama’s former chief-of-staff who are pissing all over free speech; another old liberal city is doing so as well:

“Chick-fil-A doesn’t belong in Boston. You can’t have a business in the city of Boston that discriminates against a population. We’re an open city, we’re a city that’s at the forefront of inclusion.”

I can now officially define “inclusion” for you: it means singling out and attacking anyone or anything that doesn’t completely agree with what liberals think.

And in San Francisco:

San Francisco Mayor Ewdin Lee also joined the chorus opposing Chick-fil-A with a tweet saying: ‘Closest #ChickFilA to San Francisco is 40 miles away & I strongly recommend that they not try to come any closer.’

What was Chick-fil-A’s crime that they should be punished and deprived of their rights?  The CEO stated that he believed that marriage was the union between one man and one woman and Chick-fil-A was “caught” having exercised its 1st Amendment right to donate to a pro-family cause that supported that view of marriage.

Fascists hate Chick-fil-A for that.

Liberals have repeatedly claimed that Republicans are hoping the economy is bad so that they can win in November.  But it is LIBERALS who want job destruction and who do not want economic growth.  Can Chick-fil-A create jobs in Boston or Chicago?  Uh-uh, they can’t.  Can Chick-fil-A grow and help the economy grow?  Not if Democrats have anything to do with it, they can’t.

Anti-biblical views.  I brought that up.  What does the Bible say about homosexuality?

Genesis 19:4-5,12-13: Before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, all the people from every quarter; and they called to Lot and said to him, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them.” … Then the two men said to Lot, “Whom else have you here? A son-in-law, and your sons, and your daughters, and whomever you have in the city, bring them out of the place; for we are about to destroy this place, because their outcry has become so great before the LORD that the LORD has sent us to destroy it.”

Leviticus 18:22: ‘You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.

Romans 1:18, 22, 25-27:For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. … Professing to be wise, they became fools … Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them.  For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

1 Corinthians 6:9: Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

Is it okay if Bible-believing politicians and government officials freely persecute anybody who holds an “anti-biblical view”???  I hope every liberal out there is saying, “You’re damn right it’s okay!”  Because otherwise you people are hypocrites.

If any lefty wants to say that’s happened, let’s see it: let’s see the conservative mayor who has said, “Those who hold anti-biblical views discriminate against Christians.  Such people don’t represent what our city stands for and we’re going to punish them with the power of government.”

Just imagine the damn outcry if a conservative mayor punished gay people the way Boston and Chicago attacked a Christian business.  You want to bet that Barack Obama and his attacking lawdog Eric Holder wouldn’t be all over that major like the stink on poop that they already are?

The Chicago Way (i.e., Obama’s way) is a fascist way. Period.

Rahm Emanuel would have much more important things to worry about if he wasn’t such a fool.  But to add abject moral hypocrisy to complete moral idiocy, Rahm Emanuel demonizes Chick-fil-A for intolerance and then invites one of the most rabidly intolerant men and organizations in America into Chicago in the form of Louis Farrakhan and his Nation of Islam.  You don’t get more vile than Louis Farrakhan and you don’t get more vile than close Obama ally Rahm Emanuel.

Quite a few people have praised Chick-fil-A for its business model.  Allow me to criticize it: they ought to shake the filthy dust of Boston and Chicago from their feet and create jobs and build the economy in places that deserve to have jobs and economic growth.

We don’t have a Chick-fil-A in my own area (although locating in the Palm Springs area would be out of the frying pan and into the fire, wouldn’t it?), but if we did I’d be a Chick-fil-A-eating fool to thank them for being one of the few businesses that actually stands for something other than PC or profit.  I used to eat at one in Anaheim and it’s gooooood.

All fascism is is a particular form of SOCIALISM.

Liberals are THE most intolerant people there are.  It doesn’t matter if we’re talking about rank-and-file liberals expressing their opinions online or if it’s elite university academia or whether we’re talking about the field of  journalism that reports our “news” for us.  It is just who they are.  It is their quintessential nature as fascists.  And it would be interesting to explore how many “boycotts” liberals have called for versus conservatives, as yet again liberals document for history that they are rabidly intolerant people who want to force everyone to bow down to their agenda or punish and intimidate them for not doing so.

