Archive for February, 2011

14 Wisconsin Democrat Deserters: ‘Jobs? We Don’t Need No Stinking Jobs!’

February 28, 2011

“I don’t think it does anybody any good when public employees are denigrated or vilified or their rights are infringed upon,” said totally-in-da-pocket-of-da-unions Barry Hussein.

Okay, so it’s bad to denigrate or vilify public employees.

Except the governor of the state, who is a public employee whom the public UNION employees have damned as Adolf Hitler and as a Nazi.  Barry could care less about vilifying the governor as Hitler.  Because if he had one more particle of hypocrite inside of him it would explode right out of his thin skin.

Barry Hussein’s on the side of chief AFL-CIO thug Richard Trumka, you see.  And since Scott Walker is a public employee who ISN’T in the union’s pocket, it’s FINE to tee off on him in the most hateful way imaginable:

Union Chief Doesn’t Condemn Comparisons of Wisconsin’s Walker to Hitler
Published February 27, 2011
| FoxNews.com

Fox News Channel

The head of one of the nation’s most powerful labor unions did not condemn the violent rhetoric in placards and signs held by union supporters demonstrating in Wisconsin despite two direct attempts Sunday to get him on the record declaring them inappropriate.

On several occasions over the past two weeks of demonstrations in the Wisconsin capital of Madison news media have zeroed in on signs that liken Republican Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker to Nazi leader Adolf Hitler and recently ousted Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak

Appearing Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka was twice asked whether he found the tone at the nearly two-week long demonstrations “wrong” or “inappropriate.”

Trumka did not answer […]

Apparently it is PERFECTLY okay to denigrate public employees.  At least by Barry Hussein’s twisted standards.  That’s the way scumbags like Trumka and Obama roll.

That’s one lie from Barry Hussein.  Another one is that he gives a damn about jobs.  Because his rigid union ideology is about to cost at least a thousand of them tomorrow:

Governor gives Wisconsin Democrats an ultimatum
By David Bailey

MADISON, Wisc. | Mon Feb 28, 2011 5:41pm EST

MADISON, Wisc. (Reuters) – Republican Gov. Scott Walker on Monday gave absent Democratic lawmakers an ultimatum to return to Wisconsin within 24 hours and vote on a proposal to reduce the power of public sector unions or the state would miss out on a debt restructuring.

Walker stepped up the pressure on 14 Senate Democrats who fled the state to avoid a vote on the bill as he prepared to unveil on Tuesday a two-year state budget that he said cuts $1 billion from funding to local governments and schools.

What began as one small state trying to rewrite the rules of labor relations has blown up into what could be the biggest confrontation with American labor unions since then President Ronald Reagan fired striking air traffic controllers in 1981.

For the second time since the controversy erupted, President Barack Obama weighed into the debate on Monday criticizing the Wisconsin plan without mentioning it by name.

“I don’t think it does anybody any good when public employees are denigrated or vilified or their rights are infringed upon,” Obama told the nation’s governors gathered in Washington.

Wisconsin’s Walker immediately issued a response, saying: “I’m sure that President Obama simply misunderstands the issues in Wisconsin.”

Pro-union demonstrators continued to occupy the State Capitol building on Monday after some of them refused to leave on Sunday night. Capitol police, who had allowed the protesters to stay in the building for more than a week, on Monday prevented more from entering even though it was a week day.

So far the police have been tolerant of the protesters and no arrests have been made.

Walker’s budget proposal brought out the biggest protest crowd since the Vietnam War in Madison over the weekend.

A new poll released on Monday suggested that if the 2010 election could be replayed the Wisconsin governor might lose. The Public Policy Polling survey found that if the election were repeated the result would flip with Walker’s Democratic opponent Tom Barrett getting 52 percent and Walker 45 percent. Walker won with 52 percent in November. The shift came mainly from union households.

The Wisconsin proposal would require public sector employees to pay more for pensions and health care, strip some of their unions of bargaining rights except for wages up to the rate of inflation and require yearly recertification votes.

The proposal was approved by the state Assembly last week but is stalled in the Senate because the 14 Democrats have fled the state to avoid a vote.

The proposal includes a restructuring of the state’s debt that Walker said would save $165 million. Walker said this restructuring deal was in doubt if the Democrats did not return.

“Failure to return to work and cast their votes will lead to more painful and aggressive spending cuts in the very near future,” Walker’s said in a statement.

Under Walker’s proposal, Wisconsin’s general obligation bonds would be restructured and that would push debt service payments due by March 15 into future years.

Democrats differed from Walker’s estimate, quoting on Monday a report from state fiscal analyst Al Runde saying that the restructuring Walker wants would add more than $42 million of interest payments over the long term.

In an interview broadcast on Sunday, Walker said he hoped to delay sending layoff notices to state workers if the legislature makes progress on fixing the budget deficit, according to website wispolitics.com.

But to postpone the layoffs, Walker said it will be necessary that his budget repair bill, including the move to end collective bargaining, go into effect by April 1.

There has been speculation that Walker would send out layoff notices to more than 1,000 state workers if no progress was made soon on the budget.

(Additional reporting by Stefanie Carano in Madison and Wendell Marsh in Washington; Editing by Greg McCune)

For what it’s worth, “Public Policy Polling” is rather like asking what Media Matters thinks about something.  It is very left leaning with Democrat connections.  Try most accurate Rasmussen and you get a dramatically different result.

I mean, everyone I talked to says Walker is right-on.  And the fact that I only talked to Republicans really doesn’t have anything to do with anything.

The most important thing for the moment is tomorrow’s deadline for Democrats to return.  We can take the first two and last two sentences of the Reuters article to cut to the chase:

MADISON, Wisc. (Reuters) – Republican Gov. Scott Walker on Monday gave absent Democratic lawmakers an ultimatum to return to Wisconsin within 24 hours and vote on a proposal to reduce the power of public sector unions or the state would miss out on a debt restructuring.

Walker stepped up the pressure on 14 Senate Democrats who fled the state to avoid a vote on the bill as he prepared to unveil on Tuesday a two-year state budget that he said cuts $1 billion from funding to local governments and schools. […]

But to postpone the layoffs, Walker said it will be necessary that his budget repair bill, including the move to end collective bargaining, go into effect by April 1.

There has been speculation that Walker would send out layoff notices to more than 1,000 state workers if no progress was made soon on the budget.

The fact of the matter is that Walker may have to end up laying off 6,000 workers, not just 1,000:

Wisconsin is broke. The current budget is already $137 million in the red. The 2011–2013 biennial budget faces a $3.6 billion hole. So Governor Walker has called the legislature into special session and presented them with an emergency budget. His plan closes the deficit without raising taxes.

Government employees in Wisconsin get amazing benefits. They get a generous defined-benefit pension with minimal contributions on their part. They also only pay 6 percent of the cost of their health-care premiums. Few taxpayers enjoy anything this generous.

Government employees get these benefits because of the special privileges government unions enjoy. Government workers in many states — including Wisconsin — must pay union dues or lose their jobs. The state subsidizes their fundraising by using its payroll system to collect these forced dues.

This gives the union movement billions of dollars, which it uses to elect favored candidates. The American Federation of State and County Municipal Employees (AFSCME) spent more than any other outside group in the last election. Government unions have used this political clout to hijack state government to serve their interests.

Governor Walker could have raised taxes or fired 6,000 state employees. Instead, like Governor Christie, he decided to actually fix the problems that brought Wisconsin to this point. His budget limits government collective bargaining to just wages, taking benefits and work rules off the bargaining table. He would also require voters to approve any raises above inflation. Walker would prevent government unions from forcing taxpayers to cough up for their gold-plated benefits.

Democrats don’t give a damn about creating jobs.  They only care about UNION jobs. 

And it looks like tomorrow they’ll prove it.

Advertisements

Newsflash: Wikileaks Verify That Saddam Hussein Had WMD AFTER George W. Bush Invaded Iraq

February 28, 2011

It’s really quite remarkable what the mainstream media gatekeepers somehow think isn’t worth reporting.

I would not have come across this story at all had I not been investigating the site of Questioning with boldness (his article link is here). 

Here’s the story Questioning with Boldess links to (I add the bold font):

WikiLeaks docs prove Saddam had WMD, threats remain
by Seth Mandel
October 28, 2010

WikiLeaks’ latest publication of Iraq war documents contains a lot of information that most reasonable people would prefer remained unknown, such as the names of Iraqi informants who will now be hunted for helping the U.S.

And although the anti-war left welcomed the release of the documents, they would probably cringe at one of the most significant finds of this latest crop of reports: Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

“By late 2003, even the Bush White House’s staunchest defenders were starting to give up on the idea that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq,” Wired magazine’s Danger Room reports. “But WikiLeaks’ newly-released Iraq war documents reveal that for years afterward, U.S. troops continued to find chemical weapons labs, encounter insurgent specialists in toxins and uncover weapons of mass destruction.”

