Archive for June, 2011

Glenn Beck’s Wife And Daughter Heckled And Assaulted By Vile Mob Of Liberal Cowards

June 30, 2011

This is what liberals being liberals looks like.  It’s ugly, because liberals are ugly people:

Glenn Beck Harrassed In Bryant Park (VIDEO, PHOTOS) Hate-Fueled Assault
by Jim Brogan

Right-wing Fox host Glenn Beck decided it was finally time that he took his daughter and wife to see a showing of Alfred Hitchcock’s ‘The 39 Steps’ at Bryant, a trip he’d wanted to do for years. He did on Monday night – but was unfortunately met by a bunch of people acting like animals.

Beck has wanted to take his daughter to Bryant Park for a very long time, and when his wife said to him, “You wanna go?” because of the whispering, pointing and texting and other behavior from the people there, he turned and said to her, “Not on your life.”

“It was a hostile situation,” Beck recounted of the trip. The host’s WIFE – yes, his wife, had a bottle of alcohol “accidentally” kicked on to her back, leaving her and the blanket “completely wet.” The crowd behind them laughed about it.

It unfortunately didn’t get any better as the night went on. His wife and daughter were getting up to go to the bathroom when a man pointed his fingers and yelled, “We hate conservatives here!” His daughter had tears in her eyes when she and her mother returned to their blanket.

Another woman stood up behind the family, pointed her finger at them and said, “We’re in New York, and we HATE Republicans!”

Beck and his family were treated like garbage by ignorant, rude liberals at the movie showing. He said Tuesday, “If I had suggested — and I almost did — wow, does anybody have a rope? Because there’s a tree here. You could just lynch me. And I think there would’ve been a couple in the crowd that would’ve!”

But the host somehow maintained his sympathy for others at the showing: “I apologize to anybody who had their movie experience wrecked because of the people that found it so necessary to spew hatred,” Beck said, “but there’s nothing I can do about it.”

Beck was also bothered by the fact that no one jumped to his defense at the park. He said he was “…a little surprised that nobody — nobody — in the crowd said ‘knock it off. Just, stop. Just be cool. I don’t agree with the guy, but just be cool.’ ”

The host said his experience was so horrible, he wouldn’t wish it on his worst enemies: “All through the evening, I wanted to say to you today, please, please, please don’t ever treat anybody like that. If Van Jones comes and sits right next to you, please don’t treat anybody like that.”

Video below. Where’s the outrage?

By the way, this isn’t uncommon at all.  It’s not dissimilar to the way that Andrew Breitbart was treated when he showed up in the public common area at a Netroots Nation convention.  He was immediately accosted, surrounded and heckled and treated like dirt by people who actually called themselves “journalists.”

Garden variety liberals are much more classless vermin, of course.  Here’s video of an elderly woman who was assaulted for bringing a cross to a “No on Prop 8” event in Palm Springs.  Liberals came unglued, because they are godless, wicked people and coming unglued is what they do best.

I have met a fair number of “celebrities” in my life.  As someone who lives in the Palm Springs area, it’s not all that unusual – especially if one is involved at all in the community.  If I genuinely admired a celebrity, I offered my congratulations to him or to her; if I didn’t, I have left them alone and ignored them.

I don’t understand how liberals can think that Nazis have a right to march through a town largely populated by Jewish death camp survivors, but conservatives don’t have a right to anything.  It’s just an exhibit of what vile, vile hypocrites liberals are.  Liberals would probably sneer and say something stupid like, “That’s because conservatives are worse than Nazis,” but what it really proves is that liberals are tolerant of Nazi fascists, but utterly intolerant of anyone with whom they disagree.

I would NEVER have treated a liberal celebrity like this.  And as despicable as these people acted, it was even MORE despicable for these cockroach liberals to treat Glenn Beck’s family this way.

I love Ann Coulter’s take on this vile example of the fact that liberals are genuinely vile people:

Glenn Beck Vs. The Mob
by  Ann Coulter
06/29/2011

Of all the details surrounding the liberal mob attack on Glenn Beck and  his family in New York’s Bryant Park last Monday night, one element  stands out. “No, it won’t be like that, Dad,” his daughter said when  Beck questioned the wisdom of attending a free, outdoor movie showing in  a New York park.

People who have never been set upon by a mob of liberals have  absolutely no idea what it’s like to be a publicly recognizable  conservative. Even your friends will constantly be telling you: “Oh, it  will be fine. Don’t worry. Nothing will happen. This place isn’t like  that.”

Liberals are not like most Americans. They are the biggest  pussies on Earth, city-bred weaklings who didn’t play a sport and have  never been in a fight in their entire lives. Their mothers made excuses  for them when they threw tantrums and spent way too much time praising  them during toilet training.

I could draw a mug shot of every one of Beck’s tormentors, and I wasn’t there.

Beck and his family would have been fine at an outdoor rap  concert. They would have been fine at a sporting event. They would have  been fine at any paid event, mostly because people who work for the  government and live in rent-controlled apartments would be too cheap to  attend.

Only a sad leftist with a crappy job could be so brimming with  self-righteousness to harangue a complete stranger in public.

A liberal’s idea of being a bad-ass is to say vicious things to  a conservative public figure who can’t afford to strike back. Getting  in a stranger’s face and hurling insults at him, knowing full well he  has too much at risk to deck you, is like baiting a bear chained to a  wall.

They are not only exploiting our lawsuit-mad culture, they are exploiting other people’s manners. I know I’ll be safe because this person has better manners than I do.

These brave-hearts know exactly what they can get away with.  They assault a conservative only when it’s a sucker-punch, they  outnumber him, or he can’t fight back for reasons of law or decorum.

Liberals don’t get that when you’re outnumbering the enemy 100-1, you’re not brave.

But they’re not even embarrassed. To the contrary, being part of the majority makes liberals feel great! Honey, wasn’t I amazing? I stood in a crowd of liberals and called that conservative a c**t. Wasn’t I awesome?

This is a liberal’s idea of raw physical courage.

When someone does fight back, liberals transform from aggressor  to victim in an instant, collapsing on the ground and screaming bloody  murder. I’ve seen it happen in a nearly empty auditorium when there was  quite obviously no other human within 5 feet of the gutless  invertebrate.

People incapable of conforming to the demands of civilized  society are frightening precisely because you never know what else such  individuals are capable of. Sometimes — a lot more often than you’ve  heard about — liberals do engage in physical violence against  conservatives … and then bravely run away.

That’s why not one person stepped up to aid Beck and his family  as they were being catcalled and having wine dumped on them at a nice  outdoor gathering.

No one ever steps in. Never, not once, not ever. (Except at the  University of Arizona, where college Republicans chased my assailant  and broke his collarbone, God bless them.)

Most people are shocked into paralysis at the sight of  sociopathic liberal behavior. The only ones who aren’t are the  conservative’s bodyguards — and they can’t do anything without risking a  lawsuit or an arrest.

My hero Tim Profitt is now facing charges for stopping a  physical assault on Senate candidate Rand Paul by a crazed woman  disguised in a wig.

But the disturbed liberal whose assault Profitt stopped faces  no charges — she instigated the entire confrontation and then instantly  claimed victim status. In a better America, the cop would say, “Well,  you provoked him.”

Kentucky prosecutors must be very proud of how they so  dutifully hew to the letter of the law (except in the case of Paul’s  assailant).

Maybe they wouldn’t be such good little rules-followers if they  ever, just once, had to face the liberal mob themselves. But if Beck’s  own daughter can’t imagine the liberal mob, I suppose prosecutors can’t  be expected to, either.

Michael Moore and James Carville can stroll anywhere in America  without risking the sort of behavior the Beck family experienced. But  all recognizable conservatives are eternally trapped in David Dinkins’  New York: Simply by virtue of leaving their homes, they assume a 20  percent chance of being assaulted.

Bullying is on the rise everywhere in America — and not just  because Obama decided to address it. It’s because no one hits back. The  message in our entire culture over the last two decades has been: DON’T  FIGHT!

There were a lot fewer public confrontations when bullies got their faces smashed.

Maybe it’s time for Beck to pony up some of those millions of  dollars he’s earned and hire people to rough up the liberal mob, or, at a  minimum, to provide a legal defense to those like Profitt who do.

These liberal pukes have never taken a punch in their lives. A  sock to the yap would be an eye-opening experience, and I believe it  would do wonders.

They need to have their behavior corrected. It’s a shame this  job wasn’t done by their parents. It won’t be done by the police.

As long as liberals can’t be normal and prosecutors can’t be  reasonable, how about a one-punch rule against anyone bothering a  stranger in public? Then we’ll see how brave these lactose-intolerant  mama’s boys are.

Believe me, liberal mobbings will stop very quickly after the first toilet-training champion takes his inaugural punch.

One day liberals will get their comeuppance.  God created hell for Satan and his demons and their legion of demonic bureaucrats that are also known as “Democrats.”  And it is that belief that there IS a divine justice – and that vengeance is God’s – that separates conservatives from liberals.

Advertisements

Obama Fires Project Gunrunner Whistleblower, Refuses To Allow ATF Head To Appear Before Congress

June 30, 2011

Of all the things I most truly despise about Barack Obama and the media propaganda that serves as his human shields, the thing I think that I most despise is the smarmy self-righteous hypocrisy that is completely based on deceit and rhetoric.

