Schumer, Democrats Goose-Stepping To Their Fuhrers’ Marching Orders

When Charles Schumer’s caucus gives marching orders, Charles Schumer knows exactly how to proceed: “Jawohl, mein Fuhrer!”

Even the New York Times of all sources affirms this was  an incredibly stupid display.  But it is an incredibly stupid act that reveals that the Democrats are strickly a Big Brother-style operation.  And that Republicans are their Immanuel Goldstein.

March 29, 2011, 12:30 pm
On a Senate Call, a Glimpse of Marching Orders
By JENNIFER STEINHAUER
4:58 p.m. | Updated Um, senators, ever heard of the mute button?

Moments before a conference call with reporters was scheduled to get underway on Tuesday morning, Charles E. Schumer of New York, the No. 3 Democrat in the Senate, apparently unaware that many of the reporters were already on the line, began to instruct his fellow senators on how to talk to reporters about the contentious budget process.

After thanking his colleagues — Barbara Boxer of California, Benjamin L. Cardin of Maryland, Thomas R. Carper of Delaware and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut — for doing the budget bidding for the Senate Democrats, who are facing off against the House Republicans over how to cut spending for the rest of the fiscal year, Mr. Schumer told them to portray John A. Boehner of Ohio, the speaker of the House, as painted into a box by the Tea Party, and to decry the spending cuts that he wants as extreme. “I always use the word extreme,” Mr. Schumer said. “That is what the caucus instructed me to use this week.”

A minute or two into the talking-points tutorial, though, someone apparently figured out that reporters were listening, and silence fell.
Then the conference call began in earnest, with the Democrats right on message.

“We are urging Mr. Boehner to abandon the extreme right wing,” said Ms. Boxer, urging the House to compromise on the scale of spending cuts and to drop proposed amendments that would deny federal financing for Planned Parenthood and for government agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency.

Mr. Carper continued with the theme, referring to some House Republicans’ “right-wing extremist friends.” Mr. Cardin decried Mr. Boehner’s giving into “extremes of his party.” Mr. Blumenthal closed by speaking of the “relatively small extreme group of ideologues” who are “an anchor” dragging down the budget negotiation process.

How news is made . . .

Update: Later in the day, Mr. Schumer’s spokesman, Brian Fallon, issued this statement about the senator’s remarks: “There’s nothing wrong with reporters overhearing him calling the House Republicans’ [position] extreme, because that’s what it is. He had just given a speech on the Senate floor saying the same thing. The sooner Speaker Boehner abandons the Tea Party’s extreme demands, the sooner there can be a bipartisan deal on the budget.”

So’kay, Republicans are “extreme right wing.”  But you guys are nothing more than a bunch of Nazis, goose stepping to your fuhrers’ marching orders.

The “relatively small extreme group of ideologues” just won the largest landslide election in 70 years, while Democrats – the “mainstream” in their warped view – just LOST the largest landslide election in 70 years.  What is wrong with this picture?

The Republican House is trying to fulfill the campaign pledge that won them victory in that landslide.  The are trying to cut a MERE $61 billion out of a $1.65 TRILLION deficit.  Democrats falsely and deceitfully claim they want to reduce the deficit when literally everything the Republicans propose to do so is “extremist.”

Let’s talk “extremist”:  When Democrats took over, Republicans had left them with a deficit of $161 billion (the deficit in the Republican-passed FY-2007 Budget).  The very next budget, and the first budget passed by Democrats (FY-2008), contained a $459 billion deficit – nearly three times larger than the previous year’s GOP budget.  If that seems crazy, consider their next budget, the FY-2009 budget that had a $1.4 TRILLION deficit – which again virtually tripled their previous tripling of the deficit.  Then there was the Democrats’ FY-2010 budget with a deficit of $1.6 trillion.  And even with total control over the White House, the House of Representatives and the Senate, Democrats – caught like cockroaches with the kitchen lights turned on – couldn’t pass a budget at all prior to the election that threw them out of that total control.

Thanks to the Democrats, the United States is adding $4 billion to the deficit every single day this year. 

Now, you need to decide that either THAT is “extreme,” or Republicans trying to cut just a tiny fraction – just 1.5% – of that deficit, is “extremist.”

Republicans are the extremists?  Again, what is wrong with this picture???

Let us see who has used this tactic of unrelenting blame in the past:

Hitler wrote his Mein Kampf.  He blamed the Jews for pretty much everything that was wrong with Germany.

Hitler seized power after blaming the Reichstag fire on a communist conspiracy.

Hitler launched his Anschluss in Austria claiming that he was “protecting” the Austrian people from a Communist uprising (i.e., he blamed the communists).  For the record, both Nazi fascism and Soviet communism were both socialist and both left wing (“Nazi” stood for “National Socialist German Workers Party”).  The Nazis were “rightwing” only in that they were the far right of the extreme left.

Hitler demanded the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia after blaming the Czechs for oppressing the Volkdeutsch (ethnic Germans) there.

Hitler invaded Poland after fabricating the Gleiwitz incident which provided him with the pretext to blame the Poles.

The tactic of demagogic blame has worked for fascist socialists many times before.  Only an evil people falls for this tactic.

It remains to be seen whether it will work this time.

Birth Certificate Ball In Barry Hussein’s Court

The way the following ABC article depicts this, it is a huge Donald Trump screw-up in which he demands Obama’s birth certificate only to fail to be able to produce his own until the media correctly pointed out his error.

I actually think it was a stroke of genius: Donald Trump was confronted by a media which couldn’t wait to buy whatever Obama produced.  They pointed out, “That’s not legitimate!”  And then Donald Trump was able to produce his official certificate of birth.

Now it’s your turn to do the same, Barry H.  Do what Trump did: show us your actual long form birth certificate like the media demanded that Donald Trump do.  And which Donald Trump DID.

It’s no big deal at all – if you’ve actually got one.

Take Two: Donald Trump Releases Official Birth Certificate
March 29, 2011 1:11 PM

ABC News Michael Falcone reports:

Donald Trump learned the hard way this week that if you’re going to call on the president to release his official birth certificate, you’d better do the same.

Trump, who has been putting pressure on Obama lately to make public his long-form birth certificate from Hawaii, decided to set a good example and release his own on Monday. Only problem was, the document that Trump provided to the conservative Website Newsmax wasn’t his actual birth certificate, but rather a  “hospital certificate of birth.”

On Tuesday, Trump, who is contemplating a presidential run in 2012, sought to correct the oversight, providing a copy of his official birth certificate issued by the New York City Department of Health to ABC News.

See a larger version HERE.

It shows that “Donald John Trump” was born June 14, 1946 in Jamaica Hospital in Queens.It lists his father as Fred C. Trump and his mother as Mary Mac Leod. The date of the report is listed as June 14, 1946.

The image came with an accompanying memo from a member of Trump’s staff. 

“A ‘birth certificate’ and a ‘certificate of live birth’ are in no way the same thing, even though in some cases they use some of the same words,” wrote Trump staffer Thuy Colayco in a message to ABC News. “One officially confirms and records a newborn child’s identity and details of his or her birth, while the other only confirms that someone reported the birth of a child. Also, a ‘certificate of live birth’ is very easy to get because the standards are much lower, while a ‘birth certificate’ is only gotten through a long and detailed process wherein identity must be proved beyond any doubt. If you had only a certificate of live birth, you would not be able to get a proper passport from the Post Office or a driver’s license from the Department of Motor Vehicles. Therefore, there is very significant difference between a ‘certificate of live birth’ and a ‘birth certificate’ and one should never be confused with the other.”

(Click Here to see a photo of Donald Trump’s hospital certificate of birth, obtained by the Newsmax on Monday.)

Trump has been turning up the volume on his calls for Obama, who has been the target of allegations that he was not born in the United States by so-called “birthers,” to release his official birth certificate.

