Posts Tagged ‘website’

Slimeball Alan Grayson Shows Us What Liberal Fascism Looks Like

December 22, 2009

Liberals have always been hypocrites and demagogues.  It’s just part of their DNA.

They have also always been totalitarians at heart, just like their other socialist counterparts (Nazi = “National Socialist German Workers Party”; U.S.S.R. = “Union of Soviet Socialist Republics”).

Hence the “Fairness Doctrine,” which morphed into the Fairness and Accountability in Broadcasting Act, which has recently morphed into “Media Diversity” – as long as that “diversity” excluded and was designed to exclude conservatives.  Which morphed into “Localism” – as long as the local programming restricted conservative talk radio.  Then it morphed into a Marxist-based enterprise called “Media Justice.”

And in another only slightly different turn, it morphed into “minority-owned broadcasters” requesting federal taxpayer financial assistance to the exclusion of conservative broadcasters.  That goes with the general trend of liberal media requesting financial bailouts so that they can be even more deeply “owned” by liberals in government than they already are.

And if you think that Rush Limbaugh, Fox News or the Wall Street Journal would ever get so much as a nano-second of consideration for a bailout from the Obama administration, then you are about as sharp as a bowling ball.

Liberals are people who shout the loudest, while at the same time demanding that every other voice be suppressed.

Poster boy for liberal fascism: Alan Grayson, the Democrat who believed he had the right to say that Republicans want old people to “die quickly” on the House floor; who told Dick Cheney to “S.T.F.U.“;  who has believed that he had the absolute freedom to say more hateful and dishonest things than I care to track down.

December 18, 2009
Posted by Josh Kraushaar

Grayson threatens to imprison critic

File this story under the pot calling the kettle black.

Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.), prone for throwing his own political bombs at Republicans, has threatened a local critic with five years in jail for creating the website “mycongressmanisnuts.com.”

The Orlando Sentinel reports that Grayson wrote a letter this week to Attorney General Eric Holder demanding that the federal government imprison Republican activist Angie Langley for five years because of her website criticizing him.

The website, designed to raise money against Grayson, catalogues videos and news clippings that portray the provocative congressman in an unfavorable light. It courts donors to donate money to help elect his Republican challenger next year – collecting $3,725 to date.

Grayson accuses the activist of misrepresenting the fact that she’s a constituent of his (she lives outside his district).

“Ms. Langley has deliberately masqueraded as a constituent of mine, in order to create the false appearance that she speaks for constituents who don’t support me,” Grayson wrote in the letter.

(You can read Grayson’s complete letter to Holder here.)

It’s awfully ironic that Grayson is demanding to silence one of his critics, given his history of red-meat rhetoric against a host of powerful Republicans. Earlier this month, he told MSNBC’s Chris Matthews he wished Dick Cheney would “STFU.”

Earlier in the year, Grayson referred to conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh as a “has-been hypocrite loser” who “was more lucid when he was a drug addict.”

Hitler, Stalin, and Mao weren’t too keen on being criticized, either.

But I hate to tell you, Mr. Grayson, that Eric Holder is just too busy right now trying to treat terrorists like U.S. citizens and U.S. citizens like terrorists to help you trample over the rights of your own free speech critic.

I just clicked on the website, and that $3K is now over $10K.

It’s not just Alan Grayson.  It’s the Democrat Party.  It’s Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and yes, the Demagogue-in-Chief Barack Obama (remember his numerous attacks against Fox News?  Remember his attempts to compile an enemies list against critics of his ObamaCare?).  It’s just who these people are at their core.

Obama’s VA ‘Death Book’ And Your Future Health Care

October 10, 2009

No death panels?

Recently we learned that Barack Obama has re-instituted the “Death Books” that President Bush banned from being used by the Veterans Administration.

On page 21 of the VA book, “Your Life, Your Choices,” you get to answer questions pertaining to the issue: “What makes my life worth living?” And guilt-inducing scenarios to consider such as,“I can no longer contribute to my family’s well being,” and “I am a severe financial burden on my family” to “guide” one to come to the conclusion, life is “not worth living.”

