Archive for May, 2014

Secular Humanism The Source Behind Education’s Ills Across The Board As We Decline In Knowledge, In Tolerance And In Morality

May 19, 2014

Secular humanism – in religious terms you can label it “atheism” and in political terms you can label it “progressive liberalism” – is a shell game that tries to hide the existence of the human soul.

The soul is there, of course.  It simply HAS to be there for humans to be in any meaningful way categorically different than the beasts, or for human justice to be anything other than a morbid joke as “beasts” judge one another for acting like beasts.  But the project of secular humanism is to only allow as much “soul” as is absolutely necessary to allow society to function while at the same time denying it’s reality lest the people reject the atheism and the progressive liberalism that are based on the denial of the soul.

The problem is that the soul is NOT a degreed property.  “Size” and “weight” are a degreed properties; a thing can have more of it or less of it and still be the thing itself.  But in this case the soul must be the kind of thing (a substance) that HAS properties rather than a property that has degrees.  We therefore either have souls – in which case the secular humanists are entirely wrong about the nature of humanity, the nature of religion, the nature of morality, the nature of science and the very  nature of the universe – or we do NOT have souls and therefore we do NOT have “free will” in which case human society, human justice and basically everything worthwhile about “humanity” is an entirely manufactured lie.

Look, I am either a soul – created in the image of God – that has a body, or else I am nothing more than a body – and frankly a meat puppet – which was the result of random DNA conditioned by my environment.  It’s one or the other; there is no middle ground.  Free will becomes a logical as well as biological impossibility for the latter view – which is why secular humanist scientists and philosophers are increasingly rejecting the very possibility of free will.

The problem is that if you were to actually assume the latter was actually true, then how could you hold anybody responsible for anything?  It’s really a frightening thought.  After all, if I commit a brutal murder, but there really is no “me” inside of me to truly hold accountable, but rather I was conditioned by genes I didn’t choose and an environment I didn’t choose, why should I be held accountable?  How is this not like holding a child responsible for what his parents did?  But of course, on this view, you can’t hold the parents responsible any more than the child, because they suffer the same complete lack of moral free will that their child does.  And the final result of this view is that we should no more hold a human being – who is NOTHING but an evolved monkey, after all – any more morally responsible for his or her “crimes” than we would hold a tiger responsible for killing a goat.   Because in both cases, you merely do what you “evolved” to do.

Therefore, the people who claim the latter (no God, ergo sum no imago dei ergo sum no free will) is reality have to pretend for the most part that it is most definitely NOT reality in order to have any kind of functioning human society.  What they have done is determined that humans are in fact “animals” (or beasts); and that, more specifically, we are “herd animals.”  Mind you, we are also clearly – judging by human experience – “predator animals” who prey on herd animals.  And so the secular humanists have construed for themselves a “foundation for their description of reality” in which they have appointed themselves the outside role of “the bureaucrats” and “the professors” and “the journalists” (etc.) who shape and control the behavior of the herd and attempt to keep the herd animals relatively safe from the predator animals.

And of course liberalism only becomes consistent in their anthropology when they refuse to execute murderers (after all, THAT would be holding someone accountable for their moral crimes when that man is merely a beast who merely did what his brain had evolved to do); so we house them, keep them locked up in cages.  Just like animals.  Because they ARE animals and nothing more than animals conditioned by DNA plus environment.  Just like YOU’RE nothing more than a mindless animal purely conditioned by DNA plus environment.

I suggest that the increasing breakdown of society under the control of secular humanism is itself a refutation of their system.  We are skyrocketing out of control as a species because when you treat men like beasts, like beasts men shall increasingly become.  As the Bible puts it, “As a man thinks in his heart, so is he” (Proverbs 23:7).  But we can offer a great deal more of an analysis than merely pointing out that “by their fruits shall ye know them” (Matthew 7:16-20).

One of the things you need to realize is the bait and switch you have received regarding science and the nature of science.  You have been fed a pile of lies in the form of a narrative that science is incompatible with religion and that “science” produces open-mindedness and tolerance for new ideas whereas “religion” produces close-mindedness and hostility to new ideas.  But that is simply a lie: as a matter of factual history, “science” is uniquely a product of Judeo-Christianity.  It arose ONLY in Christendom as the result of belief in a Personal, Transcendent Creator God rather than anywhere else on earth.  Belief in God was a necessary condition for the rise of science as not only the discoverer of the scientific method itself (Francis Bacon) but the discoverer of every single branch of science was a publicly confessing Christian who “sought appreciate the beauty of God’s handiwork” and who “wanted to think God’s thoughts after Him.”

J.P. Moreland (Source: The Creation Hypothesis: Scientific Evidence for an Intelligent Designer, p. 17) listed some of the philosophical presuppositions – based on the Judeo-Christian worldview – that were necessary for the foundation of science:

1. the existence of a theory-independent, external world

2. the orderly nature of the external world

3. the knowability of the external world

4. the existence of truth

5. the laws of logic

6. the reliability of human cognitive and sensory faculties to serve as -truth-gatherers and as a source of justified beliefs in our intellectual environment

7. the adequacy of language to describe the world

8. the existence of values used in science (e.g., “test theories fairly and report test results honestly”)

9. the uniformity of nature and induction

10. the existence of numbers

Good luck in starting science without all of these assumptions – of which the assumption of God according to the Judeo-Christian worldview was necessary to provide.  Science could not verify or validate any of the list above for the reason that they already needed to be accepted in order for science to ever get off the ground in the first place.

To put it crassly, if it were up to secular humanists, we would still be living in caves and afraid of fire.  And if it left up to secular humanists, we will ultimately be living in caves and afraid of fire again.  And all you have to do to realize that society is not advancing under their standard, but degenerating, to know that.

God created the world as a habitation for the capstone of His creation, man.  And then God created man in His own image and therefore able to see and fathom the world which He had created for humanity.  That is the basis for science.

Gleason Archer framed an insurmountable intellectual contradiction for the “scientific atheist”:

“But it should be pointed out that consistent atheism, which represents itself to be the most rational and logical of all approaches to reality, is in actuality completely self defeating and incapable of logical defense. That is to say, if indeed all matter has combined by mere chance, unguided by any Higher Power of Transcendental Intelligence, then it necessarily follows that the molecules of the human brain are also the product of mere chance. In other words, we think the way we do simply because the atoms and molecules of our brain tissue happen to have combined in the way they have, totally without transcendental guidance or control. So then even the philosophies of men, their system of logic and all their approaches to reality are the result of mere fortuity. There is no absolute validity to any argument advanced by the atheist against the position of theism.

On the basis of his won presuppositions, the atheist completely cancels himself out, for on his own premises his arguments are without any absolute validity. By his own confession he thinks the way he does simply because the atoms in his brain happen to combine the way they do. If this is so, he cannot honestly say that his view is any more valid than the contrary view of his opponent. His basic postulates are self contradictory and self defeating; for when he asserts that there are no absolutes, he thereby is asserting a very dogmatic absolute. Nor can he logically disprove the existence of God without resorting to a logic that depends on the existence of God for its validity. Apart from such a transcendent guarantor of the validity of logic, any attempts at logic or argumentation are simply manifestations of the behavior of the collocation of molecules that make up the thinker’s brain.”  — Gleason Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, 1982, pp. 55-56

Basically, if the atheist is right, then “human reason” becomes a contradiction in terms and let’s just live like the beasts they say we are and be done pretending we’re something we’re not.

What secular humanists have been trying to do – frankly for generations – is to perpetuate a fraud.  It would be akin to me intercepting a great thinker’s work and trying to pass it off as my own.

But imagine – for the sake of argument – what would have happened had I done such a thing with the work of Albert Einstein.  Imagine I had enough of a vocabulary to pass myself off as a great scientific mind.  What would have happened to science as a result of my limiting it?

And that is what’s essentially being described in the R. Scott Smith article below.  Education – the teaching of science and of how to do science, for example – would suffer more and more as fools who are “always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth” (2 Timothy 3:7) hijacked the agenda.

I would like to begin this discussion with an article on the logically-entailed implications of Darwinism in crucial human pursuits by beginning with an article detailing the ramifications of Darwinism on education:

Winter 2014
Does Darwinian Evolution Actually Undermine Education?
By R. Scott Smith

Low standard test scores, serious budget crunches and more — our public schools face daunting challenges. But perhaps they face a deeper issue, one not being mentioned in recent public discussions: What if they aren’t really teaching our youth knowledge?

Today’s education is based upon the assumption that science gives us knowledge. But other disciplines give us (at best) “inferior knowledge,” or just preferences and opinions.

And today’s scientific orthodoxy is Darwinian and naturalistic, meaning all that’s real is natural, or material; there isn’t anything real that’s supernatural or immaterial. There’s no God, souls or minds, and so no real “mental states” — thoughts, beliefs, experiences, intentions, etc.

If that seems overstated, notice what Daniel Dennett, a leading philosopher of neuroscience at Tufts University, says. He admits that according to naturalistic evolution, the dominant scientific theory, brains and physical patterns of physical forces exist. Physical stuff (matter) is real, but things like mental states aren’t.

Yet when we do science, pay our taxes or watch a football game, it seems we really think, have beliefs and experience things. So, how can that be?

According to Dennett, all that’s going on is the interpretation of the behavior of “intentional systems,” like sophisticated chess-playing computers and people. While observing them, we try to interpret and predict their behavior. For instance, we might interpret a computer’s move in a game as “intending” to checkmate its opponent, whereas the human player “thinks” or “believes” she can escape by making a certain move. We just interpret their behaviors by how we conceive of (or talk about) their behaviors as mental states — but that’s all there’s to it. There are no real beliefs, thoughts or observations.

However, suppose a person comes here from a fourth-world country. She’ll need to get a concept of what a traffic light is and that she can cross the street on a green light, not red. To learn that, she’ll need experiences and thoughts of what these things are, and then form a concept of when it’s safe to cross a street.

So, for Darwinian evolution and naturalism, there’s a crucial problem here: How could anyone make observations and form concepts and interpretations? To do these seems to require we use the very mental things we’re told don’t exist.

Yet without real observations, we don’t seem able to do any scientific experiments. Without concepts, thoughts and beliefs, how could we even form, test and accept scientific theories?

Worse, how could we have knowledge if there aren’t real beliefs we can accept as true? We also need adequate evidence for our beliefs to count as knowledge. But with Darwinian, naturalistic science, evidence from experience seems impossible.

Now, maybe Michael Tye (a philosopher at the University of Texas at Austin) could reply that we do have mental states, yet these really are just something physical, like brain states, being conceived of as being mental. But, that won’t work — to even have concepts, we need real mental states to work with.

So, it seems the assumption upon which our education system is founded — that Darwinian evolutionary, naturalistic science uniquely gives us knowledge of the facts — cannot be true. And, Darwinian evolution also is mistaken, for on it we couldn’t know anything. Yet we do know many things — for instance, that we’re alive.

Therefore, real, immaterial mental states must exist. While this essay doesn’t prove it, it suggests something very important — supernaturalism isn’t far-fetched after all. Indeed, we can infer even more. If we can have real immaterial thoughts, experiences, beliefs and more, then it seems that there must be something immaterial that is real which can have and use them. That suggests that we have minds, even souls, that are real and non-physical. So, how then do we best explain their existence? Surely not from Darwinian evolution. Instead, it seems that this short study highly suggests that God exists and has made us in a way that we can have knowledge. I am reminded of what Solomon said: “To have knowledge, you must first have reverence for the Lord” (Prov. 1:7, GNT).

Thus, fixing our education system seems to involve, in part, a  repudiation of naturalism and Darwinian, naturalistic science. For on it, we lose all knowledge whatsoever. But since we do know many things, that fact strongly suggests that God exists.


R. Scott Smith (M.A. ’95) is an associate professor of ethics and Christian apologetics in Biola’s master’s program in Christian
apologetics. He holds a Ph.D. in religion and social ethics from the University of Southern California.

Science isn’t “discovering” very much.  We put a man on the moon in the 1960s and we literally aren’t capable of repeating that feat today.  The first computer was invented by a Christian, of course.  We keep making them smaller and faster, but we haven’t had any major leaps for decades.  We’ve been following Moore’s Law rather than any “scientific advance.”  We’ve been very successful at “technology,” and at reducing the size of previously designed devices or at creatively marketing/engineering a device based on the success of a previous device.  But contrary to your secular humanist, we’re not making giant leaps and bounds on the frontiers of science.

And that is most definitely true of education – and especially education in America relative to other nations as we plunge ever more deeply into the philosophy of secular humanism that had NOTHING to do with the origin of science or the origin of ANY OTHER MEANINGFUL THING.

I look at education and I see what many parents as well as many educators see: kids that are getting dumber and dumber.

And you have to ask yourself, why is that, given that we’re spending more per pupil than ever???  Why do we keep falling behind?  And why do Christian schools run circles around the government (secular humanist education center) schools???  Because it is simply a FACT that they do:

If you want a flourishing education system – you know, the kind of system that put a man on the moon – you need to demand a return to a religion-friendly education system rather than the one that has replaced the system that made America great.

It is a fact of history that American public education began as a RELIGIOUS ENDEAVOROf the first 108 universities founded in America, 106 were distinctly Christian.  As a native Californian, I also marveled to learn that Christianity and churches EXCLUSIVELY bore the burden of education for basically the first hundred years of westward expansion.

I’ve written about what happened as government invited itself in to take over education:

Then what turned out to be a Faustian bargain was struck.  Government took over the education system, ostensibly allowing the churches and denominations to pursue other noble work such as the mission fields.  It didn’t take long for the same government that had protected human slavery and created the Trail of Tears to begin systematically removing Scripture, God and prayer from the classrooms and thus from the children of each successive generation’s minds.

Christians stepped away from the work of education that they had historically devoted themselves to and began to put the overwhelming majority of their funds into their churches and their missionaries.  Meanwhile, liberals began to place virtually all of their funds into the universities and thus began to increasingly shape the curricula.

Ultimately, as a result, the Christians who began the universities and schools found themselves completely shut out of their own progeny.

Look what’s happened.  Liberals have purged out conservatives.  The snootiest, most hoity toity, most sanctimonious lecturers about “tolerance” are THE most intolerant people of all:

College faculties, long assumed to be a liberal bastion, lean further to the left than even the most conspiratorial conservatives might have imagined, a new study says.

By their own description, 72 percent of those teaching at American universities and colleges are liberal and 15 percent are conservative, says the study being published this week. The imbalance is almost as striking in partisan terms, with 50 percent of the faculty members surveyed identifying themselves as Democrats and 11 percent as Republicans.

The disparity is even more pronounced at the most elite schools, where, according to the study, 87 percent of faculty are liberal and 13 percent are conservative.

“What’s most striking is how few conservatives there are in any field,” said Robert Lichter, a professor at George Mason University and a co-author of the study. “There was no field we studied in which there were more conservatives than liberals or more Republicans than Democrats. It’s a very homogenous environment, not just in the places you’d expect to be dominated by liberals.” […]

Rothman sees the findings as evidence of “possible discrimination” against conservatives in hiring and promotion. Even after factoring in levels of achievement, as measured by published work and organization memberships, “the most likely conclusion” is that “being conservative counts against you,” he said. “It doesn’t surprise me, because I’ve observed it happening.” The study, however, describes this finding as “preliminary.”

By the way, I’m “possibly” liberal by that standard of measurement.  Yeah, being conservative or being a Christian (and recall that it was the Democrat Party that voted to remove “God” from its party platform until God was illegally put back into the platform amid a chorus of boos) most definitely “counts against you” in the stacked deck that liberalism has created to benefit itself and punish its enemies.  As Professor Guillermo Gonzalez found out the hard way when liberals denied him tenure because he had the gall to write a book expressing his belief in an intelligent designer of the universe.  And after denying him tenure because he believed in God and they are fascists, they fired a professor who should by all rights have been celebrated.

Because liberals are in fact the most intolerant people.  Once they took over the universities, they made very certain that they would never lose that control by making certain that conservative faculty would be systematically denied tenure and purged out.

That was our strike two for us [note: I write about three strikes in the article].  Liberals got into the education system and then barricaded the door behind them.

By the way, the two fields of academia liberals most hijacked were the fields of education and law.  They trained up the teachers and the lawyers who would be able to indoctrinate their students and more lawyers who would be able to basically make the Constitution an infinitely malleable document that basically means whatever liberals think it means.  By taking over education, liberals were able to introduce increasingly and frankly wildly failed teaching methodologies that brainwashed kids into liberalism without bothering to teach them reading, writing, arithmetic and history.  Our government school system has completely broken down and failed because liberals turned education into indoctrination.  And what is even worse, the more liberal teaching methodologies fail, the more liberals exploit their failure to usher in even WORSE methodologies.  It has become a vicious circle.