“This guy either has a birth certificate or he doesn’t,” Trump said in an interview on Fox News on Monday. “I didn’t think this was such a big deal, but I will tell you, it’s turning out to be a very big deal because people now are calling me from all over saying please don’t give up on this issue.”

The Obama campaign released a “certification of live birth,” which is a shorter document that carries the same legal weight as the long one, in 2008.

Let’s take that last paragraph first: “The Obama campaign released a ‘certification of live birth,’ which is a shorter document that carries the same legal weight as the long one…”

Read the following and tell me:

Short forms, known sometimes as computer certifications, are not universally available, but are less expensive and more readily accessible. Information is taken from the original birth record (the long form) and stored in a database that can be accessed quickly when birth certificates are needed in a short amount of time.^{[citation needed]} Whereas the long form is a copy of the actual birth certificate, a short form is a document that certifies the existence of such certificate, and is given a title such as “Certification of Birth”, “Certification of Live Birth”, or “Certificate of Birth Registration.”

In other words, the short form is NOT an actual birth certificate; it is rather just a piece of paper that says that somebody somewhere says that an actual birth certificate exists.  That is a rather major difference when the existence of said actual birth certificate is in doubt.

Pardon my metaphors, but there is a joke that bears repeating here:

Q: How do you say “f**k you” in Bureaucratese?

A: “Trust me.”

Now add to the fact that the short form is nothing more than a statement that the long form surely exists somewhere this fact:

Hawaii governor can’t find Obama birth certificate
Suggests controversy could hurt president’s re-election chances
Posted: January 18, 2011
8:05 pm Eastern

Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie suggested in an interview published today that a long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate for Barack Obama may not exist within the vital records maintained by the Hawaii Department of Health.

Abercrombie told the Honolulu Star Advertiser he was searching within the Hawaii Department of Health to find definitive vital records that would prove Obama was born in Hawaii, because the continuing eligibility controversy could hurt the president’s chances of re-election in 2012.

Donalyn Dela Cruz, Abercrombie’s spokeswoman in Honolulu, ignored again today another in a series of repeated requests made by WND for an interview with the governor.

Toward the end of the interview, the newspaper asked Abercrombie: “You stirred up quite a controversy with your comments regarding birthers and your plan to release more information regarding President Barack Obama’s birth certificate. How is that coming?”

In his response, Abercrombie acknowledged the birth certificate issue will have “political implications” for the next presidential election “that we simply cannot have.”

Abercrombie did not report to the newspaper that he or the Hawaii Department of Health had found Obama’s long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate. The governor only suggested his investigations to date had identified an unspecified listing or notation of Obama’s birth that someone had made in the state archives.

“It was actually written, I am told, this is what our investigation is showing, it actually exists in the archives, written down,” Abercrombie said.

For seemingly the first time, Abercrombie frankly acknowledged that presidential politics motivated his search for Obama birth records, implying that failure to resolve the questions that remain unanswered about the president’s birth and early life may damage his chance for re-election.

“If there is a political agenda (regarding Obama’s birth certificate), then there is nothing I can do about that, nor can the president,” he said.

So far, the only birth document available on Obama is a Hawaii Certification of Live Birth that first appeared on the Internet during the 2008 presidential campaign. It was posted by two purportedly independent websites that have displayed a strong partisan bias for Obama – Snopes.com released the COLB in June 2008, and FactCheck.org published photographs of the document in August 2008.

WND previously reported the Hawaii Department of Health has refused to authenticate the COLB posted on the Internet by Snopes.com and FactCheck.org.

WND has reported that in 1961, Obama’s grandparents, Stanley and Madelyn Dunham, could have made an in-person report of a Hawaii birth even if the infant Barack Obama Jr. had been foreign-born.

Similarly, the newspaper announcements of Obama’s birth do not prove he was born in Hawaii, since they could have been triggered by the grandparents registering the birth as Hawaiian, even if the baby was born elsewhere.

Moreover, WND has documented that the address reported in the newspaper birth announcements was the home of the grandparents.

WND also has reported that Barack Obama Sr. maintained his own separate apartment in Honolulu, even after he was supposedly married to Ann Dunham, Barack Obama’s mother, and that Dunham left Hawaii within three weeks of the baby’s birth to attend the University of Washington in Seattle.

Dunham did not return to Hawaii until after Barack Obama Sr. left Hawaii in June 1962 to attend graduate school at Harvard University in Cambridge, Mass.

Conceivably, the yet undisclosed birth record in the state archives that Abercrombie has discovered may have come from the grandparents registering Obama’s birth, an event that would have triggered both the newspaper birth announcements and availability of a Certification of Live Birth, even if no long-form birth certificate existed.

WND has also reported that Tim Adams, a former senior elections clerk for the city and county of Honolulu in 2008, has maintained that there is no long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate on file with the Hawaii Department of Health and that neither Honolulu hospital – Queens Medical Center or Kapiolani Medical Center – has any record that Obama was born there.

Abercrombie is a liberal Democrat.  He has every interest – and he admits he has that interest – in finding that record if it exists.

The problem is that it doesn’t seem to exist.  And Abercrombie officially gave up on his windmill-tilting knight’s errand.

Here’s documented proof from Puerto Rico that birth certificates are relatively easy to falsify.  The difference amounts to the fact that at least these Puerto Ricans like Sonia Aguilera actually HAD birth certificates, bogus as many of them were.  Obama’s got squat.

Liberals have pointed to a birth announcement in a newspaper as proof that Obama had to be born in the United States.  But that is beyond easy to falsify.  Here it is: “Obama’s mother called her grandparents from Kenya to announce that she has just given birth to a son named Barack Hussein Obama.  Her parents, in turn, call the newspaper and place a birth announcement in the Hawaii paper.  Bingo, proof that Obama was born in Hawaii.”

We don’t have any actual record that Obama’s birth certificate existed in 1961.  But there is reliable evidence that telephones existed back then.

What is funny is that the Nigerian millionaire email scammers have more documentation backing up their scams than Obama does backing up his:

Quite often, the Nigerian Scam email will contain legitimate information concerning a real political dissident’s death or imprisonment. This may be enough verification for a skeptical recipient. The second part of the classic Nigerian Scam begins when a recipient agrees to send confidential financial information to the sender in order to receive the money. From this point on, the Nigerian Scam artist will either use this private information to clean out the victim’s entire bank account or send a fake cashier‘s check as a partial payment.

But that is no longer the only question.  There is the separate but clearly related matter of Obama’s Social Security Number:

Investigators: Obama uses Connecticut Soc. Sec. Number
3 experts insist White House answer new questions about documentation
Posted: May 11, 2010
9:57 pm Eastern

By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2011 WorldNetDaily

NEW YORK – Two private investigators working independently are asking why President Obama is using a Social Security number set aside for applicants in Connecticut while there is no record he ever had a mailing address in the state.

In addition, the records indicate the number was issued between 1977 and 1979, yet Obama’s earliest employment reportedly was in 1975 at a Baskin-Robbins ice-cream shop in Oahu, Hawaii.

WND has copies of affidavits filed separately in a presidential eligibility lawsuit in the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia by Ohio licensed private investigator Susan Daniels and Colorado private investigator John N. Sampson.

The investigators believe Obama needs to explain why he is using a Social Security number reserved for Connecticut applicants that was issued at a date later than he is known to have held employment.

The Social Security website confirms the first three numbers in his ID are reserved for applicants with Connecticut addresses, 040-049.

“Since 1973, Social Security numbers have been issued by our central office,” the Social Security website explains. “The first three (3) digits of a person’s social security number are determined by the ZIP code of the mailing address shown on the application for a social security number.”

The question is being raised amid speculation about the president’s history fueled by an extraordinary lack of public documentation. Along with his original birth certificate, Obama also has not released educational records, scholarly articles, passport documents, medical records, papers from his service in the Illinois state Senate, Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records and adoption papers.

Robert Siciliano, president and CEO of IDTheftSecurity.com and a nationally recognized expert on identity theft, agrees the Social Security number should be questioned.

“I know Social Security numbers have been issued to people in states where they don’t live, but there’s usually a good reason the person applied for a Social Security number in a different state,” Siciliano told WND.

WND asked Siciliano whether he thought the question was one the White House should answer.

“Yes,” he replied. “In the case of President Obama, I really don’t know what the good reason would be that he has a Social Security number issued in Connecticut when we know he was a resident of Hawaii.”

Siciliano is a frequent expert guest on identify theft on cable television networks, including CNN, CNBC and the Fox News Channel.

Daniels and Sampson each used a different database showing Obama is using a Social Security number beginning with 042.

WND has further confirmed that the Social Security number in question links to Obama in the online records maintained by the Selective Service System. Inserting the Social Security number, his birth date and his last name produces a valid Selective Service number.

To verify the number was issued by the Social Security Administration for applicants in Connecticut, Daniels used a Social Security number verification database. She found that the numbers immediately before and immediately after Obama’s were issued to Connecticut applicants between the years 1977 and 1979.

“There is obviously a case of fraud going on here,” Daniels maintained. “In 15 years of having a private investigator’s license in Ohio, I’ve never seen the Social Security Administration make a mistake of issuing a Connecticut Social Security number to a person who lived in Hawaii. There is no family connection that would appear to explain the anomaly.”

Does the Social Security Administration ever re-issue Social Security numbers?

“Never,” Daniels said. “It’s against the law for a person to have a re-issued or second Social Security number issued.”

Daniels said she is “staking my reputation on a conclusion that Obama’s use of this Social Security number is fraudulent.”

There is no indication in the limited background documentation released by the Obama 2008 presidential campaign or by the White House to establish that Obama ever lived in Connecticut.

Nor is there any suggestion in Obama’s autobiography, “Dreams from My Father,” that he ever had a Connecticut address.

Also, nothing can be found in the public record that indicates Obama visited Connecticut during his high-school years.

Sampson’s affidavit specifies that as a result of his formal training as an immigration officer and his 27-year career in professional law enforcement, “it is my knowledge and belief that Social Security numbers can only be applied for in the state in which the applicant habitually resides and has their official residence.”

Daniels told WND she believes Obama had a different Social Security number when he worked as a teenager in Hawaii prior to 1977.

“I doubt this is President Obama’s originally issued Social Security number,” she told WND. “Obama has a work history in Hawaii before he left the islands to attend college at Occidental College in California, so he must have originally been issued a Social Security number in Hawaii.”

The published record available about Obama indicates his first job as a teenager in Hawaii was at a Baskin-Robbins in the Makiki neighborhood on Oahu. USA Today reported the ice-cream shop still was in operation one year after Obama’s inauguration.

Politifact.com, a website typically supportive of Obama, claims he worked at the Baskin-Robbins in 1975 or 1976, prior to the issuance of the number in question.

“It is a crime to use more than one Social Security number, and Barack Obama had to have a previous Social Security number to have worked at Baskin-Robbins,” she insisted. “Under current law, a person is not permitted to use more than one Social Security number in a lifetime.”

Another anomaly in the law enforcement databases searched by Daniels and Sampson is that the date 1890 shows up in the field indicating the birth of the number holder, along with Obama’s birth date of 08/04/1961. A third date listed is 04/08/1961, which appears to be a transposition of Obama’s birth date in an international format, with the day before the month.

Daniels disclosed to WND the name of the database she searched and produced a computer screen copy of the page that listed 1890 as a date associated with the 042 Social Security number.

Daniels said she can’t be sure if the 1890 figure has any significance. But she said it appears the number Obama is using was previously issued by the Social Security Administration.

After an extensive check of the proprietary databases she uses as a licensed private investigator, Daniels determined that the first occurrence of Obama’s association with the number was in 1986 in Chicago.

Daniels assumes, but cannot prove, that Obama took on a previously issued Social Security number that had gone dormant due to the death of the original holder.

Daniels has been a licensed private investigator in Ohio since 1995. Sampson formed his private investigations firm, CSI Consulting and Investigations, in 2008. He previously worked as a deportations law enforcement officer with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

The Daniels and Sampson affidavits were originally recorded by attorney Orly Taitz in an eligibility case against Obama last year.

And all you need to pass of a massive hoax like this is two liberal states – and these are two of the most liberal states in the nation – and a press that flew thousands of miles to Anchorage to dig through Sarah Palin’s garbage but which utterly refused to go next door to look at Obama in Chicago.  And that is precisely what we have.

For the record, Democrats argued that John McCain did not qualify for the presidency of the United States because he had not been born in the United States.  That was set to rest when John McCain produced his birth certificate.  John McCain was born in a US military hospital (US territory) in the Panama Canal Zone area in 1936 to an American father (a US Navy officer) and to an American mother.

I am doing nothing more than Democrats did in demanding Obama’s birth certificate.  The differences are significant: we KNOW that Obama’s father was NOT a U.S. citizen, and we further KNOW that Obama has not produced a birth certificate.

At this point, I do not believe that Obama is qualified to be president either in regard to his complete lack of experience, or in regard to his dangerous un-American socialist agenda, OR IN REGARD TO HIS BIRTH.

Abercrombie put it well:

In his response, Abercrombie acknowledged the birth certificate issue will have “political implications” for the next presidential election “that we simply cannot have.”

I agree with the liberal Democrat Governor of Hawaii who had every interest and all the necessary power to find Obama’s actual birth certificate if it existed.  Yet we DO have these “political implications.”  Because Obama won’t – or more likely CAN’T – produce his birth certificate.

At this time, I refuse to recognize the legitimacy of Barack Obama as the lawful president of the United States until he resolve these very legitimate questions.

Produce or resign.

Somebody, somewhere, please get this Post Turtle out of the American people’s White House.

Democrat Dick Durbin Gives His ‘Legitimacy’ To Terrorists

We are at a point where Democrats ought to have zero credibility, and the worst thing that should ever happen to someone’s reputation would be getting caught with your face in the same picture as a known or suspected Democrat.

But while we OUGHT to be there, we’re certainly not there yet.  There are fools and communities of fools who actually respect Democrats, and stupidly and naively believe they’re decent people.

So, as asinine and in fact as outrageous as it might seem, Democrats can add their “credibility” to others.

But being truly despicable people, Democrats have a tendency to lend said “credibility” to the very worst sorts of people.  Like terrorists.

For the record, I added the labeling to make it easier to identify both the terrorists and the dumbass in the photo.

Here’s a quick description of these guys Dick Durbin says are A-OK in his book:

Pictured with Senator Durbin [that’s the dumbass in the middle] is Jamal Said [the terrorist on the left], an unindicted conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terror funding case that led to criminal conviction. Said also reportedly raised money 11 years ago at an Islamic conference by asking for donations in name of a suicide bomber. More recently, he told a gathering of Muslim leaders in 2009, “We need to raise our children to know the martyrs of Gaza.”

Also in the photo [the terrorist on the right] is another unindicted terror trial coconspirator named Kifah Mustapha. According to the IPT, Mustapha serves as an imam for the Illinois Mosque Foundation. Last year days after becoming Illinois first state police chaplain, his appointment was revoked after ties to terror groups became public.

According to IPT, the Mosque Foundation has a long history of ties to terror organizations, even sponsoring a rally for a Hamas operative arrested in Israel. 

So we’ve got the cheerleader for suicide bombers and a guy who wants to radicalize our rapidly growing Muslim inmate population.

The guy who wants to raise money for suicide bombers’ families so terrorists can murder away knowing their families will be taken care of, the guy who wants the children to know these “martyrs” as heroes so the hate can continue to the next generation, is part of a murder plot against Israel’s innocent children going back decades.