That is, there definitively were weapons of mass destruction and elements of a WMD program in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq when U.S.-led coalition troops entered the country to depose Hussein.

Predictably, the liberal media did their best to either ignore the story–like the New York Times and Washington Post did–or spin it. It’s not an easy choice to make, since ignoring the story makes you look out of the loop and hurts your reputation as an informative publication, yet spinning the story means actively attempting to confuse and mislead your readers. CBS News chose the latter.

“WikiLeaks Iraq War Logs: No Evidence of Massive WMD Caches” read the headline on CBS News’ online. Here is the story’s opening paragraph:

“The nearly 400,000 Iraq war log documents released by WikiLeaks on Friday were full of evidence of abuses, civilian deaths and the chaos of war, but clear evidence of weapons of mass destruction–the Bush administration’s justification for invading Iraq–appears to be missing.”

There are two falsehoods in that sentence, demonstrating the difficulty in trying to spin a clear fact. The Bush administration’s justification for invading Iraq was much broader than WMD–in fact, it was similar to the litany of reasons the Clinton administration signed the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which specifically called for regime change in Iraq as the official policy of the United States government (Iraq had repeatedly violated international law, Iraq had failed to comply with the obligations that ended the Gulf War, Iraq had circumvented U.N. resolutions, etc.).

“If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow,” President Clinton said in February 1998. “Some day, some way, I guarantee you, he’ll use the arsenal.”

The second falsehood was the phrase “appears to be missing.” In August 2004, American soldiers seized a toxic “blister agent,” a chemical weapon used since the First World War, Wired reported. In Anbar province, they discovered a chemical lab and a “chemical cache.” Three years later, U.S. military found buried WMD, and even as recent as 2008 found chemical munitions.

This isn’t the first time Iraq war documents shattered a media myth about Saddam’s regime. In 2008, a Pentagon study of Iraqi documents, as well as audio and video recordings, revealed connections between Saddam’s regime and al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. Called the Iraqi Perspectives Project (IPP), the report–based on more than 600,000 captured original documents and thousands of hours of audio and video recordings–proved conclusively that Saddam had worked with terrorist organizations that were plotting attacks on American targets around the world.

One way to identify a media narrative in deep trouble is the naked attempt to draw conclusions for the reader instead of just presenting the story. The CBS report on the leaked WMD documents is a case in point of the reporter telling the reader what they ought to think, knowing full well that otherwise the facts of the case would likely lead the reader to the opposite conclusion.

“At this point,” CBS reporter Dan Farber desperately pleads, “history will still record that the Bush administration went into Iraq under an erroneous threat assessment that Saddam Hussein was manufacturing and hoarding weapons of mass destruction.”

That’s as close as the liberal mainstream media will get to admitting they were wrong. It’s their version of a confession. The myth that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq was WMD-free has met its demise.

And these weapons couldn’t simply be the lost scraps of Saddam’s attempts to destroy the stockpile, as Ed Morrissey points out.

“Had Saddam Hussein wanted those weapons destroyed, no lower-ranking military officer would have dared defy him by keeping them hidden,” he writes. “It would have taken dozens of officers to conspire to move and hide those weapons, as well as a like number of enlisted men, any and all of whom could have been a spy for the Hussein clique.”

But now that we’ve answered the question of whether there were actual weapons of mass destruction in Iraq–there were and are–we may have a more significant question to answer: Who has possession of these weapons now?

“But the more salient issue may be how insurgents and Islamic extremists (possibly with the help of Iran) attempted to use these lethal and exotic arms,” Wired reports. In 2006, for example, “neuroparalytic” chemical weapons were brought in from Iran.

“That same month, then ‘chemical weapons specialists’ were apprehended in Balad,” the Wired report continues. “These ‘foreigners’ were there specifically ‘to support the chemical weapons operations.’ The following month, an intelligence report refers to a ‘chemical weapons expert’ that ‘provided assistance with the gas weapons.’ What happened to that specialist, the WikiLeaked document doesn’t say.”

Seth Mandel is the Washington DC based correspondent of Weekly Blitz.

Figures.

Given the fact that Saddam Hussein obviously had WMD prior to the invasion (it is a documented fact of history that he used them against Iran in their war, and it is a documented fact of history that Saddam used WMD on his own people in Iraqi Kurdistan in 1988).

It is also a fact of history that prior to George W. Bush invading Iraq in 2003, inspectors had been kicked out of Iraq by Saddam for over four years, having been expelled by Saddam Hussein in 1998 during the Clinton administration.

Given the simple fact that Iraq is a country the size of Texas, and given the fact that Iraq knew full well exactly when US and allied satellites passed over their country, and given the fact that Saddam Hussein’s own generals believed that Iraq in fact did possess WMD –

March 13, 2006
NY Times: Saddam’s generals believed they had WMD to repel US
By Jim Kouri

The New York Times reports that just prior to the United States lead invasion, Iraq’s dictator Saddam Hussein informed his top generals that he had destroyed his stockpiles of chemical weapons three months before their war plans meeting.

According to the Times report, the generals all believed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and were counting on the WMD to repel the oncoming coalition invaders.

While reporting on this story, Fox News Channel’s Bill O’Reilly said he is not surprised that the CIA and other nations believed Saddam had WMD since Hussein’s own generals believed they had them. He said that this proves President Bush did not lie and that he believed what Saddam’s own generals believed — that Iraq possessed stockpiles of WMD.

O’Reilly also rhetorically asked when the Democrat Senators Reid, Kennedy, Durbin and others would apologize for calling President Bush a liar about WMD. He also asked when liberals such as Barbara Streisand, Jessica Lange and other would apologize to Bush for calling him a liar. […]

– you will explain to me how we know that Iraq didn’t have WMD how, exactly???

I mean, you dug up the entire country, did you?

Given the type of murderous crazy dictator thug Saddam was, and given the fact that he clearly had possesed WMD, and given the fact that he had in fact kicked out all the weapons inspectors from a country the size of Texas for more than four years, it would seem a no-brainer that the burden of proof clearly rested with the side that claimed that Saddam Hussein had entirely abandoned his WMD arsenal and program.  Which pretty much proves my contention that liberals truly don’t have any brains.  They are people who literally will themselves to be truly stupid; they determine to believe a depraved and asinine worldview that has nothing whatsoever to do with reality by sheer brute force of will.

That explains why so many American university professors continue to be Marxists (nearly one in five!!!) even though Marxism couldn’t have been proven to be more completely wrong and immoral both as an economic and as a political system.

Liberals are people who live in a bubble-world.  They live in a world of their own theories, and hate the real world.  And if the facts don’t fit their theories, well, they dominate the media and get to write the news stories, don’t they???

It is a good thing that journalists are atheists, because that means they don’t have to worry about the fact that one day they will burn in hell forever and ever for their rabid bias and dishonesty.

Wisconsin Cut-and-Run Democrats Are FleeBaggers

February 26, 2011

Michelle Malkin has a way with words.  Handle her wit with extreme care, because that sucker is razor sharp.

We were called “tea baggers” by journalists like CNN’s Anderson Cooper who masquerades as someone who is remotely objective.  The word “tea baggers,” as Cooper made sure we understood, is a crude sexual reference to a rather disgusting act.

And, of course, we were also called “Astroturf” by liberals like Nancy Pelosi, which was an accusation that somehow we weren’t an authentic grass roots movement. 

Now we’ve got liberal union thugs being bussed in to protest events from all over the country, and we get to see what morally intelligent people knew all along: that if you want to see actual Astroturf, look at the Democrats’ field.

And in honor of the 14 Wisconsin Democrats who actually fled the state so that democracy could not take place (well, unless showing up and voting is somehow the OPPOSITE of the democratic process), Michelle Malkin has coined a new term: “fleebaggers.”

Fleebaggers: The New Cut-and-Run Democrats
By Michelle Malkin  •  February 23, 2011

First lady Michelle Obama said, “Let’s Move!” Who knew Democratic politicians in Wisconsin and Indiana would take her literally?

Faced with stifling debt, bloated pensions and intractable government unions, liberal Midwestern legislators have fled those states — paralyzing Republican fiscal reform efforts. Like Monty Python’s Brave Sir Robin and his band of quivering knights, these elected officials have only one plan when confronted with political hardship or economic peril: Run away, run away, run away.

Scores of Fleebagger Democrats are now in hiding in neighboring Illinois, the nation’s sanctuary for political crooks and corruptocrats. Soon, area hotels will be announcing a special discount rate for card-carrying FleePAC winter convention registrants. Question: Will the White House count the economic stimulus from the mass Democratic exodus to Illinois as jobs “saved” or “created”? More important question: How much are taxpayers being charged for these obstructionist vacations?