This is the most transparent administration EVER, they say, even as the Obama White House has snubbed FAR more Freedom of Information Act requests than Bush ever did.  And even as Obama covers up the White House security logs that allow the press to monitor just who is actually getting access.

And it doesn’t matter that Obama’s “transparency” is a documented transparent lie beyond the point of absurdity; they keep saying it over and over because these are Nazis who truly buy into the Big Lie idea of their predecessors.

Project Gunrunner is a national disgrace and it is a CRIME that needs to be investigated and punished.

But here’s what’s going on in the White House:

‘Project Gunrunner’ Whistleblower Says ATF Sent Him Termination Notice
By Maxim Lott
Published June 27, 2011 | FoxNews.com

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms is being accused of retaliating against an agent who helped publicize the agency’s role in allowing thousands of guns to cross the U.S. border and fall into the hands of Mexican drug gangs.

The agent, Vince Cefalu, who has spoken out about the ATF’s so-called “Project Gunrunner” scandal, says he was served with termination papers just last week, and he calls the move politically motivated.

“Aside from Jay Dobyns, I don’t know of anyone that’s been more vocal about ATF mismanagement than me,” said Cefalu, a senior special agent based in Dublin, Calif. “That’s why this is happening.” Dobyns, an ATF special agent based in Tucson, has appeared several times on Fox News to discuss the scandal.

Cefalu first told FoxNews.com about the ATF’s embattled anti-gun smuggling operation in December, before the first reports on the story appeared in February. “Simply put, we knowingly let hundreds of guns and dozens of identified bad guys go across the border,” Cefalu said at the time.

Since then, Cefalu’s claims have been vindicated, as a number of agents with first-hand knowledge of the case came forward. The scandal over Project Gunrunner led to congressional hearings, a presidential reprimand – Obama called the operation “a serious mistake” – and speculation that ATF chief Ken Melson will resign.

Yet last week, Cefalu, who has worked for the agency for 24 years, was forced to turn in his gun and badge. He can appeal but will be on “paid administrative leave” during the process.

Cefalu’s dismissal follows a string of allegations that the ATF retaliates against whistleblowers. When the Project Gunrunner scandal broke, Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, wrote the ATF that an agent who had been giving his staff members information about the scandal had been “allegedly accused… of misconduct” by the agent’s boss for talking with Grassley’s staffers.

Meanwhile the head of the ATF has NOT BEEN ALLOWED TO APPEAR BEFORE CONGRESS by Obama’s “Justice” Department:

The acting director of the federal Bureau  of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is standing his ground and  resisting pressure to step down amid a gun trafficking scandal, sources close to  the situation tell the Los Angeles Times.

Under the leadership of Kenneth Melson, the ATF  began “Operation Fast and Furious” in fall 2009 – a program established to trace  the sales of illegal firearms to Mexican drug cartels.

But the program instead put guns in cartel hands,  two of which were found at a crime scene where Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry  was killed in December 2010.

One source, who asked to remain anonymous, claimed  Melson has said in high-level discussions he didn’t want to be the “fall guy” on  the scandal.

“He is saying he won’t go,” the source told the Los  Angeles Times.

Another source who also requested anonymity  reaffirmed claims that Melson is resisting pressure to step down.

An ATF spokesman said the agency would not comment  on speculation regarding Melson’s status as acting director.

Melson has been invited to appear on Capitol  Hill, but has not yet been granted permission from the Justice  Department to do so.

And it certainly isn’t just Kenneth Melson who needs to resign over this fiasco in which guns were put into the hands of Mexican drug cartels who then used those very same guns to murder US agents.  I say “agents” because there are actually more than one.  There is absolutely no question whatsoever that a major federal operation involving lethal weapons into a foreign country would have had to have the awareness of at LEAST Attorney General Eric Holder.  And it is quite likely that Barry Hussein himself knew this fiasco was going on, which means we should consider impeachment.

I first wrote about this incredible – and incredibly stupid – incident here.

But I wrote about something else.  I wrote about The Liberal-Media Complex And The Lies To Abolish The 2nd Amendment.  And in that article I documented and commented upon the bogus claims by Obama and Hillary Clinton that American guns were flooding into Mexico.

But even as Obama and Hillary Clinton were demonizing American gun dealers for selling guns to Mexican cartels, Obama was in fact actually requiring the very gun dealers he was demonizing to sell those guns.  In spite of their attempts to warn the justice department about what was going on.  Which is to say he was demonizing the people who were doing the very thing he was actually requiring them to do.

This opens up the very real question as to whether Obama intended to put gun dealers into this position so he could take away Americans’ 2nd Amendment rights.

We need to get to the bottom of this ASAP and if Barack Obama continues to roadblock the investigation, Democrats need to do to him what Republicans courageously did to Richard Nixon: impeach his ass out of the people’s house.

Republicans Care About Children; Democrats Care About Teachers’ Union Boondoggle

June 29, 2011

A tale of two narratives:

Waiting for Superman:

Waiting for the Teachers’ Union
By Joel Klein, Chancellor of the New York City Department of Education
Posted: September 24, 2010 04:52 PM

If you do one thing this weekend, go see Davis Guggenheim’s latest documentary, “Waiting for ‘Superman’ “, which opens in theaters across the country today. The film, which has been met with well-deserved critical acclaim, paints a blunt and at times heartbreaking picture of the state of public education in America, told through the stories of families fighting to get their children into safe, high-performing schools.

First, it’s a terrific film.  But more importantly, it has helped catapult the debate on education reform to the national stage.

It’s not surprising that the film is making many people uncomfortable. The truth is harsh. It’s easier to turn away than to watch a crying mom clutch a losing lottery ticket that just cost her child a spot at a top-performing charter school.

What is surprising is that some — including the teachers’ unions — are railing against the film, dismissing it as anti-teacher and pro-charter school propaganda.

‘Superman’ is not anti-teacher; nor does it suggest that charter schools are the answer.  Teachers are the heroes of any education success story, and ‘Superman’ recognizes that. It also recognizes that there are good charters schools and bad charters schools. But it demonstrates that charters are finally providing families in traditionally disadvantaged communities with more choices — something affluent families have always had — thus increasing the chances for better outcomes. And the most successful charters, like the Harlem Children’s Zone schools that are run by Geoff Canada, who stars in the film, or the KIPP schools featured in it, are proving that success doesn’t depend upon where you come from, or the color of your skin, or how much money your family has — because they are getting real results in the poorest communities.

For example, this year, at the Harlem Success Academy, a charter school in New York City, 88 percent of the students passed the state’s reading test and 95 percent passed the math test, while comparable schools have pass rates of 35 percent in reading and 45 percent in math. In fact, Success performed at the same level as the very top gifted and talented schools in the City, all of which have demanding admissions requirements, while Success selects by lottery from primarily African-American and Latino students, three quarters of whom are living in poverty.

So why are they able to get better results? The number one reason is because they are not bound by legions of micro-managing regulations, including those contained in today’s typical teachers’ union contract.

Free from these rules, charter schools in New York can treat their teachers like professionals and reward them for excellence. They embrace an accountability system based on merit.  They understand that, like any other profession, all teachers are not created equal. And, they value the future of the kids above the future of the adults.  Which means if you are teaching in one of Geoff Canada’s schools, and your kids keep failing, you’re out.

It’s been nearly 30 years since President Reagan presented “A Nation at Risk.” In the meantime, our nation has almost doubled its spending (in inflation-adjusted dollars) on K-12 public education, but our gains have been negligible. And, while America’s students are in a ditch, the rest of the world is plowing forward. The Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development administers English, math and science tests to 13 year olds in its 30 member countries. On the most recent exams, the United States was in the bottom third in all three, and trending in the wrong direction in each one. And, where we once had the highest percentage of high school and college graduates among these 30 countries, today we’re toward the bottom for high school graduates and in the middle for college graduates.

We can’t keep ignoring this problem or thinking it’ll get fixed simply by throwing money at it.

Public education is badly failing far too many of our kids and, ultimately, our nation. We must, as Superman does, talk honestly about this uncomfortable fact and why it persists. And that discussion can only begin in earnest if we are prepared to acknowledge what the iconic teachers’ union head Albert Shanker told us almost two decades ago: “As long as there are no consequences if kids or adults don’t perform, as long as the discussion is not about education and student outcomes, then we’re playing a game as to who has the power.” Unfortunately, things haven’t changed much since then.

Only recently, for example, the General Counsel of the NEA, the nation’s largest teachers’ union, said:

Why is the NEA an effective advocate? Despite what some among us would like to believe it is not because of our creative ideas; it is not because of the merit of our positions; it is not because we care about children; and it is not because we have a vision of a great public school for every child.The NEA and its affiliates are effective advocates because we have power. And we have power because there are more than 3.2 million people who are willing to pay us hundreds of million of dollars in dues each year because they believe that we are the unions that can most effectively represent them; the union that can protect their rights and advance their interests as education employees.

I am not naïve enough to think that a movie can change the world. But “Waiting for ‘Superman’ ” does shine a much-needed spotlight on the status quo and the people who benefit from and defend it.