Today we have an “education system” ladened with secular humanist theories which don’t teach children because as secular humanists they have understanding of “humanity” or the little souls whom they seek more to indoctrinate than to educate.

Johnny can’t read, at least he can’t read very well.  But that’s okay; he doesn’t need to be able to read very well in order to serve the future State or the crony capitalist corporations in the progressive liberals’ fascist system in order to be a good drone worker bee.  When your child is toiling away at his or her menial job, feel good in the knowledge that your child will do so believing that being a good citizen and taking your place as one of myriad cogs in the machine will keep him or her moving mindlessly forward.

In a way, I’ve already also described the rabid intolerance that is the quintessence of secular humanism in describing above the purging of conservatives by liberals.  But believe me, there is way, way more than that.

One of the frightening things about the Holocaust was that only one who closely followed the theories presented in the German universities could see it coming.  But those who DID follow what was being taught in the elite German universities could see it coming very clearly.  Many of those who did follow what was being taught were terrified and tried to warn the free nations about what was happening.  But of course nobody listened.  And so it all played out exactly as the most strident voices warned it would play out unless something was done.  That “play” was World War II and the death camps that accompanied it.

The lesson of history is that ideas have consequences.  And terrible ideas have terrible consequences, indeed.

So with that introduction, allow me to replay a recent article written by a student of one of the most – if not THE most – prestigious of universities in America reflecting a new rabid intolerance of free speech in academia:

 In its oft-cited Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure, the American Association of University Professors declares that “Teachers are entitled to full freedom in research and in the publication of the results.” In principle, this policy seems sound: It would not do for academics to have their research restricted by the political whims of the moment.

Yet the liberal obsession with “academic freedom” seems a bit misplaced to me. After all, no one ever has “full freedom” in research and publication. Which research proposals receive funding and what papers are accepted for publication are always contingent on political priorities. The words used to articulate a research question can have implications for its outcome. No academic question is ever “free” from political realities. If our university community opposes racism, sexism, and heterosexism, why should we put up with research that counters our goals simply in the name of “academic freedom”?

Instead, I would like to propose a more rigorous standard: one of “academic justice.” When an academic community observes research promoting or justifying oppression, it should ensure that this research does not continue. […]

It is tempting to decry frustrating restrictions on academic research as violations of academic freedom. Yet I would encourage student and worker organizers to instead use a framework of justice. After all, if we give up our obsessive reliance on the doctrine of academic freedom, we can consider more thoughtfully what is just.

Basically, she says that free speech on campus should be abolished and professors with opposing views be fired.

Here as in so many other ways, secular humanist “liberalism” is Nazism.  Period.

I want you to consider the bastion of bias and intolerance that academia has truly become:

AN ANTONIO — Some of the world’s pre-eminent experts on bias discovered an unexpected form of it at their annual meeting.

Discrimination is always high on the agenda at the Society for Personality and Social Psychology’s conference, where psychologists discuss their research on racial prejudice, homophobia, sexism, stereotype threat and unconscious bias against minorities. But the most talked-about speech at this year’s meeting, which ended Jan. 30, involved a new “outgroup.”

It was identified by Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist at the University of Virginia who studies the intuitive foundations of morality and ideology. He polled his audience at the San Antonio Convention Center, starting by asking how many considered themselves politically liberal. A sea of hands appeared, and Dr. Haidt estimated that liberals made up 80 percent of the 1,000 psychologists in the ballroom. When he asked for centrists and libertarians, he spotted fewer than three dozen hands. And then, when he asked for conservatives, he counted a grand total of three.

“This is a statistically impossible lack of diversity,” Dr. Haidt concluded, noting polls showing that 40 percent of Americans are conservative and 20 percent are liberal. In his speech and in an interview, Dr. Haidt argued that social psychologists are a “tribal-moral community” united by “sacred values” that hinder research and damage their credibility — and blind them to the hostile climate they’ve created for non-liberals.

“Anywhere in the world that social psychologists see women or minorities underrepresented by a factor of two or three, our minds jump to discrimination as the explanation,” said Dr. Haidt, who called himself a longtime liberal turned centrist. “But when we find out that conservatives are underrepresented among us by a factor of more than 100, suddenly everyone finds it quite easy to generate alternate explanations.”

We are now seeing a massive effort on the part of students who have been brain-washed by the above secular humanist dictatorship of academia in which they simply refuse to tolerate or even listen to any ideas that disagree with their dogma.

Students are now shouting down anyone with whom they disagree.  It doesn’t matter how many other students want to hear a speaker: secular humanist liberal students and faculty are fascists who impose their will and dictate their agenda on others (even when they are in the very tiny minority):  And so:

At least three prominent leaders — former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, International Monetary Fund Managing Director Christine Lagarde, and former UC Berkeley Chancellor Robert Birgeneau — cancelled their commencement speeches this spring after a typhoon of campus activism.

Consider what happened this week with Birgeneau, who had been scheduled to speak at Haverford College, a close-knit liberal arts school just outside Philadelphia.

By some measures, Birgeneau is the perfect person to give a graduation speech: Successful, civic-minded and notable, not least for guiding Berkeley as it became the first American public university to offer comprehensive financial aid to students in the country illegally. But Birgeneau was actually far from ideal, some Haverford students and faculty decided.

Despite his left-friendly work on immigration, they said they wanted Birgeneau to apologize for how campus police brutalized Occupy Wall Street demonstrators in 2011 — or else they would protest his graduation speech.

In response, Birgeneau decided not to attend the graduation. His cancellation, the most recent of the three, is raising concerns in some quarters that campus leftist groups are putting so much emphasis on social justice issues that they’re squashing the spirit of open debate. […]

But some observers say the recent campus blow back belongs in its own category, which political writer Michelle Goldberg, in a column for The Nation, called “left-wing anti-liberalism” – the idea that some speech and some people are so politically disagreeable that their views don’t need to be heard.

Lukianoff, of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, pointed to a 2013 dust-up at Brown University in which former New York police head Ray Kelly’s speech to students had to be canceled after he was shouted down and unable to speak.

Kelly has long been despised by the left for his defense of stop-and-frisk policies and how the NYPD cracked down on Occupy Wall Street protesters. His embarrassment at Brown became a YouTube moment that other officials would likely hope to avoid. [….]

For centuries, universities – which again were started by Christians out of the monasticism movement (as in America, where 106 of the first 108 universities in America including ALL the Ivy League schools were began by Christians; and of the first 126 colleges, 123 were Christian) have celebrated their institutions as bastions of free expression and the interchange of ideas.  That is a lie today.  You don’t GET to learn “ideas” any more; you get to learn THE idea of secular humanist liberalism and nothing else.  Because whether you are a student or a professor or an administrator, these secular humanist liberals will come after you if you commit the sin of heresy in their rabid eyes.

Therefore, what has happened in the colleges and universities is analogous to a wayward girl who began to date a monster and ultimately helped murder her own parents in the night.  That’s what secular humanism did in purging the universities and colleges from the Christian tradition that gave BIRTH to those universities and colleges.

I compare what I’m seeing today to the French Revolution.  It, like what we’re seeing today, was the result of secular humanism.  And like what we’re seeing today, the French Revolution quickly degenerated from a bunch of hoity-toity pronouncements to hell on earth as the French Revolution rapidly degenerated into the Reign of Terror.

It is an easy thing to prove that rabid intolerance is a defining feature of the (secular humanist “liberal”) left today.  We are seeing the left declare open war on free speech and on the exercise of First Amendment rights as this nation has never seen before.  Executives are being forced out of companies they helped found because they had the audacity to exercise their free speech rights as AmericansJournalists are getting purged for daring to speak the truth.   And just consider the vicious, rabid leftist Occupy Movement compared to the conservative Tea Party that was so demonized by the leftist press:

Occupy Movement Costs America UNTOLD MILLIONS ($2.3 Milion In L.A. ALONE) Versus Tea Party Movement Which MADE Cities Money

Liberalism = Marxism. See The Occupy Movement Shutting Down Ports, Capitalism, Jobs To Get Their Way (Communist Russian Revolution Part Deux)

After Obama Deceitfully Demonized GOP For ‘Dirtier Air And Dirtier Water,’ His Occupy Movement Leaves Behind 30 TONS Of Diseased Filfth At Just ONE Site

Vile Liberal Occupy Movement Killed The Grass At L.A. City Hall – What Should Be Done Now?

Occupy Movement Officially A Terrorist Group Now

The American Left Personified By Occupy Movement: Vile, Violent Fascist Thugs

Occupy Movement Is Destroying Jobs And Hurting Little People

Consider The Fundamental Incoherence And Hypocrisy Of The Left And The Occupy Movement

Occupy Wall Street Movement Ranks Have Criminals, Rioters, Rapists, Terrorists And Now Murderers

There have been 7,765 documented arrests of leftist Occupy Movement fascists.  Versus ZERO for the Tea Party.

Occupy – as a symbol and a symptom of the left – believed it had the right to “occupy” private property, to destroy property, to destroy jobs, to pretty much take over.  And in the case of UC Berkeley Chancellor Robert Birgeneau, we discover that it is a sin punishable by the maximum penalty to apply law and order to the left.  Better to just let them occupy and riot and vandalize, I suppose.

Liberalism is fascist intolerance when “liberalism” has been hijacked by secular humanist progressive liberalism.  Liberals are simply pathologically intolerant people across the board as expressed in pretty much any way you can measure it.

I come at last to sexual assaults.  They’ve either absolutely skyrocketed in Obama’s military and in liberalism’s universities or Obama has – incredibly cynically – manufactured a political crisis to demagogue.  Let’s just assume the data we have is correct and Obama ISN’T an incredibly evil man and go with it.  Sexual assaults have skyrocketed on his watch during his administration.

Secular humanists have no answer for why this would be.  After all, they’ve been talking about it and requiring more enforcement – including universities which clearly aren’t able to deal with the crisis – and punishing it more than ever.  So why is it growing out of control on a liberal president’s watch?

The answer is easy.  On my Judeo-Christian view, rape is wrong, wrong, WRONG.  Because contrary to secular humanism, we’re NOT just DNA-plus-environment-plus nothing meat puppets; we are human beings created by God in His image.  And to sexually assault another human being is to ignore, degrade and pervert the image of God in another soul.

On a secular humanist, not so much.

Oh, your liberal feminist asserts it’s wrong.  But when you stop and consider the tenets of Darwinian evolution, on what grounds do they assert such a thing?

Evolutionists have long talked about rape in terms of advancing evolution.  We’re equipped for fleeing, fighting and fornicating, we’re told.  There’s such a thing as a “rape gene,” we’re told.  And since Darwinism is all about “survival of the fittest,” and since the fittest survive precisely by passing on their DNA, well, rape is merely one of many possible pathways for an organism to strive to be the fittest in Darwinan terms.  And of course the animal world abounds with examples in which humans would call it “rape” but animals would call it “reproducing.”

Why do we as individuals rape, murder and sleep around?  Because as evolutionists explain:

“rape is (in the vernacular of evolutionary biology) an adaptation, a trait encoded by genes that confers an advantage on anyone who possesses them. Back in the late Pleistocene epoch 100,000 years ago, men who carried rape genes had a reproductive and evolutionary edge over men who did not: they sired children not only with willing mates, but also with unwilling ones, allowing them to leave more offspring (also carrying rape genes) who were similarly more likely to survive and reproduce, unto the nth generation. That would be us. And that is why we carry rape genes today. The family trees of prehistoric men lacking rape genes petered out.”

Darwinism is “a scientific idea that, if true, consigns traditions of self-restraint, loyalty, the very basis of family life, to the shredder.”  Now go ye and do likewise.  Unless something inside of you screams “NO!  I will NOT live in accordance with that terrible, wicked, demonic theory of Darwinian evolution!”

Rape isn’t wrong because secular humanists say it is.  That’s not a good enough reason.  Certainly not for the increasing numbers of humans committing sexual assaults it isn’t, anyway.

Why is rape wrong?  Frankly, in our new system of “morality,” rape is wrong because Obama says it is wrong.  That’s certainly the “logic” Obama used to first say that homosexual marriage was wrong when it was politically convenient to do so and that it somehow became right when it was politically convenient for him to say it was right.  I mean, literally, gay marriage was wrong until Obama said it was right.  And now it’s right.  But anyone who thinks that this is the way morality works is quite literally morally insane.

And so we have insane sexual assault statistics to go with it.

If secular humanist liberalism is in any way, shape or form true, THERE IS NO REASON TO BE TOLERANT.  In fact, we ought to be as vicious, as ruthless, as determined to win in our struggle for ideology – which of course is merely the result of how our brains happened to be randomly wired versus having any “truth” to them if secular humanism is true – as is necessary to prevail.

If secular humanist liberalism is true, then the struggle for “ideas” today is no different between rival packs of baboons fighting over the same turf.

And the reason the beast is coming is because God foreknew 2,000 years ago and beyond that in the last days, the most vicious pack of baboons (the secular humanist liberals) would prevail in a world in which rational argument and debate had been expunged by “liberalism.”

 

Advertisements

Climate Change, AKA Chicken Little Psychosis Syndrome

May 16, 2014

I read the Los Angeles Times this morning.  It’s an ugly, nasty habit that I usually do wearing only underwear while sipping on hot, black water that is supposed to pass for coffee.  When I go out to pick up the paper on the driveway (I’m usually wearing a robe for that trick), I always wish I were rich enough to be able to afford an actual NEWSPAPER like the Wall Street Journal.

Because advertisers clearly think the LA Times is an ugly, nasty habit, too.

I take my shower after reading the Times.  Otherwise, I’d have to take another one after throwing the bird-cage-liner down in disgust.

Anyway, with that undoubtedly unwanted description of my morning habits aside, what I found this morning was in many ways par for the course, but I thought I’d share it with you anyway.

We all have our newspaper peccadillos.  I remember my dad always reading the sports page first and my mom always reading the comics first.  I always read the op-ed section first, my theory apparently being to start the day annoyed and then just keep adding caffeine to it.  So I come across the usual “climate change” garbage from the unhinged left.

The content of the leftwing op-eds really isn’t that important, but I found the online versions just to show you what I saw.  The first was titled (in the print version of the LA Times) “Stanford’s Choice.”  The author of the piece doesn’t think energy or anything produced by energy is quite expensive enough, and demands a carbon tax.  You know, help the planet, screw the human race.  The second one (titled, “Storm clouds over climate policy” began thus:

Miami will likely be underwater before the Senate can muster enough votes to meaningfully confront climate change. And probably Tampa and Charleston, too—two other cities that last week’s National Climate Assessment placed at maximum risk from rising sea levels.

Even as studies proliferate on the dangers of a changing climate, the issue’s underlying politics virtually ensure that Congress will remain paralyzed over it indefinitely. That means the U.S. response for the foreseeable future is likely to come through executive-branch actions, such as the regulations on carbon emissions from power plants that the Environmental Protection Agency is due to propose next month. And that means climate change will likely spike as a point of conflict in the 2016 presidential race.

Well, I could either have given up and gone back to bed to hide from all the moral idiots or I could face the day.  So, bravely – and with another hit of caffeine – I turned the paper over in disgust to the front page news section.  And the most interesting story was about ancient skeletal human remains found some 12,000 years ago in an underwater cave.  So I read it.  And I’ll reproduce it for you here and stop at the point that put all of the above into the “idiot” context that the two above articles deserve:

DNA from skull links Ice Age girl to Native Americans alive today
By Monte Morin
May 15, 2014

The divers called her Naia, for “water nymph,” because they discovered her teenage remains in a dark, underwater cave in Mexico’s Yucatan Peninsula.

She had been hidden there for more than 12,000 years — along with the bones of dozens of extinct Ice Age beasts — and divers quickly spotted her skull as they swept the chamber with flashlights.

“It was a small cranium laying upside-down with a perfect set of teeth and dark eye sockets looking back at us,” recalled diver Alberto Nava of Bay Area Underwater Explorers, a nonprofit conservation organization based in Berkeley.

On Thursday, researchers published a formal analysis of Naia’s skeletal remains in the journal Science, calling it the oldest, most complete specimen ever discovered in the Americas.

The study authors say the buck-toothed 15- or 16-year-old girl did not resemble today’s Native Americans — her cheeks were narrow and her forehead very high — but that her mitochondrial DNA reveals she is related to 11% of living American Indians, and links them genetically to a population of early humans who inhabited a land now submerged beneath the Bering Sea.

The researchers say the girl was probably very slight and stood just 4 feet, 10 inches tall. Her eyes were wide-set and low, and her nose was broad.