Voters have spoken: In Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio and across the heartland, they put Republican adults in charge of cleaning up profligate Democrat-engineered messes. Instead of defending their same old tax-hiking, union-protecting, spending-addicted ways, Democrats are crossing their state borders into big government sanctuary zones — screaming “la, la, la, we can’t hear you” all the way.

Wisconsin Democrats warned that their delinquent members — evading state troopers and literally phoning it in — could be gone “for weeks” to prevent a quorum on GOP Gov. Scott Walker’s modest plan to increase public union workers’ health insurance and pension contributions, end the compulsory union dues racket and rein in collective bargaining powers run amok.

Big Labor insists its intransigence isn’t about money, but about “rights.” But the dispute is about nothing but money and power — the union’s power to dictate and limit its members’ health insurance choices to a lucrative union-run plan, for example, which adds nearly $70 million in unnecessary taxpayer costs.

On Tuesday, only three of 40 House Democrats in Indiana showed up for legislative debate on a similar bill to end forced unionism and join 22 other “right to work” states. Hoosier media reported that some of the fugitive pols may be headed to Kentucky in addition to President Obama’s old political stomping grounds.

The White House and Beltway Democrats have paved the way for subverting deliberative democracy, of course. If only Republicans in Wisconsin and Indiana had followed the Obama/Pelosi/Reid model and rammed their behind-closed-doors-crafted legislative agenda through in the middle of the night on a holiday weekend, the Fleebaggers wouldn’t be on the lam today. But GOP legislators just don’t roll that way. It’s Democrats who cut and run — abroad in wartime and at home in crisis.

Almost eight years ago, more than 50 Texas Democratic state lawmakers holed up in Oklahoma and New Mexico for weeks to stymie a vote on Republican-sponsored redistricting plans they opposed. Over the past week, it was thousands of public school teachers in Wisconsin who faked illness and boycotted their classrooms. And it’s union henchmen calling out loud for statewide strikes to bring Republican reformers to their knees.

The Party of Truancy has become a laughingstock — and Americans aren’t waiting for left-wing late-night comedians to bring down the hammer of well-earned mockery. The Internet has lit up over the past week with “Wanted” posters and all-points-bulletin alerts for missing Democrats.

Blogger John Hayward of the conservative Human Events newspaper joked that “the next issue of National Geographic will track the migratory patterns of fugitive Democrats across the great plains.” Seton Motley of LessGovernment.org weighed in: “First, Wisconsin. Now, Indiana. When we said ‘runaway government,’ it was a complaint — not a suggestion.” Comedian Stephen Kruiser snickered that OFA — the Democrats’ political organizing arm, Organizing for America — now stands for “Organizing Fleeing Americans.”

Note: Many of the loudest Washington and Hollywood critics of former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s decision to resign from office in 2009 are themselves now AWOL on the Wisconsin and Indiana AWOL-ians. Who’s all for mocking “quitters” now? Anyone?

One mortified Wisconsin taxpayer speaks for many. “As the daughter of former Wisconsin Senate Minority Floor Leader William R. Moser (D-Milwaukee, Dist. 6),” Mary Magdalen Moser told me, she’s humiliated by the “flee-bagging” politicians. “I am ashamed of the actions taken by the minority party to subvert our system of government by boycotting its legitimate processes. Anarchy is undemocratic, and I know that my Dad is spinning in his grave right now. … I do not support refusing to participate, because that will not solve any of the issues facing our state.”

Remember the 2008 Democratic Party chant: “Fired up! Ready to go!” Well, there’s a new Democratic Party motto in town: “Ready to go? OK, then, let’s blow this pop stand!” It’s difficult to see how Obama and his absconder allies can “win the future” when they’re stampeding over each other to escape the present.

I remember not that long ago when liberals were actually tearing into Republicans merely for VOTING their consciences.  How DARE they not support us in our hard-core liberal agenda that we rammed down their throats?  Then it was un-American to show up to vote.  As long as you were a Republican.

They sneered at us, “Elections have consequences.  And you lost!”  But as angry as we were about every trick in the book used to ram home a liberal agenda, we showed up every day to fight our cause.

Democrats abused their power.  They abused the people’s trust.  And they lost that trust massively as displayed in November.

Now, all of a sudden, elections SHOULDN’T have consequences.  Now, all of a sudden, any vile dirty trick is fine as long as its liberals who get to play them.

The Democrats are now fleeing their states so they don’t have to attend to the democratic process of that state and do its business.  They flee to other liberal states so that they won’t be sent back in handcuffs.  If this were the national Congress, these Democrats would be fleeing to Cuba or North Korea or Libya where similar-minded dictators would welcome them as they turn their backs on democracy.  That’s what the Democrat Party has degenerated to.

Principle means staying in the ring and fighting, even when the fight isn’t going your way.  Just imagine if Republicans had decided that they didn’t want to play “democracy” any longer and fled town during the ObamaCare debacle.  Imagine how they would have rightly been excoriated by the media!!!

Republicans in Wisconsin – and anywhere else Democrats play this un-American game of shutting down democracy by literally fleeing from their states like child molesters – need to first pass every non-budget item in their agenda.  Every single one, such that they can set the Democrat Party in that state back 100 years for refusing to represent their constituents.  And then they should strip the collective bargaining element of the budget out and then vote for it as a non-budgetary matter.

Of course, now that Democrats say it’s fine to shut down the government, now that Democrats say it’s fine to ignore democratic processes and simply run out of town, shutting down the government this way should become the new norm.  The only reason this wouldn’t be the case is because Democrats are inherent childish hypocrites who damn others for doing what they did first.  And America will therefore continue – led by vile Democrats – to degenerate.  Democrats are like a giant reciprocating engine, whose every downward stroke and counterstroke inevitably drives the whole culture further and further down into the sewers of a banana republic.

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

February 25, 2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

FUCK THE TROOPS
A Beastly Opinion


By Ian Murphy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Democrats Scream ‘Shame’; Apparently There Is A Big Mirror On The Wisconsin Assembly Floor

February 25, 2011

The liberal thug pals of the Democrat “fleebaggers” who are running from the law like a bunch of child molesters –

Question: what do Egypt’s Mubarak, Libya’s Gaddafi and America’s Democrats have in common?

Answer: they’re in hiding.

– are in the Wisconsin Assembly floor screaming “shame!”

The Assembly is a strange place to put a mirror, but the Democrats clearly saw themselves and spontaneously erupted.

I yell “shame!” when I see a Democrat, too, for what it’s worth.

And why should Democrats be ashamed of themselves?

Why Government Unions Are Proof That Democrats Have Become An Inherently Un-American Threat

Why FDR Would Have Denounced The Modern Democrat Party As Un-American

That’s why.

Just In Case You DIDN’T Know Why Obama Has Refused To Denounce Gaddafi By Name

February 25, 2011

Question: why has Obama’s response to the genocidal conduct in Libya by dictator Gaddafi been so extraordinarily weak?

July 17, 2010
O what a web
Camie Davis

Remember as a kid drawing connect-the-dots pictures?  Simply follow the dots and a clear picture emerges.  As an adult, connecting the dots of Obama’s actions leads to an oxymoronic picture.  A clear picture of a murky web.  Obama’s actions continually link him to people and causes that the majority of Americans do not support. The recent event of another aid ship sailing to Gaza is an example of to whom and what the strands of Obama’s web link him, and unfortunately America.

Last year, right around the time Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi called Obama “our son,” Obama earmarked $400,000 for two Libyan charities. The money was divided between two foundations run by Gaddafi’s children; Gaddafi International Charity and Development Foundation, run by his son Saif, and Wa Attassimou, run by his daughter Aicha.  What noble causes did our tax dollars potentially help support thanks to Obama’s generosity?

Funding of the ship Amalthea:  The Amalthea sailed to Israel with the intent of breaking the Israeli blockade on Hamas.  It carried aid for a pseudo humanitarian crisis and supporters who were said to be “keen on expressing solidarity with the Palestinian people in the plight amidst the siege imposed on Gaza.”  The ship was funded by Saif Gaddafi’s charity, Gaddafi International Charity and Development Association.  Obama’s friend, Bill Ayers, joined attempt #1 against Israel’s blockade on Hamas.  Saif joined attempt #2.  One has to wonder which of Obama’s friends will step up to the plate at attempt #3. 

The release of Lockerbie bomber Abdel Baset al-Megrahi:  Saif Gaddafi was involved in negotiating the convicted bomber’s release, and accompanied him back to Libya, where al-Megrahi was praised and welcomed.  For those who have forgotten the extent of the carnage of the Lockerbie bombing, 270 people, including 189 Americans, were killed.

