Obama Forces Conservative Americans To Pay For Demonic Attack On Republican Party In A Church

“Separation of church and state” only applies to communists (it was in their constitution, not ours) and Republicans.  It doesn’t apply to Democrats because Democrats are hypocrites who don’t believe the crap they espouse applies to them.

I suppose it’s because Democrats realize that only Republicans believe in God, and so ergo sum “separation of church and state” should only apply to Republicans.

It was bad enough to learn that a senior Obama official was in a church demonizing Republicans.

But she did it with a Secret Service escort paid in substantial part by the very American people that she was demonizing:

Jarrett Reportedly Receives Secret Service Protection
Tuesday, 17 Jan 2012 12:50 PM
By Dan Weil

Senior White House adviser Valerie Jarrett seems to have Secret Service protection, Keith Koffler writes on his blog “White House Dossier.” It’s the first time the veteran White House correspondent has heard of someone at that level receiving the expensive assistance of Secret Service agents.
 
A local report said at least two agents were with Jarrett during her appearance at an Atlanta church Sunday ahead of Martin Luther King Day. She used the speech to attack Republicans.
 
A Koffler source said he saw Jarrett with at least two Secret Service agents at Reagan National Airport just before Christmas. One agent was in front of her at the security line, another was behind her, and there may have been a third at her side, the source told Koffler.
 
The blogger says that as far as he knows, in the Bush administration, at least toward the end of it, only the president and his family, the vice president, the White House chief of staff, the National Security adviser, and the Homeland Security adviser received Secret Service protection.
 
“It’s possible that Jarrett has received enough specific and credible threats to justify Secret Service protection, or that the Secret Service has for some other reason calculated that she needs bodyguards,” Koffler wrote. “But it’s also possible this is a case of oddly overdoing it – and overusing taxpayer resources.”
 
He notes that nine out of 10 Americans probably have no idea who Jarrett is.
 
“White House Press Secretary Jay Carney is far better known and spends his time warning terrorists and our foreign adversaries about bad behavior while trumpeting the killing of Osama Bin Laden,” Koffler quips. “I’m sure he does not have protection.”

Jay Carney is a liberal, though.  And that certainly means he has a limousine in this administration of chutzpah-filled hypocrites.

It pisses me off to no end that this vile woman would walk into a synagogue of satan (what a liberal church of abortion worship really is) and demonize Republicans even as she self-righteously calls for “a separation of church and state.”  And when she makes the very people whom she’s demonizing pay for her Secret Service entourage it just makes me want to vomit right in her pompous face.

Because this degree of self-righteous hypocrisy ought to make anybody sick enough to empty their guts on the closest Democrat.

Tags: , ,

2 Responses to “Obama Forces Conservative Americans To Pay For Demonic Attack On Republican Party In A Church”

  1. Alice Wolf Says:

    The tone of your article suggests that she may need a bodyguard or two. She is working for the president, and if you don’t like his politics I suggest getting behind THE RETURN TO PRUDENT BANKING ACT which would reinstate the Glass Steagall standard, and put an end to the oligarch’s looting of our pocketbook. Once this is in place, then because there would not be enough liquidity in the monetary system to refloat our real, human economy, Congress would have to start uttering credit under the mandate set forth in the US Constitution, for projects that are in accordance with the FOR THE GENERAL WELFARE clause. These would obviously be designed to put millions of Americans, and in conjunction with other huge, sovreign powers, would jumpstart an economic recovery on a scale larger than that of FDR or JFK with the New Deal or the manned mission to the Moon. The expense of protecting Ms Jarrett in miniscule when compared to the cost of rebuilding civilization after a thermonuclear war which is what is staring us in the face with her boss Barack Obama at the helm of the goodship The USA.
    Why go down these paths that are just distractions from the real danger?

  2. Michael Eden Says:

    “Working for the president” has never been any sort of reason for needing a bodyguard. To the extent that Obama’s people need bodyguards is directly tied to the fact that they are acting in a vile manner.

    Here is the gist about Glass Steagull:

    Paul Ryan said:

    RYAN: Yeah, I agree with that. Mixing banking and commerce, meaning allowing banks to go do non-banking activities, by leveraging their deposits. The way I look at this, there’s a lot of merit to what you just said. If banks want to make hedge fund-like returns, then they should go be a hedge fund. But if you want to be a bank, then be a bank. Don’t try to be a hedge fund and take undue risks with your depositors money. So the way I see it, we need to have more conservative leverage limits, so you can’t leverage too much, and keep these firms within the silos where they are supposed to operate based on the degree of risk that they’re supposed to take. And if you’re just taking deposits, then I think we need to reestablish those kind of limits.

    The repeal of Glass Steagall was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1999. The “repeal” involved only one provision of the Act, the one preventing the same holding company from controlling both a commercial bank and an investment bank. The detractors of the repeal have argued that Glass-Stegall’s repeal reestablished a conflict of interest within the financial industry and fostered “too big to fail” institutions that led to the housing market collapse and its associated financial crisis. That argument fails to hold water only in the sense that the “too big to fail” thing had nothing whatsoever to do with Glass Steagall or its partial repeal.

    Re: the New Deal I simply vehemently disagree with you.

    The New Deal was terrible for the economy. Economists now state that New Deal economics prolonged the Depression by seven years.

    To educate yourself, I would suggest you read New Deal or Raw Deal? How FDR’s Economic Legacy Has Damaged America by Burton Folsom or The Forgotten Man by Amity Schlaes.

    Regarding JFK, interestingly he rightly viewed tax cuts as the vehicle to jumpstart our economy and he rightly believed the space program as the vehicle to jumpstart our sagging national defense.

    At the end of your comment you do redeem yourself with your observation of Obama leading us toward WWIII the same way his liberal predecessor Neville Chamberlain led us to WWII.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: