Archive for the ‘Media’ Category

If You Want To Know Who’s To Blame Over SCOTUS Campaign Finance Decision, Blame OBAMA And Blame The Left. Here’s Why.

April 4, 2014

The Supreme Court is not a group of people who can (or even should be) trusted to “interpret” the Constitution.  I think both sides amply attest to that.

Thomas Jefferson certainly warned us about the danger of unelected black robed masters having the power to decide what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is in the U.S. Constitution:

“This member of the Government was at first considered as the most harmless and helpless of all its organs. But it has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining slyly and without alarm the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt.”
—Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:114

“The Constitution . . . meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.”
—Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:51

“To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.”
—Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277

When the founders’ original intent gets thrown out the window – as liberals long ago threw it out – do you want to know what the Constitution “means”?  It means whatever the hell they WANT it to mean.  And nothing more.  That’s why homosexuality is suddenly the wonderful thing that is sacred and holy and “constitutional” and it doesn’t mean a damn thing that the men who wrote the Constitution are spinning wildly in their graves over the insult to everything they believed in.

If you live with the Supreme Court says, you should die with what it says as well, I suppose.  I myself certainly have no confidence in these goons after John Roberts rewrote the ObamaCare law to make what was very clearly described as a PENALTY AND NOT A TAX into a TAX AND NOT A PENALTY (see here and here).

I suppose if Obama gets to “fundamentally transform America,” John Roberts ought to be able to “fundamentally transform” ObamaCare.  And of course both are “fundamentally transforming” the Constitution.

I remember a quote from Obama’s favorite Supreme Court “Justice” Thurgood Marshall who said, “You do what you think is right and let the law catch up.”  These people don’t give a flying DAMN about “the law” or the Constitution.  It is completely besides the point to them.  It is irrelevant.  It doesn’t matter.  They do what the hell they want.

And they want hell.  Their destiny is to burn in it forever and ever.  And they want to bring that hell to earth as much as they can.  It’s their gift to Satan.

I often hear people use the fact that if both sides disagree with you, that you must somehow be right – or at least “moderate.”  That is simply asinine.

As an example, take Adolf Hitler (please! as the joke goes).  Do you know that there were Nazis who believed Hitler didn’t go far enough?  As just one example, Hitler removed (liberal hero) existentialist philosophy Martin Heidegger as rector of the prestigious University of Freiburg because he literally took his Nazism too far (see here and here):

Eventually, Heidegger did fall out of favor and had to give up his rectorate, not, however, out of enlightened opposition to fascism but because he came out on the losing side of a major ideological battle within the Nazi Party.  As Farias shows, in aligning himself with the Storm Troopers of Ernst Rohm and insisting on persecuting Catholic student groups, Heidegger was considered too radical even for Hitler.  – Modern Fascism, by Gene Edward Veith, Jr., pg 87

So would we be right to conclude that Hitler was therefore a “moderate” or that he must have been right because there were loons to either side of him?  According to the “logic” Obama frequently uses, he sure was a “moderate.”

And that is just the way Obama is a “moderate.”  He’s a “moderate” just like Hitler was a “moderate.”  Because Adolf had people on both sides of him, too.  So clearly he wasn’t “extreme.”  Just like Führer Obama.

Hell, there are people who are crazier than the whackjob who just shot up Fort Hood.  I guess that must make the guy “normal.”

Yeah, it turns out that both sides can disagree with you and you can still be wrong, wrong, WRONG.  And just because you can point to a nutjob on either side of you doesn’t mean that you yourself are not ALSO a raving nutjob.

So I’m not going to play that idiot’s game of claiming the Supreme Court was right just because it disagreed with the left (even though the left is always [morally] wrong by definition.  Rather, I’m going to point out that the Supreme Court’s decisions regarding Citizens United and now in McCutcheon were a reaction to the worst and biggest campaign whore who ever lived (that would be Barack Hussein Obama).

Allow me to explain by citing no other authority than the uberliberal Los Angeles Times:

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court struck another major blow against long-standing restrictions on campaign money Wednesday, freeing wealthy donors to each give a total of $3.6 million this year to the slate of candidates running for Congress.

Rejecting the restriction as a violation of free speech, the 5-4 ruling struck down a Watergate-era limit that Congress wrote to prevent a single donor from writing a large check to buy influence on Capitol Hill. It was the latest sign that the court’s conservative majority intends to continue dismantling funding limits created over the last four decades.

Okay, so this was a really, really bad thing because this was “long-standing” in that it reversed stuff that dated back to the damn Watergate era and had lasted for “the last four decades.”

Would you like to know about something else that someone ELSE blew away that had all of those hallmarks?

For the official, historical record, I was pointing this crap out as it happened back in 2008 - so please don’t accuse me of revisionist history.  A few bits from a few news articles I pointed to then:

Barack Obama made it official today: He has decided to forego federal matching funds for the general election, thereby allowing his campaign to raise and spend as much as possible.

By so doing, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee becomes the first candidate to reject public funds for the general election. The current system was created in 1976 in reaction to the Watergate scandal.

Hmmm.  1976.  How many decades ago was that?  Let me get out Mister calculator and… yep.  It was the same four decades that the LA Times says was so sacred and inviolate regarding laws limiting corporations from participating in political campaigns.

And:

Just 12 months ago, Senator Barack Obama presented himself as an idealistic upstart taking on the Democratic fund-raising juggernaut behind Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.

That was when Mr. Obama proposed a novel challenge aimed at limiting the corrupting influence of money on the race: If he won the nomination, he would limit himself to spending only the $85 million available in public financing between the convention and Election Day as long as his Republican opponent did the same.

Obama promised to only spend $85 million at the same time he promised to use public matching funds.  Well, maybe that’s all he spent after he broke the matching funds promise?  Try NOT.  He lied.  “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor” was nowhere even CLOSE to this liar’s first lie.  He actually began his campaign in a lie – when he went on ABC’s This Week program and promised the American people he would NOT run for president in 2008 but would serve his Senate term (which of course the liar didn’t do).

And:

In November 2007, Obama answered “Yes” to Common Cause [and to a questionnaire by the Midwest Democracy Network] when asked “If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?”

I pointed out in that 2008 article:

Barack Obama isn’t just a hypocritical liar; he’s a self-righteous hypocritical liar, which is the very worst kind. It’s bad enough when someone breaks his promises, but when he does it with a smarmy “holier-than-thou” attitude, that’s when you know you’ve got the rarest breed of demagogue on your hands.

And we can now look back at history and realize that Obama has not only been the most documented liar who ever lived, but that this is how he has ALWAYS lied: with an arrogant, holier-than-thou self-righteousness that I have little doubt is second only to Lucifer’s appalling gall.

Again for the historical record, John McCain accepted public matching funds – as ALL nominees from BOTH parties had done since “the Watergate era.”  Guess who refused to either keep his own damn word OR accept the matching funds that had kept the system from flying apart?

The guilty culprit’s name bears the initials B.H.O.  Which apparently stands for “Beyond Hypocrite Orator” if not something more snide.

No human being who has EVER lived in ALL of human history EVER amassed such a massive campaign war chest as the guilty culprit whose initials are B.H.O.  There has NEVER been IN ALL RECORDED HISTORY a bigger whore for political money than anyone who ever lived from any civilization in any place or in any time.

Which is why I proceeded to write articles such as this one:

Democrats Finding Themselves Hung On Their Own Petard As The Campaign Financing System THEY Corrupted Starts To Work Against Them

I link to and cite an article that documents that Obama had held more fundraisers as president than the previous FIVE PRESIDENTS COMBINED.

And this one:

Cockroach Left That Outspent Republicans 3-1 Now Whining That Republicans Are Outspending Them: ‘The End Of The USA As We Know It Just Happened!’

And then a little later this one:

Obama Claims Campaign Raised More Money After ObamaCare Verdict Than Romney – Then Caught On Tape NEXT DAY Desperately PLEADING For Donations

Anybody want to defend the turd who as candidate for president whored for more campaign money than any politician in all of human history and then as president did more fundraising than the previous five presidents combined???

Again, for Obama and his demonic party to raise more money than any money-grubbing political whores who had EVER LIVED and then demonize the Supreme Court for allowing the other side to do the same makes them such appalling hypocrites that it is simply beyond unreal.

Simply put, Democrats perverted unions and unions perverted the Democrat Party such that more campaign funds could be and were raised than any human being or any party EVER raised in all of human history.  Barack Obama raised more than a BILLION DOLLARS in 2008.  He did it by breaking his word and he did it by being the biggest and worst whore who ever lived.  You go back to the freaking pharaohs and no one ever did anything like this.

Barack Obama blew the doors off of public matching funds.  I stated at the time that the system was dead thanks to Obama and would never be used again.

Democrats don’t want to limit campaign money: they want to limit REPUBLICANS from being able to raise campaign money while they roll in the money they raise like pigs wallow in filth.  Because they are fascist hypocrites.

Barack Obama has fundamentally perverted America on every issue under the sun.  He has abrogated the Constitution and ruled as a tyrant fascist god king.  He has perverted health care.  He has perverted immigration.  He has perverted foreign policy.  And yes, he perverted the campaign finance system.

You just go ahead and white about the evil of the Koch brothers and the evil conservatives on the Supreme Court, Democrats.  You go ahead and wax more and more and more hypocritical so the temperature in the hell you will one day soon be burning in for murdering more than fifty-five million babies and worshiping homosexual sodomy will be all the hotter when you show up for your eternity.

But the rest of you need to know that the Supreme Court was forced to re-tilt the scales after Barack Obama the fascist stuck his thumb on them in 2008 and then kept his thumb on them as “the whore president.”

As liberals say that the Supreme Court is an unjust body, just remember that it was this same august unjust body that imposed sodomy on America and the same august unjust body that made the holocaust of babies the law of the land.

And realize that the beast is coming to finish what Obama started.

Here’s another thing to realize as liberal “journalists” who work for BIG CORPORATIONS demonize corporations for being allowed to participate in politics:

The law drew a line between two types of corporations: media corporations, and everyone else. Intentionally or not, it tilted political power toward the media and away from every other type of corporation (many of which, as Justice Kennedy observed, have limited resources, unlike, say, CNN). The mere fact that media organizations were able to speak at all in the 30 days leading up to an election gave them an advantage over other corporations. Even if a media corporation tries to be scrupulously fair in its coverage of an election, the inevitable choice to cover one story over another gives an advantage to one side. By removing the government’s muzzle from corporations, the Supreme Court has restored some balance to the playing field.

Surely the little guy has an interest in hearing election messages from corporations. The government gets its message out, and the media gets its message out. Why shouldn’t ordinary, private-sector corporations be able to speak as well? Unless he is a member of  the Civil Service or a public-employees’ union, the little guy’s livelihood is usually dependent on a corporation — not the government or the media. Why shouldn’t he be able to hear that Candidate X’s support for cap and trade will destroy his employer?

That kind of changes the liberal demagoguery, doesn’t it?  People who write for big corporations are denouncing other people who work for big corporations from doing the same thing THEY do.

And so I pointed out:

Why hasn’t Obama decried that ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, and CNN – corporations all – have exercised their rights to free speech???  Why hasn’t he demanded that THEY be marginalized along with Fox News?  And who do those corporate bastards at the New York and Los Angeles Times think they are spouting their views and influencing our elections?  Do you realize that they depend on advertisements from OTHER corporations that are quite often foreign-owned?

Let me expand on that slightly.  I went out to my garage and instructed my car and my motorcycle to pay taxes.  Neither said anything, because only PEOPLE can pay taxes as opposed to inanimate things.  So I have to pay taxes on my motorcycle and my car rather than my motorcycle and car paying anything.  Liberals say corporations are inanimate things and yet somehow they can be expected to pay taxes.  If corporations have to pay taxes – which unions that get to participate in elections to the hilt DON’T have to pay – then why should corporations be denied the right to influence the political system that they have to pay MASSIVELY to fund???  Why should corporations that pay taxes be banned from doing what unions that don’t pay taxes get to do???  This is just an extension of the above hypocrisy as “journalists” who work for corporations decry other corporations from getting to do what they have always been allowed to do.  And on the same vein, if corporations can pay taxes as only people have to do, then why can’t corporations do OTHER stuff that only people can do  – such as worship God???