And it reminds us all that our job is to give voice to the voiceless and the powerless kids that are currently being denied the education they need and deserve. Because, let’s face it — they can’t afford union dues.

If you watch this movie and you AREN’T a KoolAid-drinking ideologue, you will be enraged at what the teachers’ unions are doing to our children.

It was featured on Oprah (here and here).  It was utterly devastating to watch as Michelle Rhee stood up for children and said:

“[The problem is terminal right now] because it is incredibly serious.  Children’s lives are hanging in the balance, and we are making all the wrong decisions right now.  Let me give you an example: people say to me all the time, ‘Oh, Chancellor Rhee, you’re so mean; you’re so harsh.  You know, if there is an ineffective teacher, don’t you believe that that person should be given the opportunity, give them some time, give them the resources to professionally develop them.  But I look at this from the vantage point of being a mother, too, because I have two young children.  I can tell you that if I showed up for school on day one and the principal said, ‘Welcome to Olivia’s class, here’s her teacher.  Guess what?  She’s not so good.  But we’re going to give her this year to see if she can get better, and Olivia and her classmates may not learn how to read this year, but we think that’s the right thing to do for this adult.’  There is no way I would put up with that.”

And of course she is out of a job.  And liberals say, “How DARE she talk like that!  She should be dragged into the street and killed.”

Democrats are in an unholy alliance with the teachers’ unions.  And teachers’ unions are in an unholy alliance with bad teachers, because they (and not the children) belong to the unions and pay union dues and are part of the system that funds Democrats so that Democrats can stay in office and reward the teachers’ unions.

Among other relevant facts, more than 95% of teachers’ unions contributions goes to Democrats, who then in turn protect and extend teachers’ unions.  Shennanigans in which teachers’ UNION representatives are paid by the schools rather than by the unions are common.  And teachers are routinely forced to contribute to Democrat Party candidates whether they want to or not.

Compare that to this:

Wisconsin’s Walker Signs Historic School Choice Bill
Monday, 27 Jun 2011 04:17 PM

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker today signed into law the largest expansion to the state’s school choice programs in history. The expansion will benefit thousands of children from the state’s low- and middle-income families and sends a strong signal to the nation that educational equality is possible with strong leadership from state legislators and executives.

The American Federation for Children, which—along with School Choice Wisconsin, the Wisconsin Council of Religious & Independent Schools, Hispanics for School Choice, and Democrats for Education Reform—has invested significantly in outreach and advocacy efforts designed to expand school choice in the Badger State, praised the passage of the landmark school choice program expansions.

In approving the state budget, Walker enacted a significant expansion of the popular Milwaukee Parental Choice Program. The state’s 2011-2013 biennial budget contains language that increases income eligibility for the program and removes the cap on the number of participants. The budget also allows children in Milwaukee to attend the private schools of their parents’ choice—anywhere in Wisconsin.

In addition, the budget creates a new choice program—similar to the one in Milwaukee—for Racine. AFC polling indicates strong, bipartisan support for the creation of this new program. Governor Walker first publicly announced his intention to pursue the expansion to Racine during an address to the American Federation for Children’s National Policy Summit in May 2011.

“Today is a monumental day for children in Milwaukee, Racine, and the State of Wisconsin,” said AFC Chairman Betsy DeVos. “Governor Walker and state legislators pledged to put Wisconsin’s children first, and today that important pledge has become law. We encourage governors and state legislators across the nation to be equally bold in fighting for the creation and expansion of school choice programs.”

In addition to praising Governor Scott Walker’s leadership, AFC today hailed the courage of Senator Alberta Darling (R-River Hills), Representative Robin Vos (R-Burlington), Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald (R-Juneau), and Assembly Speaker Jeff Fitzgerald (R-Horicon). AFC also praised Representative Jason Fields (D-Milwaukee) for introducing the successful “Once In, Always In” provision that will protect students enrolled in both the Milwaukee and Racine Parental Choice Programs.

You start to feel like there needs to be a Moses who says, “Let my children go.”  Democrats certainly won’t.  They will do everything they can to force every parent to keep their child(ren) in government schools no matter how badly those schools are failing.

Republicans love children and despise unions; Democrats love unions and despise children.  Which also explains why they’ve already murdered more than 53 million of them.

Obama REPEATEDLY IGNORED GENERALS As He Pursued His Political Policy Of First Surge Then Cut-And-Run In Afghanistan

June 29, 2011

Is Obama succeeding in Afghanistan?  Consider this little factoid: There are 280 provinces in Afghanistan; AND ONLY 29 OF THEM ARE UNDER U.S. OR AFGHAN CONTROL!!!

That’s what I call “failure.”  Obama is a failed president on every single front, both domestically and internationally.  More on that below.

What we have immediately below is documented proof that not only did Barack Hussein ignore his generals’ (and even both the senior Pentagon and Justice Department lawyers!!!) regarding military policy and strategy, but he that HE LIED TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE about it.

At what point do we demand the impeachment of this lying, corrupt dishonest fraud???

General Reveals that Obama Ignored Military’s Advice on Afghanistan
5:21 PM, Jun 28, 2011 • By STEPHEN F. HAYES

Lieutenant General John Allen told the Senate Armed Services Committee today that the Afghanistan decision President Obama announced last week was not among the range of options the military provided to the commander in chief. Allen’s testimony directly contradicts claims from senior Obama administration officials from a background briefing before the president’s announcement.

In response to questioning from Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Allen testified that Obama’s decision on the pace and size of Afghanistan withdrawals was “a more aggressive option than that which was presented.”

Graham pressed him. “My question is: Was that a option?”

Allen: “It was not.”

Allen’s claim, which came under oath, contradicts the line the White House had been providing reporters over the past week—that Obama simply chose one option among several presented by General David Petraeus. In a conference call last Wednesday, June 22, a reporter asked senior Obama administration officials about those options. “Did General Petraeus specifically endorse this plan, or was it one of the options that General Petraeus gave to the president?”

The senior administration official twice claimed that the Obama decision was within the range of options the military presented to Obama. “In terms of General Petraeus, I think that, consistent with our approach to this, General Petraeus presented the president with a range of options for pursuing this drawdown. There were certainly options that went beyond what the president settled on in terms of the length of time that it would take to recover the surge and the pace that troops would come out – so there were options that would have kept troops in Afghanistan longer at a higher number. That said, the president’s decision was fully within the range of options that were presented to him and he has the full support of his national security team.”

The official later came back to the question and reiterated his claim. “So to your first question I would certainly – I would certainly characterize it that way. There were a range. Some of those options would not have removed troops as fast as the president chose to do, but the president’s decision was fully in the range of options the president considered.”

(The full transcript of the exchange is below; the full transcript of the call is at the link.)

So the new top commander in Afghanistan says Obama went outside the military’s range of options to devise his policy, and the White House says the president’s policy was within that range of options. Who is right?

We know that Petraeus and Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have both testified that the administration’s decision was “more aggressive” than their preferred option. And there has been considerable grumbling privately from senior military leaders about the policy. Among their greatest concerns: the White House’s insistence that the 2012 drawdown of the remaining 23,000 surge troops be completed by September. That means that drawdown will have to begin in late spring or early summer—a timeline for which there exists no serious military rationale. Afghanistan’s “fighting season” typically lasts from April through November. (Last year, it continued into December because of warmer than usual temperatures.) So if the White House were to go forward with its policy as presented, the largest contingent of surge troops would be withdrawn during the heart of next year’s fighting season.

Would Petraeus have made such a recommendation? No. He wants to win the war. When he was pressed last week to explain the peculiar timeframe, Petraeus said that it wasn’t military considerations that produced such a timeline but “risks having to do with other considerations.”

Which ones? Petraeus declined to say. But in a happy coincidence for the White house, the troops will be home in time for the presidential debates of 2012 and the November election.

Q    Hi, everyone.  Thanks for doing the call.  I’ve got a couple, but I’ll be quick.  Did General Petraeus specifically endorse this plan, or was it one of the options that General Petraeus gave to the president?  And as a follow-up, did Gates, Panetta and Clinton all endorse it?  Finally, will the president say about how many troops will remain past 2014?  And of the 33,000 coming home by next summer, how many are coming home and how many are going to be reassigned somewhere else?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Okay, I’ll take part of that.  In terms of General Petraeus, I think that, consistent with our approach to this, General Petraeus presented the president with a range of options for pursuing this drawdown.  There were certainly options that went beyond what the President settled on in terms of the length of time that it would take to recover the surge and the pace that troops would come out — so there were options that would have kept troops in Afghanistan longer at a higher number.

That said, the president’s decision was fully within the range of options that were presented to him and has the full support of his national security team. I think there’s a broad understanding among the national security team that there’s an imperative to both consolidate the gains that have been made and continue our efforts to train Afghan security forces and partner with them in going after the Taliban, while also being very serious about the process of transition and the drawdown of our forces.

So, to your first question, I would certainly — I would characterize it that way. There were a range.  Some of those options would not have removed troops as fast as the President chose to do, but the president’s decision was fully in the range of options the president considered.

There is no question which side is lying and which side is telling the truth.  BARACK OBAMA IS A LIAR AND A FOOL.