Carbon-dating of her teeth and isotope data from crystals that formed on her bones helped study authors determine that the girl lived 12,000 to 13,000 years ago in what would have been a very parched environment. They believe she was probably searching for water when she entered a dark, underground cave and then plummeted 100 feet into the massive chamber now called Hoyo Negro, or black hole.

Unable to escape — her hip bone shattered from the fall — she died amid a menagerie of similarly doomed megafauna, including saber-toothed cats, elephant-like gomphotheres and giant sloths. As the Ice Age ended and glaciers melted, sea levels rose and slowly filled the chamber with water, sealing it off from humanity.

Or at least it did until 2007, when scuba divers first explored the natural ossuary and discovered “a time capsule” of Central American life at the end of the Ice Age, according to study leader James Chatters, a paleoarchaeologist at Applied Paleoscience, a private research company in Bothell, Wash.

Well, allow me to wrap this package up in a nice little bow for you.

Miami will likely be underwater before the Senate can muster enough votes to meaningfully confront climate change…” the snotty leftwing turd begins his piece.

You know what, idiot?  IT PROBABLY WILL BE UNDERWATER.

Because that’s kind of what happens over time, isn’t it?  And anybody who has any connection whatsoever to something called “reality” understands that.

To put it in biblical terms, “There’s nothing new under the sun.” — Ecclesiastes 1:9

Including “global warming,” “climate change,” ice ages and melting glaciers.  This old earth has had them all before and it’s had them all keep happen in cycles that keep repeating over and over and over again.

The only thing that IS apparently new is a particularly loathsome species of whackjob liberal who runs around like Chicken Little screaming about the falling sky because they are totally ignorant about the fact that the damn sky falls every single night.  The only thing that IS new is complete jackass idiots who in the name of global warming “science” pronounce “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”

But children DO know what snow is.  The problem is that global warming morons don’t know what truth is.  They don’t know what reality is.  And therefore they don’t know what facts are.

When I first heard the phrase, “global warming,” I had no ideological axe to grind.  I was (and remain) an evangelical Christian who believes the Bible and therefore believes biblical prophecy.  And of course there is all kinds of stuff about crazy weather in the last days.  I was QUITE ready to accept the hypothesis that the climate was changing.

Do you want to know what tipped me off that these leftists had their skulls filled with cockroach poop?  When I subsequently heard about the 1995 Kyoto Protocol on global warming.  The thing that they did – which STILL proves the whole issue is either a giant load of crap or is being treated LIKE a giant load of crap by those pushing its agenda – was say a) global warming gasses present a clear and present danger to human existence and b) we’ll allow China, Russia, India and all the third world nations to keep spewing the pollution that is murdering the planet and only annihilate all the western free market-based economies instead.

This was NEVER about “science.”  This is and always has been about politics and the socialist redistribution of wealth in the name of “science.”

A short article by Patrick Bedard exposes the fraud that is “global warming” or “climate change” or whatever the hell these propagandists will call it next after their current lies are exposed:

An Inconvenient Truth: SOS from Al Gore
September 2006
BY PATRICK BEDARD

He’s baack! Just when you thought the scolding was over and it was safe to pull your ear plugs out, Al Gore has a brand-new harangue going.

Actually, it’s the same old doomsday prediction he’s been peddling since he was a senator bucking to be President back in the ’90s, only this time it’s packaged as a 94-minute film. An Inconvenient Truth previewed at the Sundance Film Festival last January. “This is activist cinema at its very best,” said the official festival guide.

You can guess what activated him; his long-playing paranoia about global warming. He and the mainstream media say it’s a done deal. We’re toast.

“Be Worried. Be Very Worried,” blared the cover of Time in April. “Climate change isn’t some vague future problem — it’s already damaging the planet at an alarming pace. Here’s how it affects you, your kids, and their kids as well.”

This is, by the way, the same Time that was telling us as late as 1983 to be worried, very worried, that temperatures were descending into another era of “glaciation.”

Gore’s “inconvenient truth” is that — there’s no tactful way to say this — we gas-guzzling, SUV-flaunting, comfort-addicted humans, wallowing in our own self-indulgences, have screwed up the planet. We’ve hauled prodigious quantities of fossil fuels out of the ground where they belong, combusted them to release carbon dioxide (CO2) into the sky where it shouldn’t be, and now we’re going to burn for our sins.

This feverish sort of should-and-shouldn’t evangelism plays particularly well these days among those who are looking for something to believe that carries no obligation to sit in a church pew. Nature has left us no scripture, so Gore can preach it as he feels it. Faith, brother. Don’t even pretend to understand. Anyway, humans, except for the rare enlightened ones like Al Gore, are alien trespassers in nature.

Let’s not dispute the earth’s temperature. It’s warmer than it used to be. As an Iowa farm boy, I learned about the soil we tilled. Most of Iowa is flat, graded smooth by glaciers. The rocks we plowed up in the fields, or plowed around if they were big, were rounded in shape. The glacier tumbled them as it scraped along, and it ground their corners off.

The North American ice sheets reached their largest expanse about 18,000 years ago and then began to recede. Within 5000 years they had pulled back considerably but still reached south as far as central Ohio. After another thousand years, however, the U.S. was largely ice-free.

Needless to say, there have been no glaciers reported in Iowa as long as anyone can remember. It’s warmer now. And if it would just warm up a bit more, fewer Iowans would need to trot off to Florida, Texas, and Arizona during deepest winter.

The long absence of farm-belt glaciers confirms an inconvenient truth that Gore chooses to ignore. The warming of our planet started thousands of years before SUVs began adding their spew to the greenhouse. Indeed, the whole greenhouse theory of global warming goes wobbly if you just change one small assumption.

Logic and chemistry say all CO2 is the same, whether it blows out of a Porsche tailpipe or is exhaled from Al Gore’s lungs or wafts off my compost pile or the rotting of dead plants in the Atchafalaya swamp.

“Wrong,” say the greenhouse theorists. They maintain that man’s contribution to the greenhouse is different from nature’s, and that only man’s exhaustings count.

Let’s review the greenhouse theory of global warming. Our planet would be one more icy rock hurtling through space at an intolerable temperature were it not for our atmosphere. This thin layer of gases — about 95 percent of the molecules live within the lowest 15 miles — readily allows the sun’s heat in but resists its reradiation into space. Result: The earth is warmed.

The atmosphere is primarily composed of nitrogen (78 percent), oxygen (21 percent), argon (0.93 percent), and CO2 (0.04 percent). Many other gases are present in trace amounts. The lower atmosphere also contains varying amounts of water vapor, up to four percent by volume.

Nitrogen and oxygen are not greenhouse gases and have no warming influence. The greenhouse gases included in the Kyoto Protocol are each rated for warming potency. CO2, the warming gas that has activated Al Gore, has low warming potency, but its relatively high concentration makes it responsible for 72 percent of Kyoto warming. Methane (CH4, a.k.a. natural gas) is 21 times more potent than CO2, but because of its low concentration, it contributes only seven percent of that warming. Nitrous oxide (N2O), mostly of nature’s creation, is 310 times more potent than CO2. Again, low concentration keeps its warming effect down to 19 percent.

Now for an inconvenient truth about CO2 sources — nature generates about 30 times as much of it as does man. Yet the warming worriers are unconcerned about nature’s outpouring. They — and Al Gore — are alarmed only about anthropogenic CO2, that 3.2 percent caused by humans.

They like to point fingers at the U.S., which generated about 23 percent of the world’s anthropogenic CO2 in 2003, the latest figures from the Energy Information Administration. But this finger-pointing ignores yet another inconvenient truth about CO2. In fact, it’s a minor contributor to the greenhouse effect when water vapor is taken into consideration. All the greenhouse gases together, including CO2 and methane, produce less than two percent of the greenhouse effect, according to Richard S. Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Lindzen, by the way, is described by one source as “the most renowned climatologist in all the world.”

When water vapor is put in that perspective, then anthropogenic CO2 produces less than 0.1 of one percent of the greenhouse effect.

If everyone knows that water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas, why do Al Gore and so many others focus on CO2? Call it the politics of the possible. Water vapor is almost entirely natural. It’s beyond the reach of man’s screwdriver. But when the delegates of 189 countries met at Kyoto in December 1997 to discuss global climate change, they could hardly vote to do nothing. So instead, they agreed that the developed countries of the world would reduce emissions of six man-made greenhouse gases. At the top of the list is CO2, a trivial influence on global warming compared with water vapor, but unquestionably man’s largest contribution.

In deciding that it couldn’t reduce water vapor, Kyoto really decided that it couldn’t reduce global warning. But that’s an inconvenient truth that wouldn’t make much of a movie.

Do you understand the bait and switch?  “Global warming” – redubbed “climate change” as too many lies were discovered to call it “global warming” any longer – was always and remains always about POLITICS rather than “science.”

CO2 is responsible for less than 0.1 percent of our “global warming” gasses.  That is simply a fact of science.  Moreover, CO2 is a gas that is actually fundamentally necessary for the existence of life.  It is NOT a pollutant; LIBERALISM is a pollutant.

I read a book titled, Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years that just blew the “anthropocentric global warming” garbage right out of the water.  Every single measurement science has taken, ice core samples, sea core samples, sediment samples, tree ring samples, fossil records, pollen records, records of human descriptions of climate throughout history, you name it, has over and over and over again conclusively documented that there is a recurring PATTERN of climate change.  In fact legitimate science has discovered that there have been 600 natural 1,500 year climate cycles over the past 1 million years.  What we’re seeing now is absolutely NOTHING new; in fact the warming period that the Roman Empire flourished under was warmer than our temperatures now.  Without there being so much as a single SUV to blame it on.  I wrote an article titled, “What the Science REALLY Says About Global Warming” to summarize what I learned.

I always bring this up – you know, “facts,” to people who believe in human-caused global warming.  I point out the “600 natural, 1,500 year climate cycles over the past million years” thing.  I bring up the fact that if humans are the cause of global warming/climate change on earth they must also be the cause of the same thing happening in the other planets of our solar system.  I point out that Michael Mann’s famous – I submit INFAMOUS – “hockey stick graph” that was frankly proven to be a fraud years ago nevertheless had temperatures skyrocketing into the future.  Whereas in actuality we have had ZERO global warming for the last sixteen freaking years.  I’ve seen and documented many outright frauds committed in the name of “science.”  What does it take for even our biggest idiots to realize these people are just WRONG???  And they invariably just look at me with these empty, vacuous eyes that other than size are identical with COW eyes.  I am looking through a set of glazed lenses directly into a brain with a completely synapse-free environment.

The human beings who believe they can stop climate change with the power of human government are morally, spiritually and intellectually the equivalents of the fools who built the Tower of Babel to get to where God was.  It is a stupid, futile endeavor that will fail to the extent that the people pushing it even have any intention whatsoever to actually DO anything about it versus just seize trillions of dollars – $76 trillion, to be specific – so that they can “reward their friends and punish their enemies” via a massive totalitarian government takeover of everyone and everything that interferes with their socialist (i.e., crony capitalist fascist) agenda.

If you believe that the United Nations with $76 trillion of Other People’s Money will stop global warming, you are an idiot.  And if you have seventeen freaking PhDs and you think the United Nations with $76 trillion of Other People’s Money will stop global warming you are an even BIGGER idiot – because at some damn point in your educational process you should have actually learned something and finally figured something out and finally learned how to get a damned clue.

It’s biblical, again: “always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth.” — 2 Timothy 3:7

What we are seeing from the ideological left – and that very much includes the entire movement behind “climate change” – is a rabid, fascist intolerance that has come to be the ESSENCE of the left and everything the left touches.  You talk about “journalism” (see more here) which today is another word for “propaganda” thanks to the left; you talk about unhinged, doctrinaire bias and intellectual discrimination in our universities (see more here) where you find a level of ideological “purity” that is “statistically impossible” apart from rabid purges of any pro-conservative thought whatsoever.

And so:

SAN ANTONIO — Some of the world’s pre-eminent experts on bias discovered an unexpected form of it at their annual meeting.

Discrimination is always high on the agenda at the Society for Personality and Social Psychology’s conference, where psychologists discuss their research on racial prejudice, homophobia, sexism, stereotype threat and unconscious bias against minorities. But the most talked-about speech at this year’s meeting, which ended Jan. 30, involved a new “outgroup.”

It was identified by Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist at the University of Virginia who studies the intuitive foundations of morality and ideology. He polled his audience at the San Antonio Convention Center, starting by asking how many considered themselves politically liberal. A sea of hands appeared, and Dr. Haidt estimated that liberals made up 80 percent of the 1,000 psychologists in the ballroom. When he asked for centrists and libertarians, he spotted fewer than three dozen hands. And then, when he asked for conservatives, he counted a grand total of three.

“This is a statistically impossible lack of diversity,” Dr. Haidt concluded, noting polls showing that 40 percent of Americans are conservative and 20 percent are liberal. In his speech and in an interview, Dr. Haidt argued that social psychologists are a “tribal-moral community” united by “sacred values” that hinder research and damage their credibility — and blind them to the hostile climate they’ve created for non-liberals.

“Anywhere in the world that social psychologists see women or minorities underrepresented by a factor of two or three, our minds jump to discrimination as the explanation,” said Dr. Haidt, who called himself a longtime liberal turned centrist. “But when we find out that conservatives are underrepresented among us by a factor of more than 100, suddenly everyone finds it quite easy to generate alternate explanations.”

For the official damn record, THAT is what happened to “climate change scientists.”

And so let’s consider the “science” of “climate change” and the “scientists” who have fabricated the “consensus” that we keep hearing about:

A climate change researcher has claimed that scientists are confusing their role as impartial observers with green activism after his paper challenging predictions about the speed of global warming was rejected because it was seen as “less than helpful.”

Professor Lennart Bengtsson says recent McCarthy-style pressure from fellow academics forced him to resign from his post on a climate sceptic think-tank.

The research fellow from the University of Reading believes a paper he co-authored was deliberately suppressed from publicatoin in a leading journal because of an intolerance of dissenting views about climate change by scientists who peer-reviewed the work.

“The problem we have now in the scientific community is that some scientists are mixing up their scientific role with that of climate activist,” he told the Times.

Professor Bengtsson claims a scientist advised that the paper, which challenged findings that global temperature would increase by 4.5C if greenhouse gases were to double, should not be published in a respected journal because it was “less than helpful.”

The unnamed scientist, who was asked to peer review Professor Bengtsson’s paper, said in his comments: “Actually it is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of ‘errors’ and worse from the climate sceptics side.”

The paper, co-authored with four other scientists, challenged the findings of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) but was rejected by Environmental Research Letters published by the Institute of Physics, one of the most highly regarded journals in the area.

Professor Bengtsson said he accepted emissions would increase the global temperature but questioned the rate at which this would take place and suggested more work needed to be done to determine this.

However he said it was unacceptable that a paper was rejected on the basis it might advance the argument of climate sceptics, as he suggested scientists were losing their impartial role.

He added: “It is an indication of how science is gradually being influenced by political views.”

We are routinely finding that climatologists who are in ANY way, shape or form skeptical of the garbage that is the global warming alarmist industry are intimidated, threatened, purged and at LEAST find themselves marginalized and excluded from funding.

I am beyond SICK of rabid fascists imposing themselves on every sphere across the board, be it “science,” “morality,” “religion,” you name it – these people have perverted it and distorted it and have created a system that rewards themselves and their allies while punishing everyone who won’t knuckle under to them.

This climate change is a pile of crap driven by biased ideologues who are FAR more “politician” or “bureaucrat” than they have EVER been “scientists.”

I’ll close with this point about how truly morally idiotic progressive liberalism has become as epitomized in Nancy Pelosi’s shrill rant, “I’m trying to save the planet!  I’m trying to save the planet!”

By their own count (as opposed to young earth Creationism’s most radical interpretation based on Usher’s Chronology) Earth is over 4.5 BILLION years old.  Anyone who isn’t a complete fool knows that planet Earth has been around a very long time and will continue to be around for a very long time.  But liberals, being irrational, believe they need to save it.  And because of that liberals, being truly demonically evil, also believe that in order to “save the planet” humans need to be treated like a cancer and exterminated:

“My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout the world.” – Dave Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!

