Posts Tagged ‘racism’

As We Survey The Race-Baiting Disaster In Furgusen, MO Caused By Liberals, Remember That The Democrat Party Is THE Party of Evil In America

August 15, 2014

Okay, we’ve got a beef, folks.  So let’s riot and burn down the community and throw Molotov cocktails and get violent and nasty and rabid.

Oh, wait.  What’s that?  Oh, you’re right; we’re NOT liberals.  Which is another way of saying we’re not race-baiting rabid fascists.  So we can’t do that because we’re conservatives.

I remember the frenzied furor that the mainstream media erupted into when that rancher in Texas had Obama and his lawthug Eric Holder in his face and tea partiers started showing up with their rifles to make sure the government acted right.  You know, after Obama’s BLM thugs did crap like THIS.

Who actually fired the gunshots?  None were fired during the Bundy standoff.  But plenty were fired BY LIBERALS in Ferguson.

Nobody was shot.  Oh, except for the cattle who were callously and thuggishly massacred by Obama’s BLM goons.  As best I can remember there were no riots.  There was no looting.  I don’t think the tea partiers threw so much as ONE Molotov cocktail.  No towns burned down.

But the way the fascist propaganda mill covered it, you’d have thought the tea partiers had brought thousands of babies to have mass human sacrifices to their Nazi gods or something.

Of course, the same truth-despising fascist media propaganda tactic was employed against the Tea Party when they were peacefully protesting and the blanket of silence surrounding the vicious, rabidly fascist leftist Occupy Movement defied belief.

Remember how the Tea Party was described as being so WHITE and by implication so RACIST by the leftist media propaganda?  It of course subsequently didn’t matter whatsoever that the beloved Occupy Movement was EVERY BIT as white if not MORE so.

7,775 documented arrests of liberals.  Versus ZERO of conservatives.  But the way the most dishonest propaganda machine since Joseph Goebbels and his Nazi Ministry of Propaganda depicted it, it was the conservatives with their zero arrests who were the side of naked evil.

What is interesting is when you actually consider our murders and our mass shootings, and you consider that the black people and young people who are the backbone of the Democrat Party vote machine are responsible for virtually all the damn crimes and murders in America, this is nothing new.  Which is why liberals refuse to consider the actual facts.

We’ve seen non-stop race-rioting, burning and looting for DAYS in Ferguson, Missouri, and of course its the good guys’ fault because how DARE they try to maintain law and order when secular humanist statist fascists want to riot and burn and loot in the name of “justice”???

But now the details are starting to come out.

We learn that the poor, helpless little boy who was gunned down when he hadn’t even done anything wrong.  And he was even shot in the back, we were told on MSNBC.  Now we know a little bit more about him, too:

A suburban St. Louis police chief on Friday identified the officer whose fatal shooting of an unarmed black teenager ignited days of heated protests, and released documents alleging the teen was killed after a robbery in which he was suspected of stealing a $48.99 box of cigars.

Ferguson, Mo., Police Chief Thomas Jackson said that the robbery took place just before noon on Saturday at a nearby convenience store roughly 10 minutes before a police officer identified as Darren Wilson fired the bullet that killed Michael Brown. Police say that the shot was fired after a struggle touched off by Wilson’s confronting Brown. Jackson said Wilson is a six-year veteran with no disciplinary action on his record.

The news conference came after nearly a week of sometimes-violent protests and calls by many, including President Obama, for local law enforcement to be more transparent about the circumstances surrounding the shooting. Police previously said they withheld Wilson’s identity because of the potential for threats on the officer and his family. The officer has been on administrative leave since the shooting.

Police released still images and were planning to release video from the robbery, at a QuikTrip store in Ferguson. Jackson said Wilson, along with other officers, were called to the area after a 911 call reporting a “strong-arm robbery” at a nearby convenience store. He didn’t immediately release details about the alleged robbery, saying more information would be released later.

Jackson provided few other details about Wilson at the news conference and did not take any questions. Jackson said Swisher Sweets cigars were stolen in the robbery. He was suspected of stealing the box of cigars. The documents released by authorities include surveillance images from the store.

According to the police reports, Brown and his friend, Dorian Johnson, were suspected of taking a box of cigars from a store in Ferguson that morning.

“I am incensed,” Laura Keys, 50, told The St. Louis Post-Dispatch. “I can’t believe this is the tactic they are using, bringing up a robbery to make the victim look like he was the person who created this whole mess.”

Police have said Brown was shot after an officer encountered him and another man on the street. They say one of the men pushed the officer into his squad car, then physically assaulted him in the vehicle and struggled with the officer over the officer’s weapon. At least one shot was fired inside the car before the struggle spilled onto the street, where Brown was shot multiple times, according to police.

But a much different story has been told by Dorian Johnson, who says he was walking down the street with Brown when he was shot. He has said the officer ordered them out of the street, then grabbed his friend’s neck and tried to pull him into the car before brandishing his weapon and firing. He says Brown started to run and the officer pursued him, firing multiple times.

We know that Michael Brown – this poor, helpless little teenage victim – was in reality a 6’4″ 290 lb brutal THUG who strong armed robbed a store after physically assaulting the owner.

So we had the liberal Democrat account of a brutal police officer just randomly harassing and then murdering a poor innocent black kid just for being black.  And then we have the actual fact that the cop who came upon these two thugs was responding to a suspect who had just committed a STRONG ARM ROBBERY that had just taken place.  And then these two hoodlum gangsta thugs attacked him.

At this point details get murky.  This above news report was based on the police chief’s earlier report that the officer in the shooting was responding to the strong arm robbery.  The chief has since clarified that Officer Wilson was not aware of the robbery and actually was stopping them for walking in the middle of the road when the attack on the officer and the subsequent shooting by the officer occurred.

This latter actually makes more sense; because if the officer was responding to a strong arm robbery suspect, he would have immediately held Brown at gunpoint as opposed to allowing him to get close enough to attack him.  The cop was unaware of the fact that Brown had just committed a strong arm robbery, but Brown certainly wasn’t unaware.  Which is why he attacked the officer the first chance he had.

If there’s any question as to whether Brown is a thug, why don’t we ask that owner how helpless this poor little 6’4″ 290 pound black boy was???

And we know that the police officer who confronted and shot Brown was physically injured in the death struggle that Brown initiated as the officer found himself shoved backward into his own squad car and struggling for possession of his weapon.

But here’s the thing: Democrats are THUGS who LOVE THUGS.  So whose side do they take?  Well, after demonizing as some kind of racist cop a guy who turns out to be an impeccable police officer, and after lionizing the poor little boy who turns out to be a violent thug, liberals being liberals and therefore THUGS believe Michael Brown’s thug buddy.

And that is because liberals are EVIL people who routinely side with evil thugs time after time.

This is getting tiring.

This is now the third time Turd Obama has jumped in to side with evil in race-baiting incidents.

I think of Obama stupidly getting on national television – after admitting he was personally ignorant – and accusing the police that responded to the call in Massachusetts that “the police acted stupidly.”

Do you remember that?

Who ‘Acted Stupidly’? The Cop, The Professor, Or The President?

911 Caller In Gates Case Gets Death Threats As ‘Racist': But Who Are The REAL Racists?

The only two people who truly acted “stupidly” was Henry Louis Gates – who erupted in racist rage when most people would have been glad that a police officer had showed up to investigate a report that someone was trying to break into their home – and one Barack Hussein Obama.

All the poor cop knew – and again, this was an EXEMPLARY cop just like our current cop Darren Wilson is an exemplary cop – was that he had received a report about a man breaking into a house.  That’s all the cop knew; someone had called 911 and reported that a man was trying to get into a house late in the night.  And had the black Harvard professor not had a chip on his shoulder about a mile deep, and had he not been a racist, bitter Democrat turd, the matter would have been easily cleared up.

But no, no, no.  Liberals are vicious, bitter, rabid little fascists.  They cannot help themselves.  And the demons are quick to erupt out of these wicked people.  So Professor Henry Louis Gates went – and the only appropriately descriptive term is “apeshit” –  on the poor officer who had no choice but to arrest the man.

Then we had the Trayvon Martin shooting.  And Obama AGAIN dived into it and sicked his lawthug Eric Holder on George Zimmerman.  Because when a black thug is on top of you beating you, how dare you think you have the right to defend yourself???

The Left Goes Batpoop Over George Zimmerman’s ‘God’s Plan’ Remark. My Thoughts On The Subject.

Obama FBI Thinks It’s A ‘Hate Crime’ That George Zimmerman Bloodied Trayvon Martin’s Knuckles With His Broken Nose And Lacerated Head

Mainstream Media Lynching Of George Zimmerman Pretty Much Confirms Everything I’ve Said About Both Liberalism And ‘Journalism’

ABC News Enhances Zimmerman Arrest Video And FINDS ‘A Pair Of Gashes Or Welts On George Zimmerman’s Head’

Obama Dives Into ‘Racist’ Trayvon Martin Shooting Case (Please Try To Remember That ‘Racist’ Shooter George Zimmerman Is Hispanic)

Trayvon Martin, Racism, The Stand Your Ground Law And Michael Dunn. No Comparison Whatsoever.

A trial that never should have GONE to trial completely exonerated George Zimmerman of having done anything wrong that night.  And Eric Holder – who was determined to punish Zimmerman – by the way, a HISPANIC - in whatever kangaroo court he could create, was humiliated again when we subsequently learned there were no civil rights violations, either.  But that of course was just allowed to dwindle away.

FACTS don’t matter to liberals.  That’s what makes them “liberals.”  They literally couldn’t BE liberals if they cared anything about truth.

 

 

 

Who Are The ‘X-Men’ And Who Are The Evil Mutants? Racial Demagoguery Exposed.

May 23, 2014

I’m at my gym, peddling away on the exercise bike (one of my realizations while riding the exercise bike is that “Maybe I don’t know why the caged bird sings; but I sure know why the hamster runs on his little hamster wheel”) while looking at a bank of eight televisions.  My favorite Fox News program is on – Megyn Kelly’s new show – but it’s a commercial.  So I look around at the other televisions and notice that “X-Men: the Last Stand” is playing on the FX channel on one of the other TVs.

I saw one scene, but it was THE scene to see to frame a very important point regarding racism and discrimination.

In the movie, there is absolutely zero question as to who the good guys are and who the bad guys are.  The good guys are the X-Men, led by Charles Xavier.  Charles, like all mutants, has suffered discrimination and hostility as a result of his powers, but he fights for true justice, for human dignity, for the human spirit.  And he has assembled a group of young mutants to help him in his noble cause.  Whereas Magneto, an embittered mutant, consumed by hate and the desire for not justice but vengeance, leads a massive army of evil mutants in a fight to dominate the human race.

In the scene I started to view, Magneto had assembled hundreds  or even thousands of evil mutants to attack a prison – which turns out to be Alcatraz – to free key evil mutant allies.  The X-Men and a few human prison guards stand on the other side in a struggle to keep evil behind bars where it belongs.

So you’ve got thousands of evil mutants on one side and five good mutants on the other side.

And Magneto, surveying the scene, mutters of the four good mutants, “Traitors to their own cause.”

There is absolutely no question that the creators of the X-Men intended “mutants” to be a metaphor for race.

And given the fact that we have the exact same situation today: with a giant group of minorities on the one side standing for preferential treatment based on race and a very small group of minorities on the other side standing up for human dignity and the human spirit while the leaders of the larger group denounce as “race traitors” the members of the smaller group, well, I think we’ve got a narrative to discuss.