Let’s go back and contemplate how cynical and dishonest the Obama administration has been all along in its political game plan played with the lives of American servicemen:

Charles Krauthammer pointed out the sheer cynical depravity of Barack Obama and the  Democrat Party as regards Iraq and Afghanistan by pointing to what  the Democrats themselves said:

Bob Shrum, who was a high  political operative who worked on the Kerry campaign in ’04, wrote a very interesting article in December of last year in which he talked  about that campaign, and he said, at the time, the Democrats  raised the issue of Afghanistan — and they made it into “the right war”  and “the good war” as a way to attack Bush on Iraq.  In  retrospect, he writes, that it was, perhaps, he said, misleading.  Certainly it was not very wise.

What he really meant to say — or at least I would interpret it — it  was utterly cynical. In other words, he’s confessing, in a  way, that the Democrats never really supported the Afghan war.  It was simply a club with which to bash the [Bush] administration on the  Iraq war and pretend that Democrats aren’t anti-war in general, just  against the wrong war.

Well, now they are in power, and they are trapped in a box as  a result of that, pretending [when] in opposition that Afghanistan is  the good war, the war you have to win, the central war in the war on  terror. And obviously [they are] now not terribly interested in it, but  stuck.

And that’s why Obama has this dilemma. He said explicitly on ABC a  few weeks ago that he wouldn’t even use the word “victory” in  conjunction with Afghanistan.

And Democrats in Congress have said: If you don’t  win this in one year, we’re out of here. He can’t win the war in  a year. Everybody knows that, which means he [Obama] has no  way out.

More on this utterly hypocritical and cynical chutzpah here.  Which is even more maddening given the fact that the liberals who screamed about the two wars Bush got us in are almnost completely mum about the FIVE WARS Obama has us in.

And these same total pieces of cockroach scum who cynically pitched Afghanistan as “the good war” and Iraq as “the bad war” as a political ploy for Obama Democrats to demonize Bush and our American troops while pretending to remain pro-American security are now both taking credit for what they called “the bad war” in Iraq

On Larry King Live last night, Vice President Joe Biden said Iraq “could  be one of the great achievements of this administration. You’re going  to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the  summer. You’re going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually  moving toward a representative government.”

– while cutting and running in defeat from what they claimed was “the good war.”

By the way, Obama has NEVER bothered to listen to his generals in Afghanistan.  Which is why he is the clearest and most present threat to our national security.

Let’s consider what Obama did: after demonizing Bush – who was successful in Iraq where he chose to fight – Obama dragged us into the quagmire of Afghanistan.  He wanted a “political” surge.  Germany’s leftist Der Speigel rightly said Obama’s “new strategy for Afghanistan” “seemed like a campaign speech.”  And then they said:

An additional 30,000 US soldiers are to march into  Afghanistan — and then they will march right back out again.

Which reminds us that conservatives SAID the policy of “timetables” would never work and would fail.  And here we are now proving that assessment was 100% correct as we begin to cut-and-run having accomplished NOTHING but a “surge” of dead Americans and a “surge” in American bankruptcy.

What did I say back in December of 2009?  My title: “Obama’s Message To Taliban Re: Afghanistan: ‘Just Keep Fighting And Wait Us Out And It’ll Be All Yours’” should say it all.

Obama refused to listen to his generals when he refused to give them enough troops to begin with.  He compounded that stupid error by ignoring his generals and mandating a timetable for pullout that FURTHER guaranteed failure.  And now he’s AGAIN refusing to listen to his generals as he cuts-and-runs far faster than they can accommodate.

And the only thing more stupid that Obama can do is to export this policy of stupidly refusing to listen to his military experts.  Which is exactly what he did in Libya when he got us in there under utterly false pretenses:

“It was reported in March that Gates, along with Counterterrorism Chief John  Brennan and National Security Adviser Thomas Donilon, privately advised the  president to avoid military involvement in Libya — but they were overruled…”

Now we face an unmitigated debacle in Afghanistan as Obama cuts-and-runs.  We will be pulling troops out exactly when we most need them in the height of the fighting season.  And why?  Because Obama cynically wants to bring the troops home in time to bolster his pathetic campaign for a second term.

As a final comment about the Democrats’ fundamental hypocrisy, here’s a piece from 2004 Democrat presidential nominee John Kerry demanding that Bush “listen to his generals.”  Bush DID listen to his generals – which was why HE TURNED IRAQ AROUND INTO WHAT THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION NOW SAYS IS “ONE OF THE GREAT ACHIEVEMENTS OF THIS ADMINISTRATION.”

Here’s my question: where are you NOW, Kerry, you hypocrite coward???

Obama and Democrats have owed George Bush and Dick Cheney abject apologies for their lies and demagoguery of these two men for years.

Democrats are VERMIN.  They have been vermin for most of the last 50 years.  They have been documented vermin on American foreign policy all over the world.  And we need to keep reminding Americans as to what verminous rat bastards they have been and continue to be.

Obama will be an abject disaster for American foreign policy for decades to come.  And fighting under Obama’s foreign policy is exactly like Vietnam (or shall we call it “echoes of Vietnam”?).

Just like conservatives warned all along.

The moment I saw the “Jeremiah Wright” videos I realized that Barack Obama was a truly evil human being who would lead America to ruin.  It was like an apocalyptic vision of warning.  And it has turned out to be even worse than I feared…

Michelle Bachmann A Gaffe Machine? If Liberals Want To See A Gaffe Machine, Have Them Look At Their Fool-In-Chief

June 28, 2011

You want to see a gaffe?

Here’s a pretty darned good gaffe:

“Everybody knows that it makes no sense that you send a kid to the emergency room for a treatable illness like asthma. They end up taking up a hospital bed. It costs when, if you, they just gave, you gave, treatment early, and they got some treatment, and uhhh a breathalyzer, or uhh, an inhalator, not a breathalyzer…”    

Here’s a REAL good one:

“I’ve now been in 57 states  I think one left to go.”

Oh!  There was this one, where Obama clearly couldn’t tell the difference between Memorial Day and Veterans Day (unless you want to argue Obama was having an “I see dead white people” moment):

“On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes and I see many of them in the audience here today.”

There was this gem of intellectual horsepower in which Obama went to Israel and assured that country:

“Well let me be absolutely clear.  Israel is a strong friend of Israel’s.”

There was the very recent moment in which Obama spoke to the 10th Mountain Division and said that their hero SFC Jared Monti was “the first person who I was able to award the Medal of Honor to who actually  came back and wasn’t receiving it posthumously.”  SFC Monti had in fact been mortally wounded in action.  His audience was grieving for their fallen comrade, not celebrating a living hero.

There was this statement of Obama meeting his future self and talking about the encounter:

“I have made good judgments in the past. I have made good judgments in the future.”

Which of course was balanced out by Obama’s future self going back in time and signing in for him:

Obama got the date wrong by THREE YEARS.  I’ve done that “sign the check with the wrong year” in January thing.  But this is beyond the pale.

Obama has also demonstrated that he didn’t understand the difference between the Congressional Medal of Honor (which is ONLY given to war heroes who demonstrated extraordinary heroism and gallantry under enemy fire) and the Presidential Medal of Freedom (which is a political award a president can give to anyone he wants for whatever reason he wants to give it).  And the surrounding instance of that horrendous gaffe was even more horrendous as Obama was giving “shout outs” AFTER he had just heard American soldiers had just been ruthlessly gunned down on an American base by a Muslim terrorist Major.

Along with Obama’s saluting of a Navy “corpse man,” demonstrating he had absolutely no idea whatsoever what corpsmen are or what they do.

And there was that recent moment when Obama continued to chatter on and on over the British National Anthem – which is a no-no pretty much EVERYWHERE.

Now, I see those, and I’m supposed to think that liberals are right for believing that Michelle Bachmann is too stupid (or what’s that word?  Flaky?) to be President of the United States because she mistook John Wayne – who was born in Winterset Iowa – with John Wayne Gacy – who was born in Waterloo Iowa?

But you consider the mainstream media that pretty much glossed over ALL of that, and then suddenly making Michelle Bachmann’s gaffe about John Wayne Gacy the absolute CENTERPIECE of their questioning of her, and you realize that there are two Americas out there – the one the liberal mainstream media propagandists hate and the one the liberal mainstream media propagandists love.

Unlike Barack Obama, Michelle Bachmann doesn’t take a teleprompter every damn where she goes.  Unlike Barack Obama, Michelle Bachmann isn’t a hand puppet reading a script.  And unlike Barack Obama, most of Michelle Bachmann’s gaffes have nothing whatsoever to do with governing the nation.

If you believe that Michelle Bachmann isn’t fit to be president because of gaffes, and you aren’t loudly demanding that Barack Obama resign from office for crimes against intelligence, than you are a hypocrite and a fool.

The media gets on the liberal warpath, and it just doesn’t stop.  So they are already on another one out of their contention that our founding fathers were a bunch of racist bigots bent on keeping black people in slavery forever (because liberals always have hated America and always WILL hate it until it embraces Marxism and becomes the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics of America.  Until that glorious day when the workers of the world truly unite into global socialism and America crawls into that coalition of hell they will continue to come unglued over candidates like Michelle Bachmann.