I’m not through with the whopping extent to which Barack Hussein Obama is a dishonest fascist.  Let’s drag the IRS scandal into this.  Do you know what that was?  It was nothing short of an end run around the Supreme Court’s Citizen’s United verdict.  Obama didn’t like it and publicly demonized the Supreme Court on national television.  You might remember Samuel Alito mouthing “That’s not true” as Obama slandered the highest court in the land.  Every single American got to see Obama’s naked contempt for the Supreme Court of the United States.  And then what did Obama do?  Well, after deciding, “I’m the Pharaoh-god king and only I should get to decide what the law is,” he instructed his IRS thug agency to target nearly 300 conservative groups who had the gall to believe that the Constitution (or the highest court in the land) mattered.  He had his IRS specifically target groups on the basis of blasphemy – or more specifically for the “anti-Obama rhetoric” that amounted to blasphemy in the mind of the malignant narcissist-in-chief.

If you liberals want to sever corporations from having the ability to influence elections, all you’ve got to do is a) make corporations tax exempt and b) ban labor unions from having the right to participate.  And impeach your fascist monster.  And until you do these things, please shut the hell up about the outrages and injustices of corporations getting to do what YOUR groups get to do.

Just realize that liberals are ALL fascists.  And the first order of business for a fascist is to make sure you get to stay in power so that you and ONLY you have the power “to control the people.”

 

 

According To Mike Morell Testimony In Obama Admin, Professionals On Ground Useless While Analysts 1000s Of Miles Away Make Up ‘Facts’ In Vacuum

April 2, 2014

Why should professionals risk their lives out in the field to gather accurate information when analysts in offices thousands of miles away are going to completely ignore them anyway?

If you’re going to believe the testimony of the Deputy Director of the CIA at the time of the Benghazi attack, the answer is they shouldn’t bother.

You need to understand this: at this point, it is obvious to EVERYONE that when Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, Jay Carney and a host of other Obama types came out and said that the Benghazi attack that murdered the first United States Ambassador since the failed Carter debacle in 1979 along with three other Americans was the result of a protest over a video rather than a planned and coordinated terrorist attack, that they were NOT TELLING THE TRUTH.

Everyone on the ground, along with the CIA station chief’s report from the region (Tripoli), proclaims that the attack had NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with any video or any protest, and in fact explicitly denies that any protest was going on at the time of the attack.

So why the bogus talking points?

The House asked the man who prepared them.

It should be noted that this man who prepared them, former Deputy Director of CIA Mike Morell, has played a game of revolving chairs.  While Obama put one of his own damned LAWYERS into the job that Morell left, Morell suddenly joined Obama’s Intelligence Advisory Board.  Oh, and took a cushy job with the mainstream media that has pathologically refused to ever once be fair or objective.  He was rewarded well for misleading and in fact betraying America, I assure you.

IF you believe that Morell was telling the truth and he did NOT cook the books in the form of the talking points that Obama, Clinton, Rice, Carney et al cited when they said over and over again that the Benghazi attack resulted from a protest over a video (even though it wasn’t), this is what you HAVE to now believe about the way Obama makes decisions about foreign policy: he makes them ENTIRELY based on what analysts sitting at desks thousands of miles away from what is happening write about.  He does NOT pay any attention to what the people on the ground say.  If the people on the ground at the scene say the opposite of what the analysts say, well, who cares?

Let me wrap this in a bow for you: as Deputy Director of the CIA, Morell had ALL the intelligence available to him.  That is why his office is charged with preparing the White House talking points memo to begin with.  Mike Morell KNEW what the CIA and military people on the ground watching the attack unfold were saying.

Again, that’s what you HAVE to conclude if Morell didn’t alter the talking points for political reasons.  He acknowledged that the professionals on the ground were screaming that the attack was a planned, coordinated terrorist attack having nothing to do with any stupid video.  But he pointed out that none of that mattered because what mattered was what the analysts said and the analysts said that it was a video protest and so that’s what the Deputy Director of Obama’s CIA went with.  And it was nothing beyond a random coincidence that the bogus output of the analysts was exactly what the political aspirations of Obama needed.

Obama had been saying he’d decimated and wiped out al Qaeda.  He had been saying the war on terror was over and he’d won it.  He did NOT want to have to explain a terrorist attack against the United States and one of its ambassadors.

And so he didn’t.

Sadly, for Obama not to have committed high crimes and misdemeanors in the form of making his personal politics trump national security, what we are instead being told is that Obama blatantly ignores the facts on the ground and instead trusts to the spin of theorists in Washington.

If that makes you liberals feel good about Obama, fine.  It makes me sick to my stomach either way.

What do I believe Morell did?  I believe he deliberately chose to ignore the facts being screamed from the ground and influenced his analysts to cook the books the way Obama wanted instead.

With Obama having gutted our military we are truly week.  With Obama ignoring the experts on the ground who are seeing the events unfold, we are truly blind.  And under Obama, the CIA is no more “independent” than his thug IRS.  Both agencies and numerous others are merely political wings of the Obama political machine rewarding Obama’s friends and punishing Obama’s enemies.

Malaysian Government On Flight 370 And Obama On ANY Of His MANY Scandals: The EXACT Same Treatment

April 1, 2014

Chinese families are PISSED over the Malaysian government’s constant stonewalling.

Every decent American knows pretty much EXACTLY how those Chinese victims’ families feel.

What the Chinese keep hearing from Malaysian authorities is the same thing that we keep hearing from Obama on a host of different scandals: from Obama putting thousands of guns into the hands of Mexican drug cartels who used those guns to murder an American Border Patrol officer to the scandal in Benghazi to the scandal at the IRS, it’s no different WHATSOEVER from what the Chinese families are hearing regarding whatever the hell happened to Flight 370.

I heard a Chinese victim’s family member talking about the Malaysian governments’ stonewalling.  What is the Malaysian government saying to these families?

“We can’t talk about that because it’s under investigation.”

“I’m not responsible for that.”

Basically, “Go away.  We aint saying squat and you can’t do a damn thing about it.”

One of the amazing things about the mainstream American media is how willing they have been to act the part of Joseph Goebbels’ Ministry of Propaganda and simply report whatever their Führer says as true while mocking whatever the opponents of the Führer says as false.  If you want to know what it’s like to watch television in North Korea as to how they treat their “Dear Leader,” just watch MSNBC for an hour or so.

No American president will ever be accountable to Congress or to any American system ever again after Obama.  It’s kind of like the public matching funds system that every presidential candidate since Nixon has used until Obama – who raised and spent more money on his campaign than any leader in the history of planet earth bar none: Obama obliterated accountability.

The Pope Vs. Obama: One Of These Men Is A Liar Without Shame (Dishonest Liberal Pseudo-Journalism Completely Ignores Story)

March 28, 2014

This would be a funny one, if it wasn’t so tragic and so revealing as to the dishonest character of Barack Obama and the dishonesty of liberal “journalism.”

Barack Obama requested a meeting with popular Pope Francis, hoping to ride the coat tails of the popular pope.

But it turns out the two men were never in the same room, in terms of the accounts of the talk.  One of them was in his own head with demons swirling around screaming at him and couldn’t hear a word the other said.

The über-über -liberal Los Angeles Times says Obama is their messiah-pharaoh-god-king and is incapable of deceit.  So here is their account of the story highlighted on the front page of the main section of the paper:

Sharing hopes for the poor: At the Vatican, Obama’s first-ever meeting with Pope Francis focused on the marginalized”

The subheadline on the story on page A2 reads, “President and Pope Francis meet at the Vatican,  and mostly avoid the subject of U.S. bishops angry about ObamaCare..”

What is interesting about that subheading is that it is nothing more than the official propaganda of Obama and totally ignores the Pope’s own account of the meeting.  If you read the story carefully, you never get any sense or idea that there were two accounts of what happened.  There is only “Obama’s account” because Obama is everything to liberals and the sole arbiter of reality and morality and decency and deity.  And the Pope is merely a human mouthpiece for a false god.

The Washington Times reports (the actual story:

Only God knows for sure: Obama, pope differ on accounts of ‘social schisms’ talk
By Dave Boyer – The Washington Times
Thursday, March 27, 2014

President Obama’s first meeting with Pope Francis produced a little schism of its own.

The Vatican and White House gave starkly different versions Thursday of Mr. Obama’s meeting with Francis.

The president’s account downplayed the Catholic Church’s concerns about religious freedom in the United States and Obamacare’s mandate to pay for contraception.

The pontiff and the president were cordial in the televised portions of their meeting, but a subtle competition to set the agenda played out after the meeting, which went well beyond its scheduled half-hour.

“We actually didn’t talk a whole lot about social schisms in my conversations with His Holiness,” Mr. Obama said at a press conference in Rome. “In fact, that really was not a topic of conversation.”

Mr. Obama deflected a reporter’s question about the extent of his discussion with the pope on the contraceptive mandate by saying that Francis “actually did not touch in detail” on the subject. The administration has been locked in a lengthy legal and political battle with the U.S. Catholic Church hierarchy over Obamacare and issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage.

The Vatican, however, issued a statement after the meeting saying the president’s discussions with Francis and two other top Vatican officials focused “on questions of particular relevance for the [Catholic] Church in [the United States], such as the exercise of the rights to religious freedom, life and conscientious objection” — issues that have fueled divisions between Mr. Obama and the church.

Although Mr. Obama wanted to highlight his bond with Francis over questions of economic inequality and helping the poor, Obamacare’s mandate for employers to pay for birth control gained more attention.

The president clearly wanted to benefit from the global popularity of the pope. Their meeting was a highlight of Mr. Obama’s foreign trip that ends Friday in Saudi Arabia, but it was at an awkward time for the president.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the Affordable Care Act’s mandate requiring for-profit employers of a certain size to offer insurance benefits that cover birth control and other reproductive health services without a co-pay. Some employers object to the mandate on the grounds that it violates their religious beliefs.

On Barack Obama’s account, the Pope couldn’t care less about the fact that Obama is daily pissing in the eye of Catholicism while trying to gouge OUT the eyes of religious freedom altogether.

So who is the moral leader telling the truth and who is the dishonest Antichrist politician????  Hmmmm.  Boy is that one ever a head scratcher.  Until you realize…

One of these men isn’t running for anything; the other one is a pure politician who is desperately trying to save his political party from being held accountable for their evil in an election that is less than eight months away.

It is also worth considering that Barack Obama, with his incessant lie caught on video at LEAST 37 times.  He is THE most documented liar who ever lived on planet earth, bar none.  Adolf Freaking Hitler was not caught in so many lies as Obama has been caught in.

So if you have any decency, you know which of these men is lying.

The problem is that if you have any decency, you have NOTHING to do with the Democrat Party.

The Democrat Party has murdered well over 55 innocent million human beings.  Democrats are now more than five times more murderous than the Nazis – who “only” murdered 11 million in the Holocaust.

The Democrat Party is the Party of the Wrath of God according to Romans Chapter One.  Their worship of homosexual sodomy is the complete destruction of America, plain and simple.

New Fascist Outrage From Old Fascist Obama: FCC To ‘Study’ Media

February 21, 2014

Some time back – going on three years ago now - I wrote an article titled, “Why I Call Obama A Fascist.”  That was before the IRS was turned into a political weapon against conservatives, before Obama’s profoundly unconstitutional lawless abuse of power as he simply changed the law (when only CONGRESS has the power to change or make law) with ObamaCare and numerous other times such as gay marriage and illegal immigration.

The essence of liberalism IS fascism.  It is LIBERALS who want to create economic and political fascism in America.  Fascism is ALL ABOUT government control.  As a conservative, for instance, I am pro-American founding fathers, pro-grammatical-historical Constitution, pro-laisssez faire free market, pro-individual liberty and pro-limited federal government.   And for liberals to claim that it is conservatives who want to expand government control of society in a fascist way is as irrational as it is evil.  Because just how in the HELL am I like Hitler when it is YOU DEMOCRATS who want what Hitler wanted (MORE government power; more power for the government to impose, less power for the people to resist government tyranny, fewer guns in the hands of the people versus the State)???