What I want you to realize is that, when Magneto surveys the few X-Men standing against him and says, “Traitors to their own cause,” he is doing THE EXACT SAME THING as black “civil rights” leaders are doing to great black conservatives such as Condoleeza Rice, Clarence Thomas, Allen West, Herman Cain and Ben Carson.

Magneto – evil mutant intent on bitterness and hate and vengeance as he is – is following the script of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and all your other leftist race baiters.  You’re either with us, on the Democrat Party plantation (it was the Democrat Party in the 19th century that fought a vicious, bloody Civil War to keep black people on slavery plantations), fighting for more welfare, more food stamps, more preferential race treatment, more government dependence, or you’re a “traitor” for fighting for the human spirit and for human dignity which ought to abhor such things and encourage people to work and stand on their own feet.

There’s another line that happens in the scene I watched (until Megyn Kelly came back on) that shows something important.

Because you’ve got to ask: if Magneto won the battle, what kind of society would he have?  Sure, ordinary humans would be slaves, but what about his fellow evil mutants?  And by way of analogy, what kind of society would Al Sharpton have?  Again, surely white people would be second-class citizens as a result of his “reverse discrimination” whereby whites made blacks second-class citizens and therefore blacks should make whites second-class citizens in return and keep the hate of racism alive forever and ever.  But how would black people – and I mean the black people who sided with Sharpton – be treated in Sharpton’s brave new world?

As the battle begins, evil mutants Juggernaut and Pyro begin to rush in to attack the X-Men.  And Magneto – who had ordered the attack – holds them back.  The lesser evil mutants rush in and are destroyed.  And Magneto reveals his incredibly cynical and evil attitude toward them, saying, “That’s why the pawns go in first.”

And that’s all you are to the race baiters, ordinary black person struggling to live in a society where Obama has destroyed the economy and made it all but impossible that you will ever be able to find a job: a damn pawn.

It is simply a FACT that blacks are FAR worse off under Obama and under liberalism than they were under the system they were taught to hate.  But while you get the rare admission of that fact from the race-baiting industry, the rest of the left is doctrinaire rabid “Magneto” support.  These people are nothing but pawns to the left.  And their failure and their misery is nothing but an opportunity to gin up even MORE rage and hate against those who would help them if they were only given a chance.

Just as in the X-Men movie, the truly courageous people in real life aren’t the hordes of blacks screaming for their rights (and their vengeance); it is, as always, the small group of noble heroes who stand with the rest of us against their hate.

That’s why when I see a black conservative standing next to me, I truly cherish that noble soul who stands for what’s right in spite of all the fierce and vicious opposition against him or her.

 

Just In Case You Want To Know Why Progressive Liberalism Is In Bed With Islamic Fascism. Because Basically, They’re One And The Same

May 15, 2014

It’s really an amazing thing to see: the love affair between Islamic fascist jihadism and the progressive left.

I long ago documented Barack Obama’s LONG association with radical Islam.

You start throwing out radical names of dangerous people that Obama has been associated with and a pattern emerges:  the aforementioned Davis, Jeremiah Wright (see also here and here and here), Khalid al-Mansour (more here), Rashid Khalidi, Tony Rezko, Bill Ayers.  And you realize that Obama has been steeped in a profoundly Marxist worldview.  Obama isn’t stupid; he knows that the American people don’t want that ideology.  But no one can conceal his worldview completely.  Critical observers saw it clearly.

Khalid al-Monsour and Rashid Khalidi are bad, bad news if you AREN’T a radical Muslim who is very, very comfortable with terrorism in the name of your ideology.

And the left’s intimate love-affair with radical extremist (violent as hell) Islam run deep, deep, DEEP.  Just recently the uberleftist Brandeis University “disinvited” a female Muslim who has refused to shut her mouth about the viciousness of Islam toward women.  And the soon-to-open 9/11 Museum is taking a lot of flack because it has words such as “Islamic extremism” and “jihadism.”

This brave Muslim woman wanted to tell the truth about what is going on in the lives of these poor, oppressed women who are forced to undergo genital mutilation, endure rapes without having the right to report crimes against them, not be able to drive, not able to even leave the house without an escort, wear a giant tent called a hijab that covers everything but their veiled eyes and the tips of their feet, etc.

And how DARE she do that!  It’s an OUTRAGE!  And liberal Democrats are FURIOUS.  Furious enough to attack her for the cardinal sin of being “intolerant.”

Hint: it sure aint Republicans getting behind these Muslim whitewashers of truth and reason.

So there’s a good question for discussion: why the hell would liberals (well, PROGRESSIVE liberals given the fact that these cockroaches have nothing to do with ACTUAL liberalism) would be such ardent supporters of the people who quite possibly despise them even more than I do.

The answer is actually very simple.

The most fundamental reason is the fact that progressive “liberalism” is based on racism and the fabrication of various racial minority groups into a voting bloc.  Basically, if you recognize and affirm what a truly inferior and pathetic human being you are, and therefore see yourself as a victim of everybody and everything you disagree with, you too can be a “liberal.”

And radical Muslims – yes, terrorists like Osama bin Laden – very much and in the exact same “liberal” tradition view themselves as “victims” of the same “capitalism” and “Christendom” that progressive liberals so ardently despise.

Given that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend,” and given that jihadist Islamic fascists hate most of the same things that progressive liberals hate, they are bedfellows.  Even though these Muslim fanatics would love nothing more than to slit the throats of every progressive liberal on the planet when they’re through using them as useful idiots and ideological human shields.

It boils down to this: if you’re a black Muslim in America today, which party and which president do you vote for?

I’ll leave it to Nation of Islam founder Lois Farrakhan to put that one to bed for me:

“You are the instruments that God is gonna use to bring about universal change, and that is why Barack has captured the youth. And he has involved young people in a political process that they didn’t care anything about. That’s a sign. When the Messiah speaks, the youth will hear, and the Messiah is absolutely speaking.”

Oh, yes, when Obama campaign chief David Axelrod called Obama “black Jesus” and when liberal Newsweek editor Evan Thomas said Obama is “sort of God” and when liberal idiot Spike Lee said you can divide history into BB before Barack and AB After Barack; when Obama literally has such a God-complex that he made the whole nation and the flag which symbolizes that nation about himself, when senior Obama White House advisors literally go to churches to preach Obama; and most definitely when liberals are selling “artwork” that pictures Obama’s face and phrases such as “prophecy fulfilled,” they are mouthing Louis Farrakhan.

But you’ve got to ask, why do liberals love Islamic radicals so much?  Why are the two ideologies bedfellows?

Because they’ve got an awful (and I emphasize these people are truly “awful”) lot in common besides the fact that Muslims tend to be racial minorities and therefore are held sacrosanct by the Democrat Party no matter how utterly wicked and violent and rabid they are.  Not that being wicked, violent or rabid in any way, shape or form is a barrier to being a Democrat, mind you.

Other than the racial minority thing, which is frankly enough to solidify the connection between liberal Democrats and the radical jihadist fascist left all by its lonesome, Islamic fascist have three other things that progressive liberals hold dear:

The second thing that binds Islamic fascists and liberalism together is a love of fascism and the exaltation of the State as God.  That is a cornerstone of both fanatic Islam and fanatic progressive liberalism alike.

Muslims refer to the concept of Khilafah.  Basically, think of the world as one Muslim Caliphate.  And you have the dream of Muslims.

Liberals want the same damn thing: they want one-world government.  They want a mega-socialist all-powerful totalitarian State.

Now, progressive liberals might argue that Muslims want to rule in the name of God and liberals want a godlike all-powerful State that has absolute authority over human lives entirely apart from God.  But in point of fact, the two become the same thing.

In North Korea, dictator Kim Il-Sung, then Kim Jong Il and now Kim Jong-Un are worshiped as GOD in their atheist state.

In the atheist state of the People’s Republic of China, Chairman Mao was likewise worshiped as GOD.

Leftists cannot help themselves.  In order to BE a leftist, you have to have the insanely arrogant belief that YOU should be the one to pull or push up or down all the levers and YOU should be the one who pushes or doesn’t push all of the buttons of state.  Liberals don’t believe that individuals ought to have the freedom to govern their own lives and their own affairs; rather, they feel that THEY ought to have the power to FORCE individuals to comply with what THEY want.  Or else face the power of their State.

The most rabid Muslims really aren’t very different.

Put another way, both the Ayatollah AND Barack Obama love to dictate government by use of “executive orders.”  See here and here for just two of myriad examples of our Thug-in-Chief’s abuse of power, of the separation of powers and of the Constitution.

The third thing both the progressive liberal left and radical Islamic jihadist fascism have in common is an utter contempt for and hostility to Christianity.

Piss Christ was the result of a liberal “artist” being paid government dollars from a VERY liberal National Endowment for the Arts program created by DEMOCRATS.

I wonder how Democrats would have voted for “Piss Mohammed.”  I think all reasonable people know what these cowardly liberal cockroaches would have done.

Progressive liberal Democrats are doing everything they possibly can to advance an anti-Christian agenda to overthrow Judeo-Christianity as the moral framework for society.  Because they think they’ve got a far better framework.

The fourth thing that progressive liberal Democrats and their jihadist Islamic fascists both have in common is a rabid intolerance of free speech.  You need to understand why both come to the same exact perspective from opposite ends of the spectrum: for Muslims, the suppression of free speech and individual freedom and liberty is all about the fact that in Islam the individual is nothing and the Islamic State is EVERYTHING.  And thus you have the right to shut up in Islam if you disagree with Sharia or the Khilafah Caliphate State.  In progressive liberalism, the suppression of free speech and individual liberty is based on the opposite of Christianity: in Christianity, you are created in the image of God and you have God-given rights, including the right of free speech and individual freedom and liberty.  Under progressive liberalism, you are nothing but DNA (i.e. chemicals) conditioned by your environment; you have no free will; you are merely a herd animal.  And liberals view themselves as your masters who reserve for themselves the right to make all of your herd decisions for you.  And so under progressive liberalism, you have the right to shut up if you disagree with political correctness or the Socialist Welfare State.

What the left has done is as fascinating as it is dishonest and hypocritical.  Think of 1978 and the ACLU-backed ruling that Nazis had the right to march through a town (Skokie, Illinois) that was heavily populated by Jewish death camp survivors.

This was, of course, racism at its worst and its ugliest, given the history of 6 million Jews murdered like insects during the Nazi Holocaust.

But, under the guise of liberalism, free speech was so sacred, so sacrosanct, that even the very ugliest speech needed to be protected at all possible costs.

Now, fast forward a few decades to Donald Sterling, a man whom the left wants to strip a one-billion-PLUS dollar franchise from against his will because he said a bunch of ugly racist garbage over what he thought was a private phone line.

Let me explain what happened: liberals took advantage of free speech to get their feet and their ideology in the door and then they slammed that door shut.  They don’t need it any more.  You have the right to shut up.  Or lose your property (like Donald Sterling) or your career (like the Mozilla CEO who committed the unpardonable sin of believing he had the freedom to donate to a political cause liberals don’t support).

Don’t tell me that the precedent of going after a racist like Sterling won’t soon be exploited to go after Christians like me who believe God rather than Obama when it comes to homosexual marriage.