And as yet another example of liberal fascism, the same damn fascist liberals who are trying to ban Chick-fil-A are doing everything they can to grant more permits for more Islamofascist mosques.  Liberals self-righteously say, “We don’t support or endorse their beliefs or practices but we have a constitutional obligation to support their freedoms.  But Chick-Fil-A fascism proves once for all that it isn’t any “moral principle” of freedom that liberals are standing on.  Because the left would have called for Rahm Emanuel,  Thomas Menino, and all the Democrats and liberals who joined their call for punitive action against Chick-Fil-A to RESIGN if that were the case.  No, rather, vicious terrorists fanatical Muslims are (for obvious reasons to anyone who understands that the left is fascist) the ONLY religious group that liberals stand behind.

Democrats have aborted 54 million human beings in America.  If you compare that number to the total US population today, Democrats have murdered more than one out of every single six Americans they’ve allowed to live.  During the period that Democrats have fanatically imposed Roe v. Wade, the median age in America has soared from 28.4 years old to 37.2 years old.  We’re getting older and older.  And we’ve murdered an entire generation of workers as we’ve gone from having 16 workers paying into the Social Security system for every retiree receiving benefits from it to today when three workers are paying into the system for every retiree receiving benefits.  Americans have aborted their own futures.  And we have a crushing unfunded and unpayable and unsustainable liability of over $211 TRILLION that has been created entirely by Democrat fascists.

If you’re a liberal, you’re a fascist.  And the more liberal you are, the more freaking fascist you are.  The fact that Boston Mayor Thomas Menino and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel are still in office after defecating all over the 1st Amendment is proof of that pudding.

Update, 7/30/12: Just to document that liberals are fascists forever:

ABC’s The View honored Roseanne Barr with a guest-host spot on July 19, which shows they probably aren’t in the habit of evaluating her sanity based on her Twitter rants. Take her wishing cancer on Chick-Fil-A fans this morning: “anyone who eats S–t Fil-A deserves to get the cancer that is sure to come from eating antibiotic filled tortured chickens 4Christ”.

This came after she told the restaurant chain to suck an appendage she doesn’t have.

This outbreak of hate was retweeted by comedian Joe Rogan, who recently hosted a newfangled version of “Fear Factor” on NBC. Shortly after her get-cancer tweet, she doubled down:

“off to grab a s–it fil-A sandwich on my way to worshipping Christ, supporting Aipac and war in Iran.”

Meanwhile, fascist liberals are seeking to forcibly close Chick-Fil-A restraurants at at least two state university campuses:

Here’s a New York Democrat who joins the fascists in using her influence and power as a politician to get the government to attack free speech.

Liberals hate free speech, hate the Constitution, hate human life.  They also hate businesses and jobs and even taxes – given that the one Chicago Chick-Fil-A created 97 jobs and pays taxes.  Now liberals clearly don’t believe in God; but whatever replaces God for them – I suppose it’s ‘Government forbid!’ – that we let in a business that will pay taxes and create jobs.  Again, what they REALLY want is to be able to control everything and reward their friends and punish their enemies and decide who wins and who loses.  That’s the quintessential nature of fascism.

They also hate science.  Because…

Perry’s Oops Moment? Obama’s Whole Career Is One Long ‘Oops’ Moment

November 19, 2011

If the media were even remotely fair Obama never would have been allowed to visit the White House, let alone actually live there.

New Video: Obama’s Own 53 Seconds of Oops
By Paul Bedard
November 14, 2011

Texas Gov. Rick Perry has been on the receiving end of a ton of criticism for his self-described “oops” moment when, during a presidential debate last week, he forgot the third federal department he wants to kill. His 53 second brain freeze has made him the star of late night comedy.

But he’s not the only one who apparently suffers from memory loss, and conservative Gary Bauer, himself a former presidential candidate, has just produced a video documenting several of President Obama’s wandering speeches. [Check out our editorial cartoons on President Obama.]

It’s full of a lot of “ums,” and presidential teleprompter errors that have sometimes had the president tongue-tied.