If you want to see a fascist, go look at a Democrat.  If you are a Democrat and you want to see a fascist, go look in the damn mirror.

There have been so many instances in which Barack Hussein Obama has revealed himself as a naked fascist since I wrote this article it is beyond unreal.  Let it be said that I was RIGHT as usual when it comes to Barack Obama.  When he was running for president and I heard his “reverend” of 23 years say, “No, no, no, NOT God bless America!  God DAMN America!”  I knew that only a truly evil man would have sat in that church under such demon-possessed “preaching.”  And I had what turned out to be a very accurate vision of the wicked man who has plunged America onto the path of dodo-bird-extinction.

When did George Bush propose anything like this?  When did George Bush – who never proposed anything like this – sick his DOJ attack dog on a reporter the way Obama had Eric Holder spy on Fox News reporter James Rosen???  Which revealed nothing short of a fascist agenda with the media.  When did Bush threaten reporters the way Obama threatened Watergate-fame reporter Bob Woodward???  When did Bush try to target and boycott a news outlet he didn’t like the way Obama tried to do with Fox News before all the rest of the journalists pointed out that Obama was being a fascist???

The correct answer, ye Democrat fascists, is NEVER.  And yet had Bush done one-fifty-thousandth the fascism Obama has done you people would have been riotously burning cars in the street in protest.  Because you are the worst kind of hypocrites who ever lived.  “Period.  End of story,” to quote Obama’s words.

Even LIBERALS are now understanding the threat of this naked fascist president.  The New York Times’ James Risen observed, “I think 2013 will go down in history as the worst year for press freedom in the United States’ modern history.”

And it was a LIBERAL legal analyst who pointed out what a godawful CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Barack Hussein Obama has been as he described a nakedly fascist hijacking of the constitutional role of Congress by a dictator-in-chief:

  • The great concern I have for this body is that it is not only being circumvented, but it is also being denied the ability to enforce its inherent powers. Many of these questions are not close in my view; the President is outside the line. But it has to go in front of a court and that court has to grant review, and that’s where we have the most serious Constitutional crisis I view in my lifetime. And that is, this body is becoming less and less relevant.
  • “I have great trepidation of where we are headed, because we are creating a new system here – something that is not what was designed. . . . Within that system, you have the rise of an Uber-Presidency. There could be no greater danger for individual liberty. I really think that the Framers would be horrified by that shift, because everything they dedicated themselves to was creating political balance – and we’ve lost it.”

You know,

This fascist hypocrite Nazi Stalinist thug Obama made all KINDS of false promises to America when he was lying his way into power.  In 2008 he said:

I taught constitutional law for ten years. I take the Constitution very seriously. The biggest problems that we’re facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all, and that’s what I intend to reverse when I’m President of the United States of America.”

Now he’s our Nazi thug-in-chief.  And the American people should be acting like the people of Ukraine while we still have the freedom to act.  Because Barack Obama is a clear and present danger to America BY HIS OWN STANDARD.

And now this:

Monday, 17 February 2014 19:00
FCC to Investigate How Broadcasters Select News Stories
Written by  Warren Mass

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will soon launch an initiative — the Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs (CIN) — “in order to assess whether government action is needed to ensure that the information needs of all Americans are being met, including women and minorities.”

When the FCC’s Office of Communications Business Opportunities (OCBO) announced the initiative in a release last November 1, it stated it had selected Columbia, South Carolina, to field-test the Research Design for the CIN. OCBO expects to complete this next phase of its Critical Information Needs Research no later than July 2014.

Citing the FCC, Jason Pye (the editor-in-chief for the United Liberty website and former legislative director for the Libertarian Party of Georgia) wrote that the stated purpose of the CIN is to collect information from television and radio broadcasters about “the process by which stories are selected” and how often stations cover “critical information needs,” as well as to assess “perceived station bias” and “perceived responsiveness to underserved populations.”

The FCC will also ask reporters: “Have you ever suggested coverage of what you consider a story with critical information for your customers that was rejected by management?”

The  FCC attempts to justify the intrusive fact-finding mission by asserting that the results are necessary to complete a report that the FCC “is obligated under § 257 of the Communications Act of 1934 … to review and report to Congress on: (1) regulations prescribed to eliminate market entry barriers in the provision and ownership of telecommunications services and information services, or in the provision of parts or services to providers of telecommunications services and information services by entrepreneurs and other small businesses; and (2) proposals to eliminate statutory barriers to market entry by those entities, consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity.”

However, Pye quotes the FCC’s Ajit Pai: “This claim is peculiar. How can the news judgments made by editors and station managers impede small businesses from entering the broadcast industry? And why does the CIN study include newspapers when the FCC has no authority to regulate print media?”

The statement came from an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal for February 10 written by Ajit Pai, who is a commissioner of the FCC. In the article, Pai noted that news editors often disagree about which stories are important enough to be covered and which stories are not. But, stated Pai, “everyone should agree on this: The government has no place pressuring media organizations into covering certain stories.”

Then Pai makes an amazing admission, especially since he was nominated to his post by President Obama: “Unfortunately, the Federal Communications Commission, where I am a commissioner, does not agree.”

As part of the process to uncover the information it wants, notes Pai, the FCC selected eight categories of “critical information,” including the “environment” and “economic opportunities,” that it believes the local news media should cover. The FCC will ask station managers, news directors, journalists, television anchors, and on-air reporters to tell the government about their “news philosophy” and how the station will assist the FCC’s quest to (as we noted previously) “ensure that the information needs of all Americans are being met.”

As an indication of the egregious intrusiveness of the CIN study, the FCC’s follow-up questions will ask for “specifics about how editorial discretion is exercised, as well as the reasoning behind the decisions.”

But Pai’s assessment of the FCC’s new program becomes more ominous:

Participation in the Critical Information Needs study is voluntary — in theory. Unlike the opinion surveys that Americans see on a daily basis and either answer or not, as they wish, the FCC’s queries may be hard for the broadcasters to ignore. They would be out of business without an FCC license, which must be renewed every eight years.

A frank acknowledgment, coming from an Obama nominee! If a broadcast media outlet is dependent on not running afoul of FCC bureaucrats in order to keep its license and remain in business, what we have, in effect, is a fascist system not too different from what existed in Italy under Mussolini. Though fascism has multiple characteristics, a hallmark of the system is that instead of openly nationalizing private property, as did the communists, fascists allowed private property to exist in name — while controlling it via regulation. Under fascism, entrepreneurs have only the illusion of private property, since the government dictates how their property is to be used.

In his book, Propaganda: The Art of Persuasion: World War II, Anthony Rhodes noted that Italian fascist authorities seized control of some newspapers on the grounds that they published false information likely to incite class hatred or express contempt for the government. In contrast, pro-fascist periodicals were subsidized. By 1926, government permission was needed for a publication to operate. From 1937 to 1944, the Italian Ministry of Culture exercised control of all channels of communication in Italy, both print and broadcast.

Fascist dictator Mussolini personally chose all newspaper editors in Italy, and those who did not possess a certificate of approval from the fascist party could not practice journalism. Though Mussolini created the illusion of a “free press,” no such freedom existed.

Even more repressive control of the media existed in fascist Italy’s sister state, Nazi Germany, where censorship was implemented by Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels. Under Goebbels, newspapers, radio, and all forms of media were put under the control of the Nazis. Radios capable of receiving uncensored broadcasts from outside Germany were confiscated.

The U.S. government’s interest in regulating the broadcast media began with commercial radio broadcasting itself. The Radio Act of 1912, which mandated that all radio transmissions be licensed, was superseded by The Radio Act of 1927, which transferred most of the responsibility for regulating radio to the newly created Federal Radio Commission (FRC). The five-person FRC was given the power to grant and deny licenses, and to assign frequencies and power levels for each licensee. The Commission was not given any official power of censorship, but programming could not include “obscene, indecent, or profane language.”

The first commercially licensed radio station in the United States, KDKA in Pittsburgh, began broadcasting in 1920. The March 1, 1922 issue of the Commerce Department’s Radio Service Bulletin listed 67 stations, but by the end of that year that number would increase to more than 500. (Today there are around 15,000 commercial radio stations in the United States.)

The FRC was replaced by the FCC when the Communications Act of 1934 was passed. The proliferation of radio stations was used as a rationale for federal policing of the airwaves to prevent radio signals from overlapping and interfering with each other. But what is the rationale for federal regulation of broadcast content?

The First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” Does not freedom of speech and the press apply to radio and TV broadcasting as well?

Allow me to tie the Obama IRS thug scandal to the Obama FCC thug scandal.  Jay Sekulow who represents many of the tea party groups who were politically targeted by the Obama thug IRS has pointed out that the questions journalists are now being asked are the SAME DAMN QUESTIONS that the Obama thug IRS was asking of tea party groups as our nation’s tax agency got turned into a rabid Obama enforcement agency.

The FCC – which under Obama has becomes the Fascist Communications Commission – is trying to strong arm its way into dictating the coverage of the media.  Even when it is a now-thoroughly documented FACT that the media is overwhelmingly biased to the leftMedia bias is a real fact and it is from the left.  But with a naked fascist like Obama, all voices of opposition must be silenced.

Here’s the Democrat New York Mayor de Blasio blatantly disregarding traffic laws on his way to the gym just yesterday.  The Democrat Party is the party of entitlement to naked power and the abuse of that power.  Democrats seized control of our entire health care system why?  To “control the people,” that’s why.  Democrats crave totalitarian power so that they can get to decide who wins and who loses and now even who wins and who dies.  They want to have the power to “punish their enemies and reward their friends,” in Obama’s words.

The beast is coming.  And Barack Hussein Obama is his useful idiot.

Trayvon Martin, Racism, The Stand Your Ground Law And Michael Dunn. No Comparison Whatsoever.

February 12, 2014

One can do a search on my blog and see how vigorously I defended George Zimmerman’s right to defend himself against Trayvon Martin.

I was of course called a “racist” by the incredibly racist left for doing so, as someone reading the comments can see.

George Zimmerman was physically attacked.  Only the most rabid ideologue fool refuses to acknowledge that Zimmerman was on his back getting beaten with Trayvon Martin on top of him “MMA style” raining down blows on a man who had already suffered a broken nose and serious abrasions to the back of his skull.

Liberals are fascists who do not want ordinary people to possess the right or capability to defend themselves.  Period.  On top of that, liberals are racist race-baiters who demonize white people and who have no compunction whatsoever to alter reality to make themselves victims.  Thus George Zimmerman became a “white Hispanic” to eradicate the fact that he himself is a racial minority.  And Trayvon Martin became an innocent ten-year old in the news accounts rather than a 6’3″ thug who already had had numerous encounters with the law and who by his own accounts was already glorifying in violence.

The case was a “no-brainer” from the outset.  And liberals proved that they are brainless ideologues who refuse to accept the real world in their steadfast determination that George Zimmerman be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for daring to defend himself rather than placing all his trust that Obama and the State would defend him.  The ONLY reason the case even ever went to trial was because Democrats are rabid fascists.

The Michael Dunn case is entirely different.  And pathologically rabid liberals might be surprised to learn that I am very firmly on the side of the car-full of black kids who got shot rather than on the white man who shot them.

Michael Dunn, unlike Zimmerman’s defense, is citing the “Stand Your Ground Law.”  Again, pathologically dishonest Democrats made the Zimmerman case all about that “Stand Your Ground” law even though Zimmerman’s defense NEVER cited it.  And the reason that Democrats hate that law so much is that, again, they are fascists whose demons inhabiting them start twitching hysterically the moment an ordinary person is deemed to have the right to stand in any way, shape or form or to protect himself in any way, shape or form.  And that is especially true – in the Democrat age of “Never bring a lawsuit against a black” – when race is involved.