Think of the bastions of liberal progressivism otherwise known as “universities.”  Think of what recently came out of a liberal progressive student who basically has the same job that Obama had when HE was a liberal fanatic at Harvard:

Sandra Korn, a senior who writes a column for the Harvard Crimson newspaper, thinks radical leftism is the only permissible political philosophy, and the First Amendment only hinders colleges from brainwashing students with her viewpoint.

Stop and think (liberals being incapable of either being that as fascists they love to rush to exploit the emergency of “crisis”): liberals love the idea of destroying a Donald Sterling because, racist (LIBERAL) roach that he is, they know that they can exploit the legitimate moral revulsion against racism to “progressively” demonize OTHER areas – such as opposition to homosexuality or opposition to big government, or support for voter IDs, etc., etc. ad nauseum – to their heart’s content.

Progressive liberals, if anything, are even MORE rabidly intolerant against free speech than the most fanatic Islamic fascists.

So you see, on numerous fronts, to be a radical terrorist Muslim jihadist fascist is to be a radical totalitarian liberal progressive fascist.  The two have the same basic worldview and it is therefore no surprise at all that one protects the other.

If you get in the way of the machinery of either one, they will crush you.

 

 

 

‘Non-Stop’ Liberal Fascism And The Vileness Of Liberalism Which ALWAYS Twists Truth And Reality

April 15, 2014

What the hell – and I DO mean “hell” because hell is IN these people – is wrong with liberals?

Here’s the latest outrage in which liberals “twist” truth and reality by making the real-life villains the victims and the heroes while making the real-life victims and heroes the villains:

On Saturday, Breitbart.com reported that the villain in Liam Neeson’s new action thriller, “Non-Stop,” is a 9/11 family member who also served in the military.

“‘Non-Stop’ is a good movie,” John Nolte wrote. “Heck, it is darn near very good. But the left-wing sucker punch at the end is a new low, even for Hollywood.”

Nolte said the villain joined the military after losing a loved on in the terror attack on the World Trade Center, but became disillusioned by the ongoing wars.

So, the veteran decides to blow everyone up on a plane so the air marshal can get blamed, causing airport security to be tightened even further.

Worse yet, Nolte added, the villain’s sidekick turns out to be an American military member willing to murder 150 innocent people for money.

Moreover, Nolte said the “one passenger on the plane who is forever helpful, kind, reasonable, noble, and never under suspicion is a Muslim doctor dressed in traditional Muslim garb including a full beard.”

Glenn Beck also excoriated the movie, according to a post at The Blaze.

“It is really great, until you find out that the killer is U.S. military and a guy who believes in the Constitution,” he said sarcastically. “Oh, darn it. Did I just wreck that movie for everybody? Oh, I didn’t mean to…”

Beck said that even in liberal New York, the ending was met with groans.

“I’m not going to say anymore, except the killer is … a schoolteacher and so you completely dismiss him,” he added. “And there’s a little hole in the bathroom where they do a blow-dart, and they kill the pilot.”

The Blaze added:

Beck said the killer’s rationale was something “nonsensical” along the lines of: “It’s the government that has been putting people like you, you drunkard, on planes and allowing you to be our TSA. And that’s just wrong. So I’m going to blow everything up and take the money. I’ve got a parachute here, so I’m going to live. And I’m going to take all the money, and I’m going to get away with it. A-ha, ha-ha, ha-ha, ha-ha.”

He also said the movie shows that “no amount of research … can help these people in Hollywood,” because they simply do not understand what a “wildly, wildly insulting movie” they made.

Beck’s advise: “Don’t go see Non-Stop.”

Nolte had even harsher words: “Sc**w you, Hollywood.”

“Non-Stop” is rated PG-13 by the Motion Picture Association of America for “intense sequences of action and violence, some language, sensuality and drug references,” and was given two out of four stars by the Associated Press‘ Jake Coyle.

That’s right.  It doesn’t matter if in REALITY Muslims are responsible for 99.99999% of all terrorist attacks and 9/11 victims’ families and the heroes who served are responsible for 0.0000001%.  Because to be “liberal” means to think just the opposite of reality and piss on the truth.

Liberals are the people who constantly assure us that Nazis are “right-wing” because everybody apparently just knows that if there was a “National Socialist American Workers Party” the way Nazi stood for “National Socialist German Workers Party,” it would be a conservative Republican Party.  Because you know how we conservatives adore “socialism” and “workers parties” and how much the left despises them.

Oh, wait.  It’s the other way around.  Not that lying liberals give a damn.

Liberals have managed to assure us that women who want to murder their own babies are heroes and victims and the babies they kill are worthless things that have no right to life.  Babies, liberals assure us, have the duty to die for the convenience of their mommies much the same way that Jews had the duty to die for the convenience of Adolf.

Liberals have managed to assure us that homosexual men who lust after being bending over and being sodomized by another man after sucking him to orgasm are “normal” and the people who recognize that these people are depraved, unnatural perverts are the weirdos.

LIberals have managed to assure us that snarling black men who join the Black Panthers with the following message -

We didn’t come out here to play. There is to much serious business going on in your black community to be sliding through south street with white, dirty cracker whores on your arms. What’s a matter with you black man, you got a doomsday with a white woman on your arm.
……
“We keep begging white people for freedom. No wonder we’re not free. Your enemy can not make you free fool. You want freedom you’re going to have to kill some crackers. You’re going to have to kill some of their babies.

Let us get our act together. It’s time to wake up, clean up, and stand up.”

I can’t wait for the day that they’re all dead. I won’t be completely happy until I see our people free and Whitey dead.”

“When you have 10 brothers in uniform, suited and booted and ready for war, white folks know these niggas ain’t their niggas. We kick white folks asses. We take it right to the cracker.”

We’re going to keep putting our foot up the white man’s ass until they understand completely. We want freedom, justice and mutha[expletive]‘ equality. Period. If you ain’t gonna give it to us, mutha[expletive], we’re gonna take it, in the name of freedom.”

- aren’t racist at all.  They aren’t racist – morally depraved jackass liberal pseudo-intellectuals tell us – because black people are people who hold both the presidency and the attorney generalship and are therefore victims forever and thus incapable of “racism.”  Do you know who IS racist?  Republicans.  Not ALL Republicans, they tell us out of their fairness and decency.  Just ALMOST all of them:

WASHINGTON — “Not all” Republicans are racist, said Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.) on Sunday, but “to a significant extent, the Republican base has elements that are animated by racism, and that’s unfortunate.”

Israel’s comment was in response to a question from CNN’s Candy Crowley, who asked the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee about remarks by Attorney General Eric Holder this week. In a speech to a civil rights group, Holder questioned his treatment by Republican lawmakers at a House Judiciary Committee hearing, and implied that race may have played a role.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) also suggested this past week that racism was a factor in the Republican party’s opposition to immigration reform. “I think race has something to do with the fact that they’re not bringing up an immigration bill,” Pelosi told reporters, adding, “I’ve heard them say to the Irish, if it were just you, this would be easy.”

Which of course means that the same “almost” all of the 54% of Americans who voted to have that Republican majority are clearly “racist,” too.

And of course, liberals have assured us that it is “racist” to try to limit or reduce illegal voting in any way, shape or form.  But that it is most definitely NOT “racist” to stand outside a voting place with clubs threatening and mocking voters of the other political party (and see here and here).

Liberals have assured us that Jesus was a socialist who demanded that King Herod and Pontius Pilate be empowered to radically expand big government to “help” the poor with institutionalized welfare rather than saying to His disciples, “YOU feed them.”  In the same vein, liberals have assured us that Barack Obama and Joe Biden – who gave poor people VIRTUALLY NOTHING from their own wealth are “generous” and that men like Mitt Romney and Dick Cheney – who gave 28% and 78% of their respective incomes to charity – are “selfish.”

Democrats and liberals are people who pathologically pervert the truth and slander reality.

I am so sick to my soul of twisted and perverted liberal “morality” that makes a mockery of everything the Word of God declares it is beyond unreal.

 

 

Trayvon Martin, Racism, The Stand Your Ground Law And Michael Dunn. No Comparison Whatsoever.

February 12, 2014

One can do a search on my blog and see how vigorously I defended George Zimmerman’s right to defend himself against Trayvon Martin.

I was of course called a “racist” by the incredibly racist left for doing so, as someone reading the comments can see.

George Zimmerman was physically attacked.  Only the most rabid ideologue fool refuses to acknowledge that Zimmerman was on his back getting beaten with Trayvon Martin on top of him “MMA style” raining down blows on a man who had already suffered a broken nose and serious abrasions to the back of his skull.

Liberals are fascists who do not want ordinary people to possess the right or capability to defend themselves.  Period.  On top of that, liberals are racist race-baiters who demonize white people and who have no compunction whatsoever to alter reality to make themselves victims.  Thus George Zimmerman became a “white Hispanic” to eradicate the fact that he himself is a racial minority.  And Trayvon Martin became an innocent ten-year old in the news accounts rather than a 6’3″ thug who already had had numerous encounters with the law and who by his own accounts was already glorifying in violence.

The case was a “no-brainer” from the outset.  And liberals proved that they are brainless ideologues who refuse to accept the real world in their steadfast determination that George Zimmerman be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for daring to defend himself rather than placing all his trust that Obama and the State would defend him.  The ONLY reason the case even ever went to trial was because Democrats are rabid fascists.

The Michael Dunn case is entirely different.  And pathologically rabid liberals might be surprised to learn that I am very firmly on the side of the car-full of black kids who got shot rather than on the white man who shot them.

Michael Dunn, unlike Zimmerman’s defense, is citing the “Stand Your Ground Law.”  Again, pathologically dishonest Democrats made the Zimmerman case all about that “Stand Your Ground” law even though Zimmerman’s defense NEVER cited it.  And the reason that Democrats hate that law so much is that, again, they are fascists whose demons inhabiting them start twitching hysterically the moment an ordinary person is deemed to have the right to stand in any way, shape or form or to protect himself in any way, shape or form.  And that is especially true – in the Democrat age of “Never bring a lawsuit against a black” – when race is involved.

George Zimmerman is Hispanic.  Not a “white Hispanic” as the racist, bigoted, socialist and frankly evil New York Times branded him.  Either acknowledge that Zimmerman is Hispanic, you jackals, or for the sake of any kind of honesty whatsoever STOP CALLING OBAMA AN AFRICAN-AMERICAN PRESIDENT WHEN HE IS ONLY HALF AFRICAN-AMERICAN.  But the fact of the matter is that Democrats are hypocrites without any kind of shame, honor, decency, integrity or virtue whatsoever.  So Obama gets to be the first black president and anybody who doesn’t like Obama’s policies is a “racist” by definition while Zimmerman becomes a “white Hispanic” with the sole emphasis on his being “white” and therefore guilty.

But let’s get back to Michael Dunn.

Here’s the basic account of what happened:

Mr. Dunn, a middle-aged white man, allegedly opened fire on a car with four black teenagers in it at a Jacksonville, Fla., gas station. The boys were apparently blasting music, and when Dunn asked them to turn it down, they responded angrily. Dunn has said he felt threatened and thought he saw someone point a gun at him through the back window, so he opened fire. No gun was found in the boys’ car, and none of the witnesses to the altercation noticed a gun.

Here’s another:

The day after last Thanksgiving, Dunn was in good spirits when he attended his son’s wedding at a historic home overlooking the St. Johns River in Orange Park, a quaint Jacksonville suburb.