Bauer, chair of the Campaign for Working Families, kept his video to the Perry-length of 53 seconds. It starts showing a picture of Perry over the words, “You’ve heard about the 53 seconds that supposedly ended a presidential campaign,” followed by another screen showing the president over the line, “How about the 53 seconds that should end a presidency?” [See a slide show of 10 reasons Obama should be re-elected.]

Said Bauer, also president of American Values: “53 seconds of silence by a Republican is better than 53 seconds of blather from Barack Obama.”

Watch the video below:

And that doesn’t even include the one with Obama telling a crowd he’d visited 57 states with one left to go.

Does Barack Obama Accept That Ultimately, He Is Responsible For This Gun Walking Fiasco? Should He Resign?

July 20, 2011

The media coverage of Rupert Murdoch (whose media corporation owns Fox News among many other assets) reminds me of the days when George Bush was president and the media had someone to attack.

I have seen non-stop coverage of this “hacking scanda” (which has exactly WHAT to do with the USA?) since the developments first broke out.  And there is a savage happy glee to the media “outrage” over the scandal.  The media’s on the side of “journalistic outrage” and Rupert Murdoch is routinely depcited as unwilling to acknowledge any personal responsibility.

The media is on top of every new development.  Every day marks a new front page story.  Outrage abounds.

I haven’t seen coverage like this since the Bush days.  Because that was the last time the media really went after somebody to try to take him down.

There was TWICE as much coverage of the Murdoch/”hacking scandal” as there was of the debt ceiling crisis in the New York Times, for example.  At last this biased propaganda rag has a target they can really attack.

The aspect of the coverage that is now getting the most media flurry and fury is the question that Rupert Murdoch was asked:

“Do you accept that ultimately, you are responsible for this whole fiasco?”

And Murdoch’s flat “No” was followed by a renewed gasp of sheer outrage from the mainstream media machine.

If the mainstream media had any honesty or integrity whatsoever, they would be treating Rupert Murdoch exactly like they’re treating Barack Obama, or they would treat Barack Obama exactly like they’re treating Rupert Murdoch.

Here’s my question: has ANYONE in the mainstream media EVER ONCE asked President Obama the question, “Do you accept that ultimately, you are responsible for this whole fiasco?” related to the various “gunwalking” scandals in which government agents under Obama administration control allowed thousands of deadly firearms to get into the hands of criminal drug cartels in at least two foreign countries resulting in the murder of scores of citizens including American agents???

See my article on that here.  This scandal is HUGE.  There is NO WAY Obama couldn’t have had any input whatsoever into a massive federal program involving several federal agencies at multiple locations that put thousands of guns into the hands of criminals in at least two foreign countries.

And now see here:

WASHINGTON — The head of the Bureau  of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has admitted that his agency,  in at least one instance, allowed sales of high-powered weapons without  intercepting them — and he accuses his superiors at the Justice  Department of stonewalling Congress to protect political appointees in the  scandal over those decisions.

How would Obama answer that question if some mainstream media propagandist actually asked him?

Should he not say that, as president of the United States and the commander in chief, he is clearly “ultimately responsible?”  And should he not therefore resign from office to accept that responsibility?

This scandal hardly makes Rupert Murdoch look good (although his company News Corp. had a huge day on the stock market as investors clearly liked what they heard):

STAYING PUT: Rupert Murdoch said he was the best person to clean up News Corp. Investors agreed.

BIG DAY: News Corp.’s stock had its best day since the phone-hacking scandal broke, rising more than 5 percent Tuesday while Murdoch and his son and deputy, James, testified before a committee of the British Parliament in London

But you know who looks far, far worse in this?  The mainstream media, which once again proves they are hatchet men for anyone smacking of conservatism while mindlessly protecting their own leftwingers from the same sort of criticism they continually heap on their opponents all while claiming they are “objective.”

Just to provide a recent example of this profound liberal bias (is “today” recent enough?), here’s one dated 7/20/2011:

A Politico reporter who often penned stories about Sarah Palin and other  Republicans has quit journalism to work with the Democratic Party in Arizona,  sources tell The Daily Caller.