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

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

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

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

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

P.S. Just in case you didn’t already think the media is cynical, vicious and biased enough as it was, George Stephanopoulos basically warned Michelle Bachmann that if she ran, the media would crawl through her five children’s and 23 foster children’s lives with the same anal probe they used on Sarah Palin’s emails.  ABC anchor George Stephanopoulos, for the official record, was a Democrat media spinner prior to becoming a “journalist.”  If ABC asks Karl Rove to be an anchor, call me.

And, of course, we’re already seeing the same rabid leftwing dishonest smear propaganda beginning from the media that they used against Sarah Palin.

The media is just crossing out “Sarah Palin’s” name and scrawling in “Michelle Bachmann’s” name.  Because they’re cockroaches.  A recent attack on Michelle Bachmann was to call her “Barbie with fangs.”  Because liberal “journalists” can hate on women as much as they want to knowing they have a Holy Warrior’s Absolution from the so-called “feminist groups” to do so.

Update, June 29: How about THIS for a gaffe: Barack Obama screwed up the age of HIS OWN CHILD.  Obama TWICE referred to his oldest daughter Malia as being 13; she’s 12.

Mexican-‘Americans’ Boo U.S. Soccor Team AND THE AMERICAN FLAG. Democrats Help Them.

June 28, 2011

These are the people that Barack Obama and the Democrat Party want to screw the American people to in order to “win” (read “purchase”) their vote:

Mexican-American soccer fans boo the U.S. flag in Gold Cup? Not nice, los estúpidos
Rick Chandler
Jun 27, 2011, 5:12 PM EDT

Nice comeback win by Mexico to beat the U.S., 4-2, at the CONCACAF Gold Cup in Pasadena on Saturday. But Mexican fans, did you have to boo the U.S. flag? I mean, you live here and everything. You’re U.S. citizens, presumably. No one’s saying you have to root for the U.S. soccer team … pulling for Mexico in this game was completely understandable. But booing the flag, and other acts of hooliganism directed at the U.S.? Unless you believe that all of those folks traveled north from Mexico just for the game — and I don’t — then it’s obvious that people living and working in the U.S. booed and disrespected the American flag. You took it too far, los salvajes.

From the Sporting News:

Other than a column in the Los Angeles Times, the atmosphere at Saturday’s game was hardly noted. When it was, the crowd was called enthusiastic or impassioned.

How about boorish?

Certainly not all 93,420 fans, but enough to leave you wondering just what the U.S. did to get Mexico so enthusiastic and impassioned.

The antics weren’t anything new. In a 2005 World Cup qualifier, the Mexican crowd booed the U.S. national anthem and some fans chanted “Osama! Osama!” during the game. Two years ago fans threw containers holding urine and vomit at Landon Donovan.

If American fans had done that to Javier Hernandez on Saturday, there would be a national manhunt. But almost any criticism of Mexican fans is viewed as intolerant, if bit downright racist.

The question is: How much must we tolerate?

And how far do you take national loyalty at a sporting event? Your country of origin may be Mexico, but if you’ve come to the United States for a better life for you and your family, shouldn’t there be some sense of loyalty to your adopted land?

That’s like me moving to Canada, living and working there for a couple of years, then during the Winter Olympics shooting arrows at the Always Enjoyable Giant Inflatable Beaver. I just wouldn’t do that. Sure, I’d root for the U.S. in hockey, but I’d realize that Canada is my adopted home, and I’d also carry several strips of backbacon in my pockets. In other words, I’d find a place in my heart for both.

Mexican-American soccer fans, I think you went over the line. Apologize, or we’re canceling the George Lopez Show.

***
In Gold Cup final, it’s red, white and boo again [Los Angeles Times]
Sorry, Mexico, great win but fans were embarrassment [The Sporting News]

Democrats – who are themselves as un-American as these “Mexican-Americans” – want to sell out the American people in order to buy the votes of these disloyal slimeballs.

My view?  If we’re fortunate enough to overcome the biased media propaganda and win the White House and Senate in 2012, we need to kick down doors and haul illegals off to Mexico where they belong.  And then we need to build a giant fence to keep them where they belong and put a few military bases along the border so they can aggressively patrol it in the interest of national security.

If you get the sense that this kind of crap burns my butt you are correct.  Nobody needs to correct me and lecture me that there are Hispanic Americans that are just as repulsed by this loathsome display of ingratitude as any other decent American.  I have been blessed to know Hispanics who are prouder of America than 99.9% of their fellow Americans – because they remember where they came from, and they know America is a land of opportunity rather than a land to be exploited.

But the simple fact of the matter is that this kind of despicable display from “Mexican-Americans” HAPPENS ALL THE DAMN TIME:

Public School Teacher Says American Flag ‘Offensive’; Praises Picture Of Dear Leader Obama

Celebrating Cinco De Mayo In These United States Of Mexico

Who’s The Real American In This Picture?

Liberal Rallies Pimp Hard-Core Totalitarian Socialism

Illegal Immigrants: Amazingly, Conservatives Don’t Want These People In America

There are two groups of people living in the United States of America: there are conservatives who genuinely care about this country and its founding vision, and then there are Democrats and Hispanic and all these other anti-American “special interest groups” who want to exploit this country and feed of its people like leeches until our nation collapses.

Democrats have been saying they believe in the Constitution – as long as they can “fundamentally transform” what it means by ignoring it’s plain historical meaning in context and instead find “penumbras and emanations” – for most of the last fifty years.  We’ve got sneering liberal attitudes such as this one expressed in Time Magazine:

“We can pat ourselves on the back about the past 223 years, but we cannot let the Constitution become an obstacle to the U.S.’s moving into the future with a sensible health care system, a globalized economy, an evolving sense of civil and political rights.”

Richard Stengel goes on to butcher everything legitimate Americans stand for:

The Constitution does not protect our spirit of liberty; our spirit of liberty protects the Constitution. The Constitution serves the nation; the nation does not serve the Constitution.”

When I enlisted in the United States Army, I took an oath.  Did I vow to defend “the spirit of liberty”?  No.  I swore this:

“I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

Do you notice how that oath contradicts everything that the wretched liberal weasel Richard Stengel says?

For the record, members of Congress and federal judges take oaths that also REQUIRE them to “serve” the Constitution.  Liberals take it too.  They are just too damned dishonest to give a damn.  They’re like “Slick Willie” Clinton explaining how he didn’t really lie because it all depends on what the meaning of the word “is” is.  Only most of them do it to the Constitution rather than to White House interns.

And Richard Stengel is hardly the only liberal whose “honesty” extends to letting us know what liberals REALLY think about the Constitution.  Fareed Zakaria has said America should be more like Iceland – which ripped its Constitution up and is now writing a new one on Facebook.

Liberals despise the fact that we have a Constitution that protects us from them, and have done damn near everything they could to erode it away so it means whatever the hell they want it to mean at any given moment.

Basically, I swore to defend my country against liberals who are constantly trying to use our Constitution for toilet paper all the while paying lip service to it.  And of course the real constitutional crisis in this country is that we’ve elected a president who thinks the same loathsome way that Richard Stengel does.

I still remember the words of Michael Scheuer, who had led the CIA unit that pursued Osama bin Laden:

SCHEUER: Well, look at our borders, Sir. If National Defense doesn’t include border control, then National Defense is a nonsense. They don’t care — look at the jobs they have given to the men and women in Afghanistan that are impossible to do. They don’t care that so many of those young men and women are losing their lives, and not having a chance to win because they’re not supported.

They want to play games at home. They want to stay in power forever. They want their office. They don’t want to protect the United States. They somehow think that America is eternal and can never be defeated. Well, they’re going to be in for a great wakeup call, Sir.

And he’s right: they DON’T care.  They don’t give a flying damnSeriously.  They truly couldn’t care less.

I wrote this about “what didn’t matter” to Democrats a year ago, but it applies to Democrats every bit as well today as it did back then:

It doesn’t matter that illegal immigration is costing  the American taxpayers billions of dollars every single year that  are overwhelming our economy:

“Costs on average for every illegal alien headed  household about $19,600   more if they consume the city services than  they pay in taxes, so the   rest of the taxpayers have to part costs.  Schools become overcrowded,   English as second language programs push  out other programs.”

It doesn’t matter that the same illegal immigrants who are a burden  to our country are in fact a burden to their own damn country.  And that if  they’re a burden to their own country, how in the hell are they not a  burden to ours?

It doesn’t matter that the very Mexicans who are demonizing our  tolerant immigration laws don’t seem to care about how harsh the Mexican government is about dealing with THEIR illegal immigrants.

Not only do Democrats side with the people who boo the American flag, but they don’t even give a damn that they side with the people who boo the American flag.

Damn liberals and their damn George Soros “Open Society” and open borders crowd.

They are all going to hell.  And they are trying to take the once great United States of America down with them.

Update: here is an article detailing thirteen obvious factual errors in Richard Stengel’s despicable take on the U.S. Constitution.  Which clearly means the stupid people at Time Magazine should give him a raise.