But after the wedding, Dunn got into a parking lot dispute with teenagers at a gas station that ended with a 17-year-old dead and Dunn charged with murder.

Police portray the South Patrick Shores resident as an out-of-control gunman who became enraged over loud rap music booming from a nearby car, grabbed a 9mm pistol from his glovebox and fired two volleys into a Dodge Durango containing four black teens. The gunshots killed Jordan Davis and narrowly missed two other boys.

Dunn told detectives he acted in self-defense after he heard threats and thought he saw Davis raise the barrel of a shotgun above the SUV’s rear passenger window. No gun was found, police said.

Here’s the thing that makes Michael Dunn guilty:

Asked by detectives why he didn’t report the shooting by calling 911, he said he planned to drive Rouer home to Brevard County in the morning, then confess to authorities.

By 4:25 a.m. the next morning, Jacksonville police had obtained an arrest warrant and contacted the Brevard County Sheriff’s Office, looking for Dunn. A witness at the gas station had reported his license tag number.

He was arrested by deputies at about 10:30 a.m. at his condo, then taken to police headquarters in Viera for a videotaped interview with two Jacksonville detectives.

Wearing a yellow short-sleeved collared shirt and striped shorts, fidgeting and wiping his hands on his knees, Dunn related his side of the story – but neither detective bought his version of events.

Rather, they said details of Dunn’s story didn’t match those at the crime scene. Neither the surviving boys nor independent witnesses at the gas station said Davis had a firearm or tried to exit the SUV – in fact, one of the boys later said Davis couldn’t have exited a rear door because the child locks were engaged.

“If there was a shotgun coming up at you, we would expect you to do what you did. The problem that we have is, there is no shotgun. That’s the bridge that we’ve got to get across,” a detective told Dunn.

“You keep dwelling on this shotgun as if there’s one at the scene. If there was a shotgun, a BB gun, any type of gun at the scene – hell, if there was a water gun that was black that looked real at the scene. …” the detective said.

This case is NOT about race, any more than the George Zimmerman case was ever about race.

Democrats pathologically despise the Constitution or the United States and our founding fathers, unless and until these great men are perverted into deists and atheists in radical abandonment of actual history and unless and until their words are “fundamentally transformed” by liberal judges into a grotesque mockery of anything they ever actually intended their words to mean.  And the words that Democrats hate only slightly less are Martin Luther King, Jr.’s words from his “I have a dream” speech:

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

Democrats hate those words.  They hate the idea that the content of one’s character should matter.  They want it to be exclusively about the color of one’s skin.  And if you are black, you are by definition a “victim” and if you are white, you are by definition a “racist” and a “bigot” and “privileged” and therefore guilty of whatever crime Democrats want to scapegoat you with.

I think of the character in the great movie, “The Ten Commandments” named Nathan.  Because he is the epitome of the Democrat Party.  Like Nathan, DEMOCRATS are the real party of slavery.  Democrats literally fought the damned Civil War to keep slavery while Republicans fought to liberate the slaves.  The Ku Klux Klan that rode like a living cancer after that Democrat War constituted the terrorist arm of the Democrat Party who persecuted blacks and white Republicans while their fellow Democrats undid everything Republican president Abraham Lincoln tried to do in his Reconstruction Act.

I’ve documented this before, so I’ll quote myself.  Who are Democrats?

The Democrat Party under Woodrow Wilson actually RE-segregated the US Military and government service (after Republicans had de-segregated them and allowed blacks to serve).  The Democrat Party in 1924 was SO completely dominated by the Ku Klux Klan that the Democrat National Convention was called “Klanbake.”    The Democrat Party under FDR and their New Deal was rife with racism and unions and Democrats used it to prevent blacks from getting jobs.  The Democrat Party continued to be THE Party of hard-core racism for the entire history of the republic.  The racist horror story of “Mississippi Burning“ was OWNED by Democrats from the Governor right on down.  In fact, the state Democrat Party in Mississippi was limited to whites only.  And the fact is that a FAR higher percentage of Republican Congressmen and Senators voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act than Democrats.  Democrats were the Party of keeping the black man down until they cynically – incredibly cynically – saw that there was another way to keep exploiting black people to keep them on their plantation and keep them down.

The cry of Democrat blacks today is “Give us welfare or give us death.”  But the two amount to the same thing as blacks have given in to bitterness, hopelessness and a spirit of entitlement rather than trying to actually fulfill the American Dream for themselves.  You can either wait for your damn check to come off the work of other people or you can go out and work your ass off to make your world and your kid’s world a better place.  And because of the Democrat Party, blacks have pursued the former and abandoned the latter.  These are people who have fallen prey to the belief that whitey is out to get them and there isn’t any hope of a fair deal – so why try?  And the only reason that is true is the same Democrat Party who told them that are the very same white people who have actually been the ones keeping them down with promises of welfare for nothing forever.

Or read my slightly different account here about who the Democrats are:

We know that FDR was a racist bigot who detested black people and allowed labor unions to exclude blacks from work that they desperately needed to survive the darkest days of America.

The question as to why black people have in recent years chosen to celebrate and support the party that put their ancestors in the chains of slavery, fought a vicious Civil War to keep them in those chains, invented the Ku Klux Klan as the terrorist arm of the Democrat Party to keep blacks who had been freed by Republicans in subjugation, resegregated blacks under the tyranny of “the father of the modern progressive movement” also known as the racist white supremacist Woodrow Wilson, was still so racist in 1924 that the Democratic National Convention of that year was called “Klanbake,” allowed black men to go untreated with syphilis so researchers could study the progression of the disease (the Tuskegee Experiment) throughout the entire FDR presidency, was largely THE party of racist discrimination through the 1950s, and then only passed the Civil Rights laws with the overwhelming supporting votes of Republicans, is a mystery that I will not attempt to explain.  I have no idea why black people as a culture allowed Democrats who had subjected them to one form of plantation allowed Democrats to bait and switch them into a different form of plantation (the welfare plantation of institutional generational dependency).

Or for more modern facts, read my account here about who Democrats are:

Now, of course, you run into the irony that it was that Grand Old Party that freed the slaves, and fought a bitter war to free the slaves against the Democrat Party that was fighting just as bitterly to keep black people in the chains of human bondage.  But that’s beside the point in the Democrat narrative.

Harry Reid is also on the record admiring Obama as a:

‘light-skinned’ African American ‘with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.’

Maybe it’s because Obama was half white, but Harry Reid nevertheless praises Obama for overcoming that stupid negro dialect.  And being light-skinned is a huge bonus for Harry Reid.  “Whiter is better” when you’re in the party of “the White Man’s Burden.”

Bill Clinton wasn’t quite as happy with the man who was stealing his white wife’s rightful place as leader of the free world.

Bill snidely told Ted Kennedy,

A  few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee.”

I know, William Jefferson.  That’s back when southern Democrats like you had a different way of keeping black boys in their proper place.

Senator Robert Byrd, a distinguished “Exalted Cyclops” and “Kleagle” of the famous Democrat-created Ku Klux Klan, was on the record as once saying:

“I  shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by  my side …   Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory  trampled in the   dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved  land of ours become   degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the  blackest specimen from  the  wilds.”

Ah.  There’s that depiction of blacks as being in that long-way-from-being-human I earlier mentioned.

And:

“The Klan is needed  today as never before and I am  anxious to see its  rebirth here in West  Virginia and in every state in  the nation.”

When Bill Clinton honored fellow Democrat Robert “Exalted Cyclops” Byrd, Clinton said:

“He  was a country boy from the hills and hollows of West Virginia. He  was  trying to get elected. And maybe he did something he shouldn’t have   done…”

Well, as long as he was just a Democrat trying to get elected, then ANY racism or racism is fine, isn’t it, Hill Billy?

And you can read here for the massive, hypocrite double-standard that Democrats lived by when it comes to “race.”

Liberals are liars and haters.  And worst of all, they are true moral idiots.  “Democrat” stands for “Demonic Bureaucrat” as they seek to advance two interests: Satan’s love for 55 million murdered human beings in the abortion mills and the worship of homosexual sodomy, plus their determination to replace the God of the Bible with “the State” and make GOVERNMENT our God and Savior while increasingly marginalizing and even criminalizing the worship of Jesus Christ and the God of the Bible.

So what’s this Michael Dunn case about?  I already stated it above.  It is about a guilty man – and I don’t frankly give a damn WHAT color he is – who fired ten shots into a vehicle with kids inside and claimed he was being threatened with a gun when nothing even remotely resembling a gun was found at the scene.

It’s about this question: do you have the right to stand your ground with a gun?  You’re damn right you do – and again, I don’t CARE if you are white or black or Hispanic or Asian or whatever.  Do you have a right to whip out a gun after confronting somebody and then start shooting at them when they are no real threat to you?  You’re damned right you don’t.

Michael Dunn ought to be convicted for his crime of shooting at those kids and for murdering one named Jordan Davis.  And if Michael Dunn were black and the kids were white, he should be every bit as convicted.

And I say that as a conservative and a Republican rather than a racist liberal Democrat.

 

A Los Angeles Times Article Displays How Cravenly Cynical And, Yes Racist, Democrats Truly Are About Racism

December 2, 2013

Before reading this article, just to provide you with some context for what you’re learning, realize the following information about Los Angeles County as reported by the Los Angeles Times:

When Democratic attorney general nominee Kamala Harris opened a South Los Angeles campaign headquarters earlier this month, she picked a spot on Crenshaw Boulevard right next door to the site of one of Barack Obama’s satellite offices during the historic 2008 presidential campaign.

Harris, the San Francisco district attorney, can only hope that Obama’s political magic in Los Angeles County — where he won a whopping 69% of the vote — will drift down the sidewalk.

Voter-rich Los Angeles County represents a sure-fire victory for most Democrats on Tuesday’s ballot, but it’s anything but assured for Harris. Her GOP rival, Steve Cooley, has won three consecutive elections as the county’s district attorney despite Democrats outnumbering Republicans 2 to 1 in the county — and, a recent poll shows, he has the edge this time too.

“If Kamala Harris loses L.A. County, she won’t win,” said Allan Hoffenblum, whose California Target Book handicaps California political races. “L.A. County is to the Democratic candidates what the Central Valley and Inland Empire are to Republican candidates. You have to be strong where your party is strong.”

History records that Kamala Harris is the attorney general of California.  Which apparently means Los Angeles County’s “sure fire victory for most Democrats” won out for her, too.

The FACT that Los Angles County is HEAVILY Democrat is important as you read the following:

Latinos want US to sue over LA supervisors’ board
By MARK SHERMAN / Associated Press / November 29, 2013

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration is aggressively pursuing lawsuits over minority voting rights in Texas and North Carolina, but the Justice Department has not moved on evidence that the latest round of redistricting in Los Angeles County unfairly reduces the influence of Latino voters.

Nearly half the 10 million people in the nation’s largest county are Latino. But political boundaries redrawn in 2011 make it possible for Latino voters to elect just one of the five supervisors.

The administration has resisted calls to sue the county, despite the county’s history of discrimination against Latino voters in earlier redistricting efforts.

The inaction rankles some Latino activists who count themselves as strong backers of President Barack Obama.

‘‘I support the Obama administration and the president, but frankly, Obama and the top people around him seem to be unaware on this issue. Obama is somewhat blind to the issues of Latinos,’’ said Cruz Reynoso, a former California Supreme Court justice and member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Reynoso said the administration seems more attuned to voting rights complaints of African-Americans.