On Sunday’s “Fox News Sunday with Chri Wallace,” Jim Towey – who broke the story to the public in a Wall Street Journal article entitled, “The Death Book for Veterans” – made this statement:

“The 2007 edition said go to Compassion Choices. That’s the Hemlock Society. The 1997 version referred you to an organization that was the American Euthanasia Society. I think the bias of the document’s clear. Why would Americans be given such a poor document, a poor planning tool, on a subject so important?”

What is frankly just as frightening as the Veterans Administration trying to steer veterans toward a renamed version of the Hemlock Society is the fact that they’ve clearly altered the page with gibberish in a clearly last-second attempt to cover-up what they were doing.

Here’s a printscreen of the relevant PDF page (52) that I downloaded on Monday, August 25:

VA-Death-Book_52

I’m no investigative reporter, but when I tried to learn what http://www.choices.org was under the heading, “Advance directives,” I went to the site – and discovered that it was geared toward providing children with education resources so they wouldn’t drop out of school.  It had nothing whatsoever to do with end-of-life decisions.  And when I called 1-800-989-9155, I discovered that it was Loesche America – an engineering and construction firm.

In other words, it was a hastily orchestrated scam perpetuated by government employees to hide the truth from the American people.  That should scare you.

Why did the VA scrub their website? I would argue that they did so because someone had a guilty conscience. Democrats KNOW this stuff is evil; and they KNOW that the American people would reject them if they knew the truth about what Democrats are trying to do.

And what is that truth?  Let me just use the phrase that Sarah Palin was so demonized for using: “death panel.”

Obama and Pakistan: So much for his “judgment”

September 15, 2008

It wasn’t too long ago that Barack Obama, wanting to sound tough, and not like a foreign-policy wuss, rattled the saber against Pakistan:

“I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges,” Obama said, “but let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.”

it was a real ominous statement, and many conservatives jumped all over it: the man who would be willing to talk to enemies such as Iran and North Korea without preconditions was actually threatening to invade an ally like Pakistan.

It’s not very often that we get to see what would happen if a candidate for President’s foreign policy positions were actually put to the test (which is why a Barack Obama can talk so much smack in a campaign).  But we get to see so following the aftermath of President Bush taking Obama’s cue:

Pakistan could end support for U.S.

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — The furor intensified Friday over Washington’s decision to pursue Islamic militant targets inside Pakistan, with opposition lawmakers threatening that the country could pull out of the war on terror if the United States refuses to respect its borders.

Now, Barack Obama has zealously attempted to saddle John McCain as representing “a third Bush term.”  But in this matter, it is Barack Obama – and most definitely NOT John McCain – who is “Bush-like”:

“Sen. John McCain of Arizona, close to clinching the GOP nomination, called Sen. Barack Obama ‘naive’ today and…blasted him for advocating a bombing of Al Qaeda hide-outs in Pakistan,” the Los Angeles Times reports.

“The best idea is not to broadcast what you’re going to do, that’s naive,” said McCain, who also questioned the very notion of “bombing Pakistan without their permission.” …

So here’s a pair of George Bush’s pants that YOU get to wear all by yourself, Mr. Barack Hussein – or should I say, Mr. Barry Bush?

This episode adds to Obama’s asinine policy of speaking to dictators without preconditions (which even Obama’s Democratic rivals for President ridiculed), his being totally wrong on the troop surge in Iraq (and then scrubbing his website in hopes that the public would forget just how wrong he was), his being for a Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel until he was against it, and his offering of moral equivalency in place of clear condemnation over Russia’s invasion of Democratic Georgia.

Sorry if I have to be the one to tell you this, but anybody looking for judgment in their President should be looking at John McCain.

Chutzpah Incarnate: Obama Criticizes McCain on Iraq Even As He Scrubs Own Website

July 16, 2008

Barack Obama has been running as the guy who opposed the war in Iraq.