Mankind is the most dangerous, destructive, selfish and unethical animal on the earth.”
– Michael Fox, vice-president of The Humane Society

Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs.”
– John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

Humans on the Earth behave in some ways like a pathogenic micro-organism, or like the cells of a tumor.”
– Sir James Lovelock, Healing Gaia

The Earth has cancer and the cancer is Man.”
– Club of Rome, Mankind at the Turning Point

A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the present North American material standard of living would be 1 billion. At the more frugal European standard of living, 2 to 3 billion would be possible.”
United Nations, Global Biodiversity Assessment

A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells; the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people. We must shift our efforts from the treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer. The operation will demand many apparently brutal and heartless decisions.”
– Prof Paul Ehrlich, The Population Bomb

A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”
– Ted Turner, founder of CNN and major UN donor [and major DEMOCRAT PARTY DONOR]

Of course, for liberals, “saving the planet” is always done at the expense of OTHER people.  So they demand the right to spend Other People’s Money and they demand the right to exterminate Other People.

Liberals have murdered fifty-five million babies.  And like the Islamic fascists talking about the Jews murdered in the Holocaust, if you bring up the 55 million they’ve murdered in their abortion mills they say, “Not enough!”

Let me say it again: Earth has been around for over 4.5 billion years and it will be around for a long time to come.  And you are a true idiot indeed if you believe somebody’s SUV is going to kill the Earth.

Real scientists – rather than the pseudo-scientist whores who have prostituted themselves for their pimp Sugar Daddy “Climate Change” – have documented that we’ve had over 600 climate change cycles over the past one million years.  And since a billion is a thousand million, and the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, by that count we’ve had 2,700,000 cycles of climate change.

But Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and every liberal are vowing that we’re not going to have 2,700,001 cycles on their watch.  Not even if they have to spend $76 trillion of Other People’s Money to do it.

I suppose they have a slightly better chance of succeeding at stopping climate change than they would have of stopping the sun from going down at night.  But not by much.

Earth doesn’t need “saving.”

Do you know what DOES need saving?  The republic.

Unlike planet Earth, which has been around for a very long time and won’t be going away anytime soon, nations and even civilizations have come and gone with dismaying frequency.

Ours is in jeopardy.

The United States of America is the oldest nation on earth, in terms of the antiquity of its Constitution which birthed it.  Many nations came before America; many nations have risen and collapsed since our republic was formed.

As we speak, liberals are murdering America with crushing debt that we cannot possibly repay and which will ultimately cause our certain collapse.

In 2012 – thanks almost ENTIRELY to liberals and their morally insane fascist policies – the U.S. fiscal gap (our assets minus our unfunded liabilities) was $222 TRILLION according to the Congressional Budget Office.

That gap is growing by a rapidly accelerating pace as the cumulative weight of our interest on our debt piles higher and higher.  In 2012, it grew by $11 trillion.  It will continue to grow by a more and more insane figure every single year until America implodes.  So we’re probably close to a true “national debt” of nearing $250 trillion today.

Currently, we’re able to get away with this madness because as a result of American dominance in the aftermath of World War II the United States is the world’s “reserve currency,” with most commodities being bought and sold entirely in U.S. dollars.  That will end soon; it simply has to.  And America will financially collapse overnight in a manner that will make the Great Depression seem like a sunny day on a lovely beach.

What needs “saving”?

Liberals aren’t “saving the planet.”  They are destroying America.  And their destruction will bear terrible, lethal fruit very soon.

 

Liberals Put Yet Another Feather In Their Fascist Cap In Ouster Of Jill Abramson For The Crime Of Daring To Speak The Truth

May 15, 2014

It was only yesterday that I published the article, “America’s Enemy-in-Chief And The Pseudo-Journalist Enemies Of Truth Who Attack Any Of Their Own Who Would Expose Him.”  I pointed out in that article how journalists had been personally destroyed for trying to report the truth.  I mentioned some names, such as Sharyl Attkisson – award-winning investigative journalist who resigned in despair when CBS refused to air her stories after praising her for the same tough investigative reporting when the president happened to be a Republican.  Having resigned, she was free to speak the truth: namely, the truth that a fascist propaganda-press WILL NOT report the truth about Obama that they eagerly drooled to report about Bush.  And I mentioned a few courageous journalists – from the New York Times of all places – who dared to call a spade a spade and decry this fascist administration and its destruction on the 1st Amendment.

One of those New York Times journalists that I named  yesterday was Jill Abramson.

Abramson pointed out that Barack Obama was – despite all of his arrogant lies to the contrary – the most secretive president she had ever encountered in a career of covering presidents that dated back to the Reagan years.  She pointed out that Obama was in fact THE most destructive president of the 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States in all of American history.

And now she’s gone, purged the way ALL who in any way defy the left get purged.  Because the left is now pathologically fascist.  And the urge to purge is the hallmark of fascism.

Now, before I cite the article (I read the story in USA Today) that “explains” Abramson’s ouster, allow me to reproduce the same portion of the article I cited yesterday:

Let me move on to another topic in the Obama administration. How would you grade this administration, compared to others, when it comes to its relationship with the media.

Well, I would slightly like to interpret the question as “How secretive is this White House?” which I think is the most important question. I would say it is the most secretive White House that I have ever been involved in covering, and that includes — I spent 22 years of my career in Washington and covered presidents from President Reagan on up through now, and I was Washington bureau chief of the Times during George W. Bush’s first term.

I dealt directly with the Bush White House when they had concerns that stories we were about to run put the national security under threat. But, you know, they were not pursuing criminal leak investigations. The Obama administration has had seven criminal leak investigations. That is more than twice the number of any previous administration in our history. It’s on a scale never seen before. This is the most secretive White House that, at least as a journalist, I have ever dealt with.

And do you think this comes directly from the president?

I would think that it would have to. I don’t know that, but certainly enough attention has been focused on this issue that, if he departed from the policies of his government, I think we’d know that at this point.

So it makes it more difficult for The New York Times to do its job.

Absolutely.

The White House does?

The White House does. And in the case of specific journalists, I would talk for a minute about Jim Risen, who is one of my most valued colleagues. In 2005, he is the reporter who, along with Eric Lichtblau, broke the story about the NSA’s warrantless eavesdropping, which was, in a way, the first view we had into the world of the NSA’s collection of data and communications. He has had this leak investigation hanging over his head for years now.

Allow me to simply state as a FACT that THIS is why Jill Abramson is gone.

Now read the article detailing her ouster and tell me where you see the real reason Abramson was purged:

‘NYT’ editor: Abramson out, deputy Baquet in
Roger Yu, USA TODAY 7:53 a.m. EDT May 15, 2014

The New York Times abruptly ousted its executive editor, Jill Abramson, Wednesday, citing “management” issues in the newsroom and sparking a firestorm of speculation across the media industry.

Managing editor Dean Baquet was appointed as her successor, making him the paper’s first African-American newsroom leader. Abramson and Baquet were among the top trending topics on Twitter on Wednesday afternoon, reflecting the intense interest the paper still generates among online readers.

The changes, effective immediately, came as a surprise for the rank and file and to company watchers, though there have been reports that her management style had rubbed some insiders and staffers the wrong way.

The company declined to elaborate on why Abramson, 60, left the company where she had worked for 17 years so suddenly. She was so devoted to The Times that she has a tattoo of the letter “T,” signifying her ties the paper.

In an e-mail, Times spokeswoman Eileen Murphy said Arthur Sulzberger Jr., the publisher of The Times and chairman of The New York Times Co., “made the decision because he believed that new leadership would improve some aspects of the management of the newsroom.”

“You will understand that there is nothing more that I want to say about this,” Sulzberger told the newsroom Wednesday afternoon, according to a Times report. “We had an issue with management in the newsroom. And that’s what’s at the heart of this issue.”

Widely respected for her journalistic skills, Abramson made history as the paper’s first female editor when she was promoted to the job in 2011. She has a reputation for a hard-charging, and at times, prickly personality.

Under her tenure, the paper had to deal with a series of high-profile defections by writers and editors — celebrated blogger Nate Silver to ESPN being the most cited example — who left for competitors and media start-ups.

But she is credited with guiding the organization at a time of deep changes, including the paper’s aggressive shift toward digital journalism and its decision to charge readers for digital content. Like other digital-first media organizations, its reporters are now tasked to write quickly online and update as stories develop, but they continue to produce high-quality enterprise stories and deeply reported features on multiple platforms, which allow the company to grow its circulation revenue.

“I’ve loved my run at The Times,” Abramson said in a statement. “We successfully blazed trails on the digital frontier, and we have come so far in inventing new forms of story-telling. Our masthead became half female for the first time, and so many great women hold important newsroom positions.”

Abramson was not immediately reachable for comment, and the company said she was “no longer here.”

Baquet, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist who previously worked as editor of The Los Angeles Times, has been managing editor at the Times since September 2011 and was seen as an eventual successor to Abramson.

A native New Orleanian, Baquet is well-liked in the newsroom for his engaging personality and easy rapport with staffers. “I think he’s the perfect choice,” said Jim Amoss, editor of The Times-Picayune in New Orleans, who’s been friends with Baquet for decades. “As a manager, he’s a rare combination of inspiring, empathetic and even-keeled. He know instinctively how to respond journalistically to news. The newsroom will naturally gravitate toward him.”

When he addressed the staff Wednesday afternoon, Baquet received a minute-long round of applause from employees, the Times report said.

That was where the print version ended.  The digital version I found online continued with this:

“He’d remember a conversation you had with him six months earlier,” said a newsroom employee who spoke anonymously because he wasn’t authorized speak publicly about internal matters. “He’s personable, charming.”

Citing “the confidence and support” Baquet receives from his colleagues, Sulzberger said in the company’s statement that “there is no journalist in our newsroom or elsewhere better qualified to take on the responsibilities of executive editor at this time than Dean Baquet.”

Baquet has had run-ins with Abramson, though it remains unclear if their relationship may have influenced Sulzberger’s decision.Citing people in the company briefed on the situation, The Times reported Wednesday that Abramson sought to hire Janine Gibson, editor-in-chief of the Guardian’s U.S. operation and its global website, and name her co-managing editor alongside Baquet. The move angered Baquet and the tension was brought to the attention of Sulzberger.

Gibson confirmed to the Guardian that Abramson tried to hire her: “The New York Times talked to me about the role of joint managing editor, but I said no.”

Politico also reported that Abramson and Baquet once engaged in an argument that drove Baquet to slam his hand against a wall and storm out of the newsroom. “In recent months, Abramson has become a source of widespread frustration and anxiety within the Times newsroom,” said the story, written in April 2013 by Politico media reporter Dylan Byers. “More than a dozen current and former members of the editorial staff, all of whom spoke to Politico on the condition of anonymity, described her as stubborn and condescending, saying they found her difficult to work with.” The story was widely derided at the time as sexist.

The sudden masthead changes also may be driven by shifting priorities in the fast-changing newsroom, where digital strategizing can be overwhelmed by the daily demands of story production.

Last week, the company released an internal memo, following a 6-month review of its digital strategy, that called for more urgency in the implementation of its digital goals. Among them was a recommendation to create newsroom teams that tracked audience development and formed new strategies, as well a call to prioritize digital hiring.

“The report concludes that the masthead needs to make further structural changes in the newsroom to achieve a digital-first reality,” Abramson and Baquet wrote last week in a memo.

Sulzberger noted on Wednesday that Baquet was “closely involved” with the team that produced the memo.

Whatever precipitated her departure, Abramson doesn’t have “any journalistic apologies to make,” says Alex Jones, a former Times reporter who teaches media and public policy at Harvard University and is co-author of The Trust: The Private And Powerful Family Behind The New York Times.

“She was the head of the newsroom at a difficult time,” he said. “I worked for several top editors (at the Times). Every single one of them is pushy and demanding. I don’t think she is any more difficult than others. I think, overall, that just goes with the territory. It’s a demanding, high-standards place.”

Nowhere – NOWHERE – is her recent comment about the Obama regime mentioned.  You know, the thing that ACTUALLY led to her ouster.

She delivered these remarks in a late-January interview.  But that interview was given to al Jazeera, and of course nobody heard about it for a while.  Until it was discovered and pointed out by Fox News late last week (which was how I heard about what Abramson said).  That’s when the fascist wheels at the New York Slimes started grinding – and kept grinding until Abramson was out.

You can see the clues about how rushed this “ouster” – because let’s call it the “purge” that it clearly is – was:

The changes, effective immediately, came as a surprise for the rank and file and to company watchers, though there have been reports that her management style had rubbed some insiders and staffers the wrong way.

Well, I cite that “management style” stuff in the article I wrote yesterday.  It amounted to a hit job AFTER she made her remarks about Obama’s thug presidency.

The minute-long applause was for the purging of a woman who had dared speak the truth about Messiah Obama.  You can only imagine how the doctrinaire liberals who make up the New York Times must have gnashed their teeth for two and a half months waiting for her to be forced out for her blasphemy of their god-king.

One of the claims (that doesn’t appear in the USA Today piece above but which is going around) is that Jill Abramson asked for more money:

“Several weeks ago, I’m told, Abramson discovered that her pay and her pension benefits as both executive editor and, before that, as managing editor were considerably less than the pay and pension benefits of Bill Keller, the male editor whom she replaced in both jobs. “She confronted the top brass,” one close associate said, and this may have fed into the management’s narrative that she was “pushy,” a characterization that, for many, has an inescapably gendered aspect.

But that was shortly after the New York Times ran a series spouting how working women could and should ask for more damn money.  Which means that the New York Times would be saying, “Women should ask for more money, so long as they don’t dare ask for it from US.”

The New York Times’ stock valuation DOUBLED during her three years at the helm as executive editor:

Times Co. shares extended earlier losses today, falling 4.5 percent at the close. The stock, which more than doubled during Abramson’s tenure, is still down 71 percent from a 2002 peak.

So maybe she deserved to be paid as much as the MALE who held her job and took the paper downhill was paid.  But to be a liberal is to be an abject hypocrite who calls upon other people and other people’s money to do what they themselves refuse to do.

The two quintessential ingredients of modern progressive liberalism – abject hypocrisy and rabid fascism – here go hand in hand: “Don’t do what WE do; do what we TELL you to do.”

We’ve seen this sort of hypocrisy regarding women and their pay before.  From the New York Times’ master in the White House.

I leave it up to you.  You can choose which meme you like: The New York Times, as the moral and intellectual leader in the liberal progressive world, fired Jill Abramson because they are blatant hypocrites who don’t give a flying damn about women’s equality.  Or The New York Times, as the moral and intellectual leader in the progressive world, are blatant fascists who fired Jill Abramson because they can’t tolerate any dissent whatsoever.

Of course, if you’ve been following me so far, you know I take the latter position (to the extent that I don’t point out liberals are BOTH of the above).  I submit that while Jill Abramson may have been an uppity woman whom the creators of liberals’ “war on women” hypocritically resented for wanting what liberals deceitfully claim they believe women ought to have; her real crime in their eyes was that she was an uppity woman who committed the unpardonable sin of speaking out against the fascism of the Obama regime.

What we’ve seen in both journalism and academia is a trend in which progressive liberals got their feet into the door, “progressively” and systematically began to hire more and ONLY liberals, and attained to a level of power in which they were able to dominate the agenda and shut down any and all opposition to their ideology.  And then the purges.  What worked well for Stalin works equally well for American progressive liberals.

The homosexual movement is a microcosm of the above.  Homosexuals – citing the American tradition and the constitutional freedom of speech – demanded a voice.  And Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians and Independents alike shrugged their shoulders and agreed that, yes, everybody deserves the right to speak freely and represent their cause or their view.  But the moment they were allowed in the door, they began to slam it shut on everyone who disagree with THEM.

In other words, the “free speech” crap was merely that, rhetorical jiu-jitsu by fascists as a ploy to get as much as they could before seizing the rest.

It’s really no different from Hitler – who got to power largely by the homosexual movement in pre-WWII Germany.  Hitler was quite willing to talk his way to power until he had garnered all the power he could by talking and it was time to seize complete power and then crush and exterminate his rivals (sadly for homosexuals, they ironically ended up on the wrong side of his subsequent purges).

I don’t even have to try to prove that the media is biased any more (as easy as it is to do); the American people OVERWHELMINGLY believe the media is biased to the left.  You’ve got to be a damned fool not to believe that at this point.

And of course the same exact phenomena has occurred in academia.  The doctrinaire biased ideology in the name of “free thinking” is beyond astounding.

And I submit to you that the identical phenomena has now metasticized in heavily unionized (and therefore leftist) government bureaucracy as top Obama-appointed liberals are routinely using their positions to advance their ideology

A letter sent last year to Solis by the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, an independent agency that investigates allegations of administrative violations of fundraising rules by federal officials, said it began an inquiry after receiving a complaint that Solis had solicited a donation from a Labor Department employee. According to the letter, the complaint alleged that in March 2012, Solis “left a voicemail message on a subordinate employee’s government-issued Blackberry in which you asked the employee to contribute toward and assist with organizing others to attend a fundraiser for the President’s reelection campaign.”