He said the administration also appears reluctant to pursue a complaint against a jurisdiction that is dominated by Democrats. ‘‘Most of the folk in Los Angeles have been supporters of the president, so why make them unhappy despite the fact that, from my point of view, there is great injustice going on,’’ he said.

In the wake of a stinging U.S. Supreme Court defeat in June that rendered useless an important enforcement provision of the Voting Rights Act, the administration has focused its voting rights resources on Southern states that are controlled by Republicans.

The Justice Department has initiated or joined suits targeting voter identification laws and redistricting plans in North Carolina and in Texas, where Republican Attorney General Greg Abbott began moving to put the state’s tough voter ID law into effect just hours after the high court’s decision.

The suits were filed under other provisions of the voting rights law that were not part of the Supreme Court case.

The situation in Los Angeles County predates the high court decision and the passage of the laws now being challenged in North Carolina and Texas.

The Justice Department acknowledges it is looking at the situation in Los Angeles, but otherwise declined comment.

‘‘We have received significant amounts of information from the county and others about the issue and the matter is still under review,’’ said Justice Department spokeswoman Dena Iverson.

Matt Barreto, a political science professor and voting rights expert at the University of Washington, said the evidence against the county is overwhelming and includes a history of racially polarized voting that has hurt Latinos.

‘‘My perspective is that this is one of the easiest cases to be made nationally,’’ said Barreto, who has worked for the group of Latinos that includes Reynoso. Barreto also served as a consultant to the California Citizens Redistricting Commission, a voter-approved independent board that draws the state’s congressional and legislative districts.

Counties, though, retain the authority to devise their own districts. Nowhere is there more power and money at stake than in Los Angeles, where each of five supervisors represents nearly 2 million people and the county’s annual budget tops $26 billion.

Following the 2010 census, the board adopted districts in 2011 that made relatively few changes even though two supervisors cautioned that their colleagues were exposing themselves to a voting rights lawsuit.

Gloria Molina, the only Latina ever elected to the board, and Mark Ridley-Thomas, the board’s lone African-American member, supported maps that would have created a second district with a majority of Latino residents. But the two members could not persuade their three white colleagues to join them.

‘‘Today this board had an opportunity to make history, not repeat it, but all signs indicated that they would repeat history, and unfortunately, they did,’’ Molina said in 2011.

Molina was elected after a federal court documented political discrimination against Latinos dating back to the 1950s and drew a map to ensure Latinos would be represented.

Yet since that vote, Molina has not aligned herself with the loose association of activists and voting rights experts who are pushing for greater Latino representation. Her spokeswoman, Roxane Marquez, said Molina continues to back two majority Latino districts, but otherwise had no comment on possible Justice Department intervention.

Ridley-Thomas told Bill Boyarsky, a columnist for LA Observed, that he wants the Justice Department to get involved.

The map Ridley-Thomas proposed in 2011 would have increased the chances of making the Los Angeles board more diverse, said redistricting consultant Alan Clayton. Ridley-Thomas’ map would have preserved his district, created a second district likely to elect a Latino and increased the odds that an Asian-American candidate could be elected, Clayton said.

The first thing you learn from reading this article and understanding the facts is that Barack Obama and his vicious lawless law dog Eric Holder don’t give a flying DAMN about “racism”; they only care about the Democrat Party having total power.  If Obama and Holder were considering race or racial equality, they would look at the racial suppression of Los Angeles County and see “one of the easiest cases to be made nationally” and they would do something about it.  But it’s DEMOCRATS who are doing it, so no harm, no foul.

And why are these whitey Democrats screwing Latinos?  So they can keep their elitist and racist white paws on that $26 billion rather than “redistributing their wealth” to the dirty little brown people.

The second thing you see is that Mayor Bob Filner as the representative of the “war on women” party  is no fluke at all.  Not only is Bob Filner a Democrat, but he actually CO-FOUNDED the Progressive Caucus with Nancy Pelosi.   And the party who declared that the Republican Party was the party of “the war on women” protected this vile misogynist serial woman abuser and harasser for years.  Because to be a Democrat is to be the worst kind of hypocrite there ever has been or ever will be.  And you get another glimpse into the soul of a Democrat: what I demagogue at thee does not apply to me.

It’s not war on women when we do it; it’s not racist when we do it.  And in the quite recent case of Democrats who demonized the Republicans as Nazis for CONTEMPLATING to end the filibuster rules that had survived for 235 years when it was DEMOCRATS who actually DID the evil and vile and treasonous and anti-democratic deed, t’s not fascist when WE do it.

Democrats in the latter case decry Republicans as blocking judges.  IT WAS DEMOCRATS WHO STARTED THAT WAR WHEN THEY WERE THE FIRST PARTY TO BLOCK REPUBLICAN NOMINEES IN THE MODERN ERA.  HAVE YOU EVER HEARD THE DAMN TERM “BORKING????  Up until that day, it had never been done.  And then Democrats tried to do it again with one of the most vicious campaigns ever waged against Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas.

The same is even MORE true on race.  The Democrat Party was the Party that waged a brutal Civil War to continue black slavery with a United States led by Republican President named Lincoln.  The Democrat Party was the Party that spawned the Ku Klux Klan as its terrorist wing of the Democrat Party.  The Democrat Party under Woodrow Wilson actually RE-segregated the US Military and government service (after Republicans had de-segregated them and allowed blacks to serve).  The Democrat Party in 1924 was SO completely dominated by the Ku Klux Klan that the Democrat National Convention was called “Klanbake.”    The Democrat Party under FDR and their New Deal was rife with racism and unions and Democrats used it to prevent blacks from getting jobs.  The Democrat Party continued to be THE Party of hard-core racism for the entire history of the republic.  The racist horror story of “Mississippi Burning“ was OWNED by Democrats from the Governor right on down.  In fact, the state Democrat Party in Mississippi was limited to whites only.  And the fact is that a FAR higher percentage of Republican Congressmen and Senators voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act than Democrats.  Democrats were the Party of keeping the black man down until they cynically – incredibly cynically – saw that there was another way to keep exploiting black people to keep them on their plantation and keep them down.

The cry of Democrat blacks today is “Give us welfare or give us death.”  But the two amount to the same thing as blacks have given in to bitterness, hopelessness and a spirit of entitlement rather than trying to actually fulfill the American Dream for themselves.  You can either wait for your damn check to come off the work of other people or you can go out and work your ass off to make your world and your kid’s world a better place.  And because of the Democrat Party, blacks have pursued the former and abandoned the latter.  These are people who have fallen prey to the belief that whitey is out to get them and there isn’t any hope of a fair deal – so why try?  And the only reason that is true is the same Democrat Party who told them that are the very same white people who have actually been the ones keeping them down with promises of welfare for nothing forever.

And now the same Democrat Party that spent its history betraying blacks is betraying Latinos.

The Democrat Party is the Party of genuine evil in America; just as it has ALWAYS been Democrats who have ALWAYS been the Party of genuine evil in America.

Saluting A Hero: A Black Tea Party Group Founder

August 14, 2013

It’s easy to just give up on a community when so many members of that community are toxic.  But as Christians, and as people who want to avoid the depths of cynicism and pessimism, we just don’t have that option.

So I read the paper this morning and saw this piece on a good and courageous man, and I just wanted to take my hat off to him.

Patt Morrison Asks
Jesse Lee Peterson, tea’d off in South L.A.
Founder of the South Central L.A. Tea Party, he detests Planned Parenthood and legal abortion, welfare and the black holiday Kwanzaa. And that’s just for starters.
Patt Morrison
August 14, 2013

 Jesse Lee Peterson

The Reverend Jesse Lee Peterson, head of the South Central L.A. Tea Party, at his studio.  (Bob Chamberlin / Los Angeles Times / August 7, 2013)

It’s not a typo: The South Central L.A. Tea Party exists, and Jesse Lee Peterson takes a bow for founding it. He’s also president and founder of the 23-year-old black bootstraps group Brotherhood Organization of a New Destiny, or BOND, and serves as pastor for a nondenominational congregation at its headquarters. As his public pronouncements make clear, he detests Planned Parenthood and legal abortion, welfare and the California-born black holiday Kwanzaa. He used to hold a “national day of repudiation” against Jesse Jackson; he has his doubts about women in high places. He is in demand as a black voice in conservative media, and his voice was still a little scratchy back home in L.A. after yet another speaking gig in the East.

Why did you form BOND?

I realized most black Americans are suffering not because of racism but lack of moral character. We need to rebuild the [black] family. Fathers and mothers should get married before having children. They will turn away from the so-called black leadership — Jesse Jackson, NAACP, Urban League — and think for themselves, as they did prior to the civil rights movement. There’s a problem when black children are born out of wedlock, with no shame, and you don’t worry because the government will take care of them. In the entertainment industry, it’s common — they do it like 90 going north, and proud of it.

“90 going north”?

When the slaves would sneak away from the plantation, they were going so fast we made a joke of it — they’re doing 90 going north, trying to get away.

You were once a Democrat; what changed your mind?

I believed the lie that because I was black, I wasn’t going to be able to make it because of the white man. When I came here [from his native Alabama], I was listening to people like Jackson and Louis Farrakhan — he used to come to the Forum in Inglewood. He talked about the blue-eyed devil, and I believed him. I started hating white people. You become like what you hate. My life went to hell. I ended up doing different kinds of drugs because I had so much guilt from the hatred. I ended up on welfare; they paid my rent, gave me food stamps, healthcare. But I got worse instead of better.

Once God changed my heart, I could no longer identify with the Democratic platform. It is anti-God, anti-family, anti-military, anti-anything that’s good. I switched parties.

Yours may be the only black-led tea party group in California. Why did you start it?

I realized the tea party movement was being lied about to black people. They were saying it’s a racist organization. That isn’t true. I’ve spoken at rallies around the country. I know they’re good folks. I want to educate blacks and Hispanics to what the tea party is about: less government, freedom, lower taxes, fewer regulations, God and country. The black community and part of the Hispanic community have been so brainwashed and dumbed-down and lied to, they don’t tend to look for information for themselves.

It’s been a little tough, but it’s starting to change. We had a 2nd Amendment rally in Westwood last year and we had a load of folks show up.

Young black men kill others with guns at a devastating rate. How does the 2nd Amendment solve that?

Blacks killing each other in Chicago and Detroit — that has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment but everything to do with the destruction of the family. You could take away all the guns and they’ll find something else to kill each other with. It’s lack of family, lack of character.

Some tea party members split with the leadership over immigration reform. What’s your take?

Amnesty for illegal aliens would be devastating to our country and especially the black community. At BOND, we help guys find jobs, and many do day labor and construction work. It was easier to get those jobs 23 years ago. It’s nearly impossible now. Illegal aliens are able to do those jobs for little or nothing and many get paid under the table, so big businesses are for illegal aliens. And the Democratic Party is trying to get the Hispanic votes, that’s why they want amnesty.

How well do you think the GOP is making its case to black voters?

Not at all. They’re giving into the fear of being called racists. They’re afraid of saying the wrong thing. I’ve always thought they should have town hall meetings in the community, leave the [black] leadership out of it. Let [blacks] see for themselves what the Republican Party is all about. But they’re afraid to do that for fear of being called racist. They’ve really given up on the blacks.