Honoring Iraqi journalist, Muntazer al-Zaidi:  Al-Zaidi is the journalist who threw his shoe at President George W. Bush.  He was given a bravery award by Aicha Gaddafi’s charity, Wa Attassimou.  The charity stated that al-Zaidi’s actions “represented a victory for human rights across the world.”

As long as we are connecting the dots between Obama and Libya, now seems a good time to remember that the state department issued an official apology to Libya after spokesman P.J. Crowley made disparaging comments about Gaddafi’s call for jihad against Switzerland.  Apparently Crowley spoke on instinct instead of running his reaction by Libya’s “son” first.  As an Obamian spinmeister, Crowley learned that one doesn’t speak ill of “family.”

What a web Obama continues to spin.  One can only hope he falls into it soon, before all of American is smothered by it.

You’d actually think that would be complete, given how much damning association is there.  But you’d be wrong:

Obama’s Mystery Links to Qaddafi Uncovered

By Aaron Klein

As pressure mounts on the White House to intervene to stop Moammar Gadhafi’s bloody crackdown in Libya, many commentators have been wondering why Barack Obama has been cautious in his criticism of the dictator after the U.S. president so fervently supported the removal from office of U.S. ally Hosni Mubarak of Egypt.

But Gadhafi has been tied to Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s spiritual adviser for more than 23 years.

The Libyan dictator also has financed and strongly supported the Nation of Islam and its leader, Louis Farrakhan. Obama has ties to Farrakhan and his controversial group. Read more at wnd.com.

Qaddafi: Barack Obama Is Friend

By Roee Nahmias

Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi considers the US president a blessing to the Muslim world. In a speech published in London-based al-Hayat newspaper on Saturday, Gaddafi praised Barack Obama, called him a “friend” and said there is no longer any dispute between his country and the US.

He said, “Now, ruling America is a black man from our continent, an African from Arab descent, from Muslim descent, and this is something we never imagined – that from Reagan we would get to Barakeh Obama.” Read more at ynetnews.com.

And even THAT doesn’t tell the whole story, given the exchange Obama had with Tim Russert in 2008:

RUSSERT: The title of one of your books, “Audacity of Hope,” you acknowledge you got from a sermon from Reverend Jeremiah Wright, the head of the Trinity United Church. He said that Louis Farrakhan “epitomizes greatness.”

He said that he went to Libya in 1984 with Louis Farrakhan to visit with Moammar Gadhafi and that, when your political opponents found out about that, quote, “your Jewish support would dry up quicker than a snowball in Hell.”

RUSSERT: What do you do to assure Jewish-Americans that, whether it’s Farrakhan’s support or the activities of Reverend Jeremiah Wright, your pastor, you are consistent with issues regarding Israel and not in any way suggesting that Farrakhan epitomizes greatness?

And, of course, Israelis know a lot better now:

Only four percent of Jewish Israelis believe President Obama’s policies are pro-Israel while half oppose a temporary freeze of Jewish settlements in the West Bank, a poll released on Friday found.

The survey, conducted by the Jerusalem Post, found that more than half, 51 percent, considered Obama’s administration to be more pro-Palestinian than pro-Israeli, up slightly from 50 percent in June.

The percentage of Jewish Israelis who consider Obama to be pro-Israel was down from six percent in a much-cited June 19 poll. By comparison, 88 percent of those interviewed in the June survey thought former President George W. Bush was pro-Israel.

And there is frankly more than that. 

All I know is Obama is carrying so much baggage he should be working as Gaddafi’s porter.

Obama was late criticizing Egypt’s Mubarak.  He had his vice president go out and say, “Mubarak isn’t a dictator.”  And only began to criticize Mubarak when it was obvious that that was where the wind was blowing.  And then he said Mubarak’s name over and over and over again.

Obama has yet to specifically mention Muammar Gaddafi by name.  Even as the man massacres his people by the thousands.

Why FDR Would Have Denounced The Modern Democrat Party As Un-American

February 25, 2011

Democrats and the Democrat Party they form have become truly despicable.

I can cite former Democrats such as Dennis Prager who has frequently called himself “a Kennedy liberal.”  He has pointed out, “I didn’t leave the Democrat Party; the Democrat Party left me.”

I can cite Ronald Reagan himself as such a man:

Reagan began his political career as a liberal Democrat, admirer of Franklin D. Roosevelt, and active supporter of New Deal policies, but in the early 1950s he shifted to the right and, while remaining a Democrat, endorsed the presidential candidacies of Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1952 and 1956 as well as Richard Nixon in 1960.[54] His many GE speeches—which he wrote himself—were non-partisan but carried a conservative, pro-business message; he was influenced by Lemuel Boulware, a senior GE executive. Boulware, known for his tough stance against unions and his innovative strategies to win over workers, championed the core tenets of modern American conservatism: free markets, anticommunism, lower taxes, and limited government.[55] Eventually, the ratings for Reagan’s show fell off and GE dropped Reagan in 1962.[56]  That year Reagan formally switched to the Republican Party, stating, “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party. The party left me.”[57]

One of the things that undoubtedly resulted in these two brilliant political thinkers’ sense of abandonment was the fact that they clearly HAD BEEN abandoned by the Democrat Party as it continued to “evolve” (liberals love that word, worshiping it in place of a God who stays the same) into a degenerate spiral.  And it was that profound abandonment of key Democrat liberal views – the abandonment of classical liberalism into something that can only be described today as a hybrid of Marxism and fascism – that then led these men to question their entire political presuppositions that had resulted in their being Democrats in the first place.

Yes, I know, liberals always confidently assure us that Nazism and fascism are right wing.  But how, exactly?  If they say militarism, then how was it that the Soviet Union had the largest and most powerful military machine in the world?  If they say racism, then – apart from their own bigotry – how do they escape their own racism?  If you want to talk about anti-Semitism of the Nazis, it turns out that Democrats are actually far more anti-Semitic than Republicans.  And, again, the genocide of the leftwing Soviet Union dwarfs even that of the Nazis.

So, what exactly is it that makes Nazism “right wing”?  Well, maybe the left would say that the Nazis were “Christian” and left wing ideologies are secular.  But that is hardly true, either.  I document in a previous article (“Hitler Wasn’t ‘Right Wing’, Wasn’t ‘Christian’; And Nazism Was Applied Darwinism“) that Nazism and Christianity had virtually nothing to do with one another, and that in fact Hitler was an acknowledged atheist.

I did not know at the writing of that article that in fact Hitler actually wanted to kidnap Pope Pius XII, and that the SS officer placed in charge of the operation understood that Hitler would have murdered him following his capture.  I don’t see how that doesn’t do anything more than strengthen my case that Hitler was hardly a “Catholic.”

When it comes to Nazi ideology and Nazi policies (not the least of which was the sort of abortion and Darwinian eugenics that liberal progressive and modern-day Democrat Icon Margaret Sanger engaged in), Nazism was far more in line with liberal progressivism than anything remotely conservative.  A couple quick statements by Margaret Sanger, the patron saint of Hillary Clinton:

In Pivot of Civilization, Sanger referred to immigrants and poor folks as “human weeds,” “reckless breeders,” “spawning  … human beings who never should have been born.”

“We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population,” she said, “if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” (Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, by Linda Gordon)

In her “Plan for Peace,” Sanger outlined her strategy for eradication of those she deemed “feebleminded.” Among the steps included in her evil scheme were immigration restrictions; compulsory sterilization; segregation to a lifetime of farm work; etc. (Birth Control Review, April 1932, p. 107)

And I also show in a comment to that article that Nazism was far, FAR more in line with Democrat Party liberalism than it ever could be Republican Party conservatism when it came to big government and big government policies.

Jonah Goldberg points out that Nazism was in fact “far right.”  But only in the sense that the Nazi Party, i.e. the National Socialist German Workers Party, was the far right of the extreme left.

A good article I recently found on the subject of socialism and fascism is available here.  Basically, the latter is simply a particular species of the former.

American conservatism calls for a strong military defense, yes.  But as we shall see, so also did FDR.  And in every other aspect, consistent conservatism calls for limited and small national government.  Which was the diametric opposite of Adolf Hitler’s Nazi project, which controlled every sphere of life the same way the Democrat Party tried to do during the last two years when they had power.

If you think for so much as an instant that Adolf Hitler wanted less centralized power for himself and more control in the hands of the states/districts and the individual people – as Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh and conservatives constantly talk about – you simply couldn’t be any more ignorant.

That said, just what are the two fundamental issues I claim in my title that FDR would have denounced in the Democrat Party of today?

They are military power and the willingness to use it (i.e., the heart of any foreign policy) and government or public employee unions (i.e., the heart of Democrat’s domestic agenda).

These are no small matters: the former is central to any rational foreign policy and the latter has become central to Democrat domestic policy.