George Zimmerman is Hispanic.  Not a “white Hispanic” as the racist, bigoted, socialist and frankly evil New York Times branded him.  Either acknowledge that Zimmerman is Hispanic, you jackals, or for the sake of any kind of honesty whatsoever STOP CALLING OBAMA AN AFRICAN-AMERICAN PRESIDENT WHEN HE IS ONLY HALF AFRICAN-AMERICAN.  But the fact of the matter is that Democrats are hypocrites without any kind of shame, honor, decency, integrity or virtue whatsoever.  So Obama gets to be the first black president and anybody who doesn’t like Obama’s policies is a “racist” by definition while Zimmerman becomes a “white Hispanic” with the sole emphasis on his being “white” and therefore guilty.

But let’s get back to Michael Dunn.

Here’s the basic account of what happened:

Mr. Dunn, a middle-aged white man, allegedly opened fire on a car with four black teenagers in it at a Jacksonville, Fla., gas station. The boys were apparently blasting music, and when Dunn asked them to turn it down, they responded angrily. Dunn has said he felt threatened and thought he saw someone point a gun at him through the back window, so he opened fire. No gun was found in the boys’ car, and none of the witnesses to the altercation noticed a gun.

Here’s another:

The day after last Thanksgiving, Dunn was in good spirits when he attended his son’s wedding at a historic home overlooking the St. Johns River in Orange Park, a quaint Jacksonville suburb.

But after the wedding, Dunn got into a parking lot dispute with teenagers at a gas station that ended with a 17-year-old dead and Dunn charged with murder.

Police portray the South Patrick Shores resident as an out-of-control gunman who became enraged over loud rap music booming from a nearby car, grabbed a 9mm pistol from his glovebox and fired two volleys into a Dodge Durango containing four black teens. The gunshots killed Jordan Davis and narrowly missed two other boys.

Dunn told detectives he acted in self-defense after he heard threats and thought he saw Davis raise the barrel of a shotgun above the SUV’s rear passenger window. No gun was found, police said.

Here’s the thing that makes Michael Dunn guilty:

Asked by detectives why he didn’t report the shooting by calling 911, he said he planned to drive Rouer home to Brevard County in the morning, then confess to authorities.

By 4:25 a.m. the next morning, Jacksonville police had obtained an arrest warrant and contacted the Brevard County Sheriff’s Office, looking for Dunn. A witness at the gas station had reported his license tag number.

He was arrested by deputies at about 10:30 a.m. at his condo, then taken to police headquarters in Viera for a videotaped interview with two Jacksonville detectives.

Wearing a yellow short-sleeved collared shirt and striped shorts, fidgeting and wiping his hands on his knees, Dunn related his side of the story – but neither detective bought his version of events.

Rather, they said details of Dunn’s story didn’t match those at the crime scene. Neither the surviving boys nor independent witnesses at the gas station said Davis had a firearm or tried to exit the SUV – in fact, one of the boys later said Davis couldn’t have exited a rear door because the child locks were engaged.

“If there was a shotgun coming up at you, we would expect you to do what you did. The problem that we have is, there is no shotgun. That’s the bridge that we’ve got to get across,” a detective told Dunn.

“You keep dwelling on this shotgun as if there’s one at the scene. If there was a shotgun, a BB gun, any type of gun at the scene – hell, if there was a water gun that was black that looked real at the scene. …” the detective said.

This case is NOT about race, any more than the George Zimmerman case was ever about race.

Democrats pathologically despise the Constitution or the United States and our founding fathers, unless and until these great men are perverted into deists and atheists in radical abandonment of actual history and unless and until their words are “fundamentally transformed” by liberal judges into a grotesque mockery of anything they ever actually intended their words to mean.  And the words that Democrats hate only slightly less are Martin Luther King, Jr.’s words from his “I have a dream” speech:

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

Democrats hate those words.  They hate the idea that the content of one’s character should matter.  They want it to be exclusively about the color of one’s skin.  And if you are black, you are by definition a “victim” and if you are white, you are by definition a “racist” and a “bigot” and “privileged” and therefore guilty of whatever crime Democrats want to scapegoat you with.

I think of the character in the great movie, “The Ten Commandments” named Nathan.  Because he is the epitome of the Democrat Party.  Like Nathan, DEMOCRATS are the real party of slavery.  Democrats literally fought the damned Civil War to keep slavery while Republicans fought to liberate the slaves.  The Ku Klux Klan that rode like a living cancer after that Democrat War constituted the terrorist arm of the Democrat Party who persecuted blacks and white Republicans while their fellow Democrats undid everything Republican president Abraham Lincoln tried to do in his Reconstruction Act.

I’ve documented this before, so I’ll quote myself.  Who are Democrats?

The Democrat Party under Woodrow Wilson actually RE-segregated the US Military and government service (after Republicans had de-segregated them and allowed blacks to serve).  The Democrat Party in 1924 was SO completely dominated by the Ku Klux Klan that the Democrat National Convention was called “Klanbake.”    The Democrat Party under FDR and their New Deal was rife with racism and unions and Democrats used it to prevent blacks from getting jobs.  The Democrat Party continued to be THE Party of hard-core racism for the entire history of the republic.  The racist horror story of “Mississippi Burning“ was OWNED by Democrats from the Governor right on down.  In fact, the state Democrat Party in Mississippi was limited to whites only.  And the fact is that a FAR higher percentage of Republican Congressmen and Senators voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act than Democrats.  Democrats were the Party of keeping the black man down until they cynically – incredibly cynically – saw that there was another way to keep exploiting black people to keep them on their plantation and keep them down.

The cry of Democrat blacks today is “Give us welfare or give us death.”  But the two amount to the same thing as blacks have given in to bitterness, hopelessness and a spirit of entitlement rather than trying to actually fulfill the American Dream for themselves.  You can either wait for your damn check to come off the work of other people or you can go out and work your ass off to make your world and your kid’s world a better place.  And because of the Democrat Party, blacks have pursued the former and abandoned the latter.  These are people who have fallen prey to the belief that whitey is out to get them and there isn’t any hope of a fair deal – so why try?  And the only reason that is true is the same Democrat Party who told them that are the very same white people who have actually been the ones keeping them down with promises of welfare for nothing forever.

Or read my slightly different account here about who the Democrats are:

We know that FDR was a racist bigot who detested black people and allowed labor unions to exclude blacks from work that they desperately needed to survive the darkest days of America.

The question as to why black people have in recent years chosen to celebrate and support the party that put their ancestors in the chains of slavery, fought a vicious Civil War to keep them in those chains, invented the Ku Klux Klan as the terrorist arm of the Democrat Party to keep blacks who had been freed by Republicans in subjugation, resegregated blacks under the tyranny of “the father of the modern progressive movement” also known as the racist white supremacist Woodrow Wilson, was still so racist in 1924 that the Democratic National Convention of that year was called “Klanbake,” allowed black men to go untreated with syphilis so researchers could study the progression of the disease (the Tuskegee Experiment) throughout the entire FDR presidency, was largely THE party of racist discrimination through the 1950s, and then only passed the Civil Rights laws with the overwhelming supporting votes of Republicans, is a mystery that I will not attempt to explain.  I have no idea why black people as a culture allowed Democrats who had subjected them to one form of plantation allowed Democrats to bait and switch them into a different form of plantation (the welfare plantation of institutional generational dependency).

Or for more modern facts, read my account here about who Democrats are:

Now, of course, you run into the irony that it was that Grand Old Party that freed the slaves, and fought a bitter war to free the slaves against the Democrat Party that was fighting just as bitterly to keep black people in the chains of human bondage.  But that’s beside the point in the Democrat narrative.

Harry Reid is also on the record admiring Obama as a:

‘light-skinned’ African American ‘with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.’

Maybe it’s because Obama was half white, but Harry Reid nevertheless praises Obama for overcoming that stupid negro dialect.  And being light-skinned is a huge bonus for Harry Reid.  “Whiter is better” when you’re in the party of “the White Man’s Burden.”

Bill Clinton wasn’t quite as happy with the man who was stealing his white wife’s rightful place as leader of the free world.

Bill snidely told Ted Kennedy,

A  few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee.”

I know, William Jefferson.  That’s back when southern Democrats like you had a different way of keeping black boys in their proper place.

Senator Robert Byrd, a distinguished “Exalted Cyclops” and “Kleagle” of the famous Democrat-created Ku Klux Klan, was on the record as once saying:

“I  shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by  my side …   Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory  trampled in the   dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved  land of ours become   degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the  blackest specimen from  the  wilds.”

Ah.  There’s that depiction of blacks as being in that long-way-from-being-human I earlier mentioned.

And:

“The Klan is needed  today as never before and I am  anxious to see its  rebirth here in West  Virginia and in every state in  the nation.”

When Bill Clinton honored fellow Democrat Robert “Exalted Cyclops” Byrd, Clinton said:

“He  was a country boy from the hills and hollows of West Virginia. He  was  trying to get elected. And maybe he did something he shouldn’t have   done…”

Well, as long as he was just a Democrat trying to get elected, then ANY racism or racism is fine, isn’t it, Hill Billy?

And you can read here for the massive, hypocrite double-standard that Democrats lived by when it comes to “race.”

Liberals are liars and haters.  And worst of all, they are true moral idiots.  “Democrat” stands for “Demonic Bureaucrat” as they seek to advance two interests: Satan’s love for 55 million murdered human beings in the abortion mills and the worship of homosexual sodomy, plus their determination to replace the God of the Bible with “the State” and make GOVERNMENT our God and Savior while increasingly marginalizing and even criminalizing the worship of Jesus Christ and the God of the Bible.

So what’s this Michael Dunn case about?  I already stated it above.  It is about a guilty man – and I don’t frankly give a damn WHAT color he is – who fired ten shots into a vehicle with kids inside and claimed he was being threatened with a gun when nothing even remotely resembling a gun was found at the scene.

It’s about this question: do you have the right to stand your ground with a gun?  You’re damn right you do – and again, I don’t CARE if you are white or black or Hispanic or Asian or whatever.  Do you have a right to whip out a gun after confronting somebody and then start shooting at them when they are no real threat to you?  You’re damned right you don’t.

Michael Dunn ought to be convicted for his crime of shooting at those kids and for murdering one named Jordan Davis.  And if Michael Dunn were black and the kids were white, he should be every bit as convicted.

And I say that as a conservative and a Republican rather than a racist liberal Democrat.

 

Life At The Most Respected Liberal Newspaper (Read, Worst And Most Biased Piece Of Garbage) In The Country

February 5, 2014

I found this piece about life at the insufferable New York Times rather a fun read:

The Tyranny and Lethargy of the Times Editorial Page
Reporters in ‘semi-open revolt’ against Andrew Rosenthal
By Ken Kurson 2/04 3:38pm

Illustration by Torren Thomas.

Illustration by Torren Thomas.

IT’S WELL KNOWN AMONG THE SMALL WORLD of people who pay attention to such things that the liberal-leaning reporters at The Wall Street Journal resent the conservative-leaning editorial page of The Wall Street Journal. What’s less well known—and about to break into the open, threatening the very fabric of the institution—is how deeply the liberal-leaning reporters at The New York Times resent the liberal-leaning editorial page of The New York Times.

The New York Observer has learned over the course of interviews with more than two-dozen current and former Times staffers that the situation has “reached the boiling point” in the words of one current Times reporter. Only two people interviewed for this story agreed to be identified, given the fears of retaliation by someone they criticize as petty and vindictive.

The blame here, in the eyes of most Times reporters to whom The Observer spoke, belongs to Andrew Rosenthal, who as editorial page editor leads both the paper’s opinion pages and opinion postings online, as well as overseeing the editorial board and the letters, columnists and op-ed departments. Mr. Rosenthal is accused of both tyranny and pettiness, by the majority of the Times staffers interviewed for this story. And the growing dissatisfaction with Mr. Rosenthal stems from a commitment to excellence that has lifted the rest of the Times, which is viewed by every staffer The Observer spoke to as rapidly and dramatically improving.

“He runs the show and is lazy as all get-out,” says a current Times writer, and one can almost hear the Times-ness in his controlled anger (who but a Timesman uses the phrase “as all get-out” these days?). Laziness and bossiness are unattractive qualities in any superior, but they seem particularly galling at a time when the Times continues to pare valued staffers via unending buyouts.