Democrats WHO HAVE NO BUDGET PLAN OF THEIR OWN Unceasingly Demonize Republicans For Bothering To Have A Plan

June 25, 2011

Keep this in mind: the Democrats DO NOT HAVE A BUDGET.  President Obama – our Disgrace-in-Chief – submitted such an absolute laugher that not even a single DEMOCRAT in A DEMOCRAT-CONTROLLED SENATE could vote for it.  It isn’t a Republican talking piont to claim that President Obama has no plan and he is not leading; it is a documented FACT.  But that is only half of it, because it has now been 782 days since the Democrat-controlled Senate passed any kind of a budget.

Democrats have no ideas whatsoever.  They have no budget whatsoever.  Their entire plan consists in demonizing Republicans who are trying to lead in spite of the fact that the failure in the White House is a Democrat.

The following was true a month ago when Democrats had no plan other than to lie and demonize.  It is still true today:

May 25th, 2011 11:29 AM
Dem Strategy for 2012: Hide Our Record, Demonize the Opposition
by Bill O’Connell

The most recent trial balloon was in New York’s 26th Congressional District special election. There Democrat Kathy Hochul ran on the demagoguery that Paul Ryan’s budget plan, which her Republican opponent Jane Corwin supported, meant the end of Medicare. Hochul said:

“We had the issues on our side—did we not have the right issues on our side?” Ms. Hochul said at her victory party, as supporters chanted “Medicare! Medicare!”

We had the issues on our side? “We can balance our budget the right way and not on the backs of our seniors,” she said. Democrats said the program [Medicare] should be steadied through other measures. Okay, tell us, just what are those measures? Anyone?

Where is balancing the budget on the back of seniors in the Ryan plan? Better yet, how does the Ryan plan stack up against the Democrats plan? Oh, that’s right, the Democrats don’t have a plan. The Democrats want to continue the status quo of spending us into oblivion. They want to take the only real plan on the table, the Ryan plan, and not challenge it with ideas of their own, but try to hang it around the necks of the Republicans.

SenateDemocrats were expected to bring up the House Republicans’ 2012 budget plan for a vote this week, but not their own plan, which remains under lock and key.

The Democrats want to get the Republicans in the Senate on record as supporting the Ryan plan as did all but four Republicans in the House. They believe that by pointing to support for the Ryan plan, they are home free to retake the House while retaining the Senate, reelect President Obama and finish the job of destroying America, the America we know and the America our founders envisioned. But don’t take my word for it, listen to Harry Reid.

“There’s no need to have a Democratic budget, in my opinion,” Reid told the Los  Angeles Times last week. “It would be foolish for us to do a budget at this  stage.”

After all if you have a plan, people can look at it and evaluate it and from where the Democrats are coming from it would be suicidal to actually admit through a vote what they are trying to do.

Next to the lackluster economy and a persistently high 9 percent unemployment rate, runaway spending and debt remain among the voters’ greatest concerns. But the Democrats‘ strategy right now is not to grab the deficit by the horns and wrestle it into submission. It is to play political games with the issue and with the American people, to help the Democrats win back control of the House and rebuild their dwindling forces in the Senate. — Washington Times, 24 May 2011

The Democrats who have added $5 trillion to the debt since re-taking control of Congress in 2006, have not passed a budget and have no intention of doing so and as every household and business knows, without a budget spending will be out of control.

While the Democrats draw up their battle plans to smear, lie, and distort the issues, and terrorize seniors in the hope that they will remain ignorant and not question the accuracy of their statements, it will fall upon the Tea Party to ramp up another education effort to spread the truth. I’ll let Mr. Ryan lead off here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJIC7kEq6kw&feature=player_embedded

Originally posted at Liberty’s Lifeline.

Donald Trump is a loudmouth fool who started out running as a Democrat but is now threatening to run as an independent.  Trump is angry at the Republicans because they care enough about their country to lead, instead of being only concerned with pure political posturing like Trump and like the Democrats.

Please have a brain in your head.  Please understand that the DEMOCRATS REFUSED TO PASS A BUDGET FOR MORE THAN TWO YEARS.  Please understand that we are spiralling completely out of control while fools and ideologues like Trump and like Democrats say that their plan is to sit back and do nothing but attack the people who try to lead and try to fix our closing-in-on-being-insurmountable-problems before it’s too late.

Donald Trump’s corporation has been bankrupt FOUR TIMES: 1991, 1992, 2004 and 2009.  He is a crony capitalist without integrity or honor who has made a good life for himself by knowing how to play the system against itself and by sticking his nose up the right butthole.  He creates a corporation, runs that business into the ground, and then walks away scott free to create another one.  And then another.  And another.  And of course another.

Anyone who votes for Donald Trump regardless of what party he tries to exploit is almost as big of an A-hole as Trump is.

Democrats refused to support Barack Obama’s budget because even they understood that it was guaranteed to bankrupt America.  They also know that whatever they do will necessarily bankrupt America.  So their plan is to sit back like the fearmongering lying demagoguing slanderers that they are and hope that the American people accept enough of their lies to regain power over our lives.

Turning The Tables On Vicious Rolling Stone Leftist Attack Piece On Michelle Palin (Among Other Things, They Plagiarized).

June 24, 2011

There was a particularly vicious leftwing assault by leftwing rag The Rolling Stone. The only time I ever hear anything about Rolling Stone Magazine is when they do something particularly vile, because on their best day they are still vile and so why read them?  Their last infamous hit piece (on General Stanley McChrystal) was also filled with fraud.  But what can you say?  Liberals are people who swim in an ocean of lies; and why should they be troubled when the people they trust to lie to them turn out to be dishonest???

There are such lines in the Rolling Stone piece as “Bachmann is a religious zealot whose brain is a raging electrical storm of divine visions and paranoid delusions.” I don’t need to read further than that. It was a toxic, rabid hit piece by toxic, rabid secular humanist liberals.

But let us consider the “standards” of journalism that these people follow. Let us consider who the REAL religious zealots whose brains are raging electrical storms of demonic visions and paranoid delusions are. Let us consider who should have the last laugh, and who should be fired as disgraces:

Rolling Stone caught in potential plagiarism flap over Michele Bachmann profile
By Joe Pompeo & Dylan Stableford
June 24, 2011

It’s been a few months since we’ve had ourselves a good-old plagiarism incident to get riled up about. But thanks to Rolling Stone, our sleepy summer Friday just got a bit more scandalous!

The magazine is taking some heat today for lifting quotes in Matt Taibbi’s hit piece on Minnesota’s 2012 Tea Party hopeful Michele Bachmann.

In the story, posted online Wednesday, Taibbi borrows heavily from a 2006 profile of Bachmann by G.R. Anderson, a former Minneapolis City Pages reporter who now teaches journalism at the University of Minnesota. The thin sourcing, as Abe Sauer argues over at The Awl, is part of a “parade of uncredited use of material” from local blogs and reporters who “have dogged Bachmann for years now.”

But the larger issue for journalism’s ethical watchdogs concerns the several unattributed quotes Sauer spotted in Taibbi’s piece, which Rolling Stone executive editor Eric Bates explained away by saying he’d cut out the attributions due to “space concerns” and that he would “get some links included in the story online.”

At least one plagiarism “expert” doesn’t buy Bates’ logic.

“Attribution is the last thing an editor should cut!!!!” Jack Shafer, who is known to grill copy-stealers in his media column for Slate (and who used to edit two alt-weeklies similar to City Pages), told The Cutline via email. “How big was the art hole on that piece? Huge, I’ll bet.”

Shafer added: “If an editor deletes attribution, can the writer be called a plagiarist? I don’t think so. Is that what happened? If Taibbi approved the deletions, it’s another question.”

We emailed Taibbi, who is no stranger to press controversies, with a request for comment and will update this if we hear back.

UPDATE 4 p.m. “I did in fact refer to the City Pages piece in the draft I submitted,” Taibbi told The Cutline. “I did not see that those attributions had been removed. I grew up in alternative newspapers and have been in the position the City Pages reporter is in, so I’m sympathetic. They did good work in that piece and deserve to be credited. But you should know also that this isn’t plagiarism–it’s not even an allegation of plagiarism. It’s an attribution issue.”

In the meantime, Anderson is giving Rolling Stone the benefit of the doubt, although he didn’t let them off the hook entirely.

“I would not consider what the Rolling Stone [piece] contained in it to be plagiarism,” Anderson told City Pages. “What I will say, as a graduate of the Columbia J-School, and an adjunct at the University of Minnesota J-School, I do know that if a student handed in a story with that particular lack of sourcing, not only would I give it an ‘F,’ I would probably put that student on academic fraud.”

You can check out a side-by-side comparison of the two Bachmann profiles over at The Awl.

What is particularly ironic is the use of an image of Michelle Bachmann as holy warrior, gripping the Bible in one hand and a sword dripping in blood in the other as a bloody slaughter continues unabated in the background. It’s an image that is intended to summon the most grisly spectre of the Crusades, of course.

Accompanying the Rolling Stone article on Bachmann:

At the worst of the Crusades, the “Christian warriors” were given Absolution for their sins for taking part in the Holy War. You could literally get away with murder. And too many did just that (at least until they found out the hard way that the Pope’s absolution didn’t give them absolution from a just and holy God).