Solis has declined to comment on the investigation, but a spokesman reiterated Friday that she believes she has done nothing wrong.

The January 2013 letter, which was reviewed by The Times, noted that Solis had resigned from her federal position earlier that month. As a result, the office said it was closing its inquiry into possible violations of the Hatch Act, which prohibits certain political activities by federal workers and imposes administrative penalties. The letter said the administrative inquiry could be reopened if Solis takes an executive branch job in the federal government.

– and crush all opponents of their ideology:

Despite assurances to the contrary, the IRS didn’t destroy all of the donor lists scooped up in its tea party targeting — and a check of those lists reveals that the tax agency audited 10 percent of those donors, much higher than the audit rate for average Americans, House Republicans revealed Wednesday.

Republicans argue that the Internal Revenue Servicet come clean about the full extent of its targeting, which swept up dozens of conservative groups.

“The committee uncovered new information indicating that after groups provided the information to the IRS, nearly one in 10 donors were subject to audit,” Rep. Charles W. Boustany Jr., Louisiana Republican and chairman of the Ways and Means Committee’s oversight panel, told IRS Commissioner John Koskinen at a hearing Wednesday.

And we’re now learning that in stark contrast to the Obama administrations LIES, the targeting of conservatives was NOT the result of “rogue agents out of Cincinnati,” but rather a campaign that began out of WASHINGTON as conservatives have been pointing out all along.

The quintessential fascism that is the heart of the left is emerging in every area and every arena across the board.  If you are a liberal, YOU ARE A FASCIST.  I’ve been pointing out – literally for years now – that “NAZI” stood for “National Socialist German Workers Party,” and that if there were a “National Socialist American Workers Party” there is absolutely NO QUESTION that it would be the progressive left.  To wit: the Democrat Party today is the Nazi Party in everything BUT name.  And if liberals were anything other than completely dishonest, they would call themselves what they truly are.

A few weeks ago I wrote a piece titled, “I Keep Pointing It Out: The ESSENTIAL Nature Of Homosexual Liberalism Is Pure Rabid FASCISM. And Here It Is Again…”  I described – actually allowed a couple of horrified liberals to describe – the systematic campaign of targeting and punishing free speech from the heart of the left.  I also documented the purging of the Mozilla CEO for the “crime” of exercising his free speech right to donate to the political causes of his choice.  And I preserved the incredible, galling hypocrisy of the left that views itself as being so “tolerant” – until they are confronted by “the other” and the fangs come out.

A few weeks before that I wrote an article titled, “The Inherent, Pathological Fascism Of The Left. It Took Nazism Decades To Fester In Germany And American Liberals Are Ahead Of Schedule” that featured the rabid hatred of the left for free speech that has become the quintessential essence of liberalism.

And just this morning I wrote “Just In Case You Want To Know Why Progressive Liberalism Is In Bed With Islamic Fascism. Because Basically, They’re One And The Same” to document how the progressive liberal and the Islamic fascist basically have the same ideology on four crucial areas.

It is amazing to watch in these days shortly before the Antichrist prophesied by the Bible comes to a worshiping world the self-righteous left that praises itself for “tolerance” when they define “tolerance” as: thinking and acting as we say or else we’ll destroy you.

 

 

 

Just In Case You Want To Know Why Progressive Liberalism Is In Bed With Islamic Fascism. Because Basically, They’re One And The Same

May 15, 2014

It’s really an amazing thing to see: the love affair between Islamic fascist jihadism and the progressive left.

I long ago documented Barack Obama’s LONG association with radical Islam.

You start throwing out radical names of dangerous people that Obama has been associated with and a pattern emerges:  the aforementioned Davis, Jeremiah Wright (see also here and here and here), Khalid al-Mansour (more here), Rashid Khalidi, Tony Rezko, Bill Ayers.  And you realize that Obama has been steeped in a profoundly Marxist worldview.  Obama isn’t stupid; he knows that the American people don’t want that ideology.  But no one can conceal his worldview completely.  Critical observers saw it clearly.

Khalid al-Monsour and Rashid Khalidi are bad, bad news if you AREN’T a radical Muslim who is very, very comfortable with terrorism in the name of your ideology.

And the left’s intimate love-affair with radical extremist (violent as hell) Islam run deep, deep, DEEP.  Just recently the uberleftist Brandeis University “disinvited” a female Muslim who has refused to shut her mouth about the viciousness of Islam toward women.  And the soon-to-open 9/11 Museum is taking a lot of flack because it has words such as “Islamic extremism” and “jihadism.”

This brave Muslim woman wanted to tell the truth about what is going on in the lives of these poor, oppressed women who are forced to undergo genital mutilation, endure rapes without having the right to report crimes against them, not be able to drive, not able to even leave the house without an escort, wear a giant tent called a hijab that covers everything but their veiled eyes and the tips of their feet, etc.

And how DARE she do that!  It’s an OUTRAGE!  And liberal Democrats are FURIOUS.  Furious enough to attack her for the cardinal sin of being “intolerant.”

Hint: it sure aint Republicans getting behind these Muslim whitewashers of truth and reason.

So there’s a good question for discussion: why the hell would liberals (well, PROGRESSIVE liberals given the fact that these cockroaches have nothing to do with ACTUAL liberalism) would be such ardent supporters of the people who quite possibly despise them even more than I do.

The answer is actually very simple.

The most fundamental reason is the fact that progressive “liberalism” is based on racism and the fabrication of various racial minority groups into a voting bloc.  Basically, if you recognize and affirm what a truly inferior and pathetic human being you are, and therefore see yourself as a victim of everybody and everything you disagree with, you too can be a “liberal.”

And radical Muslims – yes, terrorists like Osama bin Laden – very much and in the exact same “liberal” tradition view themselves as “victims” of the same “capitalism” and “Christendom” that progressive liberals so ardently despise.

Given that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend,” and given that jihadist Islamic fascists hate most of the same things that progressive liberals hate, they are bedfellows.  Even though these Muslim fanatics would love nothing more than to slit the throats of every progressive liberal on the planet when they’re through using them as useful idiots and ideological human shields.

It boils down to this: if you’re a black Muslim in America today, which party and which president do you vote for?

I’ll leave it to Nation of Islam founder Lois Farrakhan to put that one to bed for me:

“You are the instruments that God is gonna use to bring about universal change, and that is why Barack has captured the youth. And he has involved young people in a political process that they didn’t care anything about. That’s a sign. When the Messiah speaks, the youth will hear, and the Messiah is absolutely speaking.”

Oh, yes, when Obama campaign chief David Axelrod called Obama “black Jesus” and when liberal Newsweek editor Evan Thomas said Obama is “sort of God” and when liberal idiot Spike Lee said you can divide history into BB before Barack and AB After Barack; when Obama literally has such a God-complex that he made the whole nation and the flag which symbolizes that nation about himself, when senior Obama White House advisors literally go to churches to preach Obama; and most definitely when liberals are selling “artwork” that pictures Obama’s face and phrases such as “prophecy fulfilled,” they are mouthing Louis Farrakhan.

But you’ve got to ask, why do liberals love Islamic radicals so much?  Why are the two ideologies bedfellows?

Because they’ve got an awful (and I emphasize these people are truly “awful”) lot in common besides the fact that Muslims tend to be racial minorities and therefore are held sacrosanct by the Democrat Party no matter how utterly wicked and violent and rabid they are.  Not that being wicked, violent or rabid in any way, shape or form is a barrier to being a Democrat, mind you.

Other than the racial minority thing, which is frankly enough to solidify the connection between liberal Democrats and the radical jihadist fascist left all by its lonesome, Islamic fascist have three other things that progressive liberals hold dear:

The second thing that binds Islamic fascists and liberalism together is a love of fascism and the exaltation of the State as God.  That is a cornerstone of both fanatic Islam and fanatic progressive liberalism alike.

Muslims refer to the concept of Khilafah.  Basically, think of the world as one Muslim Caliphate.  And you have the dream of Muslims.

Liberals want the same damn thing: they want one-world government.  They want a mega-socialist all-powerful totalitarian State.

Now, progressive liberals might argue that Muslims want to rule in the name of God and liberals want a godlike all-powerful State that has absolute authority over human lives entirely apart from God.  But in point of fact, the two become the same thing.

In North Korea, dictator Kim Il-Sung, then Kim Jong Il and now Kim Jong-Un are worshiped as GOD in their atheist state.

In the atheist state of the People’s Republic of China, Chairman Mao was likewise worshiped as GOD.

Leftists cannot help themselves.  In order to BE a leftist, you have to have the insanely arrogant belief that YOU should be the one to pull or push up or down all the levers and YOU should be the one who pushes or doesn’t push all of the buttons of state.  Liberals don’t believe that individuals ought to have the freedom to govern their own lives and their own affairs; rather, they feel that THEY ought to have the power to FORCE individuals to comply with what THEY want.  Or else face the power of their State.

The most rabid Muslims really aren’t very different.

Put another way, both the Ayatollah AND Barack Obama love to dictate government by use of “executive orders.”  See here and here for just two of myriad examples of our Thug-in-Chief’s abuse of power, of the separation of powers and of the Constitution.

The third thing both the progressive liberal left and radical Islamic jihadist fascism have in common is an utter contempt for and hostility to Christianity.

Piss Christ was the result of a liberal “artist” being paid government dollars from a VERY liberal National Endowment for the Arts program created by DEMOCRATS.

I wonder how Democrats would have voted for “Piss Mohammed.”  I think all reasonable people know what these cowardly liberal cockroaches would have done.

Progressive liberal Democrats are doing everything they possibly can to advance an anti-Christian agenda to overthrow Judeo-Christianity as the moral framework for society.  Because they think they’ve got a far better framework.

The fourth thing that progressive liberal Democrats and their jihadist Islamic fascists both have in common is a rabid intolerance of free speech.  You need to understand why both come to the same exact perspective from opposite ends of the spectrum: for Muslims, the suppression of free speech and individual freedom and liberty is all about the fact that in Islam the individual is nothing and the Islamic State is EVERYTHING.  And thus you have the right to shut up in Islam if you disagree with Sharia or the Khilafah Caliphate State.  In progressive liberalism, the suppression of free speech and individual liberty is based on the opposite of Christianity: in Christianity, you are created in the image of God and you have God-given rights, including the right of free speech and individual freedom and liberty.  Under progressive liberalism, you are nothing but DNA (i.e. chemicals) conditioned by your environment; you have no free will; you are merely a herd animal.  And liberals view themselves as your masters who reserve for themselves the right to make all of your herd decisions for you.  And so under progressive liberalism, you have the right to shut up if you disagree with political correctness or the Socialist Welfare State.

What the left has done is as fascinating as it is dishonest and hypocritical.  Think of 1978 and the ACLU-backed ruling that Nazis had the right to march through a town (Skokie, Illinois) that was heavily populated by Jewish death camp survivors.

This was, of course, racism at its worst and its ugliest, given the history of 6 million Jews murdered like insects during the Nazi Holocaust.

But, under the guise of liberalism, free speech was so sacred, so sacrosanct, that even the very ugliest speech needed to be protected at all possible costs.

Now, fast forward a few decades to Donald Sterling, a man whom the left wants to strip a one-billion-PLUS dollar franchise from against his will because he said a bunch of ugly racist garbage over what he thought was a private phone line.

Let me explain what happened: liberals took advantage of free speech to get their feet and their ideology in the door and then they slammed that door shut.  They don’t need it any more.  You have the right to shut up.  Or lose your property (like Donald Sterling) or your career (like the Mozilla CEO who committed the unpardonable sin of believing he had the freedom to donate to a political cause liberals don’t support).

Don’t tell me that the precedent of going after a racist like Sterling won’t soon be exploited to go after Christians like me who believe God rather than Obama when it comes to homosexual marriage.

Think of the bastions of liberal progressivism otherwise known as “universities.”  Think of what recently came out of a liberal progressive student who basically has the same job that Obama had when HE was a liberal fanatic at Harvard:

Sandra Korn, a senior who writes a column for the Harvard Crimson newspaper, thinks radical leftism is the only permissible political philosophy, and the First Amendment only hinders colleges from brainwashing students with her viewpoint.

Stop and think (liberals being incapable of either being that as fascists they love to rush to exploit the emergency of “crisis”): liberals love the idea of destroying a Donald Sterling because, racist (LIBERAL) roach that he is, they know that they can exploit the legitimate moral revulsion against racism to “progressively” demonize OTHER areas – such as opposition to homosexuality or opposition to big government, or support for voter IDs, etc., etc. ad nauseum – to their heart’s content.

Progressive liberals, if anything, are even MORE rabidly intolerant against free speech than the most fanatic Islamic fascists.

So you see, on numerous fronts, to be a radical terrorist Muslim jihadist fascist is to be a radical totalitarian liberal progressive fascist.  The two have the same basic worldview and it is therefore no surprise at all that one protects the other.

If you get in the way of the machinery of either one, they will crush you.

 

 

 

America’s Enemy-in-Chief And The Pseudo-Journalist Enemies Of Truth Who Attack Any Of Their Own Who Would Expose Him

May 14, 2014

This is the New York Times.  And we’re getting journalists who are calling Obama “the greatest enemy of press freedom that we have encountered in at least a generation” and “the most secretive White House I’ve ever covered.”

Barack Obama is a genuine FASCIST.  I’ve been saying it over and over and over again.  And now I can even point to the New York Times for confirmation.

The Democrat Party in general and the Obama presidency in particular have become the party of rabid, cancerous fascism in America.

NYT reporter: Obama administration ‘the greatest enemy of press freedom’ in a generation
Posted By Brendan Bordelon On 5:12 PM 03/24/2014

New York Times reporter James Risen called the Obama administration “the greatest enemy of press freedom that we have encountered in at least a generation” on Friday, explaining that the White House seeks to control the flow of information and those who refuse to play along “will be punished.”

Poynter reports that Risen made the remarks while speaking at Sources and Secrets conference — a meeting of journalism , communication and government professionals held in New York City. The foreign policy reporter, who is currently fighting a fierce court battle with the federal government over his protection of a confidential source, warned that press freedom is under serious attack in today’s America.

In a speech kicking off the conference, Risen claimed that the Obama administration wants to “narrow the field of national security reporting” and “create a path for accepted reporting.” Those who stray from that path, he cautioned, “will be punished.”

The result is a “de facto Official Secrets Act,” Risen explained, making the current White House “the greatest enemy of press freedom that we have encountered in at least a generation.” And the media has been “too timid” in pushing back against the onslaught.

Some of that timidity was on display at the conference. Jeffrey Toobin, a writer for The New Yorker, denied that any constitutional protections for his profession even existed. “It won’t take me long to alienate everyone in the room,” he declared. “For better or worse, it has been clear there is no journalistic privilege under the First Amendment.”

Robert Litt, the administration’s top lawyer for the national intelligence community, agreed with that statement. At the same conference, he likened reporting on national security leaks to drunk driving, arguing that we ban the practice despite the fact that there isn’t always a victim.

“Not every drunk driver causes a fatal accident,” he explained, “but we ban drunk driving because it increases the risk of accidents. In the same way, we classify information because of the risk of harm, even if no harm actually can be shown in the end from any particular disclosure.”

[h/t Poytner]

Follow Brendan on Twitter

Do you know what it will take to make liberal “journalists” like Jeffrey Toobin realize that “journalists” actually DO have constitutional freedom to report the truth even when an administration doesn’t like it?  A Republican president.  Nothing more.

Liberal journalists are not “journalists” at all – at least the overwhelming majority never are and the few who become “journalists” only do so to a small degree; rather, they are overwhelmingly ideological fascist defenders of their Führer’s official propaganda.  And they will carry the government’s water unless and until a Republican is elected president – in which case they will rabidly turn on that president.

Jill Abramson is not merely a journalist with the NY Times; she is the paper’s EXECUTIVE EDITOR Listen to what she has to say about America’s Enemy-in-Chief during an interview:

Let me move on to another topic in the Obama administration. How would you grade this administration, compared to others, when it comes to its relationship with the media.

Well, I would slightly like to interpret the question as “How secretive is this White House?” which I think is the most important question. I would say it is the most secretive White House that I have ever been involved in covering, and that includes — I spent 22 years of my career in Washington and covered presidents from President Reagan on up through now, and I was Washington bureau chief of the Times during George W. Bush’s first term.

I dealt directly with the Bush White House when they had concerns that stories we were about to run put the national security under threat. But, you know, they were not pursuing criminal leak investigations. The Obama administration has had seven criminal leak investigations. That is more than twice the number of any previous administration in our history. It’s on a scale never seen before. This is the most secretive White House that, at least as a journalist, I have ever dealt with.