You say it’s hard to find black Americans who aren’t angry and racist toward whites. Don’t they have something to be angry about, like the enduring legacy of slavery?

None of them were enslaved. We did far better living and working, more united as families [50 years ago] than blacks are doing today.

What is your family’s story?

My mother was dating my father when she was 16 or 17. She got pregnant with me. He denied it: “Oh, that’s not my child.” She became very angry at him; she stayed mad at him for a long time. She ended up marrying my stepfather before I was born because it was an embarrassment to have a child out of wedlock. He was a good man, but I never accepted him. I had a yearning for my father — that’s inside every child. I overcame my anger for my mother and encouraged her to forgive my father. Once I forgave my mother and God forgave me, I felt 100% better. I realized from that what was wrong with black Americans — most of them are filled with anger and it’s holding them back.

Growing up you worked the same land where your ancestors were once enslaved. Didn’t you experience racism there?

I did — colored-only signs, white-only signs. In the movie theater, blacks had to sit in the balcony. I was fine with that because we had a better view! I saw they were wrong, but we were taught not to hate. And we knew white people who weren’t doing those things.

Now, not all but most black people are so racist toward white people. And white Americans are afraid if they say the wrong thing, they’ll be accused of being racist.

The founding documents of this country didn’t consider you or me to be fully legal beings.

At one point there was definitely racism from white America, but that started to change over the last 40 or 50 years. White people realized, yeah, this did exist, we’re sorry, we’re going to [institute] stuff to help blacks get themselves together. They passed laws against white racism, but the problem is they have not had an honest dialogue about black racism.

Wasn’t the Civil Rights Act the right thing to do?

If they had just changed it so the same laws that protected white folks would protect black people and left us alone, things would be much better today. Change the law, then get out of the way of people coming together.

Daniel Patrick Moynihan wrote controversially about the tangle of pathologies in black America.

He was 100% right. Had [society] listened to him, we probably wouldn’t be in this situation today. [Welfare] was a dumb idea; they believed it was better to get a government paycheck than have a man in the house — not all black families, but too many.

So-called civil rights leaders and the Democratic Party knew if they could get blacks to rely on government, they would hold them for generations, and that’s exactly what happened.

Welfare makes a person lazy, and you pass it on to the next generation. It took away their self-esteem. It really has been devastating to the black community.

Do you think that welfare influenced the high imprisonment rate for black men?

[Welfare] took the authority figure out of the home. When the father is not there to discipline and guide the children, kids don’t normally listen to mothers after a certain age. She tries to force her way on them and then they become angry. When fathers were there, fathers and mothers worked together. The family has been broken. The father is the spiritual head as well as the provider, and the mother and children respect that because it’s from God

What programs do you advocate for black Americans?

I would teach them trades. We’re starting a leadership academy for boys; when they finish high school, if they don’t want to go to college, at least they can know how to work for themselves.

You endorse marriage. Gays have fought for marriage.

Same-sex marriage doesn’t exist; there’s no such thing in God’s eyes. So-called same-sex marriage would destabilize society. Homosexuality is not about love or family or civil rights; it’s about sex.

What do you say to gay people you counsel?

I tell them they were not born that way, that a spirit has made a home inside of them that came from some sort of trauma — maybe they were molested at an early age or had angry parents — and that if they were to forgive their parents, then God will forgive them and remove that identity from them and they will be free.

What do you think of President Obama?

I think he’s the worst thing to ever happen to this country. He doesn’t care about black people. He’s selling them out for Hispanic votes. He cares more about homosexuals than he does about blacks. In healthcare and education — illegals have overpopulated public schools in South Central, and blacks are feeling pushed aside. They voted for Obama thinking he would be for them, and he’s not.

The Internet is full of stuff about Obama growing watermelons on the White House lawn, or Michelle Obama posing for National Geographic. Isn’t that racist?

It depends on the heart of the person doing it. If they’re just doing it to have some fun, I don’t see anything wrong with it. They did the same thing to Bush.

They didn’t make fun of him because of his race.

They aren’t making fun of Barack for being black either. It’s known that — not all — but black people love watermelons. It’s not a put-down. [Although] I’m sure you can find racists like the KKK who hate black people and will use something like that.

Do you use the term “African American”?

No. If you’re born in this country, you’re not an African American, you’re an American. It’s just foolish, another thing set up by the so-called civil rights leaders to divide blacks from whites. Booker T. Washington said “American.” And they hated Booker. If he were around today, they’d hate him as much as they hate me. They’d call him an Uncle Tom, a sellout. They want to give the impression that if you’re a black person who thinks for himself, you must be an Uncle Tom.

Let me say that Jesse Lee Patterson and I are brothers in a way that transcends the pigment of our skin.  We are brothers in our Christian faith.  We are brothers in our worldview.  We are brothers in our beliefs in terms of the real crises facing America and what to do about those crises.

I do want to correct one thing regarding the discussion following the Patt Morrison question, “The founding documents of this country didn’t consider you or me to be fully legal beings.”  Allow me to present THE TRUTH:

The founding fathers did NOT want slavery; but they were in the impossible position where they either allowed it or did not have a nation.  There was simply no way the pro-slavery states were going to give up slavery in 1787.  What the founding fathers did was compromise in such a way while writing our nations Constitution and laws in such a way that it was merely a matter of time before slavery would necessarily have to be abolished.

Take the three-fifths compromise that liberals often dump on to dump on America.  First of all the compromise had nothing whatosever to do with the ontology or humanity of black persons; it was completely directed at the extent of representation that slaves would have politically in determining the number of representatives and the distribution of taxes.  Second, which side wanted the slaves to have full representation?  THE SLAVERY SIDE.   The anti-slavery side wanted slaves to be accorded no representation at all, because counting them meant the slavery states would have more power and more money and therefore be able to resist demands to end slavery forever.

The southern states wanted to count slaves in the population of the nation, so that they could have more seats in the Congress, thereby increasing their political power. The northern states, on the other hand, were against including slaves in the population for the fear of increased Congressional seats in the southern states.

It was the pro-slavery side that demanded FULL representation.  In other words, Democrats – who demanded to hold on to slavery during the Civil War – CONTINUE to support the pro-slavery side even 225 years later!

Just to point out one more fact about the three-fifths compromise, one of the agreements reached was an END to the transatlantic slavery trade after twenty years.  Apparently, Democrats have always wanted that trade to continue.

Our founding fathers were truly good and miraculously visionary men who had to make certain compromises in order to establish a more perfect union.  They wanted slavery to end, but if they had tried to end it in their lifetimes the United States would never have been allowed to get off the ground in the first place – and slavery would have continued for centuries longer than it did.

Other than that, I wish to thank Patt Morrison for his objective piece, and I wish to honor Jesse Lee Peterson for his incredibly courageous and incredibly honorable stand against a liberal-dominated world that pathologically hates him as a living embodiment refuting everything that liberals stand for.

Hypocrite Liberalism, Where Leftist Sean Penn’s Racist Son Calls A Black Reporter The N-Word While MLK-Marching Charleton Heston Gets Demonized

March 29, 2013

According to the tenants of liberalism, this is fine:

Say What? Sean Penn’s Son Calls Black Photographer ‘N**er’ and ‘Fa**ot’
Mar 27, 2013
By Ruth Manuel-Logan

Hollywood A-Lister Sean Penn was once notorious for his explosive temper but now his son, Hopper (pictured right), has apparently followed suit.

Well, somewhat.

The younger Penn is accused of resorting to vicious and racist name-calling after he got into an altercation with a random Black photographer who confronted the pair as they entered a medical building, reports TMZ.

The nasty encounter between the photographer (pictured) and the 19-year-old was captured on video.  Hopper is seen pushing the unidentified man and this is followed by a face-to-face confrontation where the hot-headed teen is heard spewing the words, “F**k you,  you’re a f**king fa**ot…shut up you fu**ing ni**er.”

During the raucous, police just happened to be in the vicinity and overheard what had transpired between Hopper and the photographer. When officers questioned the shutterbug about what had happened, he just sloughed off the argument and refused to press charges.

Yes, he did say that.  On camera, no less.  With his words being recorded.  For the record, without the asterisks, Sean Penn’s apple that didn’t fall very far from the tree shouted, “You’re a fucking faggot.  Shut up you fucking nigger!”

Now, of course, if it had been Sarah Palin’s kid, imagine the rabid-cockroach feeding frenzy the press would have had.  You would have thought Sarah herself had been caught on tape mouthing those obscenities if it had been her kid who had said that.  She would have been persona non grata.  You know, the way the left already treats her.

Instead, it’s yawnsville.  You know, much the same way that famous liberal actor and loud-mouthed punk Alex Baldwin “a rude little pig.”  Which you’d think would be, you know, a WAR ON WOMEN.

Hell, you can even slaughter dogs after you’ve mangled them by forcing them to fight with other dogs as long as you belong to the “permanent ward of the liberal State” class.  As Michael Vick didRush Limbaugh can’t become a part owner of an NFL team because he’s a Republican and Republicans are evil, but people who force dogs to fight to their deaths and then viciously slaughter the ones who aren’t vicious enough are peachy dandy as long as they’re black.  The media falsifies stories to demonize the former while ignoring the truth to celebrate the latter.  You can get caught red-handed committing adultery with whores in the scores, like Tiger Woods did.  And Obama will still play golf with you during one of his countless vacations.  Why not?  Obama is pissing on marriage by replacing it with sodomy; so why not further piss on it by endorsing the crown prince of all adulterers???

No one is ever to be punished for their words or their behavior except Republicans, you see.  Because Democrats despise actual morality and view the world through a rabid political prism that Stalin would have admired.

It’s Charleton Heston – the first famous actor to put his stand with the civil rights movement and march with Martin Luther King when people were getting beaten BY DEMOCRATS – who should be tormented in the “fundamentally transformed” world of liberalism.  Even from beyond the grave by worthless punks like Jim Carrey who is upset that anybody else should be allowed to have guns to protect themselves with the way his ARMED SECURITY has guns to protect him with.  But, what the hell – he’s a conservative so his sacrifical service out of his love for his fellow man should be mocked by a worthless liberal turd.

When I first saw Jim Carrey, I thought he was hilarious.  But by the time I saw his third movie, I realized that he was purely one-dimensional.  And if you’ve seen one of his films, you’ve pretty much seen his entire repertoire.  Unlike, say, Charleton Heston – an actual ACTOR.

Greg Gutfeld of Fox News’ “The Five” has destroyed Carrey.  He pointed out that Carrey attacked Heston because he didn’t think he could lose an argument with a dead man.  But the funny thing is THAT HE DID LOSE AN ARGUMENT WITH A DEAD MAN.  Because a dead Charleton Heston is worth a 16.7 trillion Jim Carreys (or however many trillions Obama’s national dead is at now).

The quintessential essence of the left is abject moral hypocrisy.  If you are a Democrat, you are a hypocrite; if you are a liberal Democrat, you are a tyrannosaurus hypocrite on megasteroids.  Whether it’s about racism or guns or taxes or any other damn thing under the sun of their fascism.

This is an amazing time when the truth is urinated upon while liars and their lies are beloved.

The day is coming when liberals are going to stand before a just and holy God and find out the hard way that morality is a real thing and that God will judge them according to His Word that they mock rather than their self-serving standard of political correctness.

That day will be so beautiful that it’s worth wading through all the liberal ugliness and filth to get to.