The Times declined to provide exact staffing numbers, but that too is a source of resentment. Said one staffer, “Andy’s got 14 or 15 people plus a whole bevy of assistants working on these three unsigned editorials every day. They’re completely reflexively liberal, utterly predictable, usually poorly written and totally ineffectual. I mean, just try and remember the last time that anybody was talking about one of those editorials. You know, I can think of one time recently, which is with the [Edward] Snowden stuff, but mostly nobody pays attention, and millions of dollars is being spent on that stuff.”

Asked by The Observer for hard evidence supporting a loss of influence of the vaunted editorial page, the same Times staffer fired back, “You know, the editorials are never on the most emailed list; they’re never on the most read list. People just are not paying attention, and they don’t care. It’s a waste of money.”

Andrew Rosenthal. (Photo via Patrick McMullan)

Andrew Rosenthal. (Photo via Patrick McMullan)

Multiple attempts to reach Mr. Rosenthal were rebuffed, and emails directly to him were responded to instead by the Times publicity operation. A Times spokesperson defended the page, telling The Observer, “The power of the editorial page is in the strength of the ideas it expresses. Some editorials are read more widely than others, but virtually all generate discussion and response among our readers, policy-makers and thought leaders. Recently, the editorial series on STEM Education and the editorial on Mr. Snowden sparked a great deal of discussion among readers and policy-makers.” Asked for data, she added, “We do not share statistics or traffic numbers at the individual article or section level.” In a list of 2013’s most read stories the Times sent over, no editorials or columnists appeared (two guest editorials, from Angelina Jolie and Vladimir Putin, did make the cut).

Another sign of a loss of influence may have been revealed this past fall. A member of then Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s inner circle who remained in City Hall until the end of Mr. Bloomberg’s term told The Observer that the entire administration was “shocked” by the Times’ inability to drag its endorsed candidates over the goal line, referring to Christine Quinn in the mayoral primary and Dan Garodnick in the City Council speaker race. “When was the last time The New York Times lost both? Those are both essentially Democratic primaries, and the Times couldn’t carry any water.” The Times also endorsed Dan Squadron for advocate; he was defeated by Letitia James.

This charge was amplified by a different member of Mr. Bloomberg’s kitchen cabinet who left the administration a few years ago. He reports that Ms. Quinn’s political team viewed the Times endorsement as “critical” to her cementing the nomination, which led them to allow the Times to follow Ms. Quinn around making a documentary. What resulted was Hers To Lose, a behind-the-scenes look that was clearly supposed to show the historic win of an out lesbian but instead turned into an awkward and sometimes excruciating look at a campaign that finished in third place, despite the Times endorsement.

According to this source, “Chris worked very hard to get the endorsement. Ask yourself: Why did she allow the Times movie? Why would any campaign ever do that? They were so focused on the editorial [endorsement] that when Executive Editor Jill Abramson personally called over and asked Chris to do the movie, it was seen within the Quinn campaign as something they’d better say ‘yes’ to in order to get the endorsement.”

As for the charges that Mr. Rosenthal is a despot, one writer provided a funny example that others interviewed for this story immediately recognized. “Rosenthal himself is like a petty tyrant, like anytime anyone on the news pages uses the word ‘should’ in their copy, you know, he sends nasty emails around kind of CCing the world. The word ‘should’ belongs to him and his people.”

Also coming in for intense criticism were the opinion-page columnists, always a juicy target. Particularly strong criticism, to the point of resentful (some might say jealous), was directed at Thomas Friedman, the three-time winner of the Pulitzer Prize who writes mostly about foreign affairs and the environment.

One current Times staffer told The Observer, “Tom Friedman is an embarrassment. I mean there are multiple blogs and Tumblrs and Twitter feeds that exist solely to make fun of his sort of blowhardy bullshit.” (Gawker has been particularly hard on Mr. Friedman, with Hamilton Nolan memorably skewering him in a column entitled “Tom Friedman Travels the World to Find Incredibly Uninteresting Platitudes,” as a “mustachioed soothsaying simpleton”; another column was titled “Tom Friedman Does Not Know What’s Happening Here,” and the @firetomfriedman Twitter account has more than 1,800 followers.)

From left, Joe Nocera, Thomas L. Friedman, Arthur Sulzberger Jr., Carmen Reinhart, Andrew Rosenthal, Paul Krugman.

From left, Joe Nocera, Thomas L. Friedman, Arthur Sulzberger Jr., Carmen Reinhart, Andrew Rosenthal, Paul Krugman. (Photo by Neil Rasmus/BFAnyc.com)

Another Times reporter brought up Mr. Friedman, unsolicited, toward the end of a conversation that was generally positive about the editorial page: “I never got a note from Andy or anything like that. But I will say, regarding Friedman, there’s the sense that he’s on cruise control now that he’s his own brand. And no one is saying, ‘Hey, did you see the latest Friedman column?’ in the way they’ll talk about ‘Hey, Gail [Collins] was really funny today.’”

Asked if this stirring resentment toward the editorial page might not just be garden variety news vs. edit stuff or even the leanings of a conservative news reporter toward a liberal editorial page, one current Times staffer said, “It really isn’t about politics, because I land more to the left than I do to the right. I just find it …”

He paused for a long time before continuing and then, unprompted, returned to Mr. Friedman. “I just think it’s bad, and nobody is acknowledging that they suck, but everybody in the newsroom knows it, and we really are embarrassed by what goes on with Friedman. I mean anybody who knows anything about most of what he’s writing about understands that he’s, like, literally mailing it in from wherever he is on the globe. He’s a travel reporter. A joke. The guy gets $75,000 for speeches and probably charges the paper for his first-class airfare.”

Another former Times writer, someone who has gone on to great success elsewhere, expressed similar contempt (and even used the word “embarrass”) and says it’s longstanding.

“I think the editorials are viewed by most reporters as largely irrelevant, and there’s not a lot of respect for the editorial page. The editorials are dull, and that’s a cardinal sin. They aren’t getting any less dull. As for the columnists, Friedman is the worst. He hasn’t had an original thought in 20 years; he’s an embarrassment. He’s perceived as an idiot who has been wrong about every major issue for 20 years, from favoring the invasion of Iraq to the notion that green energy is the most important topic in the world even as the financial markets were imploding. Then there’s Maureen Dowd, who has been writing the same column since George H. W. Bush was president.”

Yet another former Times writer concurred. “Andy is a wrecking ball, a lot like his father but without the gravitas. What strikes me about the editorial and op-ed pages is that they have become relentlessly grim. With very few exceptions, there’s almost nothing light-hearted or whimsical or sprightly about them, nothing to gladden the soul. They’re horribly doctrinaire, down the line, and that goes for the couple of conservatives in the bunch. It wasn’t always like that on those pages.”

THIS VIEW IS NOT unanimous. Joe LaPointe, who spent 20 years covering sports for the Times before taking a buyout in 2010, views the page and its maestro more positively. “The editorial page certainly has changed. It used to be bland, wishy-washy. Now it’s strident. It has more energy and bite. Rosenthal’s voice rings very loud, and I read it closer than I ever had. It’s definitely a left-wing, progressive page, but I find the editorials very interesting. And my brief dealings with Andy have been very pleasant.”

Arhut Sulzberger Jr. (Photo by YASUYOSHI CHIBA/AFP/GettyImages)

Arthur Sulzberger Jr. (Photo via Getty Images)

Timothy L. O’Brien, the publisher of Bloomberg View and a former New York Times editor and reporter, also has nice things to say about an institution that is now a competitor. “While all opinion pages have hard work to do to stand out on the digital landscape, the Times is still a very singular and weighty player and never easily discounted.”

So just how widespread is the impression of laziness and tyranny within the opinion section?

One former business reporter remarked that the entire business section viewed the editorial page as “irrelevant” and went on to say, “Their business editorials were relatively rare and really bad. Floyd Norris went up there to make the business editorials better and eventually just left because he got tired of trying to explain economics to them.”

A veteran reporter brought up the Sunday Review section, which falls under Mr. Rosenthal’s purview. “When it stopped being called Week in Review, I don’t know anyone in the newsroom who thinks it got better, and almost everyone thinks it got worse. Everyone I know thinks it’s less fun and more pointless. It just reaffirms the idea that he’s an empire builder. He wanted this expanded authority and Arthur’s giving it to him. He’s not the least bit answerable to Jill. Even as the newsroom has cut its staff and budget, Andy’s has grown.”

One current staffer pointed to the lack of diversity on the editorial page—the exact kind of charge for which one could imagine the Times filleting another institution. She declined to be quoted, even anonymously, but noted that Mr. Rosenthal seemed to view the editorial board akin to the way the Supreme Court was once viewed: There was a “minority seat” and a “female seat.” Of the 32 people who are either columnists or members of the editorial board, 26 are white, and 23 are male; 19 are—egad!—white males. (During the race for City Council speaker, NY1 Noticias reporter Juan Manuel Benítez tweeted at Times columnist Michael Powell, “Are there any Latinos in the edit board?” Mr. Powell replied, “Just looking, appears none.”)

Another current staffer blamed the same lack of imagination for a recent Times loss. When Times writer Catherine Rampell was snatched by The Washington Post to become an op-ed columnist, this reporter emailed The Observer, “It would never even occur to [Andy] to take a 33-year-old economics reporter and make her an op-ed columnist, but it’s just the kind of jolt his page needs.”

Another reporter told a story in which he had a “scared-y cat editor who had been so frightened by the vitriol that Andy spews around the newsroom about the word ‘should’ that [the editor] literally took it out of my copy every time I used the word when it was applied to an entity or a government institution, as opposed to something an individual should do. She literally just removed it so I didn’t have an opportunity to get into it with them, because she just wouldn’t allow it in my copy.”

Yet another reporter described the exact same obsession with “should” by saying of Mr. Rosenthal, “You know, I think he literally had a Google alert for the word ‘should’ and, like, goes reading through the entire newspaper for it, and that’s what he does all day instead of improving his section.”

The resentment extends beyond the policing of words and into a fight over resources.

Jill Abramson.

Jill Abramson. (Photo via Getty Images)

“They continue to own the top right of the home page, even in the redesign, which is a really, really important place for eyeballs. That probably translates into a lot of readers, but it’s only because they have that guaranteed placement, which they do not deserve, so it’s just a source of real annoyance. At a time when resources are diminished and people fight over them, it’s also a source of aggravation.”

Given the near universality of the view within the Times that the opinion pages have grown tired and irrelevant, it’s a wonder that nothing has been done to address the problem, especially as the paper has trimmed and restructured in every department. (The Times has made cuts to its roster of columnists, including Clyde Haberman and Verlyn Klinkenborg). According to the Times spokesperson, “We have a relatively small editorial staff that has remained steady over the past 10 years.”

The difficulty comes in part from the way the Times is structured. Andrew Rosenthal reports not to Executive Editor Jill Abramson but directly to publisher Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr. One source claims that Mr. Sulzberger is “afraid” of Mr. Rosenthal, possibly because of a perceived debt that the Sulzberger family owes to Mr. Rosenthal’s father, A. M. “Abe” Rosenthal, for the elder Mr. Rosenthal’s half century of service to the Sulzberger family.

Andrew Rosenthal now inhabits perhaps the most important opinion perch in the world, at a time in which the media is awash in opinion. During his long career at the Times—a career that has included stints as assistant managing editor and foreign editor, as well as some time at the Associated Press—he has consolidated hold on that perch and answers only to Mr. Sulzberger, himself facing the challenge of filling his father’s big shoes.

One veteran reporter who has been at the paper for more than 20 years said, “‘Bullying’ and ‘petty’ are Andy’s middle name. He’s very smart, he’s very funny. But any place he’s gone where he’s had a position of authority, he’s bullying and petty. For a time in 2000, he was essentially running the Washington bureau, though I don’t think he had the title of bureau chief. Dean Baquet was the national editor and left for the L.A. Times, and they put Andy in as sort of acting national editor for the duration of the 2000 coverage. During the 2000 campaign, he developed a very personal, gut-level animus toward Al Gore. And it showed in our coverage. And then he was the assistant managing editor under Howell [Raines], and the consensus was that as he rose he became nastier. He had the reputation as Howell’s hatchet man. When Howell was tossed out and Andy was sent to the editorial page, there were a lot of people breathing a sigh of relief that they didn’t have to deal with Andy anymore. That’s not an exaggeration. He had made himself extremely unpopular.”