And the guy who sought to be a “chaplain” so he could radicalize our prison population is part of a long effort to get the hate of Allah into our prison systems.  From an article in the Oxford Journal titled “Prison Islam in the Age of Sacred Terror“:

Research indicates that Islam is the fastest growing religion among prisoners in Western nations. In the United States, roughly 240,000 inmates have converted to the faith since the 9/11 attacks. According to federal law enforcement, Saudi-backed Wahhabi clerics have targeted these prisoners for terrorist recruitment.

An article on how state prisons are a breeding ground for radical Islam begins:

The four men accused of plotting to blow up synagogues and shoot down a plane all did stretches in state prisons – a major breeding ground for Islamic radicalization.

At least two of the suspects, James Cromitie and Onta Williams, entered the system as Baptists and were paroled as Muslims.

The concern about prisons incubating jihadists has been heightened in the debate over releasing Guantanamo terror suspects to facilities across the U.S.

FBI Director Robert Mueller has called America’s prisons “fertile ground for extremists.”

A 2006 study called “Out of the Shadows” found “tight-knit communities of Muslims in prison are ripe for radicalization, and could easily become terrorist cells.”

And the entire organization for which Durbin is lending his “credibility” is waaaaayyy beyond merely dubious.

Confronted with this, Durbin was unapologetic.  These people are perfectly fine.  What they’re doing is great.  And if you don’t want to be murdered in a giant explosion by a suicide bomber, you’re just a racist anti-Muslim bigot.

So just why do Democrats want to legitimize terrorists who want nothing more than your hot sticky jugular-vein blood all over their filfthy hands?  I now say “dumbass Democrats” rather than just “dumbass Dick Durbin” because this is just so par for the Democrat course.

Here’s Durbin’s rationale, complete with it’s own refutation:

U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., in an attempt to address what he claims is an increase in anti-Muslim bigotry, is relying on questionable statistics and a witness with a record of opposing virtually all law enforcement attempts to deal with Islamist-inspired terrorism.

In a statement, Durbin said his hearing Tuesday on the state of Muslim civil rights in America comes “in response to a spike in anti-Muslim bigotry in the last year including Quran burnings, restrictions on mosque construction, hate crimes, hate speech, and other forms of discrimination.”

While hate crime data for 2010 has not yet been released, FBI reports in recent years show no spike in anti-Muslim attacks. Those statistics show 107 anti-Islamic incidents reported in 2009, compared to 156 anti-Muslim crimes in 2006. In both reports, race related crimes dominated, and religiously-targeted attacks involved Jews as victims about nine times more often than Muslims in 2009 and more than five times more in 2006.

Durbin is literally championing the violent Muslims who are victimizing Jews at nine times the rate in America and calling the victimizers the “victims.”

Which is to say, Democrats are consistent, in that they are always fools all the time.

And what is the Fool-in-Chief up to?  He’s joining Osama bin Laden in siding with the Libyan rebels which include al Qaeda fighters, and who are led by Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi – a man who fought Americans troops in Afghanistan. 

No one knows a whole lot about these Libyan rebels, and everything we do know is bad.  Jonah Goldberg quipped yesterdat that this Libyan rebellion is kind of like Pelosi’s approach: “We have to pass this rebellion so you can find out what is in it.”

A Politico story covering Durbin’s hearing said:

Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin said it wasn’t a response to Republican Rep. Peter King’s hearings this month on post-9/11 Islamic radicalization and terrorism — but it sure felt like it.

And that’s exactly what it was, of course.  And all King’s hearings tried to do was ask a question about the domestic radicalization of American Muslims.  And even the left-leaning Washington Post acknowledged that Democrats embarrased themselves in their coming unglued over simply asking a question and seeking information.

This is not just an unfortunate moment immortalized in a picture.  This is a demonstration of the morally bankrupt philosophy of not only Dick Durbin, but the entire Democrat Party.

And as usual, the mainstream media propaganda does not want you to know which side is right and which side is wrong.

UK Realizes That ‘Cowboy Bush’ Far More Effective Than ‘Focus Group Obama’

From the UK Telegraph:

‘Cowboy’ Bush was a far more effective world leader than ‘focus group’ Obama
By Nile Gardiner World Last updated: March 28th, 2011

When he was president, George W. Bush’s international leadership was widely mocked and derided by his liberal critics, who loudly declared that his plain-talking style was undermining America’s image in the world. Even now, the Left cannot resists a dig at the ex-president, with former Obama adviser Rob Shapiro exclaiming to Fox News over the weekend:

The United States is no longer the out-of-control cowboy. Instead, we build global coalitions. We get the support of the Arab world. We get the support of Africa. We get the support of Europe.

Shapiro’s statement ignores the fact that the military alliance built by Bush to confront Saddam Hussein was significantly larger than the coalition on the ground now in Libya, that Europe remains divided over how to deal with Colonel Gaddafi (witness Germany’s abstention at the UN Security Council), or that the Arab League is barely lifting a finger, with one or two exceptions. As for Africa, so far not one member of the African Union has joined the no-fly zone operation. But the Left rarely lets reality get in the way of baseless conjecture.

This theme of Bush as an isolated “cowboy”, acting without the support of the wider international community, was commonplace in the liberal media throughout his presidency. And both John Kerry and Barack Obama ran election campaigns that talked about “restoring” America’s standing abroad. Needless to say, Obama was cheered by hundreds of thousands of adoring Germans when he staged an election rally in Berlin, where he offered what can only be described as “European-style mush” in place of Bush’s hard-nosed and aggressive US approach.

But world leadership of course is not a popularity contest, as Obama himself is now discovering. At the end of the day, a US president must be judged not by his poll rating in Berlin or Jakarta, but by the degree to which he successfully advances US interests, defends his nation, and projects strong leadership on the world stage. And an examination of the foreign policy record of the two presidents shows they are a league apart. President Bush after all liberated nearly 60 million Muslims from tyranny in Afghanistan and Iraq, and launched a global war against Islamist terrorists – no mean feat. As I wrote in a piece for The Daily Telegraph just before Bush left office:

If superpowers do not demonstrate an ability and a willingness to wield power (as Britain did on numerous occasions at the height of the Empire) their hegemony will be increasingly challenged. President Bush exercised U.S. military power to stunning effect in both Iraq and Afghanistan, an important reminder that America was still a force to be reckoned with after the 1990s humiliation of Somalia and the half-hearted missile strikes against Bin Laden in Sudan. In an age of growing threats and challenges, the projection of hard power matters, and America’s next president would be wise to take heed.

In contrast, President Obama’s foreign policy has been marked by a great deal of dithering and obfuscation, from his agonisingly slow decision-making on Afghanistan to the current war in Libya. His biggest “achievement”, the conclusion of the New START Treaty with Moscow, was in reality a humiliating surrender to Russian demands. While President Bush championed the strengthening of alliances with key allies such as Great Britain and Japan, the Obama administration has preferred to downgrade traditional partnerships such as the Special Relationship, and appease America’s enemies and strategic competitors.

President Bush deserves far greater credit for his much maligned foreign policy. Under Bush, the United States was feared by her enemies, respected by her allies, and decisive in the face of a series of crises. His successor however seems all too often paralysed when it comes to US leadership, and unable to act without a permission slip from the United Nations or the Arab League. Liberals should just admit it – George W. Bush led the world rather than followed it. In contrast, the professorial President Obama runs US foreign policy like a focus group, unable to act without the stamp of approval of other international actors, and projecting weakness in its wake.

One writer notes that Obama’s Libya “kinetic action” speech is even bombing in liberal DUmmieland.

Liberal Calls Sarah Palin A “Cunt” A Week After Calling Her A “Dumb Twat”

All I can say is that, based on liberals rationale, conservatives should be able to call Obama a “stupid nigger” all day long.  After all, just as it’s wrong to use such hateful language toward women unless we don’t happen to like a particular woman’s political views, it’s therefore perfectly okay to use the “N” word toward a black person when you don’t agree with him or her politically.

This racist, bigoted hatred of the left isn’t new.  It is who they are and who they always have been.  It defines them.  It’s called “projection”: liberals assume that conservatives must be racist and bigoted and misogynist, because liberals are so damn racist and bigoted and misogynist.

Interestingly, given that I said conservatives have every right to call Obama a nigger now, given the left’s justification for anti-woman hatred for Sarah Palin, it is fitting that it is – as usual – LEFTISTS who are actually applying that label on Obama.

The fact that Bill Maher is still on the air is proof positive that liberals are despicable, hateful, vile hypocrites.  Because only liberals are depraved enough to watch this over-the-top despicable liberal fascist.

Bill Maher Calls Sarah Palin a “****” a Week After Calling Palin a “Dumb ****”
Monday, March 28, 2011 | Kristinn
Posted on Monday, March 28, 2011 3:50:53 PM by kristinn

A week after calling former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin a “dumb t***” vulgar insult for women, comedian Bill Maher went all the way and called Palin the c-word, adding, “There’s just no other word for her.”

The Dallas Voice (The Premier Media Source for LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transexual) Texas) reporting on Maher’s appearance Sunday night at the Winnspear Opera House Sunday night, cheered Maher using the crude sexist slur against the 2008 Republican party vice presidential nominee as an act of “fearlessness”:

It’s that fearlessness — he acknowledged that some people would probably be uncomfortable with some of his remarks about religion, not to mention calling Sarah Palin a “c***” (“there’s just no other word for her”) — that makes Maher the most dangerous person in comedy.

The audience at the Winnspear was descibed by the Voice as “largely gay (and certainly gay-friendly)”, which might explain Maher’s fearlessness in attacking a conservative, Christian, married mother of five in the most vulgar, personal and sexist way.

When Maher was first being criticized for calling Palin the t-word, Noel Sheppard at Newsbusters asked:

Is the universal media hatred for this woman so pervasive that it’s now acceptable for a man to call her that?

Can the dreaded C-word be far behind?

Sadly, it didn’t take long for Sheppard to be proven right.

Last month, Slate Magazine was caught slyly calling Palin the c-word in a headline. Slate’s editor apologized after being called out by Big Journalism.

It’s really not all that hard to be right when you’re talking about liberal progressives.  Simply assume that they are as vile as possible, and then think, “If I were 95% cockroach, what would I do next?”

Lesbians, gay, bisexuals and transexuals cheered this as “fearless,” did they?  So conservatives now have every right to be similarly “fearless” and apply the same sort of bigoted hatred in labeling toward them now?  Why is it only “fearless” when a liberal displays this level of personal hatred toward a conservative?  How does it not work the other way around?

If Glenn Beck did this, there is no question that he would be fired.  And that is because conservatives are superior to liberals in every way morally possible.

These are ugly, ugly people.  They have no shame.  They have no decency.  They have no integrity.  And they have no honor.

10 Questions Obama Won’t Answer In His Libya Speech

1. How is your Libya policy not more “Bush-ish” and hawkish than George W. Bush’s with your unprecedented standard of intervening in the Middle East whenever non-American lives are threatened?  How is this not “humanitarian imperialism” and far worse than anything Bush did given the undefined and open-ended nature of it?

“By almost every metric you can use in terms of being a muscular executive – acting alone without congressional authority, extending the Bush policies overseas, particularly in the War on Terror and Afghanistan and Iraq – he’s been more hawkish than George Bush,” Halperin remarked.

2. Why are we in Libya when even your own Secretary of Defense clearly states that it is not in the United States’ vital national interests to do so?

On “This Week,” ABC News’ Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper asked Gates, “Do you think Libya posed an actual or imminent threat to the United States?”

“No, no,” Gates said in a joint appearance with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. “It was not — it was not a vital national interest to the United States. but it was an interest.”

3. Why are we in the middle of Libya’s civil war, given that the man leading the rebels actually fought against American troops in Afghanistan and his fighters have al Qaeda links?

… Mr al-Hasidi insisted his fighters “are patriots and good Muslims, not terrorists,” but added that the “members of al-Qaeda are also good Muslims and are fighting against the invader”. […]

Mr al-Hasidi admitted he had earlier fought against “the foreign invasion” in Afghanistan, before being “captured in 2002 in Peshwar, in Pakistan”. He was later handed over to the US, and then held in Libya before being released in 2008…

4. Why shouldn’t you be impeached using your own or now Vice President Biden’s standard that you used to demonize George W. Bush when you were both Senators?

Barack Obama: “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,” Obama responded.

Joe Biden: “This is something I know. So I got together and brought a group of Constitutional scholars together and write a piece I’m going to deliver to the whole United States Senate in pointing out the president has no Constitutional authority to take this nation to war against a country of 70 million people unless we’re attacked, or unless there is proof that we are about to be attacked. If he does, I would move to impeach him. The House obviously has to do that – but I would lead an effort to impeach him. The reason for my doing that – I don’t say it lightly, I don’t say it lightly.”

5. Will we get involved in other wars as dictators dictate?  What about Syria and the Sudan and so many other regions where leaders routinely brutalize their own people?  Will some dictator carefully reading over your speech understand what your policy is?  Will such a dictator realize he’d better not do “x” because he will have to deal with the power of the United States?

6.  How will the mission in Libya not be a complete failure and embarassment to the United States given your announcement that “Gaddafi must go“?  And is it or is it not our policy for Gaddafi to be forced out of power?

7. When exactly – and I mean when exactly – are you planning to leave Libya?

WASHINGTON (AP) – U.S.-led military action in Libya has bolstered rebels fighting Moammar Gadhafi’s forces, but the international operation could continue for months, the Obama administration says.

NATO’s top decision-making body was to meet Sunday to expand its enforcement of the no-fly zone to include air strikes against Libyan ground targets.

The military progress follows deep criticism against Obama from lawmakers upset that the administration hadn’t sought greater congressional input on Libya.

8.  Just when did U.S. intelligence say that Libyan tanks and trucks aquired the capacity of flight, such that they are being annhilated by the dozens in your no-fly zone?  Should the inability of American M1-Abrams tanks to fly not be seen as a crisis given this development?  If our vehicles could fly like Gaddafi’s apparently can, wouldn’t that help us with global warming?  And if Gaddafi’s tanks and trucks AREN’T flying, just how does this not exceed the stated U.N. mandate?

9. Why did your Secretary of State just call a clear dictator in Syria who is gunning down his own people in the streets for protesting a “reformer”?  And just why have you personally refused to give the oppressed protestors and people of Syria so much as a single nod of verbal support?  Why is your administration literally supporting a violent terrorist dictator over the oppressed Syrian people?

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton referred to Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad as a “reformer” this weekend, despite Assad’s atrocious human rights record and the regime’s violent crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrators, which has resulted in over 60 deaths in the past week alone. According to Clinton:

”There is a different leader in Syria now, many of the members of Congress of both parties who have gone to Syria in recent months have said they believe he’s a reformer,” she said.

10. Will you personally apologize to George W. Bush, given that you endlessly demonized him, only to then turn around and go further than he did?  How about your criticism of Bush’s acting unconstitutionally when Bush had far more constitutional support (such as Congress’ authorization) than you did?  how about your criticism of Bush for Gitmo when you haven’t bothered to close it?  Etc.?

[From the Washington Times]: Mr. Obama has less legal and moral justification for his Libyan campaign than Mr. Bush did in Iraq. Mr. Bush received congressional authorization for the use of force; Mr. Obama has not. Mr. Bush forged a broad coalition of nearly three-dozen countries to topple Saddam Hussein; Mr. Obama’s coalition is much narrower, with fewer countries. Mr. Bush’s goal was regime change; Mr. Obama’s is to protect some civilians from Col. Gadhafi’s airplanes but not from his tanks or artillery – which makes no sense.

Here’s another set of questions that Obama undoubtedly will not even bother to try to answer in his speech tonight.

There’s a reason Obama’s Libya war has less American approval than any military act in the last four decades.

I know this is actually an 11th question, but it would also be nice if Obama delivered his speech under a giant blow-up of this photo and explained just WTF made him damn fool enough to be the first U.S. president in history to shake hands with Muammar Gaddafi?!?!?

Democrat Front Media Matters Goes Old-Style Soviet Thug In It’s War Against Fox News

One of the interesting things about the mainstream media’s wars on Fox is just how hypocritical the Fox News haters are.

As an example, Geraldine Ferraro passed away.  Fox News spent the day honoring the first woman to truly break the ceiling in the modern political era.  And although a famous liberal, Ferraro was a Fox News contributor.  Because Fox News actually is fair and balanced.  Roger Ailes personally honored Geraldine Ferraro as a woman who “made deep contributions on a number of significant issues.”  Which is to say that Fox News shows a degree of class that is entirely lacking in the media dominated by the unbalanced and hysterical left.

When the mainstream media outlets hires Sarah Palin as a highly-respected contributor, come back and see me.

If you watch leftwing liberal hatchet organizations such as Media Matters, and then watch the mainstream news coverage, it is remarkable how often talking points that started with the KoolAid-drinking Media Matters end up on the “respected” mainstream media coverage.

It’s amazing how you hear a leftwing narrative, and then the rest of the mainstream media start screeching that same narrative like parrots.

And then, unlike Fox News – which frequently features liberals such as Kirsten Powers, Bob Beckell, Geraldine Ferarro, Geraldo Rivera, Wesley Clark, Judith Miller, Mara Liasson,  Harold Ford, Jr. Juan Williams, Al Sharpton, Ed Rendell, and many others – there are no conservative voices to rebut the Media Matters-mainstream media talking points that invariably and regularly appear on the other channels.

Media Matters says it.  The mainstream media outlets pick it up and report it much the way they pick up and report other ideological leftist sources such as the New York Times, and it is spat out as “fact.”

Meanwhile, the Democrats made fellow KoolAid organization the Daily Kos a host of one of their presidential debates, the founder of that organization went to another mainstream media organization (Newsweek), and Arianna Huffington’s ideological liberalism went even MORE mainstream with her going into AOL News.  And then there’s George Soros, the far-leftist money man for Media Matters, also giving $1.8 million to “objective” NPR to hire reporters so they can cover the news more “fairly.”

Hopefully, this will make that hypocritical and intellectually bankrupt pseudo-journalist propaganda a little bit tougher.  But I doubt it.

Media Matters’ war against Fox
By: Ben Smith
March 26, 2011 07:23 AM EDT

The liberal group Media Matters has quietly transformed itself in preparation for what its founder, David Brock, described in an interview as an all-out campaign of “guerrilla warfare and sabotage” aimed at the Fox News Channel.

The group, launched as a more traditional media critic, has all but abandoned its monitoring of newspapers and other television networks and is narrowing its focus to Fox and a handful of conservative websites, which its leaders view as political organizations and the “nerve center” of the conservative movement. The shift reflects the centrality of the cable channel to the contemporary conservative movement, as well as the loathing it inspires among liberals — not least among the donors who fund Media Matters’ staff of about 90, who are arrayed in neat rows in a giant war room above Massachusetts Avenue.

“The strategy that we had had toward Fox was basically a strategy of containment,” said Brock, Media Matters’ chairman and founder and a former conservative journalist, adding that the group’s main aim had been to challenge the factual claims of the channel and to attempt to prevent them from reaching the mainstream media.

The new strategy, he said, is a “war on Fox.”

In an interview and a 2010 planning memo shared with POLITICO, Brock listed the fronts on which Media Matters — which he said is operating on a $10 million-plus annual budget — is working to chip away at Fox and its parent company, News Corp. They include its bread-and-butter distribution of embarrassing clips and attempts to rebut Fox points, as well as a series of under-the-radar tactics.

Media Matters, Brock said, is assembling opposition research files not only on Fox’s top executives but on a series of midlevel officials. It has hired an activist who has led a successful campaign to press advertisers to avoid Glenn Beck’s show. The group is assembling a legal team to help people who have clashed with Fox to file lawsuits for defamation, invasion of privacy or other causes. And it has hired two experienced reporters, Joe Strupp and Alexander Zaitchik, to dig into Fox’s operation to help assemble a book on the network, due out in 2012 from Vintage/Anchor. (In the interest of full disclosure, Media Matters last month also issued a report criticizing “Fox and Friends” co-host Steve Doocy’s criticism of this reporter’s blog.)

Brock said Media Matters also plans to run a broad campaign against Fox’s parent company, News Corp., an effort which most likely will involve opening a United Kingdom arm in London to attack the company’s interests there. The group hired an executive from MoveOn.org to work on developing campaigns among News Corp. shareholders and also is looking for ways to turn regulators in the U.S., U.K., and elsewhere against the network.

The group will “focus on [News Corp. CEO Rupert] Murdoch and trying to disrupt his commercial interests — whether that be here or looking at what’s going on in London right now,” Brock said, referring to News Corp.’s — apparently successful — move to take a majority stake in the satellite broadcaster BSkyB.

A spokeswoman for Fox News, Irena Briganti, declined to comment on Media Matters’ efforts, but the group draws regular barbs from Fox hosts Beck and Bill O’Reilly.

“Tonight is not an episode you casually watch and take out of context like Media Matters does,” Beck remarked last month.

A more extended attack came in February on the freewheeling late night show Red Eye, which conducted a mock interview with a purported Media Matters employee.

“It’s horrible. All we do is sit and watch Fox News and make up stuff about Fox News. It is the saddest place I have ever seen in my life. I think about it, and I want to throw up,” the mock employee said. “I get to work and I take off my clothes, and they strap me into a chair in front of a TV with [Fox News Channel] on. They keep my eyelids propped open like in “Clockwork Orange,” and I sit and type all day.

“If there was no Beck, George Soros would come down and demand we make it up,” the “interviewee” continued. “I would watch the “Flintstones” and transcribe Fred Flintstone’s words and attribute them to Beck. It was the only way to get Soros to stop hitting me.”

(A Soros associate said the financier, who gave Media Matters $1 million last year, did not earmark it for the Fox campaign. Soros suggested in a recent CNN interview that the Fox depictions of him as a sinister media manipulator would better be applied to Murdoch.)

In some views, the war between Media Matters and Fox is not, necessarily, bad for either side. Media Matters has transformed itself into a pillar of the progressive movement with its aggressive new brand of media campaigning. And the attacks cement Fox’s status on the right.

“Fox is happy about it — and it makes their position more vivid among their supporters,” said Paul Levinson, a media studies professor at Fordham University. “One way of keeping your core supporters happy is to be attacked by people your core supporters don’t like.”

But Media Matters says its digging has begun to pay off. The group has trickled out a series of emails from Washington Bureau Chief Bill Sammon, leaks from inside the network, which show him, for instance, circulating a memo on “Obama’s references to socialism, liberalism, Marxism and Marxists.”

The leaks are part of a broader project to take advantage of internal dissent, Media Matters Executive Vice President Ari Rabin-Havt said.

“We made a list of every single person who works for Fox and tried to figure out who might be disgruntled and why, and we went out to try to meet them,” he said. “Clearly, somebody in that organization is giving us primary source documents.”

Media Matters, he said, is also conducting “opposition research” on a dozen or so “mid- and senior-level execs and producers,” a campaign style move that he and Brock said would simply involve recording their public appearances and digging into public records associated with them.

And Brock’s 2010 planning memo offers a glimpse at Media Matters’ shift from media critic to a new species of political animal.

“Criticizing Fox News has nothing to do with criticizing the press,” its memo says. “Fox News is not a news organization. It is the de facto leader of the GOP, and it is long past time that it is treated as such by the media, elected officials and the public.”

The tactics that Media Matters are using – “sabotage” even on their own acknowledgment – ought to show any decent person that the mainstream media has truly been infiltrated by fascist, Soviet-style thugs.

I mean, think about it: “guerrilla warfare and sabotage”?  This is done by people and organizations who have “Little Red Books” or “Mein Kampfs” to accompany their tactics.  Fox News isn’t out there using “guerrilla warfare and sabotage”; it’s the people who say Fox News is evil who then use the most profoundly un-American tactics.  That should be very informative to non-moral idiots.

Sadly, while conservatives rose up in 2010, it seems that the long-term trend is that there are fewer and fewer decent people who are willing to do less and less.  And all the while the hateful left are busy working like ants stripping the dying carcass of America.

Bad people not only lie; they believe lies.  That’s why we’re seeing more and more lies today.  And it’s why the left can justify openly using “guerrilla warfare and sabotage” that would have been condemned by better people.

Jesus talked about the last days.  He said a lot of terrifying things would happen.  There would be worldwide economic collapses, wars and rumors of wars, many earthquakes and great signs in the oceans in many diverse places, and famines; all anticipating a coming antichrist (“the beast”) who would promise a Utopia but who would ultimately deliver hell on earth.

And it’s all coming while we watch NBC smuggle in Media Matters’ talking points in the guise of “news.”

Obama and his White House has tried to ban Fox News – one of the big four of the media – from being able to cover the news.   Obama’s White House has repeatedly launched flat-out propaganda campaigns against Fox news.  The news media – realizing how outrageous it would be if a conservative president did this same thing to one of them – erupted in outrage against Obama for his blatant attempt to control the media like a fascist dictator.  When Obama tried to freeze out Fox News even though Fox News had been a member of the pool consisting of ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox News since 1997, the ALL refused to send reporters until Obama backed down.  But Obama is STILL doing it as recently as yesterday.  At his heart, he is a fascist.  He demands that he be able to control the media and control the message.

The other day the Obama White House demonstrated this instinct toward fascistic control again: they literally shut a reporter in a cramped closet and kept demanding that he stay in there.

You can bet that the antichrist, the beast, will have control over the media and the message.

And sadddest of all, what Jesus said would precede all of this horror and misery as the leftwing socialist big government beast was the final apathetic and self-absorbed era of the Laodicean church.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer – who gave his own life in his stand against Adolf Hitler – said a few things that truly apply to us as we sit idly by watching our boob tubes while bad people with a bad agenda take the world away from us:

“When all is said and done, the life of faith is nothing if not an unending struggle of the spirit with every available weapon against the flesh.” 

“The ultimate test of a moral society is the kind of world that it leaves to its children.” 

“Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.”

Stop letting these people “frame the news” while you watch like a slack-jawed drooling imbecile. If you’re going to sit there, at least muster the moral outrage to change the channel.

Obama And Liberal Democrat Ally General Electric Paid NO Taxes Last Year And In Fact Was GIVEN Money By Government

Before we get to our main story, let’s do a little recent historical review.

First of all, G.E.has been a key Obama ally, and GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt is basically even working for Obama:

Obama Names GE CEO Immelt As Economic Adviser
January 21, 2011

President Obama wants to cast some light on economic success stories in the shadows of a slow recovery. And he is looking to find some more.

On Friday, the president travels to Schenectady, N.Y., birthplace of the General Electric Co., to showcase a new GE deal with India and announce a restructured presidential advisory board to focus on increasing employment and competitiveness.

Obama is naming GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt as the head of a Council on Jobs and Competitiveness. The panel replaces Obama’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board, which had been chaired by former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker. Obama announced late Thursday that Volcker, as expected, was ending his tenure on the panel.

Then there’s the fact that G.E. has been a MASSIVE beneficiary of the Obama- and Democrat-imposed radical so-called “green” agenda:

Undisclosed NBC Conflict of Interest Again Arises in Annual ‘Green Week’
By Lachlan Markay | November 16, 2010 | 16:47

On Sunday, NBC Universal launched its annual “Green Week,” as part of the company’s “Green is Universal” environmental awareness campaign.

As NBC embarks on yet another week of “environmentally themed programming,” it falls to media watchdogs to point out the massive conflict presented by NBC parent company General Electric’s significant financial interests in the policies “Green Week” indirectly advances.

GE stands to make millions from Democrats’ “clean energy” agenda. The company has invested massive amounts of money in technology that can only be profitable through government intervention or subsidization.

Put these two facts together and what do you get?

Now consider this, stupid, depraved fools (i.e., anyone who calls themselves a “Democrat” and says that evil corporate greed comes from Republicans:

G.E.’s Strategies Let It Avoid Taxes Altogether
By DAVID KOCIENIEWSKI
Published: March 24, 2011

General Electric, the nation’s largest corporation, had a very good year in 2010.

The company reported worldwide profits of $14.2 billion, and said $5.1 billion of the total came from its operations in the United States.

Its American tax bill? None. In fact, G.E. claimed a tax benefit of $3.2 billion.

That may be hard to fathom for the millions of American business owners and households now preparing their own returns, but low taxes are nothing new for G.E. The company has been cutting the percentage of its American profits paid to the Internal Revenue Service for years, resulting in a far lower rate than at most multinational companies.

Its extraordinary success is based on an aggressive strategy that mixes fierce lobbying for tax breaks and innovative accounting that enables it to concentrate its profits offshore. G.E.’s giant tax department, led by a bow-tied former Treasury official named John Samuels, is often referred to as the world’s best tax law firm. Indeed, the company’s slogan “Imagination at Work” fits this department well. The team includes former officials not just from the Treasury, but also from the I.R.S. and virtually all the tax-writing committees in Congress.

While General Electric is one of the most skilled at reducing its tax burden, many other companies have become better at this as well. Although the top corporate tax rate in the United States is 35 percent, one of the highest in the world, companies have been increasingly using a maze of shelters, tax credits and subsidies to pay far less.

In a regulatory filing just a week before the Japanese disaster put a spotlight on the company’s nuclear reactor business, G.E. reported that its tax burden was 7.4 percent of its American profits, about a third of the average reported by other American multinationals. Even those figures are overstated, because they include taxes that will be paid only if the company brings its overseas profits back to the United States. With those profits still offshore, G.E. is effectively getting money back.

So we’ve got a giant mega-corporation whose top leadership is clearly in the pocket of the Democrat Party and which has clearly benefitted from the Democrat Party agenda.

And lo and behond, it turns out that not only do these piles of quivering un-American slime at GE not pay taxes, but Obama actually has the naked chutzpah to reach into the American people’s pocket and say, “We owe you this, Mr. Immelt.”

Now, this would be loathsome and indefensible enough it GE was a rightwing corporation.  But understand that Democrats are continually demonizing Republicans as being “the party of corporate greed” when in fact THEY are the real winners at the corporate greed game.

Democrats calling Republicans “corporate shills” is like Yassar Arafat calling Ronald Reagan “anti-Jew”; the label only works if you are an idiot on every level imaginable.

Want more?  Feed on this:

Here’s one among thousands of examples: Incandescent light bulbs are far more convenient and less expensive than compact fluorescent bulbs (CFL) that General Electric now produces. So how can General Electric sell its costly CFLs? They know that Congress has the power to outlaw incandescent light bulbs. General Electric was the prominent lobbyist for outlawing incandescent light bulbs and in 2008 had a $20 million lobbying budget. Also, it should come as no surprise that General Electric is a contributor to global warmers who help convince Congress that incandescent bulbs were destroying the planet.

The greater Congress’ ability to grant favors and take one American’s earnings to give to another American, the greater the value of influencing congressional decision-making. There’s no better influence than money. The generic favor sought is to get Congress, under one ruse or another, to grant a privilege or right to one group of Americans that will be denied another group of Americans.

And guess what?  As soon as Democrats took over Congress that’s exactly what they did: they criminalized incandescent light bulbs and made GE’s mercury-laden CFL bulbs the “Big Brother” alternative.

GE gave $20 million to Democrats.  But don’t worry, Democrats took money right out of your and your children and grandchildren’s pockets to pay back their corporate pals with their usual array of shennanigans.