Update, 3/29/13: I wrote this piece to highlight the galling and appalling constant piss of liberal hypocrisy.  I have Jim Carrey to thank for providing more documentation to prove my thesis.  The whiny little turd just released a letter bitching about “vicious slander” from Fox News because this pathetic little turd believes that only HE should have the right to viciously slander people.  He alludes to a lawsuit because this little creep knows that the man whose grave he literally danced on is dead and can’t sue him right back.  Most amazing of all is his assertion that the clear majority of Americans that he mocks and slanders – as proven by the fact that even the majority of DEMOCRATS refuse to embrace his fascist position on guns as evidenced by Harry Reid’s tabling the so-called “assault weapons” ban – are “intolerant” even as this intolerant little creep demonizes them.  What a pygmy little loser.

Liberal Fascist Hypocrite Joan Walsh Says It’s ‘Racist’ To Go After Obama’s Family – After Viciously Slandering Bush’s Family In 2001.

March 27, 2013

Joan Walsh is a typical liberal hypocrite.  She literally says it’s racist to do what she herself did.  Only of course it wasn’t racist when she did it.

Here’s her article attacking George W. Bush as a father and then attacking his daughters back in 2001 (note that the picture of Bush’s daughter below was a prominent part of the Salon.com piece) back when it was wonderful to demonize the president:

Thursday, May 31, 2001 01:00 AM PDT
The first family’s alcohol troubles
President Bush downplayed his own drinking problem and hid a DUI. Now his daughters are making news for underage drinking. Is there a connection?
By Joan Walsh

I don’t envy Jenna and Barbara Bush, going off to college under the watchful eye of the Secret Service and the international media. But the sudden flurry of headlines about the first twins’ alcohol-related mishaps raises new questions about the way their father handled his own “young and irresponsible” past.

I always thought it was a bad decision for Bush, as a politician, to refuse to acknowledge his wild youth — which, by his own account, lasted until he was 40. But now it seems it was a bad choice for Bush as a father. After his 1976 drunken-driving arrest was revealed last year, Bush said he didn’t admit it when he decided to run for president because he didn’t want his daughters to know about it. That was a mistake, and the twins’ recent run of bad behavior seems designed to let him know that.

There’s no evidence either twin has a drinking problem, but the string of news items involving their partying and scrapes with the law in the last few months can’t be ignored. First came the tale of Secret Service agents ferrying home Jenna’s boyfriend after he was arrested for public drunkenness. Then there were randy National Enquirer photos of Jenna, a University of Texas freshman, and a beer-drinking pal, and a story about her alleged marijuana use. Yale freshman Barbara, supposedly the studious twin, had a false I.D. confiscated at a New Haven, Conn., bar. In April, the Enquirer featured a lurid tale of Barbara’s drunken spring-break binge in Mexico, and by the end of the month all major newspapers were carrying a story about Jenna being cited by police at an Austin bar for underage drinking, while Secret Service agents waited outside.

Now, barely a week after a court appearance to deal with that alcohol citation, Jenna has been caught again using a false I.D. to buy alcohol at an Austin restaurant, with sister Barbara at her side.

Of course, many of us would have provided lively tabloid fodder in college if we’d been subjected to the scrutiny Barbara and Jenna Bush must endure. And their college drinking doesn’t mean they’ll turn into alcoholics as adults. Most teenage party girls become responsible citizens, eventually. Still, their recklessness in the first months of their father’s presidency suggests their parents screwed up by downplaying and even denying President Bush’s own drinking problem.

Bush’s he-man decision to quit drinking cold turkey is the stuff of legend. The morning after a boozy 40th birthday party in 1986, he woke up at Colorado’s tony Broadmoor Resort and decided, on his own, to get sober. Alcohol had begun to “compete for my affections,” Bush said later. Certainly he didn’t need Alcoholics Anonymous, he told the Washington Post: “I don’t think I was clinically an alcoholic; I didn’t have the genuine addiction. I don’t know why I drank. I liked to drink, I guess.”

But his close friends tell a slightly different story: “Once he got started, he couldn’t, didn’t shut it off,” Bush’s buddy Don Evans, now commerce secretary, told the Washington Post last year. “He didn’t have the discipline.” That sounds a lot like an addiction, though only Bush himself knows for sure.

He refused to discuss details of his drinking or rumored drug use throughout his political campaigns, relying on the stock excuse, “When I was young and irresponsible, I was young and irresponsible.” His parents have also repeatedly denied he had a drinking problem, even after several family crises involving his drinking came to light: an ugly Christmas confrontation with his father in 1972, after Bush drove drunk with his brother Marvin, crashed into a neighbor’s garbage cans and offered to fight “mano a mano” with his father; and the 1976 DUI incident near the family compound in Kennebunkport, Maine, with his then-teenage sister Dorothy in the car.

We know Bush’s problem drinking, including the DUI, was a family secret. The night a reporter broke the DUI story, Laura Bush called both daughters, in Austin and New Haven, to break the news to them. “I made the decision that as a dad I didn’t want my girls doing the kinds of things I did, and I told them not to drink and drive,” Bush told reporters. But he didn’t tell them about his own arrest.

The secrecy, of course, was a mistake. Anyone who works with alcoholics and their families knows honesty is crucial: The drinking parent needs to come clean about his or her problems, and kids need to understand the family dynamics that were established around the drinking. And as teenagers, they need to know that alcoholism is a disease — whether because of psychology or physiology or some combination of the two — that is remarkably hereditary, and think about their own drinking in that context.

“We know for a fact that [Jenna's] father had a long history of alcohol use and abuse,” Lynn Ponton, a psychiatrist who studies teenage risk-taking, told Salon. “And this is an opportunity for the Bushes … to talk honestly with their children about risk-taking and really provide guidance and increase communication. And I would wonder what type of communication is actually taking place.”

I wonder, too. I’d bet there hasn’t been enough communication in the WASP-y Texas Bush family, and it looks as if the first twins are acting out as a result. Even with a Secret Service detail, there are ways for young women to party, if they’re discreet. Clearly, the first twins aren’t. Their blatant risk-taking and public partying (the Secret Service waits outside the bars where they drink illegally?) seem designed to force a family reckoning that their father’s drinking never triggered.

I’m reluctant to play family therapist for a family I’ve never met, but I’d say that Bush may have gotten past voters with evasiveness about his drinking problem, but he hasn’t satisfied his daughters. And if he sticks to the sanitized, up-from-Broadmoor version of the story, he may someday find he won the White House at the cost of an honest relationship with his daughters.

An earlier version of this story appeared in Bushed! last month.

That was then.  As liberal fascism always declares, it can’t be fascist when we do it.  So liberal roach-thug Walsh apparently gets pissed off about what is actually a pretty straightforward piece at Breitbart and writes this stinking pile of crap that these days passes as “journalism” (note the considerably more flattering picture of Obama’s daughters in which they look considerably less drunk than their choice for Jenna’s pic above).

For the record, I read over the Breitbart piece.  Somehow I missed the parts that Walsh alleges are there about a) the color of Obama’s skin; b) the unfitness of Obama as a parent; or c) the disgracefulness of the president’s daughters.  Please note, however, how Walsh just flat-out poured hate on George W. Bush as a father and slammed his daughters even after acknowledging that she had any actual factual basis for doing so:

Tuesday, Mar 26, 2013 09:51 AM PDT
How not to seem like a racist
A tip for right-wingers angry about charges of racial bias: Try treating the Obama daughters with decency
By Joan Walsh

How not to seem like a racistEnlargeSasha and Malia Obama(Credit: Reuters/Kevin Lamarque)

Writing my piece on Andrew Breitbart and Tucker Carlson, I missed a huge example of overlap between their two sham-empires: the reporter who broke the Caller’s now-disgraced “scoop” about Sen. Robert Menendez patronizing prostitutes, Matthew Boyle, now works for Breitbart.com. And on Monday he penned the ridiculous story revealing the location of Malia and Sasha’s spring break vacation (which is now at the top of the Drudge Report).

On Twitter Monday and Tuesday, Breitbart fans attacked my focus on their hero’s bizarre racially driven crusades. They continue to insist that they’re being unfairly tarred with the charge of racism, when they’re the real “post-racialists” who just don’t like Barack Obama because he’s a liberal. I have some advice for right-wingers who don’t want it to seem like their anti-Obama animus is racial: Try treating his daughters with respect.

You’ll remember back in December, the NRA went after Sasha and Malia with an ad insisting that the fact that they have armed protection, when the administration was supposedly blocking armed security at America’s schools (actually, it wasn’t), was the height of hypocrisy – ignoring the many threats to their safety faced by the children of presidents and the tradition of Secret Service protection, for all of them.

The Weekly Standard’s Daniel Halper went even crazier, with a piece alleging that the girls’ school, Sidwell Friends, a Quaker school, had armed guards, too. Anyone familiar with the Quaker tradition of nonviolence found that claim strange, and of course, like most claims about the Obama family that come from the right, it turned out not to be true.

Unfortunately for the untalented Mr. Boyle, journalists have a consensus about not revealing the location of the presidents’ children’s vacations. Reporters don’t write about minor first children except when they’re attending “official or semi-official events.” It’s considered a security risk. As the Washington Post’s Paul Farhi reported last year:

The ban on such coverage has existed through many administrations by informal agreement with the White House Correspondents’ Association, which represents the interests of journalists who cover the president.

“There’s a general feeling among the press corps that it wants to be respectful” of the president’s children, said Caren Bohan, the White House reporter for Reuters who is president of the WHCA.

When Agence-France Presse wrote about Malia’s trip to Mexico last year, a few U.S. outlets picked it up, and the administration tried to get the details removed. Then an earthquake in Mexico made the first daughter’s vacation newsworthy, and other sites, justifiably, reported it.

A year later, along comes the brave Matthew Boyle, fresh off his Menendez humiliation, to tell Breitbart readers about the Obama girls’ vacation. The news hook seems to be that it’s a waste of money.

“It is unclear how long the first daughters will be staying in the Bahamas, or what the cost will be to taxpayers,” Boyle harrumphs. “Earlier this month, the White House canceled public tours as a result of the recent budget sequester, citing Secret Service staffing costs.”

Esquire’s Charlie Pierce put it better than I can:

What possible interest does this serve, except to titillate the dark and envious nether parts of Boyle’s 22 readers? (No link, because fk that pudgy little monster.) There is no possible news value to this. Sooner or later, the frolicks of what my pal [Eric] Boehlert calls the “rightwing entertainment complex” are going to get someone killed.

The theme of most right-wing stories on Sasha, Malia and Michelle Obama’s vacations and leisure-time activities seems to be that they’re entitled princesses, when they do exactly the same kinds of things other presidents’ families have done throughout history. There’s only one difference I can see.

Drudge is also hyping the president’s vacation with the blaring headline “A vacation a month.” That’s another racially tinged trope on the right, that our first black president seems to be a little, well, lazy, because he can’t stop taking vacations. Of course, Obama is on track to take about a fifth of the vacation days George W. Bush did over his two terms. Obama took 131 vacation days in his first term – which would amount to 262 if he kept that pace in his second term. Bush took a staggering 1,060 vacation days over eight years, by far the most vacation in history (he also took the longest single presidential vacation in the modern era, a full five weeks.) Can someone explain why Obama is supposedly the vacation-hog?