That reporter, Andy Barr, has covered national politics for the publication  since 2008. Barr leaving to help elect Democrats will likely fan the flames of  critics who say Politico has a liberal bias.

Politico – which sent a literal act to pretend he was a “reporter” to cover Republicans for three years – has a liberal bias?  Say it aint so!!!

Democrat Party Not Just Marxists, They Are Dishonest, Stupid Marxists

July 20, 2011

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

That’s a much more concise statement of a certain economic and political philosophy than Obama’s “I just want you to be clear – it’s not that I want to punish your success – I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you – that they’ve got a chance at success too….  And I do believe for folks like me who have worked hard, but frankly also been lucky, I don’t mind paying just a little bit more than the waitress that I just met over there who’s things are slow and she can barely make the rent…  “My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody…  I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

And it’s similarly a lot more concise than his recent statement: “And I do not want, and I will not accept, a deal in which I am asked to do nothing, in fact, I’m able to keep hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional income that I don’t need, while a parent out there who is struggling to figure out how to send their kid to college suddenly finds that they’ve got a couple thousand dollars less in grants or student loans.”

But it’s the same exact stuff and it comes from the same exact source.

And, for the record, that source behind “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his means” is Marxist communism.  That statement above came from Karl Marx himself and summarizes the basic economic principle of a communist economy.

And Democrats are either too fundamentally stupid or too fundamentally dishonest (or both) to recognize and affirm their socialism.  Personally, I think it’s both.

There is another belief that is common to virtually all Democrats that is a likewise central defining tenet of Marxism; and that is the notion that the government basically owns all it’s people’s wealth and bascially graciously allows people to keep a certain amount (with the rest going to the State).  An example of this mindset was the oft-repeated Democrat claim that the cost of keeping the Bush tax cuts for “the rich” was widely reported as around $700 billion (over 10 years).

I wrote about that at some length (pointing out the pure socialist origins of the mindset), and included a statement by Brit Hume that is worth repeating:

The running argument over extending the Bush tax cuts may come to nothing if Congress decides to go home in just three weeks, but it has been a revealing exchange nonetheless. The president’s call for extending the cuts for middle class taxpayers is an acknowledgment that President Bush did not just cut taxes for the rich as Democrats are fond of claiming. He cut them for all taxpayers.

Administration officials keep saying it’s a bad idea to keep the cuts in place for wealthier taxpayers because it would cost $700 billion in lost revenue over 10 years. What they don’t say is that keeping them for the middle class which they now support would cost about three times that much.

Still, the president’s position means he agrees with Republicans that raising people’s taxes in the midst of a flagging economy is a bad idea. But the very language used in discussing these issues tells you something as well. In Washington, letting people keep more of their own money is considered a cost. As if all the money really belongs to the government in the first place in which what you get to keep is an expenditure.

This sense of the primacy of government is reflected in the high percentage of stimulus funds used to bail out broke localities and protect the jobs of government workers. Democrats are proving once again that they are indeed the party of government. Americans think government is important, too. They just don’t think financing it takes priority over all else — Bret.

As I point out in my article, “Tax Cuts INCREASE Revenues; They Have ALWAYS Increased Revenues,” the same study that argued that “tax cuts for the rich” “COST” the government $700 billion ALSO argue that keeping tax cuts for the middle class “cost” the government $3 TRILLION.  Which is to say that it is INCREDIBLY dishonest and deceitful to pass off the arguments that Democrats routinely pass off.  With the help of a remarkably TASS-like American mainstream media, for what that’s worth.

I also document in that article that basically half of the American people now pay NO federal income tax at ALL.  Which, along with the demogogic rhetoric that “the rich need to pay their fair share” when the top 2% of Americans already pay 40% of the federal income taxes, is pure distilled Marxist class-warfare demagoguery.

Not only are Democrats greedy – which they routinely accuse the rich of being for wanting to keep money that DEMOCRATS want to take away – but they are thieves, too.  They are greedy, dishonest Marxist bureaucrats who want to take what is not theirs and piss it away on self-serving pet boondoggles that will benefit them politically.  A different way of putting it is that they want to seize resources from the job creators and piss it away.  They want to take money away from job creators who would invest in the private economy and use that money to purchase votes for their political campaigns.