And do you think this comes directly from the president?

I would think that it would have to. I don’t know that, but certainly enough attention has been focused on this issue that, if he departed from the policies of his government, I think we’d know that at this point.

So it makes it more difficult for The New York Times to do its job.

Absolutely.

The White House does?

The White House does. And in the case of specific journalists, I would talk for a minute about Jim Risen, who is one of my most valued colleagues. In 2005, he is the reporter who, along with Eric Lichtblau, broke the story about the NSA’s warrantless eavesdropping, which was, in a way, the first view we had into the world of the NSA’s collection of data and communications. He has had this leak investigation hanging over his head for years now.

Abramson could also be talking about Fox News reporter James Rosen.  Obama sicked his rabid law thug Eric Holder on Rosen and literally had Rosen FALSELY called a criminal co-conspirator so the Obama regime could monitor not only Rosen’s calls, but his PARENT’S phone calls.

Note what Abramson points out: every Democrat on earth is a vile, twisted liar and hypocrite.  You people DESPISED Bush as an enemy of freedom, et al.  AND NOW YOU ARE MINDLESSLY DEFENDING A MAN WHO MAKES GEORGE W. BUSH LOOK LIKE A SNOW WHITE PURE CHOIRBOY.

Barack Obama’s criminal thug abuse of journalism and of the 1st Amendment is frankly stunning.  But like cockroaches whose mother eats them, liberals still flock to their messiah roach.

And because Democrats are liars without shame, without honor, without integrity, without decency and absolutely without virtue, they call people who take a principled stand against this tyrant “racists.”  Because that’s the kind of fascists that they are.

What is truly interesting is how the left does when their is criticized: they get rabid fast and the fangs come out and it doesn’t matter if you are black or a woman or a black woman or WHAT.  Of course it is EVIL for a conservative to attack a black person, or a woman.  But you just watch what happens when a black person or a woman or a black woman in any way, shape or form opposes the doctrines of liberalism.  You will see naked hate and you will FEEL that hate if you are their target.

And so leftist shrills at the Politico heard that a liberal woman had criticized Obama and so they tried to take her down in the most vicious, rabid, sexist terms they possibly could.  And Abramson admitted the sexist hit job made her cry.

The mainstream media did what it does when someone dares attack liberalism: they circled their wagons and made her persona non grata.  They published ugly photos of her to tarnish her the way that Joseph Goebbels would have done.

And this is nothing compared to what the left did to female journalist Lara Logan.  Her crime was daring to report on Obama’s lies in Benghazi.  And in her reporting, she made one mistake that should have been caught by CBS (which has a former FBI guy who literally could have caught this with a phone call) and put a man on the record who turned out to have lied about having been in Benghazi.  In the minds of liberals, of course, that one error not only obliterated all the GOOD reporting she’d done, but it somehow had a metaphysical power to obliterate ALL journalistic investigation into Benghazi.

Anyway, the left went vicious, war-on-women psycho on Lara Logan in an incredibly savage piece titled, “Benghazi and the Bombshell” – which goes into vile detail into Logan’s alleged sex life from numerous anonymous sources.  And they ask the question in the subtitle – as a warning to any journalist who would dare report the facts about Obama – “Is Lara Logan too toxic to return to 60 Minutes?”

The subtitle would have properly read: a warning to any who would dare to challenge the Obama narrative on Benghazi.

Note that hit job was written by a man.  And ask yourself if a man had written such a piece so “exposing” a true ideological liberal “journalist” in such blatantly sexist and sexual terms, how would the mainstream media have responded if not in frenzied outrage akin to the Donald Sterling stuff?

Award-winning journalist Sharyl Attkisson finally recently resigned in disgust and is blowing the whistle that Obama administration officials routinely gave her “misinformation” and “false information” and pressured CBS into not airing her stories. The former CBS News correspondent said her investigative pieces died “the death of a thousand cuts” and were much harder to get on the air under Obama than they had ever been under George W. Bush (when she was PRAISED for hard investigative reporting on an administration).

Let me give you another flavor of the diseased soul that is the heart of this presidency:

In her recently published memoir, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) relays a chilling anecdote about how Washington really works. In 2009, she was running a congressional panel to oversee the Treasury Department’s bailout of the financial industry, and the new Obama administration was unhappy that she was being as tough on them as she had been on its Republican predecessors. So the president’s top economic advisor, Lawrence H. Summers, took Warren out for a friendly dinner.

“Late in the evening, Larry leaned back in his chair and offered me some advice,” Warren writes. “I had a choice. I could be an insider or I could be an outsider. Outsiders can say whatever they want. But people on the inside don’t listen to them. Insiders, however, get lots of access…. But insiders also understand one unbreakable rule: They don’t criticize other insiders.”

Warren decided to remain an outsider and went right on flaying then-Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner for failing to help distressed homeowners while he was rescuing big banks. When President Obama decided against nominating Warren to run the new Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, she ran for the Senate instead. And last year, from that seat, she was one of several senators who helped kill Summers’ likely nomination as chairman of the Federal Reserve.

There are those on the inside and there is everybody else.  And under thug-tyrant Obama, you’d better shut your mouth the way a Mafia gangster does or you will find yourself on the outside.

When an Obama official like Jay Carney pats the administration on the back for being “the most open administration in history,” you know that they have to frankly be Nazis to even SAY such a ridiculous thing.  You have to be a rabid liar to work for a rabid liar like Obama.

Consider the warning of extremely-liberal legal scholar Jonathon Turley has said about Obama and his “sin eater” law thug Eric HolderConsider:

Liberal progressive legal expert Jonathan Turley (along with a number of other constitutional experts) had this to say about Obama’s action in setting aside the rule of law for his political expedience:

“The president is using executive power to do things Congress has refused to do, and that does fit a disturbing pattern of expansion of executive power under President Obama. In many ways, President Obama has fulfilled the dream of an imperial presidency that Richard Nixon strived for. On everything from (the Defense of Marriage Act) to the gaming laws, this is a president who is now functioning as a super legislator. He is effectively negating parts of the criminal code because he disagrees with them. That does go beyond the pale.”

Obama’s strategy is to set aside and flatly ignore the law for his own political benefit.  Every American who is not deeply troubled by that – troubled enough to not vote for this fascist – is UN-American.

What Obama has done is provide an example of out-and-out lawlessness on the part of the president of the United States.

The essence of progressive liberalism is and always has been rabid personal hypocrisy and the assertion that “It’s not fascist when we do what we called you ‘fascist’ for doing when you did a fraction of what we’re doing now.”

What do you say when 96% of the journalists at a significant mainstream media outlet voted for Obama?  You say that there is a climate of out-of-control bias.  And it CONSUMES all of media today.

I think of the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese Army troops; they died at the rate of nineteen to every one American soldier killed in action.  NVA troops would get tattoos that read, “Born in the North to die in the South.”  But they kept coming.  Because in their nihilist worldview their lives meant nothing and all that mattered was the survival of the State.

That was how the leftists viewed things in World War II (when 20 million Soviets died defending Stalin), it was how they viewed it in North Korea (where 2 million died defending Kim Il-Sung) and it was how the left viewed things in the Vietnam War (where 1.1 million gave their last full measure of communist devotion to the State defending Ho Chi Minh).  And it is how leftist journalists view things now when they are willing – frankly eager – to throw themselves on every grenade that could harm their messiah Obama.

Obama is protected an army of cockroaches who will throw their “journalistic objectivity” and even their careers onto whatever grenade would blow up to expose their messiah.  And America is doomed because of these traitors to truth and to their profession.

 

New Revelations About THE Most Dishonest White House EVER: Treasury Sec Geithner Reveals He Was Instructed To Lie To The American People

May 13, 2014

This is pretty much exactly what happened in the IRS scandal.  Or in the Benghazi scandal.  Etcetera.

Obama has lied to the American people about their health care.  That is a documented fact.  He has lied to the American people about their economy – as has now been revealed by his former Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner as a documented fact.  And he has lied to the American people about their national security when he covered up what happened at Benghazi and then attempted to cover up his cover-up.

If you DON’T believe the same first paragraph wouldn’t read, “The White House wanted Ambassador Susan Rice to lie on Sunday talk shows to downplay the part Benghazi played in demonstrating Obama’s broad failure of policy against terrorism,” you are a rabid ideologue.  The evidence is so overwhelming it is beyond unreal.  Obama’s White House is THE most viscerally dishonest, zombie ideological and rabidly partisan administration in the entire history of the republic.

White House wanted Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner to LIE to the public about social security being behind the deficit
In his memoir, out today, former Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner says the White House wanted him to mislead Americans about the long term costs of Social Security
 ‘I objected when  Dan Pfeiffer wanted me to say Social Security didn’t contribute to the deficit. It wasn’t a main driver of our future deficits, but it did contribute,’ Geithner writes
By Francesca Chambers
Published: 09:20 EST, 12 May 2014  | Updated: 17:45 EST, 12 May 2014

The White House wanted Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to lie on Sunday talk shows to downplay the part Social Security played in driving the deficit, it was revealed today.

Geithner writes in his memoir Stress Test, out today, that the White House communications director asked him to downplay the long term cost of Social Security spending to mollify the Democratic Party’s base.

‘I remember during one Roosevelt Room prep session before I appeared on the Sunday shows, I objected when Dan Pfeiffer wanted me to say Social Security didn’t contribute to the deficit. It wasn’t a main driver of our future deficits, but it did contribute,’ he says.

‘Pfeiffer said the line was a ‘dog whistle’ to the left, a phrase I had never heard before. He had to explain that the phrase was code to the Democratic base, signaling that we intended to protect Social Security.’

Geithner’s book release comes amidst allegations that the White House changed the Sunday show talking points of U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice’s after the September 11, 2012 attack in Benghazi, Libya for political reasons.

Days after the White House claims it knew what happened in Benghazi was ‘an act of terror,’ Rice wrongly blamed an anti-Muslim internet video for the deadly assault in a string of high-profile interviews on network news stations.

The White House has forcefully denied that it made anything other than minor changes to Rice’s talking points. Recently released e-mails between deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes and White House communications staff calls the veracity of the Obama administration’s claims into question.

The emails show that Rice was instructed to claim the attack was ‘spontaneously inspired ‘ and ‘to ​underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure or policy.’

Geithner’s anecdote about White House communications staff trying pressure him into misleading Americans about the country’s ability to meet its future financial obligations once again casts a shadow on the Obama administration’s willingness to tell the truth when the truth is politically unappealing.

He writes that Pfeiffer, who is now Obama’s senior communications adviser, often let party politics come into play when discussing how the administration should respond to fiscal issues.

During a discussion on spending cuts, Geithner says that Pfieffer argued that ‘we couldn’t afford to alienate our base and split a weakened Democratic Party in pursuit of an imaginary compromise with Republicans who didn’t want to compromise.’

Early reviews of Geithner’s book indicate that the former Treasury Secretary, who now works at a private equity firm, does not appear to have an axe to grind with Obama, giving greater weight to his recollections.

Geithner mostly uses the memoir to provide context for actions he took as Treasury Secretary from 2009 to 2013 to get the nation back on track after the financial crisis of 2008.

The only other seemingly negative remark Geithner makes about the White House is about President Obama, whom he says, ‘Sometimes I thought he wore his frustration too openly.’

‘He harbored the overly optimistic belief that since his motives and values were good, since his team was thoughtful and well-intentioned, we deserved to be perceived that way,’ Geithner says in the book, according to a review in the New York Times.

Hmmm, something about that.  What does Geithner say?

‘I remember during one Roosevelt Room prep session before I appeared on the Sunday shows

It reminds me of ANOTHER White House prep session before – heck, FIVE Sunday talk shows in which Obama blabbermouth Susan Rice claimed five times that it was a “spontaneous attack” rather than a planned, coordinated terrorist attack and that a Youtube video was to blame even though we now have it documented that the “video” theory did NOT come from the intelligence community but was fabricated by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama during a phone call shortly before Hillary invented the video (created by an American citizen) as being responsible for the terrorist attack rather than a “broader failure of policy.”

Barack Obama is a documented liar without shame, without honor, without virtue, without integrity and without decency.  He has proven more than ANY HUMAN BEING who EVER LIVED that he is wiling to look his people in the eye and lie to them right to their face – as he did at LEAST 37 times when he kept emphatically promising something he KNEW full damn well was an outright lieNBC documenting that Obama knew for at least THREE YEARS he was lying – and which even the Clintons dating back 20 YEARS AGO knew was a lie:

Three days before the 1994 State of the Union Address, President Bill Clinton’s advisers fretted about including a line promising that participants in the still-viable Hillarycare insurance overhaul would be allowed to keep their favored doctors and health care plans, a concern that would come back years later when President Barack Obama promised the same thing.

The line, which made it into the final speech in a slightly different form – Clinton told Americans they would have ‘the freedom to choose a plan and the right to choose your own doctor’ – was the subject of controversy because his aides knew it was untrue.

‘We have a line on p. 10 that says “You’ll pick the health plan and the doctor of your choice,”‘ an internal memo read.

‘I know that it’s just what people want to hear. But can we get away with it?’ he asked. ‘I am very worried about getting skewered for over-promising here on something we know full well we won’t deliver.’

The Clintons' first term in the White House was marred by the failure of 'Hillarycare,' an earlier proposed version of what would later become law as the Affordable Care Act

'Over-promising': A 1994 memo released Friday shows a Clinton aide encouraging the president to drop from his State of the Union address a line promising Americans they could keep their health care plans and their doctors

‘Over-promising’: A 1994 memo released Friday shows a Clinton aide encouraging the president to drop from his State of the Union address a line promising Americans they could keep their health care plans and their doctors

In his 1994 State of the Union address, Bill Clinton promised Americans 'the freedom to choose a plan and the right to choose your own doctor' -- 13 years before Barack Obama made nearly identical pledges

The memo was part of more than 4,000 pages of documents released by the Bill Clinton Presdiential Library, and offers new insights into the development – and ‘sale’ to Congress – of the ill-fated Hillarycare program that represented a major public embarrassment for then-first lady Hillary Clinton.

‘Isn’t the whole thrust of our health plan to steer people toward cheaper, HMO-style providers?’ wrote the memo’s author, identified only as Todd.

‘It’s one thing to say we’ll preserve your option to pick the doctor of your choice (recognizing that this will cost more), it’s quite another to appear to promise the nation that everyone will get to pick the doctor of his or her choice,’ he added. ‘And that’s exactly what this line does.’

We are seeing breathtaking dishonesty all across the board.  Barack Obama is a rabid cancer upon America.

And his Democrat Party has circled their wagons and are doing everything they possibly can to prevent so much as QUESTIONS being asked about it.

And the ONLY reason they think they can get away with it is because the mainstream media are more propagandist today – and frankly more sophisticated about the art and science of propaganda – than Joseph Goebbels’ Ministry of Propaganda or Stalin’s TASS were sixty years ago.

We live in an age of deception just before the coming of the Antichrist who was prophesied in Scripture to come to a worshiping world in the very last days.  And we are watching with our eyes a Democrat Party that has officially announced that they are ready to take the Mark of the Beast.

If you believe Obama didn’t instruct Susan Rice to lie through his political thugs on those five Sunday Talk shows where she told outright lies that everyone KNOWS were outright lies, and if you don’t think the GOP should investigate something that frankly should lead to Obama being IMPEACHED for official corruption as he covered up the truth to maintain a lie that he had succeeded in “decimating” al Qaeda when that narrative was proven false by Benghazi – and then covered up his cover up by withholding the proof that the White House substituted its “Youtube video” talking points for “planned terrorist attack by an al Qaeda-affiliated terrorist organization”, you have already demonstrated that you will surely believe the Antichrist’s lies and take his mark.  And burn in hell for it.

I’m speaking with the full authority of God’s Word behind me: you’re going to get yours, you baby-murdering (55 MILLION!!!), homosexual sodomy-loving, government-worshiping Democrat.  Obama – you know, the Obama who demonized Bush for a $9 trillion debt – has jacked up that debt to over $17.5 trillion.  Consider this to see yet again how viscerally and rabidly dishonest and hypocritical your false messiah truly has been.  Well, let me assure you, in 17.5 trillion years you will STILL be screaming in the agony of being burned alive forever and ever and EVER for what you did on this earth, Democrat.

You still have time to repent.  But your day is coming.

Hey Unions, SHUT UP: Messiah Obama Just Gave WalMart Divine Absolution. So Begone, Ye Racist Paupers!