And the only thing that is more despicable than that is that all the while they’re doing all this, Democrats are constantly demonizing Republicans.

Hypocrisy is the quintessential defining essense of liberalism.  Pure and simple.

Can Someone Explain Why The Government Should Be The Unions’ Bag Man And Forcibly-Collect Union Dues???

This is really quite amazing; not that the Republicans are ending the practice in Florida, but rather that it was ever done anywhere in the first place:

House approves bill banning automatic deduction for union dues
By Kathleen Haughney, Tallahassee Bureau
2:00 p.m. EDT, March 25, 2011

TALLAHASSEE — The Florida House delivered a major blow to public employee unions Friday, approving a bill that would ban automatic dues deduction from a government paycheck and require members to sign off on the use of their dues for political purposes.

Democrats and Republicans fought over the legislation for just under two hours. Democrats and labor unions have accused conservatives of “union-busting” and said the bill was more about political payback than public policy. Unions have typically been big backers of Democratic candidates.

Rep. Chris Dorworth, R-Lake Mary, the House sponsor of the legislation, said this was simply the state’s movement to get out of the dues deduction business and let the unions take care of it.

“It’s a bill that empowers membership of labor unions,” Dorworth said.

The measure, HB 1021, passed by a 73-40 vote, with three Republican lawmakers siding with the Democrats.

Florida is a “right to work” state, which means a worker is not forced to join a union. But many public employees do so, and state employers typically withhold union dues from workers’ paychecks. A portion of those dues is set aside by their unions for education, community action — and political contributions.

Democrats argued that Republicans are simply trying to take out their political opponents.

“It’s about silencing the opposition. That’s not democratic,” said Rep. Richard Steinberg, D-Miami Beach.

During the last general election cycle, the statewide teachers’ union gave more than $3.4 million in campaign contributions, mostly to Democrats. The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees doled out nearly $1.4 million, much of it directly to the state Democratic Party.  And the AFL-CIO and other labor groups gave hundreds of thousands of dollars more.

For the past few weeks, labor groups have been actively campaigning against the bill and testifying against it in legislative committee meetings, but the Republican majority was largely united in pushing the bill through the House.

“This bill aims to do nothing more than silencing dissent,” said Florida Education Association President Andy Ford. “The lawmakers who voted for this bill have signaled their desire to use the power of government to single out and attack the hardworking men and women who serve Florida in public employment.”

The Senate version of the bill, sponsored by Sen. John Thrasher, R-St. Augustine, has one more committee stop before it makes it to the floor.

Republicans have denied Democrats’ accusations that the bill is a political attack, saying the legislation was designed to get government out of the political process since it would no longer be collecting dues for organizations that sometimes do political work. And people who decide they don’t want their dues used for political purposes can say no, Republican lawmakers argued.

“If you want your money –your money– you get to keep it,” said Rep. Carlos Lopez-Cantera, R-Miami.

What am I supposed to say, unions?  “Sorry.  Don’t got it right now.”  Or maybe, “The check’s in the mail.”

I absolutely love the way liberals turn reality on its head and then spit on it after urinating on it and defecating on it.  By voting to give workers a chance to decide for themselves whether or not to fund the unions – instead of this bizarre practice where the government forcibly seizes their money and gives it to people who are ostensibly bargaining against the government that pays the bills – Republicans are “silencing dissent” and “undemocratic.”

It is “undemocratic” to believe that a worker shouldn’t be forced by the government to give his or her wages to a union that fundamentally opposes that workers core interests and beliefs.

On a liberal-fascist view, “democracy” means refusing to allow the people to vote.  “Democracy” means the government seizing the people’s money and giving it to ideological organizations.

Apparently, given that it is “silencing dissent” to end this practice, Republicans should pass another bill requiring the government to deduct from union workers’ paychecks moneys payable to the Grand Old Party.

We’ve reached the point where arguing about democracy with a “Democrat” is rather like arguing nuclear physics with a cockroach.

Liberals Despise Independent Women, And Every Intelligent Woman Knows It

Show me the video of Rush Limbaugh calling Hillary Clinton a “dumb twat” and the National Organization for Women having nothing to say about it, and you might have a case.  Otherwise, if you are a liberal, and you aren’t hanging your head in abject shame, you are just too morally stupid and hypocritical to bother arguing with.

Bill Maher, George Lopez and the War on Women — Why Are Attacks on Conservative Women Given Just a Shrug?
By Penny Young Nance
Published March 25, 2011
| FoxNews.com

It takes a really weak, insecure, and spineless man to attack a woman on television. It takes an even weaker “feminist” movement to play down such attacks.

In a recent episode of “Somebody, Please Notice Me,” also known as “Real Time with Bill Maher” on HBO, the show’s host may have hit rock bottom with his latest rhetorical bomb by referring to Sarah Palin with a vulgarity exceedingly offensive to women. Far more noticeable, and certainly more noteworthy, was the backhanded “defense”of Palin from radical feminists and their clearly misnamed organizations.

National Organization for Women communications director Lisa Bennett, after days of silence, sounded more as if she didn’t want to be bothered: “Sorry, but we can’t defend Palin or even Hillary Clinton from every sexist insult hurled at them in the media.”

Several weeks ago, MSNBC’s Chris Matthews attacked Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) with another derogatory slur in reference to a harmless geographical gaffe she made about American history. Only crickets from the radical feminists. (A few weeks later Matthews found himself geographically-challenged when he said the Panama Canal was in Egypt.)

Lest this be confined only to conservative women, comedian George Lopez had no problem attacking actress Kirstie Alley and likening her to a squealing pig. At least Lopez apologized.

 So what gives with these attacks and the 800-pound double standard in the room?

Suppose Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity did drop a vulgarity on Hillary Clinton or Nancy Pelosi? Despite her protestations a rapid, robust response from Ms. Bennett, NOW and the feminist Left would’ve taken all of 30 seconds, give or take a few. Broadcast news shows would be leading with the story and the reaction, repeated calls for apologies, and firings would ensue. Left-wing groups would harass advertisers in an attempt to get them to pull their sponsorships.

All women, regardless of their political persuasions need to speak out against these kinds of attacks because they harm everyone who is female from age 2 – 92, but the prevailing view among radical feminists seems to be that conservative women either don’t exist or are merely female impersonators. They don’t deserve to be defended when attacked because, after all, real women don’t hold conservative views.

So if you’re a woman leader with conservative positions on the issues, and you’re active in your church and speak out about matters of faith, and you get demeaned, demonized, slurred, or smeared, the radical feminist attitude toward you is, “You get what you deserve, because we, frankly, have the same opinion of you.”

Already teetering on the precipice of irrelevance, radical feminists only further undercut their credibility and authority to speak out on behalf of women when they stay silent in the face of such unacceptable behavior. They have become as clueless and delusional as the men they challenged and mocked 40 years ago.

The collapse of radical feminism was first revealed in the movement’s turning a blind eye toward Bill Clinton’s philandering and clear objectification of women. A conservative president who behaved like Clinton would have been publicly filleted, but instead, the leaders of the “women’s movement” gave him a wink and a nod.

In one of radical feminism’s lowest moments (and there are many), former Time magazine White House correspondent Nina Burleigh appointed herself the official Clinton apologist when she infamously told Mirabella magazine: “I’d be happy to give him [oral sex] just to thank him for keeping abortion legal.”

From embracing Bill Clinton to ignoring Bill Maher, radical feminists have reduced themselves to pitiful insignificance. New women have emerged as leaders, and many more will follow, and they reject the radical feminist orthodoxy with its hypocrisies and double-standards.

The movement’s leaders will have only themselves to blame. Women achieved substantial, needed gains several generations ago. Unfortunately, too many radical feminists are stuck in 1971, where they are destined to remain.

Penny Young Nance is CEO of Concerned Women for America, the nation’s largest public policy women’s organization.

Liberalism has now officially become the ideology of dumb twats, while liberal women who hypocritically claim to stand up for women do nothing.