Now, let us consider the irony of the “Absolution” given by the left. Women are sacred cows (now watch me get attacked as calling women “cows”) in liberalism. You do not DARE attack women. Unless they are conservative women like Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann. And then liberals are given total Absolution to attack them as women, as wives, as mothers, as sexual beings, as anything that smears them and degrades them. And they have absolution to do it; no women’s group will come after them. Their sins are pardoned.

Call it a leftwing Crusade; better yet, call it a leftwing jihad.  “Kill thee all the enemies of liberalism.  Nullus Dues lo volt! [No God wills it!].  Thous hast absolution to murder thine opponents by any means necessary!”  And off these “journalists” (or JournoLists) go to do their demonic bidding.

A similar case of such liberal Absolution just occurred with Jon Stewart, who mocked black conservative Herman Cain in an obviously racial and racist manner using his Amos and Andy voice. It’s fine; a Jon Stewart liberal can openly racially mock a black man, provided that black man is a conservative. It’s no different than the most cynical criticism of Pope Pius in the Crusades, who said it was okay to murder as long as you were murdering a Muslim.

We see their “objective” work when they flood to Alaska to search through tens of thousands of Sarah Palin emails and even enlist their readers to help them dig for dirt.  They never would have DREAMED of subpeoning Barak Obama’s emails.  We see their “objective” work when they trip all over themselves to buy a story about a bogus lesbian Muslim heroine (i.e. more liberal fraud) just because she was lesbian and Muslim, and that’s exactly what they wanted to see.

I would love nothing more than to have all the Western “journalists” who have played these games grabbed up and taken to a country governed by Islam and watch the look on their formerly smug faces as they were tortured and killed one after another. Until that day, they will continue to serve as useful idiots for communism and terrorism and pretty much every other “ism” that is eroding Western Culture from within.

Add that abject hypocrisy of the left to the fact that for a writer anything resembling plagiarism is the greatest sin imaginable, and you get to see just how utterly vile these people are. They have no honor, no integrity, no decency. Period.

And then we compare the sheer number of plagiarism cases at leftwing papers such as the New York Times (I’ll just drop a couple of names like Jayson Blair and Maureen Dowd and Zachery Kouwe) to conservative papers like the Wall Street Journal, and you see which side simply has no honor, integrity, or decency at all.  But what should we expect from such a rabid little bunch of Goebbels?  Honesty?

It is also interesting to add that the Crusaders were in fact responding to CENTURIES of Muslim aggression. While many of the monstrous acts that occurred on both sides could never be justified, “the Crusades” themselves were quite justifiable. I make mention of this because the left continues to do to the Crusades what they are doing even today; take the side of the aggressive vicious murderers against Western Culture. And when you look at a major rundown of major plagiarism cases in journalism, it’s the leftwing names like the Washington Post and the Boston Globe and ESPN rather than Fox News.

When America is sufficiently toxic and ripe for judgment, it listens to lies and the bad people who tell those lies and votes for Democrats.  That’s basically where we seem to be now.

Oh, by the way, Barack Obama is a documented plagiarist, too.  That’s part of the reason liberal journalists love him so much; he’s truly one of them.

Coming To America Soon: ‘Anti-Austerity’ (I.E., Pro-Reckless-Government-Spending Liberals) Protests Turning Violent In Greece

June 23, 2011

I just want to make sure you understand that the violence in Greece is coming from LEFTWING SOCIALISTS.  Which is the same that will happen HERE soon.

Don’t ever forget that liberals are dangerous, bad, violent people.

These people spend societies into bankruptcy, and then they riot because there’s no more “other people’s money” to spend.

Protesters fight with riot police during massive clashes at the central Athens Syntagma square on Wednesday. Thousands of protesters ringed the Greek Parliament building as the government tried to push through its emergency package inside and a general strike paralyzed the country.
Louisa
Gouliamaki/AFP/Getty ImagesProtesters fight with riot police during massive clashes at the
 central Athens Syntagma square on Wednesday. Thousands of protesters ringed the
Greek Parliament building as the government tried to push through its emergency
package inside and a general strike paralyzed the country.
June 15, 2011

Hundreds of protesters clashed with riot police in central Athens Wednesday as a major anti-austerity rally degenerated into violence outside Parliament, where the struggling government was to seek support for new cutbacks to avoid a disastrous default.

Tear gas blanketed the capital’s main Syntagma Square, where more than 25,000 people had gathered to protest a new package of tax hikes and spending cuts through 2015.

A few hundred youths smashed the windows of a luxury hotel on the square, ripped up paving stones to throw at police and hurled firebombs at cordons of riot police. Demonstrators said at least 10 people were injured, and they appealed to fellow protesters to stay calm and allow ambulances through.

The protests are the epicenter of a crisis that could end in a disastrous default that would threaten the future of the eurozone and shake financial markets just as the global economy struggles to recover.

Wednesday’s violence adds public pressure on the government at a time when Prime Minister George Papandreou also faces a party rebellion from within his governing Socialists over the new austerity. One of his deputies defected Tuesday, reducing Papandreou’s parliamentary majority to five. Another Socialist lawmaker said he will vote against the bill, which is set for final approval by early next month.

But the new bill, worth euro28 billion ($40.5 billion) must be passed this month if Greece is to continue tapping its rescue loans.

The stakes are high and the results uncertain — if Greece is cut off from its rescue funding, it will default on its debts, likely setting off a financial chain reaction that experts have described as catastrophic.

In Athens, sporadic clashes on the fringes of the rally gradually spread, scattering those in the previously peaceful rally. Cafe tables and chairs lay overturned as trash bins burned. Heavy clouds of tear gas hung over Syntagma Square and side streets. The choking chemicals wafted as far as the presidential mansion behind Parliament, where Papandreou met with the country’s president, Karolos Papoulias, to brief him on the severity of the situation.

Papandreou later spoke by telephone with the heads of opposition parties to seek support for the austerity package. The EU has been pressing for cross-party support, but main opposition Conservative party leader Antonis Samaras has insisted the bailout agreement must be re-negotiated instead.

Police had set up a massive security operation to ensure protesters could not carry out a pledge to prevent lawmakers from accessing Parliament. Some 5,000 officers, including hundreds of riot and motorcycle police, used parked buses and crowd barriers to prevent protesters from encircling the building, while a large part of central Athens was closed to all traffic.

The protests in Athens and in the northern city of Thessaloniki, where another 20,000 people rallied peacefully, were part of a 24-hour general strike, the result of months of growing frustration over the country’s slide.

“A national effort is required. Because we are at a historically crucial moment and a time of crucial decisions,” Papandreou told Papoulias, according to a transcript of their conversation released by the prime minister’s office.

“But on the other hand, everyone has to assume their responsibilities,” he said. “In any case, we will move forward with this sense of responsibility and the necessary decisions” to pull Greece out of the crisis.

In Syntagma Square, however, the mood was defiant.

“Resign, resign,” the crowd chanted outside Parliament before the clashes. The protesters included both young and old, and many brought their children, hoisting them onto their shoulders to shield them from the crush.

The latest austerity drive has brought many people onto the streets for the first time.

“What can we do? We have to fight, for our children and for us,” said Dimitra Nteli, a nurse at a state hospital who was at the protest with her daughter.  “After 25 years of work I earn 1,100 euros a month. Now that will drop to 900.  How can we live on that?”

Her 26-year-old daughter, Christina, said the situation in Greece had led her to leave for Britain to study conflict resolution.

“I have no job here. There are no prospects,” she said.

Police spokesman Athanassios Kokalakis said about 20 protesters were briefly detained.

The general strike crippled public services across the country, leaving state hospitals running on emergency staff, disrupting port traffic and public transport.

The Socialists’ popularity plummeted in recent weeks over the new austerity plan. A weekend opinion poll gave the main opposition conservatives a four-point lead over their Socialist rivals, the first time the party has been ahead in surveys since 2009. The next general election is scheduled for October 2013.

With its credit rating deep in junk status, Greece is being kept afloat by the EU and IMF bailout, but will need additional support to cover financing gaps next year as high interest rates keep it out of the bond market, contrary to what the original bailout agreement had predicted.

On Monday, Standard & Poor’s slashed Greece’s rating from B to CCC, dropping it to the very bottom of the 131 states that have a sovereign debt rating. That suggests Greece’s creditors are less likely to get their money back than those of Pakistan, Ecuador or Jamaica. On Tuesday, the agency also cut its rating for four Greek banks to CCC from B.

We’ve already started seeing the violence that the American left is more than capable of.  We saw it build and unleash in Wisconsin and other states whose governors and state senates and assemblies were forced to deal with massive public pension boondoggles.

California alone has a $500 billion unfunded liability in public pension debt.  But of course California elected Jerry Brown and that black hole of debt will be papered over until it utterly explodes the way we’re seeing it explode in Greece.  Elsewhere, even Democrats are beginning to stare into the black holes the unionized left have created and gotten scared enough to start trying to do way too little, way too late.

Barack Obama often talks the language of a “fiscally responsible” president.  Of course, his brand of fertilizer doesn’t walk.  When Obama submitted his budget, it contained SO MUCH RIDICULOUS OUT-OF-CONTROL SPENDING THAT THE DEMOCRAT-CONTROLLED SENATE VOTED IT DOWN 97-0.