There is suddenly evidence that the festering dissatisfaction with the edit page has broken into what one reporter dubbed “semi-open revolt.” One reporter says that he literally will not allow Mr. Rosenthal to join their lunch table in the cafeteria.

The Observer heard from two different sources about a posting created by respected health reporter Catherine Saint Louis and shared among her friends that pointed out a bevy of bad thinking made by the editorial page in a recent editorial related to the Affordable Care Act. In it, Ms. Saint Louis detailed the many errors in the piece’s coverage and asserted that “the basic premise is wrong.” (The Observer agreed not to share the post itself, since the person who shared it with The Observer did not have permission from Ms. Saint Louis to do so.)

Confronted with the charge that the reporters might simply be envious that resources don’t seem to be bleeding from the edit page the way they have throughout the rest of the institution, one reporter hit back hard at that notion.

“It’s so obvious that people on the news side find what the people on the opinion side are doing to be less than optimal. And it’s not that we want their money; we want them to be awesome. The fact of the matter is the Wall Street Journal editorial page just kicks our editorial page’s ass. I mean there’s just no contest, from top to bottom, and it’s disappointing. You know, we hold ourselves to incredibly high standards on the news side, and we meet them more often than not. Methodically, for the last 10 years, you’ve seen various editors march through and dispatch with mediocrity in many places where it had been allowed to fester for years, from the book review to the feature pages. And so to see it persist and persist and persist on the editorial page with nobody having the guts to retire some of the people or things that are not only not working but have become caricatures of themselves is just a huge bummer.”

UPDATE: After this piece was published on Tuesday afternoon, several New York Times reporters The Observer had not originally interviewed have been in touch. One texted the author simply, “Thank you.” Another emailed to say, “I saw opinion people storming around the newsroom. … Especially nice to see Andy get the focus.” Finally, Catherine Saint Louis, whose post critical of the editorial page’s take on health care was cited in the story, contacted The Observer to take issue with the characterization of the impact of her post: “I think these paragraphs err in leaving the impression that a single Facebook post by me constitutes “evidence that the festering dissatisfaction with the edit page has broken into … ‘semi-open revolt.’ ” It does not. Such a post would at most constitute evidence that one reporter disagreed with a single editorial. As it happens, I have no objection to the way op-ed conducts business.”
Read more at http://observer.com/2014/02/the-tyranny-and-lethargy-of-the-times-editorial-page/#ixzz2sTo5cSVG Follow us: @newyorkobserver on Twitter | newyorkobserver on Facebook

The New York Times is as liberal “as all get out,” to use the words of the Times reporters themselves.  That means it is intellectually bankrupt, morally bankrupt and of course FINANCIALLY bankrupt.  Oh, and fascist.  Because even the leftist reporters are telling us that it is as FASCIST “as all get out,” as well.

It Must be Nice Being A Liberal And Never Having To Stand Accountable For All The Times You’re Completely WRONG

December 16, 2013

Do you remember this statement by a stupid liberal ideologue?

“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”

That ridiculously stupid and proven to be thoroughly false statement was made by Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia.  The selfsame University of East Anglia also being THE hub of “global warming” which morphed into “climate change” which is also the site of one of the most dishonest scientific frauds of all time.  “Doctor” Viner threatened the planet by “warning” us that “within a few years winter snowfall will become ‘a very rare and exciting event’”.

Where is that idiot now?  He’s doing fine, I assure you.  Which begs the question, how can you be a “principal advisor for climate change” and an “internationally recognized expert” and be a completely disproven and frankly disgraced idiot at the same time?  Or is being a completely disproven and disgraced idiot a resume enhancer for the aforementioned accolades???

Well, Al Gore is so good at being an idiot liberal that they actually gave him a Nobel Prize for it.  Let’s go down memory lane:

FIVE YEARS AGO TODAY… Al Gore Predicted the North Pole Will Be Ice Free in 5 Years
Posted by Jim Hoft on Friday, December 13, 2013, 5:09 PM

FIVE YEARS AGO TODAY— Al Gore predicted the North Polar Ice Cap would be completely ice free in five years. Gore made the prediction to a German audience in 2008. He told them that “the entire North ‘polarized’ cap will disappear in 5 years.” “Five Years”

This wasn’t the only time Gore made his ice-free prediction. Gore’s been predicting this since 2007. That means that this year the North Pole should be completely melted by now.

Junk scientist Al Gore also made the same prediction in 2009.

From the video:

Former Vice President Al Gore references computer modeling to suggest that the north polar ice cap may lose virtually all of its ice within the next seven years. “Some of the models suggest that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during some of the summer months, could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years,” says Gore.

Today Cairo had its first snowfall in 100 years.

UPDATE: Ed Driscoll found the original Gore video from 2008.

For the official record, those of you who are clutching your chests in fear because Al Gore said it and it therefore must be true, North Pole ice is actually doing just fine.  The arctic ice actually GREW by 29% this year.

Speaking of idiot liberals being completely wrong over and over again and never having to suffer for it, Gabriel Malor tweeted out a long list of journalists who have made their careers by falsely branding the enemies of Marx, Stalin and Obama.

And I must mention who just won the “Lie of the Year” award.  But like Benghazi (the planned and coordinated terror attack that resulted in the deaths of the first US ambassador murdered since the failed Carter Years along with three other American heroes that was falsely blamed on a Youtube video to cover Obama), like Fast and Furious (where the Obama administration placed guns into the hands of Mexican drug cartels which used them to murder an American Border Patrol agent), like the IRS (where Obama thug bureaucrats illegally targeted conservatives for “anti-Obama rhetoric”) and many other situations, Obama has held NOBODY accountable.

HHS Secretary Kathleen Sabelius promised Congress that the ObamaCare website would be up and running and ready to go by the October 1 deadline (see here for a more complete version of history).  Where is she?  Still at her lousy job, that’s where.  Despite the fact that this wicked woman has been caught red-handed lying over and over again.

Now of course we’re finding out that Obama deliberately delayed implementing rules he KNEW would screw up the universe and jeopardize his re-election.  And we can now realize that the reason so much disaster is happening is because in making politics rule over governance there simply wasn’t TIME to implement all the damn laws.  But don’t worry, nobody will be held accountable for that deceit.

Because being a liberal, being wrong, and not being held accountable for being wrong, goes hand in hand.

Being a brain-dead ideologue liberal “academician” or “journalist” and being proven to be completely wrong and completely idiotic only to get away with it because liberals are pathologically dishonest people utterly divorced from truth or reality goes hand in hand.

Do you want to know the REAL cause of global warming?  It’s all the hot vapors filling the skulls of all the liberal pseudo-scientists and journalists.  Those global warming gasses even put cow flatulence to shame as a threat to our environment.

Pathological Liar Obama Now ‘Brazenly Lying’ About His Own Lies (Obama KNEW ObamaCare Would ‘Transition’ Millions And Lied)

November 19, 2013

Please read this:

November 18, 2013 12:00 AM
Obama’s ‘5 Percent’ Con Job
It’s a 100 percent lie, according to the White House’s own figures.
By  Andrew C. McCarthy

Last Thursday, President Obama purported to undo the “Affordable” Care Act (ACA) mandates that he and congressional Democrats quite intentionally designed to force Americans off their health-insurance policies . . . notwithstanding the president’s promise, repeated over and over again since 2009, that Americans would be able to keep their health-insurance policies. In my weekend column, I argued that Obama’s latest unilateral diktat is lawless and transparently political. With each passing day, however, what becomes more breathtaking is the depth of systematic, calculated lying that went into the extensive — the criminal — Obamacare fraud.

Let’s quickly recap the lawlessness and cynical politics behind Thursday’s pathetic press conference. Obama, who poses as a constitutional-law expert, knows full well that a president has no legal authority to waive statutory mandates. Even if he had such power, moreover, he knows that there is no practical possibility of undoing — within the next few weeks, as the ACA would require — the new arrangements that insurance companies and state regulators spent the last three years structuring to comply with Obamacare mandates. In sum, Obama is well aware that his proposed “fix” is frivolous. His hope is that the country overwhelmingly consists of dolts who are too uninformed to realize that this is the case, and who, with a little help from his media courtiers, can be convinced to blame the insurance companies, rather than the president, for the fact that millions of Americans are losing their coverage under his “reform.”

Now, having covered Thursday’s con job, let’s get back to the overarching Obamacare scheme perpetrated by the president for more than four years — a fraud that, I contend, the Justice Department would not hesitate to prosecute had it been committed by a private-sector executive. I’ve related the standards for criminal and civil enforcement that would militate in favor of prosecution in a case involving the dimension of fraud and breach of fiduciary duty we find here. In addition, NRO’s Andrew Stiles had a superb report on Friday showing the sundry ways the administration’s dysfunctional Obamacare website, HealthCare.gov, runs afoul of various consumer-protection laws. Again, when such infractions are committed by private businesses, the government punishes them quite severely.

We now discover even more evidence of how brazen Obama’s lies have been.

The president claims he truly believed that people would be able to keep plans they liked because Obamacare provides for those plans to be “grandfathered” — exempted from termination. Thus, he insists, he was acting in good faith when he made the promises that people could keep those plans, though he concedes the promises “ended up being inaccurate.”

This is yet another calculated deception, a willful continuation of the fraudulent scheme. The president well knew that, in implementing the “grandfathering” provision, his administration wrote regulations so narrow that tens of millions of existing plans would be eliminated. Congressional Democrats knew this, too: When Republicans endeavored in 2010 to enact legislation that would have broadened the regulation into a meaningful safe harbor, Democrats closed ranks and voted down the proposal – including Democrats such as Senator Mary Landrieu, who now pretends to be a crusader in the cause of letting Americans keep their insurance.

Unable to deny that millions of Americans have lost the coverage he vowed they could keep, Obama and other Democrats are now peddling what we might call the “5 percent” con job. The president asserts that these victims, whom he feels so terribly about, nevertheless constitute a tiny, insignificant minority in the greater scheme of things (“scheme” is used advisedly). They are limited, he maintains, to consumers in the individual health-insurance market, as opposed to the vastly greater number of Americans who get insurance through their employers. According to Obama, these individual-market consumers whose policies are being canceled make up only 5 percent of all health-insurance consumers.

Even this 5 percent figure is a deception. As Avik Roy points out, the individual market actually accounts for 8 percent of health-insurance consumers. Obama can’t help himself: He even minimizes his minimizations. So, if Obama were telling the truth in rationalizing that his broken promises affect only consumers in the individual-insurance market, we’d still be talking about up to 25 million Americans. While the president shrugs these victims off, 25 million exceeds the number of Americans who do not have health insurance because of poverty or preexisting conditions (as opposed to those who could, but choose not to, purchase insurance). Of course, far from cavalierly shrugging off that smaller number of people, Obama and Democrats used them to justify nationalizing a sixth of the U.S. economy.

But that’s not the half of it. Obama’s claim that unwelcome cancellations are confined to the individual-insurance market is another brazen lie. In the weekend column, I link to the excellent work of Powerline’s John Hinderaker, who has demonstrated that, for over three years, the Obama administration’s internal estimates have shown that most Americans who are covered by “employer plans” will also lose their coverage under Obamacare. Mind you, 156 million Americans get health coverage through their jobs.

John cites the Federal Register, dated June 17, 2010, beginning at page 34,552 (Vol. 75, No. 116). It includes a chart that outlines the Obama administration’s projections. The chart indicates that somewhere between 39 and 69 percent of employer plans would lose their “grandfather” protection by 2013. In fact, for small-business employers, the high-end estimate is a staggering 80 percent (and even on the low end, it’s just a shade under half — 49 percent).