May 9, 2014

Unions are more than slightly upset that Barack Obama is spurning them to be the whore of the environmentalists.  But they probably should have read the fine print before supporting the Whore-in-Chief.

Note to liberals: what’s good for the goose is just as good for the gander: unions only oppose Obama because unions are racist:

Flanked by bargain-priced displays of women’s wear and patio lighting, President Barack Obama came to a Wal-Mart store in Silicon Valley on Friday to praise new steps by businesses and communities to deploy solar energy.

The President was showcasing efforts to combat climate change that don’t rely on a disinclined Congress.

But in choosing the giant retailer as the backdrop for his announcement, Obama also triggered a backlash from labor unions and pay equity advocates who say low wages paid by Wal-Mart fly in the face of Obama’s vaunted push on pay equity.

President Barack Obama poses for a photo after speaking at a Walmart store in Mountain View, California on Friday

‘What numbskull in the White House arranged this?’ former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, who served in the Bill Clinton administration, said on Facebook.

Obama said more than 300 companies and state and local governments have pledged to use solar technology, and he unveiled his own executive actions aimed at increasing energy efficiency with a goal of reducing U.S. reliance on carbon fuels.

The two tracks underscored Obama’s strategy of sidestepping Congress to advance his own agenda, but they also illustrated the limits of his reach in a bitterly divided government.

‘The commitments we’re announcing today prove that there are cost-effective ways to tackle climate change and create jobs at the same time,’ Obama said at a sprawling Wal-Mart store in Mountain View.

President Barack Obama speaks at a Walmart store in Mountain View, California, on Friday

President Barack Obama speaks at a Walmart store in Mountain View, California, on Friday

 

The solar effort will power the equivalent of 130,000 homes, the White House said, while Obama’s administrative actions could reduce carbon pollution in an amount equal to taking 80 million cars off the road for one year.

The White House also announced that long-delayed energy efficiency standards for walk-in coolers and freezers have finally been completed.

Ticking off a list of economic and environmental benefits he attributed to solar technology, Obama cast the commitments as part of a broader campaign to reduce American energy dependence, create jobs in renewable energy and lower heat-trapping emissions blamed for global warming.

‘This is what you call a win-win-win,’ Obama told about 250 store employees as he wrapped up a three-day swing through California focused heavily on raising money for Democrats in advance of November’s midterm elections.

Obama announced new steps by companies, local governments and his own administration to deploy solar technology

 

Tweaking the mostly Republican opponents of his energy policies in Congress, Obama lamented that lawmakers have ‘not always been as visionary on these issues as we would like.’

That’s why he’s seizing opportunities this year to act unilaterally to advance those goals, Obama said.

‘Unfortunately, inside of Washington, we still have some climate deniers who shout loud,’ Obama said. ‘But they’re wasting people’s time on a settled debate.’

His policies unable to generate momentum in Congress, Obama has increasingly gone outside the federal government to press his agenda.

He has won commitments from colleges and universities to expand access to more students; he has created innovation hubs that link businesses and education institutions; and he has drawn attention to companies and state and local governments that have increased pay for workers.

President Barack Obama waves after speaking at the Walmart store

 

Still, that choice of tactics has severely limited what Obama may be able to accomplish, a reality the president acknowledged the night before as he spoke to donors at a fundraiser in La Jolla benefiting House Democrats.

‘Regardless of how hard I push, regardless of how many administrative actions I take, we’re not going to be able to go where we need to go, and can go, and should go unless I’ve got a Congress that’s willing to work with me,’ Obama said.

The White House said it chose Wal-Mart because the company has committed to doubling the number of solar energy projects at its stores, Sam’s Clubs and distribution centers.

The Wal-Mart location he visited gets about 15 percent of its power from solar panels.

Wal-Mart’s president, Bill Simon, said. Obama is the first president to visit one of the chain’s warehouse stores.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2624149/At-Wal-Mart-Obama-praises-steps-solar-power.html#ixzz31Fi78NuT
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Sorry your messiah betrayed you, unions.

Now please shop at WalMart.  Otherwise you’re a racist (or the rhetoric of liberalism is pure demagogic slander).

Boy, this is probably the biggest leftist betrayal of leftist since Hitler started murdering the homosexuals who had brought him to power

Why Would Anybody Consider Hillary Clinton For President? From Benghazi To Her Role In Keeping Boko Haram Safe

May 9, 2014

Democrats are amazing in their determination to be utterly hostile to the truth and to simple decency.

The world has been outraged at the incredible hate and contempt displayed in the Muslim group Boko Haram’s abduction (and I have no doubt gang-raping) of nearly 300 innocent girls (some of whom escaped on their own, thank God) whose crime was 1) being Christians and 2) trying to go to school.

The leader of Boko Haram (Abubakar Shekau) released this message:

“I abducted your girls…There is a market for selling humans. Allah says I should sell. He commands me to sell. I will sell women.”

Who do we have to blame for this outrage?

Start with Hillary Rodham Clinton, future Democrat candidate for president:

Hillary’s State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists
Under Hillary Clinton, the State Department repeatedly declined to fully go after the terror group responsible for kidnapping hundreds of girls.
Josh Rogin
05.07.14
The State Department under Hillary Clinton fought hard against placing the al Qaeda-linked militant group Boko Haram on its official list of foreign terrorist organizations for two years. And now, lawmakers and former U.S. officials are saying that the decision may have hampered the American government’s ability to confront the Nigerian group that shocked the world by abducting hundreds of innocent girls.In the past week, Clinton, who made protecting women and girls a key pillar of her tenure at the State Department, has been a vocal advocate for the 200 Nigerian girls kidnapped by Boko Haram, the loosely organized group of militants terrorizing northern Nigeria. Her May 4 tweet about the girls, using the hashtag #BringBackOurGirls, was cited across the media and widely credited for raising awareness of their plight.What Clinton didn’t mention was that her own State Department refused to place Boko Haram on the list of foreign terrorist organizations in 2011, after the group bombed the U.N. headquarters in Abuja. The refusal came despite the urging of the Justice Department, the FBI, the CIA, and over a dozen senators and congressmen.“The one thing she could have done, the one tool she had at her disposal, she didn’t use. And nobody can say she wasn’t urged to do it. It’s gross hypocrisy,” said a former senior U.S. official who was involved in the debate. “The FBI, the CIA, and the Justice Department really wanted Boko Haram designated, they wanted the authorities that would provide to go after them, and they voiced that repeatedly to elected officials.”In May 2012, then-Justice Department official Lisa Monaco (now at the White House) wrote to the State Department to urge Clinton to designate Boko Haram as a terrorist organization. The following month, Gen. Carter Ham, the chief of U.S. Africa Command, said that Boko Haram “are likely sharing funds, training, and explosive materials” with al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb. And yet, Hillary Clinton’s State Department still declined to place Boko Haram on its official terrorist roster.

Secretary of State John Kerry eventually added Boko Haram and its splinter group Ansaru to the list of foreign terrorist organizations in November 2013, following a spate of church bombings and other acts that demonstrated the group’s escalating abilities to wreak havoc.

Being placed on the State Department’s list of foreign terrorist organizations allows U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies to use certain tools and authorities, including several found in the Patriot Act. The designation makes it illegal for any U.S. entities to do business with the group in question. It cuts off access to the U.S. financial system for the organization and anyone associating with it. And the designation also serves to stigmatize and isolate foreign organizations by encouraging other nations to take similar measures.

The State Department’s refusal to designate Boko Haram as a terrorist organization prevented U.S. law enforcement agencies from fully addressing the growing Boko Haram threat in those crucial two years, multiple GOP lawmakers told The Daily Beast.

“The one thing she could have done, the one tool she had at her disposal, she didn’t use. And nobody can say she wasn’t urged to do it. It’s gross hypocrisy.”

“For years, Boko Haram has terrorized Nigeria and Western interests in the region with few consequences,” Sen. James Risch told The Daily Beast on Wednesday. “The U.S. government should have moved more quickly to list them as a terrorist organization and brought U.S. resources to track and disrupt their activities. The failure to act swiftly has had consequences.”

Risch and seven other GOP senators introduced legislation in early 2013 that would have forced Clinton to designate the group or explain why she thought it was a bad idea. The State Department lobbied against the legislation at the time, according to internal State Department emails obtained by The Daily Beast.

In the House, leading intelligence-minded lawmakers wrote letter after letter to Clinton urging her to designate Boko Haram as terrorists. The effort in the House was led by then-Homeland Security Committee Chairman Peter King and Patrick Meehan, chairman of the Subcommittee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence.

Meehan and his Democratic counterpart Jackie Speier put out a lengthy report in 2011 laying out the evidentiary basis for naming Boko Haram a terrorist organization, including the group’s ties to al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and to Somalia’s al-Shabab terrorist organization.

In an interview Wednesday, Meehan told The Daily Beast that if Clinton had placed Boko Haram on the terrorism list in 2011, U.S. law enforcement agencies now being deployed to Nigeria to help search for the girls might have been in a better position.

“We lost two years of increased scrutiny. The kind of support that is taking place now would have been in place two years ago,” he said. The designation would have “enhanced the capacity of our agencies to do the work that was necessary. We were very frustrated, it was a long delay.”

Moreover, Meehan and others believe that the Clinton State Department underestimated the pace of Boko Haram’s growth and the group’s intention to plan operations that could harm U.S. critical interests abroad.

“At the time, the sentiment that was expressed by the administration was this was a local grievance and therefore not a threat to the United States or its interests,” he said. “They were saying al Qaeda was on the run and our argument was contrary to that. It has metastasized and it is actually in many ways a growing threat and this is a stark example of that.”

Not everyone agrees that Clinton’s failure to act had significant negative effects. A former senior U.S. counterterrorism official told The Daily Beast that despite the State Department’s refusal to put Boko Haram on the terrorism list, there were several other efforts to work with the Nigerian government on countering the extremist group, mainly through diplomatic and military intelligence channels.

“Designation is an important tool, it’s not the only tool,” this official said. “There are a lot of other things you can do in counterterrorism that doesn’t require a designation.”

Had Clinton designated Boko Haram as a foreign terrorist organization, that wouldn’t have authorized any increased assistance to the Nigerian security forces; such assistance is complicated by the Leahy Law, a provision that prevents the U.S. from giving weapons to foreign military and police units guilty of human rights violations.

“The utility was limited, the symbolism was perhaps significant, but the more important issue was how we were dealing with the Nigerians,” this official said, noting that three Boko Haram-related individuals were personally sanctioned during Clinton’s time at State.

Meehan and his Democratic counterpart Jackie Speier put out a lengthy report in 2011 laying out the evidentiary basis for naming Boko Haram a terrorist organization, including the group’s ties to al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and to Somalia’s al-Shabab terrorist organization.

In 2012, more than 20 prominent U.S. academics in African studies wrote to Clinton, urging her to not to label Bok Haram as a foreign terrorist organization. “An FTO designation would internationalize Boko Haram’s standing and enhance its status among radical organizations elsewhere,” the scholars said.

Inside the Clinton State Department, the most vocal official opposing designating Boko Haram was Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Johnnie Carson, who served in that position from 2009 to 2013. Several officials said that the Nigerian government was opposed to the designation and Carson was focused on preserving the relationship between Washington and Abuja.

Carson defended the decision to avoid naming Boko Haram a terrorist organization in a Wednesday phone call with reporters.

“There was a concern that putting Boko Haram on the foreign terrorist list would in fact raise its profile, give it greater publicity, give it greater credibility, help in its recruitment, and also probably drive more assistance in its direction,” he said.

The U.S. has plenty of ways to assist the Nigerian government with counterterrorism even without designating Boko Haram, Carson said. The problem has long been that the Nigerian government doesn’t always want or accept the help the U.S. has offered over the years.

“There always has been a reluctance to accept our analysis of what the drivers causing the problems in the North and there is sometimes a rejection of the assistance that is offered to them,” Carson said. “None of that has anything to do with putting Boko Haram on the foreign terrorist list.”

Twenty female senators wrote to President Obama Tuesday urging him to now push for Boko Haram and Ansaru to be added to the United Nations Security Council al Qaeda sanctions list. (Earlier this year, Boko Haram’s leader express solidarity with al Qaeda affiliates in Afghanistan, Iraq, North Africa, Somalia and Yemen, according to the SITE Monitoring Service, which tracks jihadist communications.)

“In the face of the brazen nature of this horrific attack, the international community must impose further sanctions on this terrorist organization. Boko Haram is a threat to innocent civilians in Nigeria, to regional security, and to U.S. national interests,” the senators wrote.

The White House declined Wednesday to say whether or not the president will push for Boko Haram to be added to the U.N. list.

“Boko Haram, the terrorist organization that kidnapped these girls, has been killing innocent people in Nigeria for some time,” National Security Council spokesman Jonathan Lalley told The Daily Beast in a statement. “We’ve identified them as one of the worst regional terrorist organizations out there. That’s why last November we designated them as a Foreign Terrorist Organization and as Specially Designated Global Terrorists. And we’re actively exploring—in partnership with Nigeria and others—broader multilateral sanctions against Boko Haram, including UN Security Council sanctions.”

Representatives for Clinton did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

The media is asking a few questions (but don’t worry, in a few months it will all blow over and the media will yawn over this and every other outrage of Hillary Clinton’s incompetence or personal viciousness).  CNN had this:

Washington (CNN) — Hindsight is 20/20, they say, but some people may need backwards-looking glasses in debating whether the State Department under Hillary Clinton erred two years ago by not designating Boko Haram a terrorist group.

The question arose Thursday as part of the international focus on last month’s abduction of more than 200 schoolgirls by the jihadist group in northeast Nigeria that threatens to sell them into slavery

The CNN piece becomes more of a cover-up than an objective piece.  It lists all the reasons Hillary was loathe to add Boko Haram to the FTO list.  But it very quickly gleans over the fact that Republicans were demanding that the organization be added to the list as early as 2010 after a SERIES of terrorist attacks:

A few months later, amid increasing violence by Boko Haram, the top Republicans on the panel wrote Clinton to urge its immediate terrorist designation.

In a letter to the secretary, Reps. Peter King of New York and Patrick Meehan of Pennsylvania cited support by the Department of Justice and military intelligence for such a step.

State Department officials opposed the move, as did 24 academics with expertise in African affairs.

You have to guess that in spite of a major effort to get Boko Haram designated as a terrorist organization, Hillary dithered and did NOTHING.

“Hindsight is 20/20,” CNN tells as us they introduce their piece.  So please don’t blame the Clinton News Network’s pick for president in 2016.

But yeah, BLAME her.  Had she did what was right and called a terrorist a terrorist when she and Obama were calling terrorism an “overseas contingency operation” and “man-caused disasters” this outrage could have and likely would have been avoided.

Who kept Boko Haram off the terrorist list so they could be free to unleash all the Islamist evil in their hearts?  Just remember:

The State Department under Hillary Clinton fought hard against placing the al Qaeda-linked militant group Boko Haram on its official list of foreign terrorist organizations for two years. And now, lawmakers and former U.S. officials are saying that the decision may have hurt the American government’s ability to confront the Nigerian group that shocked the world by abducting hundreds of innocent girls.

There is a statement in the above-quoted article that directly links the present U.S. failure with Boko Haram to the gross failure of Benghazi:

“At the time, the sentiment that was expressed by the administration was this was a local grievance and therefore not a threat to the United States or its interests,” he said. “They were saying al Qaeda was on the run and our argument was contrary to that. It has metastasized and it is actually in many ways a growing threat and this is a stark example of that.”

It was the same mindset based on the same dishonest Obama political narrative: we’ve got al Qaeda on the run.  And any facts that prove otherwise are to be ignored out of sheer cynical political expediency as Obama runs for re-election and Hillary awaits her turn four years later.

So let’s talk about Hillary and Benghazi:

When the murdered ambassador and the other victims were pleading for help in the weeks leading up to the fatal attack in Benghazi, where was Hillary Clinton?

A New Smoking Gun In Benghazi Terrorist Attack Fiasco Proves That Obama Had THREE WEEKS WARNING Prior To Actual Attack – And Did NOTHING.

When every other Western nation removed their diplomatic outposts from Benghazi prior to the fatal terrorist attack against our compound, where was Hillary Clinton?

Others, like the British government and the International Red Cross, were aware how dangerous Benghazi was and pulled their personnel out, but Clinton insisted on pursuing a diplomatic U.S. presence in Benghazi, but left them practically undefended

When a terrorist attack took NINE HOURS to unfold and American warriors were orderered to “stand down” and violate the American tradition to leave no man behind, where was Hillary Clinton?

All we know is that when it was time to offer up a pure LIE as an excuse for criminal incompetence in an obvious political cover-up, we DO know where Hillary Clinton was: right in front saying “Blame the video!”