I describe FDR’s fundamental opposition to government unions and the reasons he was opposed to them here.  And I provide FDR’s very own words and his very own reasoning.  Suffice it to say that as pro-union as FDR was, he was profoundly opposed to government/public sector employees having the very sort of collective bargaining rights that Democrats today routinely demand for the public sector unions which constitute the bulk of union power today, and which massively contributes almost exclusively to the Democrat Party machine.  FDR realized that these employees were employees not of some unfair private company, but of the American people.  He also recognized that the government becomes a monopoly unto itself, and that government unions striking 1) exploited that monopoly power in an unfair and un-American way, and 2) was a defacto attack against the American people.

Please read the article above for more.

That leaves the other issue, the foreign policy issue of military power and the willingness to use it to deal with threats to the nation.

A speech by British Prime Minister Winston Churchill could have been given today to expose the American liberal views of Democrats basically since Lyndon Baines Johnson refused to seek re-election after liberals turned on him.  It certainly powerfully applies to the Democrat positions in the war on terror – that Obama once refused to even acknowledge – of today.  Churchill began:

I have but a short time to deal with this enormous subject and I beg you therefore to weigh my words with the attention and thought which I have given to them.

As we go to and fro in this peaceful country with its decent, orderly people going about their business under free institutions and with so much tolerance and fair play in their laws and customs, it is startling and fearful to realize that we are no longer safe in our island home.

For nearly a thousand years England has not seen the campfires of an invader. The stormy sea and our royal navy have been our sure defense. Not only have we preserved our life and freedom through the centuries, but gradually we have come to be the heart and center of an empire which surrounds the globe.

It is indeed with a pang of stabbing pain that we see all this in mortal danger. A thousand years has served to form a state; an hour may lay it in dust.

What shall we do? Many people think that the best way to escape war is to dwell upon its horrors and to imprint them vividly upon the minds of the younger generation. They flaunt the grisly photograph before their eyes. They fill their ears with tales of carnage. They dilate upon the ineptitude of generals and admirals. They denounce the crime as insensate folly of human strife. Now, all this teaching ought to be very useful in preventing us from attacking or invading any other country, if anyone outside a madhouse wished to do so, but how would it help us if we were attacked or invaded ourselves that is the question we have to ask.

Would the invaders consent to hear Lord Beaverbrook’s exposition, or listen to the impassioned appeals of Mr. Lloyd George? Would they agree to meet that famous South African, General Smuts, and have their inferiority complex removed in friendly, reasonable debate? I doubt it. I have borne responsibility for the safety of this country in grievous times. I gravely doubt it.

But even if they did, I am not so sure we should convince them, and persuade them to go back quietly home. They might say, it seems to me, “you are rich; we are poor. You seem well fed; we are hungry. You have been victorious; we have been defeated. You have valuable colonies; we have none. You have your navy; where is ours? You have had the past; let us have the future.” Above all, I fear they would say, “you are weak and we are strong.”

Churchill gave that speech back in 1934.  Just imagine how much unparalleled human suffering would never have happened if only the weak and appeasing policies of the leftist bleeding hearts had not triumphed!  The left wrongly claim to stand for peace and compassion and every good thing.  But the exact opposite is true, as they have in fact murdered millions and millions of innocent human beings with their naive and morally stupid policies.  And to whatever extent liberals have good intentions, the road to hell is paved with liberal intentions.

Think back to Obama’s positions as a candidate in which he demonized Bush’s war in Iraq and his surge strategy.  Think of Obama’s incredibly naive and incredibly failed policy of talking to Iran without preconditions.

I could go on all day about Democrats taking on the views that Churchill condemned; that our enemies really aren’t that evil and how we can talk to them and reach some kind of accord short of fighting them.  It is as naive and morally idiotic today as it was in the era of Churchill and – yes – Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

I did not realize this until I watched a program I viewed on the Military History Channel called “Decisions That Shook the World.”  But FDR rapidly became what we would today call a neo-conservative.

In the late 1930s, FDR began to watch with growing horror as the Nazis began to take over Europe.  In secret letters to Winston Churchill, he offered his moral support to the Allies.  FDR knew that if the people – who did NOT want to become entangled in what they saw as a European war – were to find out about these letters, they would turn against him in outrage.  The American people in the 1930s and early 1940s were crystal clear that they did not want to become involved in another world war in Europe.  As it was, at the very time that the American people were the most worried about FDR secretly getting involved in the war behind their backs, FDR was in fact secretly corresponding with Churchill to do that very thing.  FDR also – again secretly – ordered his military commanders to devise a secret military plan with Great Britain for when FDR was able to involve America in the war against Hitler in Europe.

Now, today, it would be very easy to condemn FDR as duplicitous.  And he WAS incredibly duplicitous.  FDR was a man – we find out in the words of the historians who narrated the “Decisions” program – who had no problem saying and doing things in private that he very much did not want to be known in public.  As an example, FDR, in direct defiance of the United States Supreme Court – directed his Attorney General to wiretap suspected spies.  That was literally an impeachable offense.  FDR was breaking the law to deal with what he saw as a growing threat against America.

Rep. Wendell Wilkie, the Republican candidate for president in the 1940 election – warned the American people, “If you elect FDR, he will get you into a war you don’t want.”  And FDR, deceitfully, in a speech, said, “That charge is contrary to every fact, every purpose of the past eight years.”  It was, as history documents, a complete lie.

Another lie FDR told the people came on the eve of the 1940 election.  FDR told mothers, “I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again: Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars.”  And it is hard to imagine a more dishonest promise, given that he was at the moment he said those words doing everything he knew how to get America into the war in Europe.

One of the points the historians made clear is that, “If all of Roosevelt’s acts were publicly known, he likely would have been impeached.”  He most certainly would NOT have been re-elected in 1940.

FDR was reelected on the promise that he would not do what in fact he was determined to do.

In 1940, the “anti-war” candidate was the Republican, Wendell Wilkie.  He had the virtue of being honest, but likely on the wrong side of history (we can’t know for sure what would have happened had the United States not become involved in World War II, but it doesn’t look pretty).  Democrat FDR may have had the virtue of being right, but he was certainly profoundly dishonest.

Now, I could write how FDR was quite constant with other modern liberal presidents who say one thing and do the exact opposite (I’m speaking directly about Barack Obama, the examples of which are now already legion).  But that isn’t my project here.  My project is to point out that, when it came to being prepared for war and then fighting that war, FDR was fundamentally in opposition to the modern Democrat Party agenda.

That briefly stated, it was the Republican Party which ultimately came to realize that FDR was correct in his views of the military and the need to vigorously defend American national security.  And it was the Democrats who came to turn on FDR’s realization and abandon his views.

They didn’t do so all at once, or right away.  As much as modern liberals tried to attack Ronald Reagan as putting the world on the brink of nuclear war in his Cold War stand against the powerful Soviet Union, one President John F. Kennedy was every bit the cold warrior that Reagan ever was.  And, again, any liberal who doubts this is simply a fundamentally ignorant human being.  That said, it was during the Kennedy presidency that JFK cynically – and by executive fiat rather than any vote by Congress – allowed the government unions that came to own the Democrat Party lock, stock and barrel to collectively bargain as a means to help the Democrat Party.  And the moral collapse of the Democrat Party was incredibly precipitous after that.

At this point in time, anyone who doubts that radical Islam is easily capable of not only destabilizing the world, but plunging it into economic depression and global war is delusional.  The mere prospect of a collapse of the Libyan government alone could spell enormous problems in the likely event of a civil war in that country.  Oil prices could literally more than double, which would simply obliterate any potential global economic recovery.  If Iran is able to obtain the bomb – which is most assuredly will if it hasn’t already – we will see a rise in Islamic fundamentalism, jihadism and terrorism such that the world has never seen as the Iranian regime rightly sees itself as impervious to any meaningful international action against it.  If that isn’t bad enough, we would also see a nuclear arms race quickly escalate in the craziest region in the history of the planet as Sunni Muslim regimes tried to protect themselves against the Shiite Iranian threat.

For what it’s worth, even as mainstream liberals celebrate and rejoice in the overthrow of one Arab leader after another, it is IRAN which is most benefitting from the chaos.  From the New York Times:

MANAMA, Bahrain — The popular revolts shaking the Arab world have begun to shift the balance of power in the region, bolstering Iran’s position while weakening and unnerving its rival, Saudi Arabia, regional experts said.

I have been warning and warning about this.  But the world listens to Obama, not me.

But in light of Obama’s policy of appeasement, of asking for meetings of minds with no preconditions, allow me to rephrase Churchill’s words to suit our modern-day situation:

Would the invaders consent to hear Barack Obama’s exposition, or listen to the impassioned appeals of Hillary Clinton? Would they agree to meet that famous African, Kofi Annan, and have their inferiority complex removed in friendly, reasonable debate? I doubt it.