[Update]: I hadn’t even published this article (I actually wrote it to this point on the 17th), and I already just received some powerful support for my main point.  Steve Wynn – who has described himself as a “Democrat businessman” who supported Harry Reid’s reelection campaign and who has a liberal activist for a wife – had this to say about Barack Obama and his policies:

And I’m saying it bluntly that this administration is the greatest wet blanket to business and progress and job creation in my lifetime. And I can prove it and I could spend the  next three hours giving you examples of all of us in this marketplace that are frightened to death about all the new regulations, our health care costs escalate.  Regulations coming from left and right.  A President that seems, you know — that keeps using that word redistribution.

The guy keeps making speeches about redistribution, and maybe’s ought to do something to businesses that don’t invest, they’re holding too much money.  You know, we haven’t heard that kind of talk except from pure socialists.

“Pure socialism,” for what it’s worth, is “communism.”

The shoe fits.  So let’s put it on their feet (i.e. like “concrete shoes”).

Unless the American people want communism, they should reject Barack Hussein Obama and they should abandon the Democrat Party.

Obama Plays And Parties As America Is Literally Blown Away By Tornados

May 25, 2011

This headline grabbed me: “WWII Devastation” in Joplin, Missouri.  And here’s what that devastation looked like:

Not that Obama gives much of a damn.

There’s a famous picture that killed the Bush presidency.  It shows him flying over the Katrina devastation in a jet:

That one picture was all the mainstream media needed to frame their narrative that Bush was either uninvolved, uncaring, incompetent – or all three.  They showed it over and over.

Here are some pictures of Obama as tornadoes ripped across America and killed hundreds.  He didn’t HAVE to go on this trip; it wasn’t a major summit of any kind.  He visited distant relatives in Ireland, for Pete’s sake!

On his trip – while Americans were dying in droves and losing their homes by the tens of thousands – Obama enjoyed a nice game of ping pong:

Obama enjoyed a beer:

Why aren’t those photos about a gazillion times worse?  Other than the fact that the mainstream media would never do unto Obama what they repeatedly did unto Bush?

And, of course, there’s the story of Obama totally screwing up during the playing of the British national anthem and talking over it.

There’s the footage of Obama – who mocked the Republicans over the metaphor of their “driving the car of state into a ditch” – having this LITERALLY happen to his motorcade:

There’s the incredible picture of Obama not knowing what YEAR it was as he signed the guest book at Westminster Abbey:

Remember how many times the mainstream media replayed the footage of Bush going to the wrong door in China?  They mocked that Bush had “no exit strategy.”  How is this not about a million times more stupid???

All this happened while Americans losing their lives and having their homes’ destroyed by tornado after tornado.

Meanwhile, there are Americans who are suffering – and continue to suffer – the aftermath of that “World War II devastation,” who would LOVE their president flying over the ruins of their homes:

And:

And:

And:

You can bet that the same mainstream media that destroyed Bush one story and one picture at a time will never attack their messiah the same way – even though they have TWENTY TIMES the ammunition they had on Bush.

The most ideological and biased media since Adolf Hitler’s propaganda machine will keep on protecting their beloved Führer.

Obama’s ‘Hope And Change’ At Work: Most Americans (Correctly) Believe Our Best Days Are Now Behind Us

April 28, 2011

History reminds us of a time – not all that long ago – when a charismatic leader promised a fundamental transformation that brought hope to a nation.

The leaders’s name was Adolf Hitler.  It didn’t end well.  Seriously.

The kind of fascistic irrationally euphoric Utopian rhetoric of Obama -

“I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal… This was the moment — this was the time — when we came together to remake this great nation …”

- hasn’t seemed to work out very well in the real world.  I mean who talks like that but a fascist demagogue promising a false Utopia, anyway?  Not that most liberals have any clue whatsoever about the real world, mind you.

The evidence is crystal clear that Obama is a fascist and a demagogue.  But the mainstream media is every bit as unlikely to tell the truth about Obama as Joseph Goebbels’ Ministry of Propaganda was likely to tell the truth about their Fuhrer.