Well, if opposing the war is the personification of wisdom, then don’t vote for Barack Obama – who has hedged on the Iraq War at times – vote for Cindy Sheehan. She opposes the war WAY more than Obama.

Shoot, vote for some six-year old liberal’s kid who has opposed the war since he was born!

Obama said today:

WASHINGTON and ALBUQUERQUE – Sen. Barack Obama said Tuesday that overall U.S. interests have been hurt rather than helped by the Bush administration’s decision to increase troop strength in Iraq 18 months ago, and vowed to stick to his plan to withdraw combat troops within 16 months of becoming president.

Obama said his White House rival, Sen. John McCain, “has argued that the gains of the surge mean that I should change my commitment to end the war. But this argument misconstrues what is necessary to succeed in Iraq, and stubbornly ignores the facts of the broader strategic picture that we face.”

If John McCain “ignores the facts,” Barack Obama changes them altogether.

The absolutely crazy and hypocritical thing is that – even as Barack Obama criticized John McCain for his commitment to the war in Iraq via the “Surge” strategy, Barack Obama had the massive chutzpah to scrub his website of past comments regarding that very strategy.

My opponent is completely wrong! Oops. Pardon me while I scrub my website to hide what I USED to say.”

It’s simply amazing.

Politico writes about it with the hammer-smashing-the-nail title of “Surge Meets Purge“:

The McCain camaign is poking fun at Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) for a report in today’s New York Daily News that he had cleansed BarackObama.com of past criticism of the surge strategy in Iraq.

“BARACK OBAMA “REFINING” IRAQ POSITION ON OWN WEBSITE,” blares the McCain release, which helpfully links to the former versions of the site.

The Daily News report by James Gordon Meek says: “Barack Obama’s campaign scrubbed his presidential Web site over the weekend to remove criticism of the U.S. troop ‘surge’ in Iraq, the Daily News has learned. The presumed Democratic nominee replaced his Iraq issue Web page, which had described the surge as a ‘problem’ that had barely reduced violence. ‘The surge is not working,’ Obama’s old plan stated, citing a lack of Iraqi political cooperation but crediting Sunni sheiks – not U.S. military muscle – for quelling violence in Anbar Province.

Sean Hackbarth in an American Mind piece calls it, “Obama’s Surge Stance Goes Down Memory Hole“:

Edit a Presidential candidate’s view on the Iraq surge? “Yes we can!” At least that’s what Sen. Barack Obama’s web team did over the weekend. Instead of simply saying he was wrong about the surge Obama and his campaign pretends we won’t notice his alterations in emphasis. Events on the ground in Iraq have changed yet Obama is still adamant to pull U.S. troops out in 16 months. This causes Jim Geraghty to write,

That suggests the candidate is wedded to ideology and oblivious to the consequences of policy changes. And a candidate who has the… well, audacity to claim that he always said the surge would result in an “improvement in the security situation and a reduction of violence” when he said the opposite many times thinks that A) voters are gullible and B) the media have the attention span of an over-caffeinated ferret.

Gateway Pundit has a side-by-side before-and-after of Obama’s Iraq page.

Rick Moran goes for the jugular. Just like Obama thinks he’s better on Iraq because he possesses superior judgment it’s been wrong about the surge.

The most devastating article of the bunch is found on Powerline under the title “Obama’s Dishonest Op-ed.” The piece – after damning Obama regarding Iraq with his own words – proceeds to show that Obama has been as dishonest about Afghanistan as he has been wrong about Iraq.

Charles Krauthammer didn’t mention Obama’s reversing position on the surge, or the website purging that preceded the flip flopping. But he very clearly understands the Weasel who is Barack Obama:

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: What impresses me is his audacity. Everybody moves to the center after securing the nomination. There’s nothing new under the sun there.

He did it in a particularly spectacular way with the flips that you talked about. There are a couple of others on NAFTA and flag pins, and he does it all within about three weeks. It’s sort of unprecedented.