Allow me to share with you the consensus view of liberalism today at one of its elite headquarters of Columbia University:

Columbia University is holding a series of public hearings on whether or not to allow ROTC back on campus now that DADT has been repealed. A wounded Iraq veteran who recently enrolled at Columbia took to the microphone and asked fellow students to support ROTC. He was booed, jeered, and called a racist.

Columbia University students heckled a war hero during a town-hall meeting on whether ROTC should be allowed back on campus.

“Racist!” some students yelled at Anthony Maschek, a Columbia freshman and former Army staff sergeant awarded the Purple Heart after being shot 11 times in a firefight in northern Iraq in February 2008. Others hissed and booed the veteran.

The former soldier responded to the jeers with this awesome statement:

“It doesn’t matter how you feel about the war. It doesn’t matter how you feel about fighting,” said Maschek. “There are bad men out there plotting to kill you.”

The despicable so-called “Americans” in the audience only laughed and jeered more.

Anthony Maschek was a staff sergeant with the Army’s 10th Mountain Division. He was shot 11 times and spent two years recovering at Walter Reed. He’s an American hero and those thugs at Columbia are a disgrace. This is no different than those pieces of crap who spit on veterans coming back from Vietnam. It’s disgusting that in 2011 our veterans should have to be heckled by cowards.

Read more: http://www.thehotjoints.com/2011/02/21/wounded-veteran-booed-and-jeered-at-columbia-university/#ixzz1Evn0A8qL

FDR would have turned his back on this Democrat Party as a bunch of contemptible and despicable traitors to the United States of America.  He would have looked at the government unions that today are the sine qua non – the “that without which” – of the Democrat Party machine.  And he would have been disgusted that the entire Democrat Party rests today upon an inherently un-American foundation.  Then this president who risked so much to keep America and the world safe from tyranny would have looked upon the modern Democrat Party and its repeated denunciation of those who would fight America’s most terrifying enemies even as those enemies grew stronger and stronger while we have grown weaker and weaker, and he would have vomited in contempt for the party that he had such a profound role in shaping.

By the very standards of the figures that you cite as your greatest heroes, I denounce you as the pathetic, vile, un-American fools that you truly are, Democrats.

I would say that you should be ashamed of yourselves, but I doubt that you are capable of that virtue in this house-of-card world that you are building now.  And the problem with houses of cards is not merely that they fall; it is also that they tend to burn furiously when a match is struck.

And when the Antichrist warned of by the Scriptures for more than 2,600 years comes (as described in the Books of Daniel and Revelation), it will be Democrats, the quintessential fools, who welcome him with cheers and adoration.

Mainstream Media Propaganda Machine Turns Other Way As Democrats Now Want To ‘Get A Little Bloody’

February 24, 2011

Somehow the mainstream media – which was ALL OVER the fact that many tea party protestors happened to be Caucasian – managed to completely overlook the fact that the liberals being bussed in to raise hell in Wisconsin were whiter than say, oh, a freshly laundered Ku Klux Klansman’s kleenest robe.

Now suddenly the race of the protestors is apparently irrelevant.  Mobs of white LIBERALS are fine.

Oh, well, NEVER EXPECT THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA TO BE FAIR, OBJECTIVE OR HONEST.

We constantly heard of allegations that the tea party was putting up violent and hateful signs from the mainstream media.  It didn’t matter that there was very little of that.  Nor did it matter that the little there was the result of dishonest and despicable leftists.

Now, in Wisconsin, that hateful Nazi swastika Hitler crap abounds.  But it’s liberals hating a Republican, and so the mainstream media just doesn’t seem to find that very newsworthy:

And did you notice just how WHITE and CAUCASIAN those Wisconsin protestors happen to be with their Nazi Hitler swastika signs???

If you hold your breath waiting for the media to actually be fair and objective and give the left the kind of coverage they give the right every single damn day, you will spend the rest of your life unconscious.

There’s another angle to this: the “human sympathy” story angle.  You wait until the government gets shut down in a couple of months, and the media goes over the top making sure that the Republicans get all the blame for a dance that obviously takes two for the tango.  What you will get to see at that time will be an avalanche of stories as “journalists” and “reporters” scour the country looking for every single victim of the government shutdown they can possibly find.

But let me ask you: how many stories have you heard about poor single mothers losing their jobs because public schools canceled their classes because liberal government union teachers were out protesting?  How many stories have you heard about the terrible difficulty poor parents have had trying to scramble for day care for children who should have been in school?

Zero, you say?

Well, don’t you worry.  As soon as the media has some way to frame a story blaming Republicans, they’ll more than make up for that deficiency.

The mainstream media and of course the Democrat Party whose useful idiots the mainstream media are were all over themselves with outrage over the “hate” coming out of the right in the nanoseconds following the Tucson, Arizona shooting in which Gabrielle Giffords was one of the victims.  It didn’t matter that there was zero evidence that the shooter had anything to do with conservatives and if anything was a liberal (and see here and also here).  It didn’t matter if the actual documented hater involved in any way with the shooting was in in fact a documented liberal.  Heck, it didn’t even matter if one of the mainstream media outlets leading the charge to demonize Sarah Palin for the word “target” had used the damn word themselves in the same way Palin had.  The charge was enough.  And if they could make it with really shrill voices, so much the better.

So can you expect to see outrage over a Democrat Representative saying this?

This story is actually worse than first reported, when Capuano made the blood comments to union supporters he was pointing at a small group of Tea Partiers who were brave enough to counter-protest in Boston. Capuano is lucky nobody got hurt.

(Boston Herald) — U.S. Rep. Michael Capuano expressed regret Wednesday for his choice of words at a Tuesday rally to support Wisconsin workers, after national and local Republicans pounced on him for “over-the-top and inflammatory rhetoric.”

“Congressman Mike Capuano must have lost the memo from President Obama and Democratic leaders who were demanding more civility in our political discourse and a toning down of incendiary rhetoric after the massacre in Tucson on January 8,” the Massachusetts Republican Party wrote in a Wednesday statement. “Yesterday, at a rally on Beacon Hill, Capuano couldn’t resist the urge to stir up a crowd of union members with a call for blood in the pursuit and protection of their political agenda.”

During the Tuesday rally — a gathering of more than 1,000 union supporters protesting a proposal by Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker to diminish the collective bargaining rights of public sector workers in that state — Capuano, speaking in front of the State House, fired up the crowd by saying, “I’m proud to be here with people who understand that it’s more than just sending an email to get you going. Every once and awhile you need to get out on the streets and get a little bloody when necessary.”

After Republicans took aim at his rhetoric, Capuano issued a statement expressing regret for his language, although at the time it drew wild applause and cheers from the throngs of union supporters.

Capuano also referred to a vastly outnumbered throng of Tea Party counter-protesters as “a couple of nuts in the background who want to take it all away from you,” waving his hand dismissively in their direction. Throughout the three-hour rally, rank-and-file union members traded heated barbs with the Tea Party backers. Some clashes nearly escalated into violence and resulted in police intervention. In one case, a pro-union rallier spit in the face of one of the counter-protesters, who set up camp near the rally.

Capuano’s comments quickly drew contrasts with the call for a more civil tone in national political rhetoric by President Barack Obama and politicians across the country after a mass shooting in Tucson that injured Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. Capuano was reportedly among those who agreed with Obama’s call, telling the Boston Globe in January, “Everybody knows the last couple of years there’s been an intentional increase in the degree of heat in political discourse . . . If nothing else good comes out of this, I’m hoping it causes people to reconsider how they deal with things.’’

How about the call to violence by the SEIU in its new “fight song”?

SEIU fight song: ‘Take the bastards down’

SEIU posted a fight song on their website called ‘Take ‘Em Down’ and it goes like this: “Ya got take the bastards down. Let them know. We got to smash them to the ground. Let them know. We got to take the bastards down. When the boss comes calling you got to stand your ground. When the boss comes calling let them know.”  With lyrics like that, it’s no wonder the violent SEIU took special notice of the song.

Here’s the screenshot of the SEIU posting this song telling the left to take conservatives down and smash them to the ground:

I’ve said this about the left before: what enrages me about them isn’t that they’ve been engaging in hate for the past fifty years, back when they started spitting on American soldiers and throwing dog shit at them.  It’s that they’ve done this crap for a full generation and then actually have the chutzpah to demonize the right for doing what they themselves have been doing for fifty years.  And then right after they demonize us, they actually go right back to being worse than the very thing they just got through demonizing us for doing.  And the thing that infuriates me even more than that is a media machine that – between self-backpatting for what virtues of journalistic objecivity they are – actually deliberately seek out stories of “rightwing hate” and actually refuse to report episodes of leftwing hate.

Three years into the utterly failed Obama presidency – a presidency, by the way, in which Obama’s core promise was to “transcend the starkly red-and-blue politics of the last 15 years, end the partisan and ideological wars – and five years after Democrats took control of both the House of Representatives and the United States Senate, Democrats can only blame, blame and blame.