That is to say: During all these years, while Obama was repeatedly assuring Americans, “If you like your health-insurance plan, you can keep your health-insurance plan,” he actually expected as many as seven out of every ten Americans covered by employer plans to lose their coverage. For small business, he expected at least one out of every two Americans, or as many as four out of every five, to lose their coverage.

Avik’s eagle eye also catches that, even as Obama was spinning on Thursday about how his broken promise affects only the teeny-weeny individual-insurance market, his administration was telling a much different story to state insurance commissioners. In a letter about Obama’s proposed “fix,” the head of the relevant consumer-information office referred to “all individuals and small businesses that received a cancellation or termination notice with respect to coverage” (emphasis added). This, Avik observes, “contradicts assertions from the administration that only people in the individual market — people who shop for coverage on their own — are affected by the wave of Obamacare-related cancellations.”

It gets worse. My friends at the American Freedom Law Center (on whose advisory board I sit) are representing Priests for Life, a group aggrieved by Obamacare’s denial of religious liberty — specifically, the ACA’s mandate that believers, despite their faith-based objections, provide their employees with coverage for the use of abortifacients and contraceptives. On October 17, the Obama Department of Health and Human Services, represented by the Obama Justice Department, submitted a brief to the federal district court in Washington, opposing Priests for Life’s summary judgment motion. On page 27 of its brief, the Justice Department makes the following remarkable assertion:

The [ACA’s] grandfathering provision’s incremental transition does not undermine the government’s interests in a significant way. [Citing, among other sources, the Federal Register.] Even under the grandfathering provision, it is projected that more group health plans will transition to the requirements under the regulations as time goes on. Defendants have estimated that a majority of group health plans will have lost their grandfather status by the end of 2013.

HHS and the Justice Department cite the same section of the Federal Register referred to by John Hinderaker, as well as an annual survey on “Employer Health Benefits” compiled by the Kaiser Family Foundation in 2012.

So, while the president has been telling us that, under the vaunted grandfathering provision, all Americans who like their health-insurance plans will be able to keep them, “period,” his administration has been representing in federal court that most health plans would lose their “grandfather status” by the end of this year. Not just the “5 percent” of individual-market consumers, but close to all consumers — including well over 100 million American workers who get coverage through their jobs — have been expected by the president swiftly to “transition to the requirements under the [Obamacare] regulations.” That is, their health-insurance plans would be eliminated. They would be forced into Obamacare-compliant plans, with all the prohibitive price hikes and coercive mandates that “transition” portends.

Obamacare is a massive fraudulent scheme. A criminal investigation should be opened. Obviously, the Obama Justice Department will not do that, but the House of Representatives should commence hearings into the offenses that have been committed in the president’s deception of the American people.

— Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior fellow at the National Review Institute. He is the author, most recently, of Spring Fever: The Illusion of Islamic Democracy.

Last week I was riding my exercise bike when I almost fell off of it laughing.  Bill O’Reilly and liberal contributor Kirsten Powers were in agreement that Obama didn’t “lie” when he made his now-infamous “if you like your health plan you can keep it.  Period” promises.  And the conservative was sputtering mad, saying, “I can’t believe you are giving [Obama] a pass.”

Kirsten Powers is a liberal, but there are moments when she opens her eyes just a little bit.  She understood the horns of the dilemma she was embracing, and stated it for the record to O’Reilly viewers.  “Giving him a pass?  We’re saying he’s incompetent.  How is that giving him a pass?”

Those are your only two options here: either Obama has no business being president, is in so far over his head it is beyond unreal, and has no idea how to run a staff or accomplish anything relating to running a government.  Or he is a demon-possessed liar.

Actually, there is a third alternative: Obama is both incompetent AND a demon possessed liar.

In any event, O’Reilly and Powers – in giving Obama the benefit of the doubt regarding his honesty and integrity – now stand proven wrong.  Yes, I agree with them that Obama is very clearly incompetent.  But the man lied through his teeth, and there isn’t enough incompetence in the world to excuse him from what he clearly had to know as not only a lawyer, not only the onetime editor of the Harvard Law Review, but “a constitutional professor” as well.

This is what Obama’s Department of Justice was arguing:

The [ACA’s] grandfathering provision’s incremental transition does not undermine the government’s interests in a significant way.  Even under the grandfathering provision, it is projected that more group health plans will transition to the requirements under the regulations as time goes on. Defendants have estimated that a majority of group health plans will have lost their grandfather status by the end of 2013.

“Group health plans” include employer-based coverage plans.  This DOJ brief is a legal document; if it is false Eric Holder needs to go to prison for that CRIME.  And Obama’s DOJ was filing this brief IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO OBAMA GOING OUT AND MISREPRESENTING THE OFFICIAL POSITION OF THE ADMINISTRATION [LYING].

The Department of Justice, in a legal court case (with Kathleen Sabelius’ Department of Health and Human Services as the defendant), officially projected that “A MAJORITY” of employer-based health plans will be “transitioned,” i.e., will be cancelled or substantially altered such that TENS OF MILLIONS OF AMERICANS WILL BE FORCED INTO OBAMACARE.

We can go back to 2010 when Republican Senator Enzi pointed this fact out and tried to pass a bill through Harry Reid’s Democrat Senate protecting Americans from this health care holocaust.  AND EVERY SINGLE DEMOCRAT VOTED TO CANCEL THE AMERICAN PEOPLE’S HEALTH CARE PLANS TO FORCE THEM INTO OBAMACARE.  PERIOD.

Consider the quote the fourth paragraph up again.  This is what Andrew McCarthy said in a discussion with Megyn Kelly last night:

KELLY: And so the administration in this case goes in and tells the court. I mean, tell us, take the legalese out of it. And tell us, that full screen we had on the board up there, what does it actually say?

MCCARTHY: What they are basically saying  is that we have this grandfather provision — they don’t say in there, by the way, that’s what the president is relying on to say if you like your health care plan you can keep your health care plan, period. We have this grandfather provision, but it’s fading away. In fact, by the end of 2013, we anticipate that most who were covered by the grandfather provision will lose their coverage.

KELLY: And they’re not just — the shocking thing about this is, they’re not just saying, and it’s only those on the individual market judge. I mean, this is in writing saying, it is most group health plans.

MCCARTHY: Megyn, that only is not true, they cite to a Kaiser study which is about employer health plans. I mean, the whole thing is about employer health plans. They cite to page in the federal register which also is about employer health plans and basically estimates that about seven of 10 people on the high end estimate who have employer health plans, these are the people who get their coverage at work are going to lose that coverage.

KELLY: Yes. We know about that piece in the federal register, we talked about that a while back. Because it was shocking when we first saw it about the estimates from the administration on how many people are going to lose their policies, or have them changed significantly under ObamaCare.  But what we have now is the Department of Justice running into court and touting it. Today, present day. Because that regulation was 2010 right after ObamaCare was passed. This is present day, them going into court and saying, trust this judge. The majority of people who have group health plans are going to be canceled.

MCCARTHY: That’s exactly right.

KELLY: What does that mean? What does canceled mean in the group health care context. It doesn’t necessarily mean the same for people who have employer-based insurance as it does for those in the individual market.

MCCARTHY: Yes, the word they used is transition. They don’t say cancel.  They do say, lose your coverage which means that you won’t have the same coverage that you have now.

KELLY: Like, we’re not breaking up. We are just transitioning into new relationships that have nothing else to do with one another.

So, yes, a good 100 million American families will lose their employer-based health coverage under ObamaCare.  And Obama knows it.  And his Department of Justice knows it.  And his Department of Health and Human Services knows it.  There are over 150 million Americans who get their coverage from their employers – and the Obama administrating was touting the fact that 70% of them would lose their plans and be forced to “transition” into ObamaCare.

The sheer, galling, rabid dishonesty of Barack Hussein Obama and all the thugs who work for him is beyond stunning.

Barack Obama has lied America into a state of complete economic collapse.  He has already lied America into the collapse of the American health care system that, in spite of liberals idiotic railings, provided the very best on planet earth such that when world leaders needed the best health care in the world, THEY CAME TO AMERICA.

As we speak, the five million Americans that Obama has written off and couldn’t give less of a damn about are in a true crisis: they have until December 15 to purchase health care plans because they were dumped due to ObamaCare regulations.  And the ObamaCare website doesn’t work, which means they can’t buy a plan even at the higher premiums and higher deductibles that ObamaCare is offering (in spite of another lie from Obama to make his plans more “affordable”).  There are people with life-threatening health issues who could literally die.  That is PRECISELY the case facing Edie Littlefield Sundby.

Thirty-six times Obama said something very similar to this on camera in front of millions of Americans:

“No matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what.”

Barack Obama has refused to hold ANYBODY accountable for ANYTHING, dating back to the Fast and Furious scandal where a US Border Patrol officer was gunned down and murdered by a Mexican drug cartel with guns that Barack Obama and Eric Holder handed to them.  Obama hasn’t held ANYBODY accountable for the fact that the first US ambassador since the despicable Carter years (1979) was murdered after BEGGING Obama for more protection in Benghazi, Libya.  We now know that Obama himself, his Secretary to the United Nations and his Secretary of State all directly lied when they claimed that the preplanned and coordinated terrorist attack was merely the haphazard result of a Youtube video.  And we KNOW that video was never part of the reason for that attack, just as we know that the Obama regime knew that at the time.  Obama hasn’t held ANYBODY accountable for the fact that his very own IRS politically attacked Obama opponents for “anti-Obama rhetoric.”  We know that Obama has refused to hold ANYBODY accountable for the incredible police-state abuses of the National Security Agency as they’ve done whatever the hell they want to spy on whoever the hell they want whether the Constitution bans it or not.  And he hasn’t held ANYBODY accountable for the abject nightmare of his “signature legislative achievement.”

We need to hold OBAMA accountable.  Or don’t you DARE ever get upset when a president lies to the people again.  This is a man who is clearly guilty of committing felony fraud by inducement – and he committed against more human beings than any leader who ever lived in all of human history.

Now we know why Obama abrogated the ObamaCare law and gave employers until AFTER the election to be held accountable to ObamaCare regulations.  Because the same Obama who knew damn well that millions of Americans would have their individual health care plans forcibly cancelled, he also knew that 100 million employees would have their health care cancelled if his abomination of health care took effect before the 2014 election.

Update, 11/22/2013:

There is absolutely ZERO question that Barack Obama KNEW that millions of Americans were going to have their health care cancelled due to ObamaCare.  This from the “Health Care Summit” back in February 25, 2010:

REPRESENTATIVE CANTOR: Well, actually, Mr. President, this is the Senate bill along with the 11-page proposal that you put up online that really I think is the basis for the discussion here.

But I do want to go back to your suggestion as to why we’re here. And you suggested that maybe we are here to find some points of agreement to bridge the gap in our differences. And I do like to go back to basics. We’re here because we Republicans care about health care just as the Democrats in this room. And when the Speaker cites her letters from the folks in Michigan and the Leader talks about the letters he has received, Mr. Andrews, his — all of us share the concerns when people are allegedly wronged in our health care system. I mean, I think that is sort of a given.

We don’t care for this bill. I think you know that. The American people don’t care for the bill. I think that we’ve demonstrated in polling that they don’t. But there is a reason why we all voted no. And it does have to do with the philosophical difference that you point out. It does have to do with our fear that if you say that Washington can be the one to define essential health benefits, there may be a problem with that. And that’s the language that’s in the Section 1302 of this bill, that it says that the Secretary shall define for people what essential health benefits are.

But let’s — in the spirit of trying to come together, let’s try and say, maybe if — if we assume that Washington could do that, could really take the place of every American and decide what is most essential, what would be the consequences? And that’s also where we have a big difference in this bill and what would happen.

First of all, the cost, and Jon Kyl laid out the tremendous cost in the nearly trillion dollars of this bill. And I don’t quite know, because CBO said it couldn’t assess how much your additions would cost to it, but we do know that there are plenty of taxes on income. Now, you suggest investment income should be taxed. We have additional taxes on medical devices and the rest. What is a consequence of that? We know there are consequences that small businesses will feel because of the impact on job creation.