We know that Hillary Called Barack Obama minutes prior to releasing a statement that turns out to be nearly identical to the one White House staffer Ben Rhodes crafted for Obama’s own dishonest deception campaign two months before his re-election.

We don’t know where Obama was during the nine-hour-long attack either.  All we know is that he NEVER SHOWED UP at the situation room that night.  But that he was quickly whoring for campaign money the very next day.  I actually believe Obama’s whereabouts during the attack are still unknown because Obama was fundraising AS THE ATTACK TOOK PLACE.

Here’s a good summary of what happened in Benghazi.  And it is frankly stunning how the media has yawned because it proves a DEMOCRAT to be corrupt and dishonest rather than the Republican they would have rabidly torn into.

We now know for a FACT that the Youtube video story had NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with what happened in Benghazi.  We now know for a FACT that the Obama White House and the Clinton State Department knew this for a fact within MINUTES of the attackWe know the Libyan president said that from the moment he first heard the ridiculous suggestion.  And we now know for a FACT that Obama and Clinton teamed up to pass off THE most cynical political cover-up in the entire history of this republic.  The result was, when Hillary Clinton should have gone on those five political Sunday shows, Obama sent Susan Rice (who had nothing whatsoever to do with dealing with a terrorist attack) to claim that there had been no pre-planned terrorist attack, but rather nothing more than a spontaneous demonstration over a video made by a U.S. citizen that got out of hand.  We know that what Susan Rice said FIVE TIMES was manifestly untrue.  We now know that the White House TOLD her to pass off this lie.  Even though they KNEW that was a pure lie.

These are desperately wicked people who do not have as much as a “scintilla” (to quote Obama over his next cover-up of his ordering his IRS to persecute conservative organizations AND their donors) of integrity, decency, virtue, or honor of any kind.

And neither do those who vote for these people.

The ‘Botched’ Oklahoma Execution Of Clayton Lockett And The (Un)Principled Liberal Objections To The Death Penalty

May 7, 2014

Clayton Lockett is a perfect victim for liberals.  After all, he was a black man put to death in a conservative state by a white Republican governor.

The fact that he is a vile cockroach who is getting his chance to burn in hell now after having brutally raped a woman, shot her in the head with a shotgun and then had her buried alive truly doesn’t mean one damn thing to liberals.

You read the outraged liberal accounts of the “botched” execution (from what I hear, the state was actually quite successful in accomplishing the murderer’s death) and again and again you see all the outrage directed at the manner the murderer died and nothing about the demonic horror that the murderer imposed on his victim.

A man who inflicted a horrifying death on his victim died having suffered slightly more pain than the painless death that liberals demand.  That’s what happened in Oklahoma.  And you’d think the Republican governor had personally put a poor, innocent man on a rack and flayed him alive herself.

And, of course, he same liberals who erupt in horror that anyone would so much as suggest that Obama’s use of the IRS to persecute his political opponents or his cover-up of the cover-up in Benghazi where he falsely claimed a Youtube video (rather than “a broader failure in policy”) was to blame, are essentially demanding that the Oklahoma governor resign in shame over this execution.

It’s amazing: investigations are fascist when they are directed at a liberal and heroic when they are directed against an opponent of liberalism 100% of the time.  And it doesn’t seem how blatantly evil liberals have to be to maintain their “victim.”  Even going to making a “victim” out of Clayton Lockett.

I like the way Goldberg responds:

“As for Lockett, he was entitled to a relatively painless and humane execution under the law. As for what he deserved in the cosmic sense, I suspect he got off easy.”

You’re damn right he got off easy.  It would have been a nice object lesson had 19-year-old victim Stephanie Nieman’s family members been able to administer Lockett’s execution.  I suspect it would have taken a lot longer and been an awful lot more painful.  And he STILL would have got off easy were it not for the fact that there is a fiery and eternal hell of torment awaiting Lockett and those like him as they leave this world.

Jonah Goldberg did a brilliant job dismantling several of the key arguments of the left regarding the death penalty.  I shall give a brief summary and post his article below.

The first objective liberals love to use is that the death penalty doesn’t deter crime.  They can claim that because, when it takes DECADES and a dozen lengthy court dramas to finally execute somebody, there are so many years between the act and the punishment of the act that it very likely doesn’t have much of a deterrence effect.  I know that if a powerful man walked into a bar and beat the biggest guy in there to a pulp and then asked, “Does anybody else want to be next?” the bloody unconscious body of the broken man on the floor would very much have a giant deterrence effect to the man who would want some of what that guy just got.  Nobody would want any of what that guy just got.

Contrast that with the following scenario: somebody gets to get up and punch the powerful man repeatedly in the face and the powerful man can’t do anything about it for, oh, say 25 years or so.  And then maybe, MAYBE, he will be allowed to give the guy who hit him the beat-down he deserved DECADES ago.  Does that sound like it’s going to deter anybody?  Because that’s the way liberals have “fundamentally transformed” our capital punishment system.  Only to claim it “doesn’t deter.”

That’s simply the way that human psychology works.  And unless you aren’t human, it works that way for you, too.  Deterrence is real, baby.  But only when criminals actually pay the price for their crimes.

Liberals have made it impossible for the wheels of justice to provide such genuine deterrence.

Goldberg deals with this “deterrence” objection masterfully, pointing out that it would literally be wrong to kill somebody just to provide an object lesson for other people.  As Goldberg puts it, “It is wrong to kill a man just to send a message to others.”  And when you stop and think about it, that’s entirely true.  In other words, as he demonstrates, “deterrence” doesn’t have a damn thing to do with the rationale for the death penalty; it is nothing more than a red herring that the left keeps throwing up and the right too-frequently foolishly attempts to respond to.

If anyone takes a human life, that person’s life will also be taken by human hands. For God made human beings in his own image.”  That is JUSTICE.  If it deters as well, so much the better.

Then he moves on to another red herring: racial injustice over the statistical fact that black people are proportionately more likely to be executed than white people.  He says, “Likewise, Lockett, who was black, wasn’t less deserving of punishment simply because some white rapist and murderer didn’t get his just punishment.”

How is that not true?

If you in any way, shape or form agree with the statement that one ought to be sentenced and punished according to the crimes that one committed, rather than the statement that justice should have nothing whatsoever to do with the actual criminal but ought to somehow reflect the broader society, how is any argument that guilty black murderers shouldn’t be executed simply because somewhere a guilty white murderer wasn’t executed?  How does that not amount to children squabbling over one of the children getting more of whatever and therefore they should get more, too?

We shouldn’t allow childish arguments to interfere with JUSTICE.

If we need to do a better job to make justice blind to race, then let’s pursue that: but to say that we’re going to abandon JUSTICE because of some statistical shenanigans is outrageous.

That is also how Goldberg responds to the final charge: that innocent people may have been executed in the past and therefore could be in the present or future.  Goldberg’s point is brilliant:

Some believe the best argument against the death penalty is the fear that an innocent person might be executed. It’s hotly debated whether that has ever happened, but it’s clear that innocent people have been sent to death row. Even one such circumstance is outrageous and unacceptable.

But even that is not an argument against the death penalty per se. The FDA, police officers and other government entities, with less constitutional legitimacy than the death penalty (see the 5th and 14th amendments) have made errors that resulted in innocent deaths. That doesn’t render these entities and their functions illegitimate. It obligates government to do better.

Do you understand that, liberal?  Given that we have had NUMEROUS events in which the police have killed an innocent person, do you therefore want to abolish the police the way you demand we abolish the death penalty?  Or are you an inconsistent hypocrite instead?  (That’s rhetorical because the answer is obvious: rich liberals need armed people to protect them from poor liberals who would rob them and do worse if they could).  In the same way, it actually gets hard to name a branch of the federal government that hasn’t committed some gross injustice against an innocent victim: and yet the crickets chirp in lieu of liberals demanding that these federal monstrosities be abolished as a result.

In other words, abolishing the death penalty is refuted by the very same liberals who won’t abolish all the OTHER government systems that have been FREQUENTLY documented to have trampled the rights of the innocent.  We need to do a far better job of administering the death penalty, but if you’re going to abolish the death penalty, let’s abolish the federal government along with it if we’re going to be consistent rather than being liberal hypocrites.

Clayton Lockett: A just execution, regardless
By Jonah Goldberg

Last week the state of Oklahoma “botched” an execution..

Botched is the accepted term in the media coverage, despite the fact Clayton Lockett was executed. He just died badly, suffering for 43 minutes until he eventually had a heart attack.

Oklahoma’s governor has called for an investigation. President Obama asked Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. (who is seeking the death penalty in the Boston Marathon bombing case), to review the death penalty.

Obama’s position was a perfectly defensible straddle: “The individual … had committed heinous crimes, terrible crimes, and I’ve said in the past that there are certain circumstances where a crime is … so terrible that the application of the death penalty may be appropriate.”

On the other hand, Obama added: “I’ve also said that in the application of the death penalty … we have seen significant problems, racial bias, uneven application of the death penalty, situations in which there were individuals on death row who later on were discovered to be innocent.

“We do have to, as a society, ask ourselves some difficult and profound questions.”

As a death penalty supporter, I agree. Although, I’m not sure we’d agree on what those questions — and answers — should be.

As for Lockett, he was entitled to a relatively painless and humane execution under the law. As for what he deserved in the cosmic sense, I suspect he got off easy.

He and his accomplices abducted two teenage girls (as well as a man and his baby). One of them, Stephanie Neiman, refused to say she wouldn’t tell the police, so Lockett shot her with a shotgun. But she didn’t die. He ordered his accomplices to bury her alive. Here’s an AP summary of his crimes, in addition to first-degree murder: “conspiracy, first-degree burglary, three counts of assault with a dangerous weapon, three counts of forcible oral sodomy, four counts of first-degree rape, four counts of kidnapping and two counts of robbery by force and fear.” Maybe you can weep for the man. I can’t.

Let’s get back to those difficult and profound questions. Capital punishment opponents offer many arguments why people like Lockett shouldn’t be executed. They point out that there are racial disparities in how the death penalty is administered, for example. This strikes me as an insufficient argument, much like the deterrence argument from death penalty supporters. Deterrence may have some validity, but it alone cannot justify the death penalty. It is wrong to kill a man just to send a message to others.

Likewise, Lockett, who was black, wasn’t less deserving of punishment simply because some white rapist and murderer didn’t get his just punishment.

The most cynical argument against the death penalty is to point out how slow and expensive the process is. But it is slow and expensive, at least in part, because opponents have made it slow and expensive, so they can complain about how slow and expensive it is.

As for humaneness, Lockett’s execution was botched — “inhumane” — in part because Oklahoma had to use a new drug regimen because anti-death penalty advocates had successfully lobbied the maker of a component of an earlier formula to stop making that drug available for executions.

Some believe the best argument against the death penalty is the fear that an innocent person might be executed. It’s hotly debated whether that has ever happened, but it’s clear that innocent people have been sent to death row. Even one such circumstance is outrageous and unacceptable.

But even that is not an argument against the death penalty per se. The FDA, police officers and other government entities, with less constitutional legitimacy than the death penalty (see the 5th and 14th amendments) have made errors that resulted in innocent deaths. That doesn’t render these entities and their functions illegitimate. It obligates government to do better.

Radley Balko, a death penalty opponent, in a piece in the Washington Post, says that ultimately both sides of the death penalty debate have irreconcilable moral convictions. I think he’s right. As far as I’m concerned, Lockett deserved to die for what he did. Everything else amounts to changing the subject, and it won’t convince me otherwise.

Clayton Locket is screaming in hell right now and he’ll be viscerally screaming one hundred trillion millennia of years from now.  And thank God for that justice.

 

Remember Hillary Clinton’s Anti-Obama ‘3 AM Phone Call’ Ad? OBAMA WASN’T In Situation Room on 9/11 When Ambassador Was Murdered

May 2, 2014

Remember how Hillary Clinton ran against Obama, pointing out that he was a national security flea weight who wouldn’t be there when we needed him?

Do you know what’s funny about that ad?  When Obama never bothers to pick up the damn phone, IT WAS HILLARY CLINTON ON THE OTHER END.

And we now know what a disgrace Hillary Clinton was at the State Department.  Because she’s sewer in this every bit as much as Obama.  Do you know who was the VERY FIRST person to falsely claim that the terrorist attack on Benghazi was a “spontaneous uprising” as the result of an “Internet video”?  Hillary Clinton was that shameless liar.

It is easily provable that one of the questions we have asked over and over and over again for going on two years now AND NEVER RECEIVED AN ANSWER ON was the question where was Obama on the night of the terrorist attack on the Benghazi compound???

There’s one reason we’ve never received an answer: because the answer makes Obama look really, really bad, really, really weak and really, really incompetent.  Oh, and really, really disgraceful.

Last night on Fox News Special Report, Bret Bair got it on the factual record.  For the FIRST TIME since the TERRORIST ATTACK on American soil in Benghazi in which a U.S. Ambassador and three other Americans were brutally murdered, we finally know for a fact that BARACK OBAMA WAS NOWHERE TO BE SEEN IN THE SITUATION ROOM AS THE DISASTER UNFOLDED.

We got this news from Barack Obama’s own NSC “Dude” boy, who not only admitted altering the CIA talking points – which the White House had for two years SWORN it had not done – but who admitted that he was in the situation room and Barack Obama never showed up:

BAIER: Where was the president?

VIETOR: In the White House.

BAIER: He wasn’t in the Situation Room?

VIETOR: At what point in the evening?

BAIER: Any point in the evening.

VIETOR: It’s well known that when the attack was first briefed to him it was in the Oval Office and he was updated constantly. And during that briefing he told Tom Donilon and his Joint Chiefs and Sec Def to begin moving all military assets into the region.

BAIER: So when Hillary Clinton talks to him at 10:00 p.m., he’s where?

VIETOR: I don’t know. I don’t have a tracking device on him in the residence.

BAIER: But you were in the Situation Room and he wasn’t there.

VIETOR: Yes, I was in the White House.

BAIER: And the president wasn’t in the Situation Room?

VIETOR: Not in the room I was in. Let’s just be clear. You don’t have to be in the Situation Room to monitor an intelligence situation. The PDB is in the Oval Office.

For the record, “the Situation Room” is ONE ROOM.  It is not a suite.  There is no way Obama was in the Situation Room and Tommy Vietor – who was in the room throughout the evening on his testimony – would not have seen the president.

It is true that a president doesn’t necessarily HAVE to be in the Situation Room during a crisis.  He could be briefed from elsewhere.  But it is EQUALLY TRUE that it is in the Situation Room and NOWHERE ELSE that a president could receive live feeds immediately as they were coming in.

And it is the height of irresponsibility that we had a United States ambassador under fire and missing and a president of the United States AWOL while he was being murdered over a period of several hours.

I tell you what: I watched that interview with Bret Bair and Obama’s former NSC “dude” boy.  And one of the things that shocked me without the little turd saying a word was the fact that under Obama we’ve had Doogie Howser running our national security for us.

That explains a lot about the disaster and disgrace that is our Obama foreign policy and national security.  You can’t get a real man to work for Obama because no real man would ever work for Obama.

What we now know and know for a FACT is that the White House invented the Youtube video in order to fabricate a false national security scenario so that Obama wouldn’t have to answer for his outright LIE that he had al Qaeda on the run.  The email says it perfectly: “To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.”

We know that on the night of the 9/11 terrorist attack in Benghazi on 2011, the White House was in fact scrambling.  NOT to rescue the Americans who were under fire, but ONLY to cover-up and save Obama’s political weasel ass after his “al Qaeda is on the run” garbage.

Because it WAS a “broader failure of policy” and Obama had to lie and cover-up his cover-up to protect his lies and his cover-up.

Today Obama had a press conference with Angela Merkel and he said something about Ukraine that is frankly amazing in light of what we know happened in Benghazi:

He said the Russian account of events in eastern Ukraine that there was a spontaneous uprising by pro-Russian activists was belied by the use on Friday of surface-to-air missiles that brought down two of Ukraine’s military helicopters.

“It is obvious to the world that these Russian-backed groups are not peaceful protesters. They are heavily armed militants,” Obama said.

You know, much the way any decent human being would immediately understand that Benghazi was not a “spontaneous uprising” because of the use of incredibly well-trained mortar crews who precisely attacked the compound.  Five rounds were fired in less than one minute in the dark, with three accurately hitting their target – which all by itself was enough to immediately demonstrate that a well-trained crew was operating with pre-calculated coordinates.

Obama is a liar by his own rhetoric as he demonizes Putin for being the same sort of liar without shame that Obama proved himself to be YEARS ago.