The New York Times once said – as part of the irrational fascistic hype surrounding Obama - that:

WASHINGTON — At the core of Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign is a promise that he can transcend the starkly red-and-blue politics of the last 15 years, end the partisan and ideological wars and build a new governing majority.

Did Obama ever once come close to actually fulfilling that “core presidential promise”???

How about this: within 24 days of Obama assuming the presidency, The Wall Street Journal was rightly able to say this about our “transcending” figure:

President Barack Obama has turned fearmongering into an art form. He has repeatedly raised the specter of another Great Depression. First, he did so to win votes in the November election. He has done so again recently to sway congressional votes for his stimulus package

It wasn’t even a month after assuming the presidency that Obama began to dismiss the Republicans he had promised to reach out to:

“Don’t come to the table with the same tired arguments and worn ideas that helped to create this crisis,” he admonished in a speech.

It was barely only a month after assuming the presidency that Obama began to thumb his nose at the Republicans he had promised to reach out to:

 When [Republican Rep. Eric] Cantor tried to justify his own position, Obama responded: “Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won.”

Were those really the words that would “transcend the starkly red-and-blue politics of the last 15 years”???  In taking that stand, was there actually any chance whatsoever that Obama would “end the partisan and ideological wars”???  Is anyone frankly so morally and intellectually stupid to see these tactics as they way to “build a new governing majority”???

And of course, shortly after the American people rejected Obama in the largest shallacking in modern American history and voted against the Democrat Party in droves, Nancy Pelosi began to further degenerate into fascism (where elections shouldn’t matter unless the fascists win them), saying: “elections shouldn’t matter as much as they do.”

And then we proceeded to see Democrats and liberals behave far more like fascists than people who gave a damn about elections or the consequences of elections in Wisconsin.

I think of the fact that Hitler never won more than 37% of the vote.  But the moment he seized power, “elections didn’t matter as much as they should have.”

Barack Obama is a man who has personally repeatedly demonized George W. Bush, Republicans, entire industries, businesses, and even medical doctors (remember how they amputate people’s feet and yank out their tonsils just to illegitimately profit?).  As a Senator, he personally attacked George Bush for his failure of leadership for having to raise the debt ceiling; now he’s personally attacking anyone who acts as cynically and despicably as he acted.  Obama personally demonized George Bush for trampling on the Constitution for Iraq even though Congress had directly authorized his actions; but this same cynical demagogue would attack Libya without any congressional authorization whatsoever.  Obama lectured Republicans that it hurt the country and the essential political debate to demagogue the other side with health care, only to viciously attack the Republicans the first time he thought it would politically help him to do so.  Rep Ryan – whom he invited to his speech just to single him out for attack – said, “What we got yesterday was the opposite of what [Obama] said is necessary to fix this problem.”  And Obama doesn’t just demonize his opponents; he falsely demonizes his opponents by telling demonstrable lies.

As I said, Obama is a fascist bully and a cynical demagogue.  And yet the mainstream media has the unmitigated chutzpah to continue to insanely depict this cynical, lying, hypocrite demagogue as an inspirational figure.

The American people and the mushroom have something in common: both are kept in the dark and fed manure.

So you can understand why the American people – for all the information available to them – are so terribly ignorant about just what the hell is going on in our political system.

But as misinformed and lied-to as Americans are when it comes to the sea of lies they are presented with as “news,” they are still aware that fewer of them have jobs, fewer of them have homes, their food cost more, their fuel cost more and that the quality of their lives are rapidly slipping away under the policies of a failed president and his failed party.

America’s Best Days
Those Confident That America’s Best Days Lie Ahead Down to 31%
Monday, April 25, 2011

Voter confidence that the nation’s best days are still to come has fallen to its lowest level ever.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely Voters shows that just 31% believe America’s best days are in the future. That’s down three points from last month and is the lowest result found in polling since late 2006.

Fifty-three percent (53%) believe America’s best days are in the past, also the highest measurement in over four years. Sixteen percent (16%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Separate polling finds that only 22% of Likely Voters believe the United States is now heading in the right direction. That ties the lowest level found during Barack Obama’s presidency.

While majorities of Republicans (68%) and voters not affiliated with either major political party (52%) believe America’s best days are in the past, a plurality of Democrats (45%) thinks its best days still lie ahead.

Fifty-eight percent (58%) of white voters believe America’s best days have come and gone, but the same number of black voters (58%) feel the opposite is true.

[...]

And of course, it is true: America’s days truly ARE behind us as long as Barack Hussein Obama and as long as Democrats are able to continue to lead.  Either Democrats will go down, or America will go down.

But, liberals say, it was BUSH who made the economy fail.  Two things: 1) how many years should that line of garbage continue to succeed?  And 2) it was never true to begin with (also see here).

Do you know that Democrats had total control of both the House and the Senate from 2006 until 2010???

George Bush tried SEVENTEEN TIMES to warn Congress that unless we got control of the out-of-control Democrat-controlled Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the out-of-control housing and housing mortgage market that it was poisoning with piles of bad debt, our economy would go under.  The problem had festered because Bush had reappointed the first black Fannie Mae CEO because of political correctness.  Franklin Raines was a failure and a corrupt fraud who disguised massive debt.  Further, fearing the same political correctness, Republicans had allowed themselves to be repeatedly stymied in their attempts to reform the Government Sponsored Enterprises Fannie and Freddie as Democrats screamd “racism.”  John McCain was if anything even more clear in 2006 when there was still time to fix the developing crisis.  McCain wrote (in 2006):

Congress chartered Fannie and Freddie to provide access to home financing by maintaining liquidity in the secondary mortgage market. Today, almost half of all mortgages in the U.S. are owned or guaranteed by these GSEs. They are mammoth financial institutions with almost $1.5 Trillion of debt outstanding between them. With the fiscal challenges facing us today (deficits, entitlements, pensions and flood insurance), Congress must ask itself who would actually pay this debt if Fannie or Freddie could not?

McCain asked, “Who would actually pay this massive debt for these incredibly risky liberal policies if Fannie or Freddie could not?’  And we now have the answer to that question, don’t we???

Even the liberal New York Times recognized the threat posed by Fannie and Freddie.  And Peter Wallison all but predicted the collapse as early as 1999:

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980′s.

From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,” said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ”If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.”

 The same Peter Wallison who had predicted the disaster from 1999 wrote a September 23, 2008 article in the Wall Street Journal entitled “Blame Fannie Mae and Congress For the Credit Mess.”

Wallison was 100% correct, and had the FACT that he had accurately predicted the collapse to give him further credibility.  Democrats were 100% wrong.  Barney Frank was one of the unanimous Nazi-goosetepping Democrats who said stuff like this:

These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ”The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

Basically a MONTH before Fannie and Freddie went bankrupt and started the entire housing mortgage market collapse in 2008, Barney Frank was still singing the same idiotic tune:

REP. BARNEY FRANK, D-MASS.: “I think this is a case where Fannie and Freddie are fundamentally sound, that they are not in danger of going under. They’re not the best investments these days from the long-term standpoint going back. I think they are in good shape going forward.

They’re in a housing market. I do think their prospects going forward are very solid.”

John McCain correctly predicted a disaster.  Barney Frank was still spouting outrageous lies just one month before the bottom fell out of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and then caused the bottom to fall out of the entire economy.  Republicans were right and Democrats were disasterously wrong.  And the American people responded by electing Democrats and purging Republicans.  Because we were lied to, and because we have become a bad people who believe lies.

Democrats blocked every single move by both the Republicans and by George Bush.  They actually threatened filibusters to prevent Bush from fixing the broken system that failed and it was DEMOCRATS who took our economy down the drain.

And Senator Barack Obama had more campaign money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in a shorter time than anyone in Congress.  And he also had more campaign money from Lehman Brothers – a dirty Wall Street player that went belly up – in a shorter time than anyone else in Congress.  Obama was bought and owned by the people who blew up our economy.

Only a nation of fools would have voted for this inexperienced Marxist fool to run our nation.  But a nation of fools believed the worst media propaganda campaign since Joseph Goebbels plied his trade.

Even fools feel pain when they keep getting burned, though.  And Obama is burning America alive.