But he goes way beyond that. On each of these he pretends that he has never changed. He says, yes, I said the gun bill was constitutional and I supported it. And now he supports the Supreme Court decision that rules it unconstitutional, and pretends it is the same decision.

But then he goes beyond that, reaching an almost acrobatic level of cynicism here, in which he says, as you indicated, Fred, anybody who believes otherwise, anybody who believes he is not actually a flipper and he hasn’t actually changed, is himself cynical, or, as he puts it, “steeped in the old politics,” and so cynical that they can’t even believe that a politician like him would act on principle.

What non-political no-self-interested reason explains his change on campaign finance other than the fact that he has a lot of money and he would lose it otherwise if he had stuck to his principles?

What non-self-interested reason explains his flip on guns, on FISA, on the flag pins, on everything? But he thinks he–what impresses me is his intellectual arrogance. He thinks everyone is either a fool who would believe all this, or a knave who is somehow distorting his words [Italics mine].

I personally believe that Barack Obama is counting on a very supportive media to help him sanitize his previously held positions by simply refusing to give them the continued coverage that would truly hurt him. Flip flops, reversals, and website purges only hurt him if the American people know about it. And the media seems to develop a convenient pattern of amnesia where Barack Obama is concerned. A recent New York Times piece about Obama’s spirituality, for instance, didn’t even mention the name “Jeremiah Wright.”

John McCain responded to Obama’s criticisms in part with the following:

Over the last year, Senator Obama and I were part of a great debate about the war in Iraq. Both of us agreed the Bush administration had pursued a failed strategy there and that we had to change course. Where Senator Obama and I disagreed, fundamentally, was what course we should take. I called for a comprehensive new strategy – a surge of troops and counterinsurgency to win the war. Senator Obama disagreed. He opposed the surge, predicted it would increase sectarian violence, and called for our troops to retreat as quickly as possible.

Today we know Senator Obama was wrong. The surge has succeeded. And because of its success, the next President will inherit a situation in Iraq in which America’s enemies are on the run, and our soldiers are beginning to come home. Senator Obama is departing soon on a trip abroad that will include a fact-finding mission to Iraq and Afghanistan. And I note that he is speaking today about his plans for Iraq and Afghanistan before he has even left, before he has talked to General Petraeus, before he has seen the progress in Iraq, and before he has set foot in Afghanistan for the first time. In my experience, fact-finding missions usually work best the other way around: first you assess the facts on the ground, then you present a new strategy.

Although the situation in Iraq is much improved, another test awaits whoever wins this election: the war in Afghanistan. The status quo is not acceptable. Security in Afghanistan has deteriorated, and our enemies are on the offensive. From the moment the next President walks into the Oval Office, he will face critical decisions about Afghanistan.

Senator Obama will tell you we can’t win in Afghanistan without losing in Iraq. In fact, he has it exactly backwards. It is precisely the success of the surge in Iraq that shows us the way to succeed in Afghanistan. It is by applying the tried and true principles of counter-insurgency used in the surge – which Senator Obama opposed — that we will win in Afghanistan. With the right strategy and the right forces, we can succeed in both Iraq and Afghanistan. I know how to win wars. And if I’m elected President, I will turn around the war in Afghanistan, just as we have turned around the war in Iraq, with a comprehensive strategy for victory.

As for Obama’s Iraq “plan” – if you can call it that – ABC’s Martha Raddatz wrote a July 11 article titled “Obama’s Iraq Withdrawal Plan May Prove Difficult: U.S. Commanders in Iraq Warn of Security Dangers, See Logistical Nightmare.” She notes that:

Whatever nuance Barack Obama is now adding to his Iraq withdrawal strategy, the core plan on his Web site is as plain as day: Obama would “immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months.”

It is a plan that, no doubt, helped Obama get his party’s nomination, but one that may prove difficult if he is elected president.

Of course, liberals don’t let little things like facts get in the way.

And of course, we now know that Obama’s “core plans” – just like his website itself – are both subject to change without notice.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 517 other followers