Oh, and the comments on Boyle’s Breitbart.com story are pretty awesome, too. Here’s a good one:

They will indeed grow up to be monsters. Very, very, angry and vengeful monsters. Just like momma… Especially after they are forced to visit their obamination of a father in a federal penitentiary following his impeachment and conviction for Treason… Although I’d far prefer they visit his plot occasionally following his hanging for treason.

Boyle is perfect for his new employer (although he was a pretty good fit for the Daily Caller, too). In a post explaining why he jumped ship (which didn’t mention the higher salary he got), he bragged about “enlisting in Andrew Breitbart’s army … I’m shipping out today. It’s time to go to war.”

A war on the president’s daughters? Boyle ought to talk to some veterans of actual war. What a putz.

Paul Farhi’s story on the media’s traditional treatment of first children quoted Democratic pollster Celinda Lake on the political appeal of Obama’s family: “The value of the family is enormous. The more you know this family and the more you think of Barack Obama in these terms, the harder it is to vilify him.”

That’s true for the vast majority of Americans. But not the haters and racists who belong to Breitbart’s “army.”

The galling, appalling hypocrisy of liberals and liberalism is disgusting beyond belief.

Hey, maybe if Barbara and Jenna Bush had jetset all over the world on other people’s money the way Obama’s daughters have, they wouldn’t have, they wouldn’t have ever had any issues with alcohol.  That and the fact that the Bush daughters were in their college years rather than their grade school years like Sasha and Malia.

I have documented in the past that being “white” is no more a defense against “racism toward whites” than liberals accord to black conservatives for being immune to racism because they’re black.  Do I seriously need to post articles of liberals going after conservtive blacks in a racist manner?  Condoleeza Rice, Justice Clarence Thomas, Allen West, Michael Steele, Stacey Dash, Dr. Benjamin Carson, pretty much ANY black person who has ever expressed conservative views in his or her life, is labelled “Uncle Tom,” Oreo Cookie and far, far worse.  So blacks can’t be “racist” because of the color of their skin on liberal theory unless they’re conservative blacks – in which case they are the quintessential ESSENCE of racist bigotry regardless of the color of their skin on the view of these self-refuting turds.  And then these hypocrites declare themselves inpeccable – i.e. incapable of sin – while they define their opponents as ONLY capable of nothing BUT sin.

Facts get in the way, of course.

Karl Marx was a self-hating Jew who actively despised Jews in his writings.

If you can be a self-hating black, as liberals assert conservative blacks are by definition and if you can be a self-hating Jew, as Karl Marx clearly was, then just how the hell is it impossible to be a self-hating white???

Thus, by liberals’ vicious attacks against black conservatives as being self-hating blacks, and literally by her own diatribe, Joan Walsh is a far-leftist intolerant racist bigot.  She is a self-hating racist race traitor according to her own demonic views.  In addition to being a truly crappy excuse of a human being.

This is what pisses me off about the left above all else: they constantly drool out the most vicious and self-righteous slanders while demonizing everyone on the other side for doing the tiniest FRACTION of what they hypocritically do.  Unless you actually want to defend her attack against Bush relative to the innocuous piece that she poured her hate on in Breitbart.

It’s time to go, Walsh, you Nazi.  That that your fellow jackbooted stormtroopers right out of the Joseph Goebbels Ministry of Propaganda mold will ever make you leave.  Becuase they’re all as hypocritical and as fascist as YOU are: they’re just not as STUPID as you are in your glaring obviousness as a biased ideologue useful idiot.

Note: AJ Delgado took on the hypocrite Joan Walsh first.

Race Is Rising Against Race Just As Jesus Said It Would In These Last Days. Democrats Say ‘Amen’ Unable To See That Jesus Said It As A BAD Thing.

November 21, 2012

Jesus’ warning in Luke 21:10 in its original Greek:

Τότε ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς, Ἐγερθήσεται ἔθνος ἐπ’ ἔθνος καὶ βασιλεία ἐπὶ βασιλείαν

It’s that word “ἔθνος” that stands out.  The direct English translation is “ethnic group” or “race”: race shall rise against race and kingdom against kingdom.

You can see this race hatred developing all over the world; surely the Holocaust of the Jews in the 1940s was a form of “race rising against race.”  During the Clinton years we saw two incredibly ugly examples: in Bosnia with its “ethnic cleansing” and of course in Rwanda and Burundi in Africa as the Hutu race murdered some 1 million Tutsis in an ogre of blood and violence.  We know that through the 1980s and 1990s Saddam Hussein was using genocide against the Kurds.  God only knows how many have perished in Darfur.  And we see it today all across the world in example after example.

It’s always easier to see these genocides in hindsight because the international community always throws a smokescreen over genocides while they are being committed.  As an example in Rwanda, the United Nations tortured the English language to avoid using the term “genocide” no matter how obviously genocidal the murder campaign was.  Why?  Because if the U.N. had used the word “genocide” it would have been compelled by its charter to involve itself.  And they wanted to stay as far away from actually DOING anything as they possibly could.  Because the United Nations has degenerated into a force for evil rather than a force for good in the world.

But I don’t want to talk about race rising against race in the world.  I want to talk about what is going on in America.

When Barack Obama was elected in 2008, we had this description of Obama’s promise from the New York Times:

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.

To achieve the change the country wants, he says, “we need a leader who can finally move beyond the divisive politics of Washington and bring Democrats, independents and Republicans together to get things done.”

But this promise leads, inevitably, to a question: Can such a majority be built and led by Mr. Obama, whose voting record was, by one ranking, the most liberal in the Senate last year?

I cited that back in 2009 when I was pointing out THE BRUTE FACT that Barack Obama was a cynical liar and demagogue right from the very start of his presidency.

As I document, Obama never once EVER tried to live up to his cynical lies.  He never tried to reach out or reconcile and he certainly never made any successful attempt to EVER accomplish any bipartisan legislation.  Rather, he demagogued and demonized and slandered his opponents.

Obama raged to an audience of Hispanics that they should “punish your enemies” – referring to white people and Republicans.  Because that’s the way Obama views the world.

During the campaign Obama sent his vice president out to threaten blacks that if they didn’t vote for him Mitt Romney and Republicans would “put y’all back in chains.”

Obama’s successful message: race, race race.  Rise up.  Punish your enemies.  And if you DON’T vote race white people will put you back in the chains of slavery.

Many have pointed out that Obama had a unique opportunity after his election in 2008 to actually try to do what he promised.  But he never once so much as TRIED.  And many have said that Obama would have an opportunity now to soften his race-baiting, class-warfare, war against women, fearmongering style of endless campaigning in the name of governance.  But you can already pretty clearly see that he won’t do any such thing any more than he did after falsely promising it in 2008.

What we’re seeing used against critics of UN Ambassador Susan Rice – who went on all five major Sunday morning political programs and repeatedly said something that was obviously factually untrue the day she said itis telling:

As Republicans criticize U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, some members of Congress are suggesting that racism and sexism may be behind the attack.

Rep. James Clyburn, D-S.C., says that the attacks on Rice have gone beyond her job performance. When asked about Rice on CNN’s Starting Point on Tuesday, Clyburn said that words like “lazy” and “incompetent,” which have been used to describe black members of the administration, including Rice and President Obama himself, are reminiscent of language used to undermine minorities in decades past.

“You know, these are code words,” Clyburn said. “We heard them during the campaign. During this recent campaign, we heard Senator Sununu calling our president lazy, incompetent—these kinds of terms that those of us, especially those of us who were grown and raised in the South, we would hear these little words and phrases all of our lives, and we’d get insulted by them.”

A Republican was the first to appoint African-Americans to the office of secretary of State — the highest-ranking appointed position in a presidential administration. President George W. Bush named Colin Powell to the job, followed by Condoleezza Rice.

Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., have attacked Rice in recent weeks for her Sunday show appearances in the days  following the terrorist attack in Libya that killed four Americans,  criticizing her for not going further to label the assault a terrorist act. On Monday, 97 House  Republicans sent a letter to President Obama saying that Rice is unfit to  succeed Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The administration has said that Rice was simply using talking points supplied by the intelligence community during her television appearances.

Last week, Rep. Marcia Fudge, D-Ohio, the new chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus, also suggested that the attacks on Rice go beyond her job performance.

“It is a shame that any time something goes wrong, they pick on women and minorities. I have a real issue with that,” Fudge said. “For you who are haters, as the young people say, your hate is going nowhere. Just go on and hate on, but look in the mirror and hate yourself, not the people that do this work.”

I want you to notice that Republicans were IMMEDIATELY FULLY AWARE that what Susan Rice said was simply factually untrue.  I certainly was – as I documented by the link to my own article above.  But a lie was her line and it was Obama’s line.  It was already obvious that she was saying things that were lies the moment she said them.  Conservatives erupted the very moment she spoke and they were right and she and those who took the Obama position were wrong.

We now know that the CIA issued a report IMMEDIATELY that documented that what Susan Rice would come out days later was a lie.  And we know that some Obama-appointed political operative altered that report in order to perpetuate the lie that Obama had killed bin Laden and by extension had therefore mortally wounded al Qaeda so he could get reelected.

We know that Susan Rice participated in that lie.  If she willingly participated, she is morally unfit for ANY job in the administration, let alone Secretary of State.  If she unwillingly was duped, then we can similarly know that her judgment is so piss poor that she is unqualified for any job in the administration, let alone Secretary of State.

But Obama and his thugs have a “narrative”: if you criticize a black person for any reason under the sun, YOU ARE A RACIST.  If you criticize a woman for any reason under the sun, no matter how much documentation you have to support your criticism, you are a misogynist.  And of course if said woman happens to be black, you are a racist misogynist, aren’t you?  And it frankly doesn’t matter that the last Republicans to hold executive power appointed the first black person to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Secretary of State and the first black woman as the Secretary of State.  And it frankly doesn’t matter how many black people Republicans appoint; they will ALWAYS be racist by definition because Obama WANTS them to be racist by definition and that is how he operates through his race-baiting thugs.

I wouldn’t be surprised if Barack Obama and James Clyburn have Martin Luther King’s words, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character,” embossed in gold lettering on their urinals.  Because they piss on those words every single day.

It is impossible to offer any criticism of the content of a black person’s character today.  Why?  Because of the color of their skin.  THAT’S all that matters to the Obamas and the Clyburns of the world and the content of character be damned.

Obama won politically with that garbage, just as the Antichrist will win politically one day very soon and just as Adolf Hitler won politically.  Like Obama in the present, the Antichrist of the future and the Hitler of the past win politically because they were skilled at exploiting lies and concealing truth.

We’re going to see America collapse.  We’re going to see that within a very few years from now.  And we will immediately see racial violence in the streets of America unlike anything that we have ever seen before.  Why will that happen?  because black people will believe Obama’s lies that they must “punish their enemies” lest said “enemies” put them back in chains; and because whites will realize that neither right nor reason have anything to do with political debate anymore, and they must fight and kill to save the lives of their children.  And if they depend on reason they will be destroyed by rhetoric in a world that is very clearly dead-set on worshiping the coming beast.

Jesus’ last days prophecy is going to come to pass.  Just as Jesus said.  And all you have to do is see the rhetoric that is being applied today to understand how America will melt down tomorrow.

The beast is coming.

What I want you to be able to understand is that the very-soon-to-be-history presented in Bible prophecy is directly related to what we are shaping TODAY.  The leader that the American people have chosen is sowing the wind and he will reap the whirlwind to the mass suffering of the people who put him in power.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 530 other followers