This was a nice summary of history:

Let’s look at the deficit history since Clinton was elected with his party in control of both houses of Congress:
1992 290.4 Billion Dollar Deficit – Record
1993 255.1 Billion Dollar Deficit
1994 203.2 Billion Dollar Deficit
(GOP takes control of both houses, watch the deficit decrease)
1995 164 Billion Dollar Deficit
1996 107.5 Billion Dollar Deficit
1997 22 Billion Dollar Deficit
1998 69.2 Billion Dollar Surplus
1999 125.6 Billion Dollar Surplus
2000 236.4 Billion Dollar Surplus
(Bush elected with both houses still in GOP control)
2001 127.3 Billion Dollar Surplus
2002 157.8 Billion Dollar Deficit
(Dems take Senate, post 9-11 bills start piling up)
2003 374 Billion Dollar Deficit – Record
2004 413 Billion Dollar Deficit – Record
(GOP back in control of both houses; deficits going down again)
2005 319 Billion Dollar Deficit
2006 248 Billion Dollar Deficit
(Dems take both houses and retain them through FY 2010)
2007 162 Billion Dollar Deficit
2008 455 Billion Dollar Deficit – Record
(Obama’s first year; both houses have larger Democrat majorities)
2009 1400 Billion Dollar Deficit <<== WTF? Record x 3!!!!!!!
2010 1350 Billion Dollar Deficit

… why do Republicans get blamed for such deficits, when the trend clearly illustrates the reverse is true?
Republicans are always lowering deficits, except when there is a war on — and even then, they keep budgets at lower % of GDP than their Democrat predecessors when they had wars on their watch.

The Republicans last budget that they controlled in FY-2007 had a deficit of $162 billion.  The VERY NEXT YEAR, the Democrats very nearly tripled that figure with their FY-2008 budget of $459 billion.  And by last year the Democrats were spending so shockingly and so recklessly that they didn’t even bother to pass a budget.

There are very few reasons to blame Republicans for the mess that we are now in, and all kinds of reasons to blame Democrats.  But the media will never be fair or honest.

The same media that rushed to give Obama credit for the “magnificent” popular uprising in Egypt are now mysteriously silent as hundreds and more likely thousands of people die in the rampages of Libya as we speak.  And suddenly there’s no mention of the fact that the same wave that started in Tunisia, then overtook Egypt, has now taken root in Yemen and Libya.  Suddenly, as our oil prices begin to skyrocket, it isn’t as “magnificent” anymore.  Even though skyrocketing energy prices were clearly in Obama’s plan for America.

But don’t you forget that Obama and his Organizing for America are bringing the same hysteria we see on our TV screens about the Middle East to states like Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana and Ohio.

And don’t you forget that even as Arabs get bloody in the streets of Tripoli, it is DEMOCRATS who have called for Americans to get bloody in our streets.

Hope ‘n Change Coming To Fruition: Cost Of EVERYTHING About To Go Up

February 23, 2011

Give ’em hell, Obama, you son of hell.

The people voted for God Damn America and it’s time they got their God Damned America.  And the bill for it:

Cost of…everything…about to go up
Updated: Feb 21, 2011 4:02 PM PST

CHARLOTTE, NC (WBTV) – You paid more last month for practically everything you bought.

From food to gas to airfare tickets – even clothing.

And now the price of everything is about to go up again.

A new report from The Labor Department indicates its concern about inflation, and businesses are claiming they can’t absorb the rising cost of commodities alone. Many say they’ll have no choice but to raise prices and shrink packages. Frustrating stuff for an economy that’s supposed to be recovering.

“Things are just not going well,” says Charlotte resident Lisa Bettinghouse. “You have to eat, but you can only have what you can afford, and now it’s getting scary.”

Bettinghouse needs a plan. She’ll be asking herself tough questions, and so should you.

What things should you stock up on now?

What things can you do without?

Take bottled water. Every time you purchase one of these, you already pay a 4,000% markup. Time to reevaluate your tap.

And you should also rethink fruits and vegetables. Right now many stores fly them in, and with the price of fuel, well, you know how expensive they already are.

Charlotte resident Jonathan Weber says he’ll fight the rising costs by sticking to one rule: buy local.

“Local food is important,” Weber says, “because when you consider the transport cost of importing food from Mexico or bringing it across country from California that really is sort of a hidden cost.”

There are a spattering of farmers markets around town, and this summer, thirty local food vendors will move in to the old Reid’s spot uptown.

And when it comes to combating costs, don’t forget about another product of our times – all those money-saving coupon sites.

And if you had half a wit, you would have seen this hell coming long before you vote for this moral idiot.

The headlines now –

Crisis in Libya Raises Fears of Skyrocketing Oil Prices Causing Pain at the Pump

– match what Obama was saying his policy was all along.

Obama has said that higher prices for oil are good.  He just wanted to spread out the pain over a longer period of time.

Obama’s appointments reflect his determination to drive up oil prices and therefore force the American people against their will to embrace his radical leftist energy agenda.  Take Obama’s Secretary of Energy Steven Chu, who has stated on the record that he wanted tofigure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.”  And at the time gasoline prices were close to $8 a gallon.

Electicity?  He was perfectly fine if the cost of electricity skyrocketed.  In fact he said under his policies prices would “necessarily skyrocket.”

These people are getting exactly what they want.  And by “exactly what they want,” I mean the destruction of the American economy so a purely socialist system can be erected in the ashes.

I think of North Korea and Kim Jong Il.  I think of a country that is literally starving due to a leftwing socialist’s policies.  I have said:

Since Obama was elected, I’ve been saying that a third of American voters would continue to support Obama even if he led us into the stone-age-like conditions that Kim Il Jong has led his people into.  We could be living in the dark and freezing at night, and scratching our own fecal matter from the ground in order to have something to burn, and this group of people would still adore their Dear Leader.

The media propaganda and “the state” are so behind Kim Jong Il that even as people starve to death and die, they thank their lucky stars for their “Dear Leader.”  The tiny, emaciated people hang pictures of him in their homes and even literally worship him.  And then I think of Obama, the mainstream media and the government unions.

You voted for our Manchurian candidate.  Now you’ve got the hell you voted for.  You got food that’s twice as expensive but packaged in smaller containers to fool Democrats and other total idiots.

Now, you can either believe Obama’s lies even as he continues to blame everybody but himself for going on three years of abject failure and worsening conditions, or you can join the growing numbers who want this clown and his Democrat party of clowns out of our lives.

Marriage Undefended: Obama Decides To Ignore Law Passed By Congress And Signed By Pres. Clinton

February 23, 2011

Let me first go back to Barack Obama’s own words as candidate for president:

Asked to define marriage, Obama said it “is the union between a man and a woman.”

That was when he was running.  His promises don’t matter though.  This man is a documented liar.  He is an evil man.  Why should his promises and what he said when we was seeking votes matter?

Obama promised that he would transcend the political divide.  The New York Times called that promise “the core of Barack Obama’s presidential campaign.”  And I want someone to explain to me how doing undermining something that Republicans and many Democrats approve of and which was signed into law by Democrat President Bill Clinton isn’t a vicious gut-punch to Obama’s “core promise” to the American people???

That’s first of all.  Second, let’s say that George W. Bush had taken a law – oh, let’s say laws protecting unions or civil rights laws – and said, “I don’t think this is constitutional and we’re not going to uphold it anymore.  We aren’t going to recognize anything that says we have an obligation to recognize that.  I’m president, and I can do whatever I want.”  [See more on the ramifications of this despicable view at the bottom of this article].

Democrats would RIGHTLY have called for Bush’s impeachment.  Because like the laws or don’t like them, the laws of the land are the laws of the land.  And the president has the constitional duty to uphold laws that have been passed by Congress and signed into law by a president of the United States.

This is unthinkable.  It is unconstitutional.  It is an abuse of the office of the presidency.  If Obama gave a flying damn about the Constitution, he could begin by pursuing his role within it and recognizing the authority and the power of both the Legislative and the Judiciary branches which he just stomped all over.  And yes, Barack Obama should be impeached.

President Obama Instructs Justice Department to Stop Defending Defense of Marriage Act calls Clinton-Signed Law “Unconstitutional”
February 23, 2011 12:39 PM
by Jake Tapper, ABC News Senior White House Correspondent

President Obama has instructed the Justice Department to stop defending the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, which has since 1996 allowed states to refuse to recognize same-sex partnerships legally recognized in other states.

The announcement was made in a letter from Attorney General Eric Holder to congressional leaders in relation to two lawsuits, Pedersen v. OPM and Windsor v. United States, which challenge a section of DOMA that defines marriage for federal purposes as only between one man and one woman.