But also, Mr. President, when we were here abut a year ago across the street, you started the health care summit by saying one of the promises you want to make is that people ought to be able to keep the health insurance that they have. Because as we also know, most people in this country do have insurance and an overwhelming majority of people do like that coverage; it’s just too expensive.

Well, the CBO sent a letter — I think it was to Leader Reid — about the Senate bill. And in that letter, it suggested that between 8 million and 9 million people may very well lose the coverage that they have because of this, because of the construct of this bill. That’s our concern. And so, as we are in — as we are in the market — in the section of this discussion about health insurance reform, I note, Mr. President, that you have suggested strengthening oversight of insurance premium increases. Because we want to make sure that there aren’t excessive insurance premium increases that take place.

The problem is when you start to mandate all of the essential benefits, there are going to be some insurance premium increases. None of us really want to see them. But if you stop them, who is going to pay for it? Well, then we get back to the fact that businesses won’t be able to pay for it and people are going to lose their coverage.

So I guess my question to you is, in the construct of this bill, if we want to find agreement, we really do need to set this aside. And we really do need to say, okay, the fundamental structure is something we can’t agree on, but there are certainly plenty of areas of agreement. And because I don’t think that you can answer the question in the positive to say that people will be able to maintain their coverage, people will be able to see the doctors they want in the kind of bill that you’re proposing.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, let me — since you asked me a question, let me respond. The 8 to 9 million people that you refer to that might have to change their coverage — keep in mind out of the 300 million Americans that we’re talking about — would be folks who the CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, estimates would find the deal in the exchange better. It would be a better deal. So, yes, they would change coverage, because they’ve got more choice and competition. So let’s just be clear about that, point number one.

When Obama came out and said he had no idea that 5 million people AND COUNTING would lose their health insurance because of the way his damn law was written, he is nothing but a stone cold LIAR without shame, without decency, without virtue and without integrity.

Here is the video [accessed here] of Barack Obama back in February 25, 2010 when he openly admitted what he denies right now:

Also back in 2010, Obama regime officials KNEW that nearly 100 million Americans (93 million was their number) would lose their health insurance due to ObamaCare and be forced to come crawling to Obama for their health insurance.  So he knew that his “8 to 9 million” “out of the 300 million Americans that we’re talking about” was a lie, too.

It is not enough to say that Barack Hussein Obama is a dishonest man.  He is a pathologically, rabidly dishonest man.

There is absolutely no question that Barack Obama knew that when he said, “if you like your health plan, you can keep your health plan.  Period,” he was lying through his teeth.  Period.

If Nation Defaults, It Is ENTIRELY Obama’s Fault

October 7, 2013

Today Obama went to FEMA to thank them for working without pay.  That was his pretense, anyway.  Actually, he went to get in front of a microphone and demonize Republicans some more.

Here’s a short article that sums up the situation quite nicely:

Obama thanks FEMA for work during shutdown
Posted: Oct 07, 2013 9:51 AM PDT Updated: Oct 07, 2013 9:52 AM PDT
By JOSH LEDERMAN
Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) – President Barack Obama is thanking workers at the Federal Emergency Management Agency for doing their jobs under “less than optimal circumstances” during the government shutdown.

Obama made an unannounced visit to FEMA Monday as the shutdown neared the one-week mark. Some furloughed employees at the agency were recalled last week and worked without pay to help prepare for Tropical Storm Karen.

The president said FEMA employees remain ready to respond when needed, but their jobs have been “made more difficult.” He says the shutdown may actually end up costing taxpayers more money.

Funding for FEMA was among the series of piecemeal spending bills passed by the House last week. The White House has threatened to veto the measures, saying the government should not be reopened one agency at a time.

Do you get that, stupid universe?  FEMA isn’t shut down because Republicans shut them down; because REPUBLICANS FUNDED FEMA and a lot of the rest of the government.  No, FEMA is shut down because Democrats who control the Senate won’t allow the House-passed bill to go forward, and because if anybody tries to fund FEMA and pay those workers, BARACK OBAMA WILL VETO IT.

THAT’S why FEMA is on furlough.

But we live in an age just before Obama implodes America, sends the world into depression and the beast of the Book of Revelation comes.  And so the truth has largely been replaced by demon-possessed lies.

Here’s another reason that Obama rabidly refuses to negotiate or compromise in any way, any shape or any form as we approach a debt default:

Said a senior administration official: “We are winning…It doesn’t really matter to us” how long the shutdown lasts “because what matters is the end result.”

Obama and Charlie Sheen have something in common: they’re not bi-polar; they are BI-WINNING.

That and the fact that they are both demonic people who have a truly psychotic worldview.

Obama has been shutting down things left and right for the sole purpose of making the shutdown as painful for as many people as he can.  He’s shut down WWII memorials and things like the Lincoln Memorial that have NEVER been closed during ANY of our previous government shutdowns:

The Park Service appears to be closing  streets on mere whim and caprice. The rangers even closed the parking lot at Mount Vernon, where the plantation home of George Washington is a favorite tourist  destination. That was after they barred the new World War II Memorial on the Mall to veterans of World War II. But the government does not own Mount Vernon; it is privately owned by the Mount Vernon Ladies’  Association. The ladies bought it years ago to preserve it as a national  memorial. The feds closed access to the parking lots this week, even though the  lots are jointly owned with the Mount Vernon ladies. The rangers are from the government, and they’re only here to help.

“It’s a cheap way to deal with the situation,” an angry Park  Service ranger in Washington says  of the harassment. “We’ve been told to make life as difficult for people as we  can. It’s disgusting.”

“We’ve been told – by OBAMA through his federal government demon-possessed bureaucrats – to make life as difficult for people as they possibly can.”  Quote.  And you’re damn right it’s absolutely disgusting.

Do you know that at all of these memorials that Obama has shut down for no other reason that to be petty and vindictive is that he’s using more security guards to keep the American people OUT of their monuments than were being used to just keep them open???

That was what Sen Rand Paul was mocking when he tweeted:

@BarackObama sent 7 security guards to this AM to keep out our vets. Sadly, that is 2 more than were present in Benghazi.

Obama tried to shut down the Army-Navy football game – again, for the first time EVER during one of our many government shutdowns - just because he’s a petty tyrant and that’s the kind of cheap trick that a petty tyrant does:

ANNAPOLIS, Md. –  On a beautiful fall day, the parking lot at Navy-Marine Corps Memorial Stadium was filled with fans and tailgate parties. A record crowd of 38,225 showed up Saturday for the football game between Navy and Air Force.

Navy athletic director Chet Gladchuk looked at the activity around him and smiled. After tumultuous week, he was right where he was supposed to be Saturday.

The Air Force-Navy game was in serious jeopardy on Tuesday, when the Department of Defense suspended athletic competition at the nation’s service academies because of the U.S. government shutdown. At that point, Gladchuk took action to convince the DOD that the game should be played because it was funded by non-appropriated money.

His effort paid off. Late Wednesday night, the DOD relented. [...]

“There was some concern, but I was hopeful it would happen because they’ve never canceled a Navy football game during a government shutdown,” Lang said.

“Navy athletics is privately funded,” Miles said. “The idea of them trying to cancel a game between two service academies is appalling.”

There’s another word to use to describe Obama’s thug tactics in addition to “disgusting”: “appalling.”

Obama the thug has his White House thugs and federal government thugs frantically trying to close down absolutely everything they can possibly close down just to hurt as many people as they can.  EVEN WHEN FEDERAL FUNDS AREN’T EVEN BEING USED.  Just so Obama can falsely blame Republicans even though the only part of government they basically HAVEN’T funded is demonic ObamaCare fiasco.

I recently pointed out a few other examples of just how positively VILE Obama and his Democrat stooge-thugs have been during this period.

But here’s another one that is just so utterly beyond “appalling” or “disgusting” that “vile” hardly is enough to describe it: Obama closed down the Amber alert system created to find kidnapped children before a pedophile can rape them.

And if it comes to it, believe me, Obama is thug enough and petty enough to order this, too, joke or no joke.  He’s just that demonic.

But you still haven’t grasped the true, genuine evil that is Barack Obama.  He’s actively trying to sabotage our economy just so he can blame the other party for what HE did.  Democrats are accusing Republicans of being “economic terrorists.”  But let’s take a look at our “Economic Terrorist-in-CHIEF”:

Washington (AFP) – President Barack Obama sent Wall Street a blunt warning Wednesday that it should be very worried about a political crisis that has shut down the government and could trigger a US debt default.

Obama said he was “exasperated” by the budget impasse in Congress, in an interview with CNBC apparently designed to pressure Republicans by targeting the financial community moments after markets closed.

The president then met Republican and Democratic leaders for their first talks since the US government money’s ran out and it slumped into a shutdown now well into its second day.

But few informed observers held out much hope for a sudden breakthrough.

Obama was asked in the interview whether Washington was simply gripped by just the latest in a series of political and fiscal crises which reliably get solved at the last minute.

In unusually frank comments on issues that could sway markets, Obama warned that investors should be worried.

“This time’s different. I think they should be concerned,” Obama said, in comments which may roil global markets.

“When you have a situation in which a faction is willing potentially to default on US government obligations, then we are in trouble,” Obama said.

Obama said he would not negotiate with Republicans on budget matters until House lawmakers pass a temporary financing bill to reopen federal operations and raised the $16.7 trillion dollar debt ceiling.

This is the bottom line: in a couple of weeks, America faces a debt ceiling issue.

Keep in mind that if Republicans act like Obama, they will vote against EVER raising the damn debt ceiling.  Remember what Obama said when he was a Senator to demonize George W. Bush???

“The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents – #43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic.”

And:

The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.”

That was when it was $9 trillion.  IT’S VERY NEARLY DOUBLE THAT NOW, THANKS TO OBAMA’S UTTER DEPRAVITY.

HOW WAS IT “IRRESPONSIBLE” AND “UNPATRIOTIC” TO INCREASE THE DEBT CEILING WHEN IT WAS $9 TRILLION BUT NOT SO NOW WHEN THE DEBT IS 17 TRILLION???  Other than that it isn’t fascist when Obama does it???

You need to realize something: the real crisis of this debt ceiling impasse is that America could find itself unable to make the interest payments on the debt – which would be a default on America’s perfect credit.

Do you know why that could happen?  Do you know who would be entirely to blame if that does happen?

Barack Hussein Obama, thug, liar and traitor, that’s who.

Our interest payments on the debt amount to about $25 billion a month.  That sounds like a lot, but during any shutdown or debt ceiling impasse, the United States still raises far more in taxes every single month.  And it would just be a matter of arranging to prioritize the payments on the debt and to assure the credit markets that we will be doing so in order to maintain confidence.

But Obama doesn’t want that.  He wants to create as much pain and misery and destruction as he can.  Because he wants to trot out to every single dishonest propagandist mainstream media microphone and slander the Republican Party for doing what OBAMA DID.

There is absolutely no chance of a true default if Obama does what any leader who isn’t completely morally insane would do.  It is entirely under Obama’s authority to make those interest payments.  And to complete the picture, the Republicans have already approved this and other payments.  Absolutely nobody but Obama would be to blame.

If the United States defaults on its interest payments and creates a market meltdown, it is because Obama – who could easily avoid that merely by making the interest payments that are his authority to make – wants to create a market meltdown.

And the fact of the matter is that Barack Obama is an evil enough man to make that happen.

Barack Obama has rabidly refused to negotiate.  Literally, he is the first president in the history of the republic to refuse to negotiate – in spite of his many lies to the contrary.  In fact, the debt ceiling has been raised 63 times since 1979 – and fully 27 of those times, the debt ceiling was directly linked to other issues.  For instance, in 1973, Ted Kennedy and Walter Mondale – both top national Democrats – attempted to link the debt ceiling to campaign finance reform.

And in every single case up to now, the president was enough of a grown-up to NEGOTIATE AND BE WILLING TO COMPROMISE.

I am so sick of Obama’s and his administration’s constant spewing of outright lies.

If the Republicans follow the example set by the president, they will likewise refuse to negotiate and allow the country to slide off a cliff.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 493 other followers