We are slipping.  Even fools can feel it:

26 Apr, 2011, 11.27AM IST,IANS
China’s economy to surpass that of US by 2016: IMF

BEIJING: The Chinese economy will surpass that of the US by 2016, the International Monetary Fund ( IMF )) has predicted.According to the IMF’s forecast, based on “purchasing power parities”, China’s gross domestic product (GDP) will rise from $11.2 trillion in 2011 to $19 trillion in 2016, while the American economy will increase from $15.2 trillion to $18.8 trillion.

China’s share of the global economy will ascend from 14 percent to 18 percent, while the US’ share will descend to 17.7 percent, China Daily reported.

The Economist had predicted in December 2010 that China would overtake the US in terms of nominal GDP in 2019.

 At the same time all of the other growing disasters is taking place, we have a crisis in the price of oil.  And Obama has done nothing but exacerbate that crisis with energy policies that are even more destructive than Jimmy Carter’s.

Do you feel your nation growing smaller and smaller and weaker and weaker?  That is the hope and change you voted for.

In the time that Obama has been president, we’ve gone from predicting China would overtake us by 2030, to 2019, to just five years away.  And mark my words, it will be moved up yet again, before they overtake Obama’s ignorant stupidity even faster than that.

Under Obama, and due to his immoral and criminally reckless policies, we are spending like fools and at the same time insanely inflating our money supply (under the euphamism of “qantitative easing” or QE2.  And here are the results:

APRIL 23, 2011
Dollar’s Decline Speeds Up, With Risks for U.S.
BY TOM LAURICELLA

The U.S. dollar’s downward slide is accelerating as low interest rates, inflation concerns and the massive federal budget deficit undermine the currency.

With no relief in sight for the dollar on any of those fronts, the downward pressure on the dollar is widely expected to continue.
The dollar fell nearly 1% against a broad basket of currencies this week, following a drop of similar size last week. The ICE U.S. Dollar Index closed at its lowest level since August 2008, before the financial crisis intensified.

“The dollar just hasn’t had anything positive going for it,” said Alessio de Longis, who oversees the Oppenheimer Currency Opportunities Fund.

Thanks to your fool-in-chief president, your dollar is worth less and less.  And your gas and your food cost more and more.  Food now costs more than at any time since 1974, thanks to the Democrat messiah.

Or maybe he’s not such a fool.  Because maybe this is what he wanted all along.  Read this article on “the Cloward and Piven Strategy” created by liberals/progressives to implode America written in 2008 (you could also read my own article written in 2009).  And then see what top SEIU official Steven Lerner – who left the “workers of the world unite; it’s not just a slogan anymore” radical union at the same time #1 White House visitor Andy Stern did – had to say about deliberately trying to cause a financial crisis that will implode America.

The United States of America is dangerously close to complete collapse.  One wrong move, one piece of bad news, just one thing, could send us into a collapse that will be impossible to stop.

And we are either being led by a total fool, or even worse, we are being led by a man who is actively plotting to collapse America to impose a radical leftwing ideology, and who doesn’t care one iota more about the American people than Adolf Hitler cared about the German people.

I’m sure you have probably picked up on my angry tone.  I am angry; I’m beyond angry.  Why?  Because I see the beast foretold by the book of Daniel and the book of Revelation coming.  I see the collapse coming, and the Antichrist riding in on his white horse to save the day.  And I see that the same liberals, the same progressives, the same Democrats who caused this collapse will be the ones to welcome this coming world dictator.  And it will be these same Democrats who call for the American people to take his mark on their hands or on their foreheads so that they can join the rest of the world and buy and sell.

Rest assured, Obama’s reckless fiscal policies are not just undermining America; they are undermining the entire world.  The unrest in the Middle East (which again says “Last days as foretold by the Bible” all over it) is directly attributed to Obama’s monetary policies, according to the G-2o and the central banks.

Barack Obama is a false messiah.  The Democrat Partyis the party of hell.  And they are leading us to hell on earth right now.  Today.

And we are voting for hell.

You mark my words.  It won’t be long now.  The beast is coming.  And if you vote Democrat, you have already voted for him by paving the way for his soon-arrival.

Get ready for hell.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 530 other followers