President Obama believes that section – Section 3 — “is unconstitutional” given the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment (including its equal protection component), Holder wrote, and the president has instructed the Department of Justice to no longer defend the law in those two lawsuits.

President Obama “has made the determination,” Holder wrote, that Section 3 “as applied to same-sex couples who are legally married under state law, violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment.”

DOMA was passed by a Republican House and Senate and signed into law by Democratic President Bill Clinton in 1996. In application the law means same-sex couples are not afforded the same rights as straight couples when it comes to Social Security benefits, hospital visitation and other rights.

Following presidential precedent, the Obama administration has been defending the law even though President Obama has long opposed it.

But now, “under heightened scrutiny” since the 2nd circuit court asked for the administration to defend its position given lack of precedent, Holder wrote, the government’s ability to defend the law can no longer be made by “advancing hypothetical rationales, independent of the legislative record, as it has done in circuits where precedent mandates application of rational basis review.  Instead, the United States can defend Section 3 only by invoking Congress’ actual justifications for the law.”

That legislative record, Holder wrote, “contains discussion and debate that undermines any defense under heightened scrutiny.  The record contains numerous expressions reflecting moral disapproval of gays and lesbians and their intimate and family relationships – precisely the kind of stereotype-based thinking and animus the Equal Protection Clause is designed to guard against.”

Chuck Donovan, a senior research fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation said that “After a series of steps that undermined the legal case for the Defense of Marriage Act, the Obama Administration has apparently decided to drop its mask and publicly switch sides.  This action raises the stakes in this litigation even higher, because both portions of DOMA – both the federal definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman, as well as the authority of Congress under Article 4 of the Constitution to interpret the Full Faith and Credit Clause to allow states to protect similar definitions – are now at heightened risk.”

Last month, then-White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said that “we can’t declare the law unconstitutional…The President believes, as you said, that this is a law that should not exist and should be repealed.  But we, at the same time, have to represent the viewpoint of the defendant.” Gibbs said that “given the current makeup of the Congress,” having DOMA repealed would be :inordinately challenging,”

President Obama told Holder that the Executive Branch of the government will continue to enforce Section 3 “consistent with the Executive’s obligation to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, unless and until Congress repeals Section 3 or the judicial branch renders a definitive verdict against the law’s constitutionality.  This course of action respects the actions of the prior Congress that enacted DOMA, and it recognizes the judiciary as the final arbiter of the constitutional claims raised.”

In Zanesville, OH, in June 2008, then-candidate Obama said DOMA “was a unnecessary imposition on what had been the traditional rules governing marriage and how states interact on the issues of marriage.”

“This is a monumental decision for the thousands of same-sex couples and their families who want nothing more than the same rights and dignity afforded to other married couples,” said Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, an advocacy group for gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender individuals. Congressional leaders must not waste another taxpayer dollar defending this patently unconstitutional law. The federal government has no business picking and choosing which legal marriages they want to recognize.  Instead Congress should take this opportunity to wipe the stain of marriage discrimination from our laws.”

-Jake Tapper and Sunlen Miller

UPDATE:

A reminder that in June 2009, President Obama’s DOJ began its defense of the Defense of Marriage Act by invoking incest and adults marrying children.

This did not go over particularly well among some of the president’s supporters.

In July 2010, a judge ruled against the Obama administration.

Also in June 2009, the president extended some benefits to same sex partners of federal employees.

At a news conference in December of 2010, shortly after signing into law a repeal of the military’s ‘don’t ask don’t tell’ policy toward gay servicemembers, I asked the President if it was “intellectually consistent to say that gay and lesbians should be able to fight and die for this country, but they should not be able to marry the people they love?”

Gay marriage, he said, is an issue with which he struggles.

“My feelings about this are constantly evolving,” he said. “I struggle with this.  I have friends, I have people who work for me who are in powerful, strong, long-lasting gay or lesbian unions, and they are extraordinary people, and this is something that means a lot to them and they care deeply about.”

At this point, “unconstitutional” becomes the adjective which best describes the Obama presidency.  And I’m not just talking about the bizarre inability of this man to produce a birth certificate.  I am stating that Obama is now not a president, but a dictator.  Because dictators place themselves above the law, just as Obama is doing now.

The Defense of Marriage Act was passed in 1996.  It passed both the House of Representatives and the United States Senate and was signed into law by then-President Bill Clinton.  The Supreme Court has not said anything about this being in any way unconstitutional for fifteen years.  And it is Obama’s role as our Lord and our God, and the ONLY Lord and God with whom we have to do, to overturn the constitutional process, the Congress, the law of the land and the will of the people???

The Constitution is not a salad bar which allows you to pick and choose what you like and what you don’t like.  Unless you’re a liberal who despises truth, who believes truth doesn’t even exist and holds that the truth is whatever you can make it.  I’ve described the invariable outcome of that view before: it’s called fascism.

We have a history of liberal activist judges who usurp their constitutional role all the time.  Now we’ve got a president who thinks he’s a liberal activist judge.  And who gets to sit in judgment over the Constitution and every law that has been passed before him.

Obama also thinks he is the entire liberal constitutional philosophy in microchosm.  Liberalism holds that the Constitution means nothing in and of itself, that it is constantly changing and that only the changes reflected in current liberal rulings have any real power (if conservatives embrace the exact same philosophy, of course, then they and only they are wrong).  And lo and behold, “Obama’s views on same-sex marriage are ‘evolving,’” and so therefore obviously the Constitution must be evolving.  Because everything revolves around Obama.

Obama should be impeached.  And the only reason he won’t be is that Democrats as a class don’t much give a damn about the Constitution, either.  And the Democrats still control the Senate.

Just remember this, Democrats.  If Obama gets away with this, the next Republican president has the right by precedent to decide which laws HE wants to ignore.  And you will have supported that right by supporting what Barry Hussein is doing right now.

The “Hunt Every Democrat And Burn Them Alive Act” is coming.  I can feel it.  And when it comes, Democrats will have burned themselves.

Update, Feb 24: Rush Limbaugh was on his game today.  He mentioned that this wasn’t about gay marriage – as bad as that is – but rather about a president who is lawless.  This is a president who is literally community agitating in several states across the republic; this is the president who is ignoring a federal judge’s ruling that his health care program is unconstitutional; thisis a president who enacted sweeping environmental rulings through his EPA because the United States Congress would never have allowed such a radical agenda to pass; and this is a president who added more czars than just about every president before him combined.  And now this is the president who makes himself the sole arbiter of what is “constitutional” and what is not.

And so Limbaugh started talking about a President Palin doing the same things (including not being able to produce her birth certificate, because you don’t think the left would make an issue out of that if she couldn’t?).  This President Palin – citing Barack Obama as her justifying precedent – would determine that she did not think Roe v. Wade was constitutional, and so so sorry, but it wouldn’t be defended any longer.  This President Palin would look at ObamaCare and virtually anything else she didn’t like (e.g. drilling bans) and simply determine that they weren’t constitutional on her view as dictator #2 (Obama having set the stage as dictator #1), and so would not be defended.  And further, whereas the Obama White House meets repeatedly every week with union thug president Richard Trumka to plot strategy on how to “punish their enemies.”   So just imagine President Palin meeting with big oil, big business and big insurance three plus times per week to plot how to punish liberals and liberal groups.  All in secret, of course, and all justified by Obama indifference to the Constitution and hostility to any interest that doesn’t pay billions to his campaign warchest.

Republicans now have a huge majority in the House.  And yes, they are heavily favored to re-take the Senate in 2012, thanks to Democrats being the vile cockroaches that they are.  Meanwhile, Obama’s approval has plunged well below 50% in states he needs to win.

Like I said, the “Hunt Every Democrat Down With Dogs And Burn Them Alive Act” is coming, and its coming thanks to Democrats as conservatives learn the new rules of the game that Obama started.

Democrats are howling about Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker not listening and bargaining with unions.  Don’t you dare forget, you vile hypocrite Democrats, how Republicans and even many Democrats spent the last two years shut out and not even getting to know what was happening, let alone have a vote in uber-liberal government takeovers like ObamaCare.  And how dare you whine as the same hell you unleased comes back to you?

The massive Obama stimulus that heavily favored blue states and blue districts and ObamaCare were Pearl Harbor moments for conservatives.  And just as decent American people gave the Imperial Japanese the hell they richly deserved, decent American people are more than ready to give imperialist liberals the hell that they richly deserve.

This has become a war.  Obama promised to transcend the partisan divide, but he is a liar and a cheat who plunged deeply into that divide than any American preisent in history.  It is an ideological and cultural war being fought over every front for what precisouAnd it is a war because liberals and Democrats have incapable of any other political approach.  When they have the power, they use that power in an un-American fashion.  And when they don’t have the power, they use their mainstream media voice to bitch and whine about how the other side that they never once listened to when they had the power won’t listen to them.