This is beyond insane, and Democrats are making it even MORE insane.  First, Democrats didn’t even BOTHER to pass a budget last year when they had the White House, The Senate AND the House of Representatives.  That was a shocking dereliction of their most fundamental duty as officeholders.  And they haven’t improved since; even as Democrats CONTINUE to demonize Republicans for trying to lead, they STILL have not bothered to pass any kind of a budget for this year (unlike House Republicans, who HAVE).

Barack Obama sold the stimulus – which will ultimately cost American taxpayers $3.27 TRILLION – with what we now know to have been a massive lie.  He claimed over and over again that it would fund “shovel-ready jobs” that would get Americans back to work and get the economy rolling again:

Now Obama is “joking” that “Shovel-ready was not as shovel-ready as we expected.”  Oops.  Sorry for that three and a quarter trillion dollars I pissed away and the three years of misery I caused.

Even Obama’s own chief-of-staff acknowledges that Obama’s policies are “indefensible.”

But Democrat crazy is the most corrosive kind of KoolAid of all.  Even as we now know for a DOCUMENTED FACT OF HISTORY that the stimulus utterly failed, we’ve got Harry Reid and the Democrats demanding MORE massive stimulus spending even as the CBO warns us of an economic meltdown if we don’t stop spending ourselves into collapse.

Allow me to explain a couple of rather important facts to you.  Number one, Democrats are responsible for virtually ALL of the unsustainable and reckless spending and policies that have led to our teetering on the edge of ruin and suffering unlike anything this nation has ever even had nightmares about, let alone experienced.  We are facing – and this according to a peer-reviewed IMF publication – $200 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities.  That should scare you into the fetal position if you have any intelligence whatsoever.  But it gets even worse than that; because liberal policies have contaminated the states, too.  Take California, which alone has $500 BILLION in unfunded public pension liabilities.

And yet here we are.  Republicans are trying desperately to cut spending before we collapse, and Democrats demonizing and fearmongering Republicans for pursuing sanity and demanding spending that will cause us to collapse all the faster.

I can’t say it any more plainly than this: if you vote Democrat, you are a truly EVIL human being.  Aside from your direct responsibility for the murder of 53 MILLION innocent human beings in America alone (and hundreds of millions more around the world), you are also going to be responsible for the unparalleled suffering of more than 300 million Americans when the crisis you first created and then refused to stop perpetuating comes crashing down all around us.

I know you are probably reacting like Cain and refusing to accept any responsibility for the horror you have done and continue to do, but one day you will find yourselves writhing in hell for the hell you helped bring about.  You can take that as a warning and get your priorities right before it’s too late or you can just take it as a prediction of where you’ll be spending the rest of eternity.

At Least HALF Of All Employers Will Likely Shove Workers Into ObamaCare. The Beast Is Coming.

June 22, 2011

At a town hall meeting in New Hampshire on Aug. 11, 2009, President Barack Obama repeated a line he’s used many times in describing his health care proposal: “If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.”

Politifact says that claim was “half true” on their truth-o-meter.  But half truths quite often amount to whole lies.

What was it that Nancy Pelosi said before Democrats rammed through ObamaCare using every deceitful trick and tactic available?  Oh, yeah: “But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.”

Well, here are just some of the increasingly bleak truths that we are learning:

A report by Price Waterhouse Coopers (PWC) on medical cost trends for 2012 provides a dismal forecast of continued increases that consumers will see in their health care costs.
Key findings of the PWC report indicate:

  • The Democrats’ health care law has done little to ease the compliance burdens facing employers – as the PWC report points out, “employers have had their hands full complying with the avalanche of new regulations under PPACA.”
  • Medical costs are expected to increase:  PWC expects medical costs to increase 8.5% in 2012, up from 8% in 2011.
  • More Americans will NOT be able to keep the health care coverage they have and like, with the report noting that “some employers are becoming less confident in their ability to offer health benefits on a long term basis.”

Of note:

  • 84% of employers are likely to make changes to offset the costs associated with the Democrats’ health care law,
  • 86% are likely to re-evaluate their overall benefits strategy, and
  • 50% are considering significantly changing or eliminating company subsidies for dependent medical coverage.

Well, THAT sure sucks.  Sorry for all you schmucks who worked so hard in your personal lives – went to college, stayed on the straight and narrow, scrimped and saved when others bought the latest fad items, showed up on time every day and worked hard while others slacked off around you – just so you could get a job with DECENT BENEFITS.  But those days are gone now because Democrats imposed their will to create a massive boondoggle.  And now, as a result of Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid – and of course the now-famous Anthony Weiner – you get to be tossed into a bad, smelly place where you won’t be able to get a doctor to save your life.  And if you get thrown into Medicaid, where Obama most wants you, then God help you, because Obama sure won’t.

The “fog of controversy” is lifting.  Now we’re starting to see that the FACT that Democrats have created a monster that will eat us alive.

I think of fellow communist country North Korea.  You’d think leftists would care about their people, but they don’t.  Back in 2004, the New York Times wrote of fellow socialist traveller North Korea – “that claims to follow the world’s purest brand of communism” – “almost 10 percent of the population is believed to have starved to death.”  And nothing has changed since then.

Let’s consider the attitudes of leftists.  Take Chairman Mao – who has been publicly praised by top Obama officials.

“The atom bomb is nothing to be afraid of,” Mao told Nehru, “China has many people. . . . The deaths of ten or twenty million people is nothing to be afraid of.” A witness said Nehru showed shock. Later, speaking in Moscow, Mao displayed yet more generosity: he boasted that he was willing to lose 300 million people, half of China’s population.” [Annie Dillard, “The Wreck of Time” in Harper’s from January 1998].

Here’s a little more of Chairman Mao’s attitude for his people:

LEE EDWARDS, CHAIRMAN, VICTIMS OF COMMUNISM MEMORIAL FOUNDATION: In 1959 to 1961 was the so-called “great leap forward” which was actually a gigantic leap backwards in which he tried to collectivize and communize agriculture.

And they came to him after the first year and they said, “Chairman, five million people have died of famine.” He said, “No matter, keep going.” In the second year, they came back and they said, “Ten million Chinese have died.” He said, “No matter, continue.” The third year, 20 million Chinese have died. And he said finally, “Well, perhaps this is not the best idea that I’ve ever had.”

CHANG: When he was told that, you know, his people were dying of starvation, Mao said, “Educate the peasants to eat less. Thus they can benefit – they can fertilize the land.”

With liberals, One death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic.”

Think of energy.  Liberals have demonized oil, gas, coal, nuclear and everything else that actually produces energy.  They want to leave us with “renewable energy” which produces about 8% of our energy needs.  What are we going to do for the rest?  Obama says he plans to bankrupt the coal energy which supplies half of America’s electricity.  Obama has continued to pursue this reckless policy with regulations that are crippling us.  What are we going to do?  And the shocking secret is it doesn’t matter to them.

And the reason that the Kim Jong Ils and the Chairman Maos and the Joseph Stalins and the Barack Obamas stay in power is that people simply can’t believe that their leaders are truly that depraved.

I’ve been a voice shouting in the wilderness that the mantras of the Democrat Party are virtually identical with the mantras of Marxism.

They don’t care about your LIFE, let alone about your health care.  These people hate God, and they want to create massive government in place of God, and they want to be the high priests of that government, and they want you to come hat in hand and bow down before them such that they get to decide who the winners and losers are.

Liberals want to crash the system and impose the Marxism they have always dreamed of.  Think Cloward and Piven.  Think of the liberal strategy to crash the US economy.

The beast is coming.  He too will be a leftist.  He will actually be able to create what the left have been dreaming of for a generation and beyond: a one-world government.  He will be a big government totalitarian who will promise to take care of everybody just as every leftist has done from Karl Marx to Stalin to Hitler to Chairman Mao to Kim Il Sung Pol Pot Mao to Kim Jong Il.  He will produce a government system in place of God, and then he will declare himself as god over that government (Daniel 9:27; Matthew 24:15-21; 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4; Revelation chapter 13.

People who truly value individuals value the individual freedoms inherent in a free market economy.  What we are now seeing in these last days are people who DON’T value individual human lives.  They have snuffed out more than 53 million human lives in America alone through the Holocaust of the abortion mills.  And they have transported their hell with them to Asian countries that have created an unnatural and monstrous imbalance as “a woman’s right to choose” has murdered millions upon millions upon millions more WOMEN.  They have been working and laboring to bring the hell of the Antichrist to this world and to this very country for decades.

And this hell is now at our very doorstep.

D. James Kennedy issued a prophetic warning: “Watch out, Grandpa!  Because the generation that survived abortion will one day come after YOU!”

Senior citizens – and those close to being senior citizens – are going to find out that they aren’t working anymore, which means they are no longer productive.  Their going to find out that aging people consume vastly more medical resources than younger, healthier people.  They’re going to find out that Obama has already spent America into staggering debt that it cannot possibly repay.  And they’re going to find out that liberals think they’ve already lived their “complete lives.”

And the left WILL come after you, Grandma and Grandpa.  They’re going to come after you through socialized medicine and the ObamaCare monster that created it.  They’re going to kill you by the tens of millions.  They’ve done it before; they’re literally doing it right now.  And you aint seen nothing of the HELL that these people are laboring to create yet.