Critical Obama Supreme Court Nomination Fact Confirmed: Every Single Democrat In America Is A Pathologically Dishonest HYPOCRITE

I wrote about this once before (and have introduced a great many new facts that have appeared since then), but I will write about this again now that Obama has actually done it and officially started yet another vicious political fight by nominating a pick for the Supreme Court.  Today Obama nominated Merrick Brian Garland for the SCOTUS.

And then I’ll just rant on Democrats for awhile because it’s just so easy to do given the abject despicable moral hypocrites these people truly are.

Again, the Republican Party position is rather simple: Obama’s pick be damned because: a) the Democrats themselves have in their own repeated history justified ignoring Obama’s pick and b) because the American people ought to have the right to decide which Supreme Court Justice enters the SCOTUS by being able to vote for the president who makes that selection as well as the Senate who gets to confirm it within the short span of less than eight months.

Obama in his lame-duck status should not have the right to “fundamentally transform” America by “fundamentally transforming” the composition and subsequent philosophy of the Supreme Court this close to an election in which the American people would be able to say aye or nay to their own future path.

Let me further state that for Obama to wrap himself in the mantle of righteous outrage as the protector of all things Supreme Court is a JOKE given his record in which he’s been slammed down by unanimous SCOTUS decisions against him more than, well, anyone.  Humorously, the only other president who begins to compare to Obama’s pathetic toll of unanimous Supreme Court decisions against him was one William Jefferson Clinton.  Because there’s just something FASCIST in the water that Democrat presidents drink.

This just really and truly boggled the mind when I heard Obama was doing this several weeks ago:

Megyn Kelly stated Thursday evening on The Kelly File that she can find no instance in history where a sitting president of the United States has failed to attend the funeral of a sitting Supreme Court Justice. It’s an unprecedented move on the part of Obama, who once again fails to uphold his duty as president, represent the country and set an example for the American people.

I admit that I didn’t agree with the whole “car czar” program, but I finally agree with something that Obama’s handpicked car czar, Steven Rattner, said:

“If we want to reduce partisanship, we can start by honoring great public servants who we disagree with.”

But Barack Obama, our Divider-in-Chief, showed once again that he has nothing but DISHONOR in his wicked soul.

Obama thus becomes the very first American president to shirk attending a funeral of a sitting Supreme Court Justice while simultaneously  demanding that he has the divine right of kings and gods to be able to replace that Justice on the Court.  All I can say is  that I suppose history continues unbroken – BECAUSE BARACK OBAMA IS NOT AN AMERICAN PRESIDENT; HE IS AN UNAMERICAN PRESIDENT.

Obama basically told us that himself in his own biography, which he titled “Dreams FROM My Father.”  He’s not referring to dreams that he had of his father; rather he’s referring to the dreams that his father bequeathed him.  And what were Barack Obama Sr.’s dreams?  He was a MARXIST who despised countries like America.  Dinesh D’Souza very clearly documents the content of the terrible and un-American dreams that Barack Obama received from his pathologically dishonest communist daddy.

There is no question that it is technically true – and all sides affirm that fact – that Obama has “the constitutional right” to nominate someone for the Supreme Court if there is a vacancy.  Just as I have the similar constitutional right to walk into any black establishment and scream the N-word over and over and over again according to my 1st Amendment rights.  But 1) the mere fact that you have the “right” to do something doesn’t mean you ought to do it.  I have the righto to step in front of a damn bus, but if I have any brains I would realize that those brains would be splattered allover the pavement and there are consequences to my exercising my rights.  And 2) Obama had every bit as much of a right and a duty to honor the Justice he was demanding to replace at his funeral.  And he didn’t bother to show, so why should the Senate bother to show up to his nominee’s hearing???  How about instead if the U.S. Senate treats Merrick Garland the same damn way Obama treated Antonin Scalia and just refuses to show up even when they – just like Obama – easily could have done so in the name of “bipartisanship”???

Bipartisanship isn’t a river and it doesn’t flow in one direction; if you want it you have to give it.  Barack Obama is in the final year of his two-term presidency and he NEVER ONCE acted like he ever understood that or cared about even trying to understand it.  And please stop stupidly pretending otherwise, liberals.  Because to whatever extent you can show Republican representatives or senators not being properly bipartisan in a way that I can’t easily document YOUR representatives and senators not likewise being, please understand that it is uniquely a president’s duty to rise above that – and there is absolutely no question that Obama sank to new depths rather than rose to new heights in the partisan wars that he mostly ignited and inflamed with both his hostile words and his tyrannous actions.

If that isn’t enough, and frankly it is already, there is also a sacred constitutional principle called “the separation of powers.”  Each branch of government is co-equal and has the right to make its own rules that inform and govern its conduct within the Constitution.

And so also for the record, the United States Senate has the constitutional right and duty to “advise and consent” on ANY presidential nomination.  The Senate in this process has every bit as much of a constitutional right NOT to do something as Obama has to do it.  In fact, anyone who understands history should KNOW that: James Madison called the Senate “the great anchor” that dragged and prevented bad things from happening; George Washington called the Senate a cooling chamber, such as was used to cool down tea that was too hot.  The Senate as a body was more designed to prevent things from happening than it was designed to do things.  And therefore the Senate likewise has the right and duty to ADVISE Obama NOT to exploit this death by nominating anyone and the right and duty to absolutely REFUSE to consent to anybody Obama nominates.

This is called a basic fact of American history.

The SAME Constitution that gives a president the right to nominate a Supreme Court Justice to fill a vacancy gives the Senate the right to say, “Up yours!” to a presidential nomination.

As a Senator himself, Barack Obama FILIBUSTERED a Republican nominee to the Supreme Court:

However, the truth is that, when they were senators, Obama, Biden, and Clinton all tried to filibuster Justice Alito’s nomination to the court – and other Democratic party leaders such as NY Senator Chuck Schumer reveled in the idea that they were able to block every Bush #43 nomination to the federal courts.

We also have the example of Obama’s vice president, Joe Biden who in 1992 said when there was just a POSSIBILITY that George H.W. Bush MIGHT be able to nominate a Supreme Court Justice:

“It is my view that if the president goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and Johnson and presses an election year nomination the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until ever — until after the political campaign season is over.” — Sen. Joe Biden, June 25, 1992

President George H.W. Bush was in office until January 20, 1993.  So Biden didn’t even say this in a presidential election year – the way it is now with Obama demanding the divine right to replace Scalia – rather Biden said this applied even in the year BEFORE the election year.

So all you’ve got to do is just refer to this as “the Biden Rule.”  But it’s a rule and it was started by Democrats.  And now they’re screaming at us for following THEIR rules.

And so let the Democrats hang on their own petard.

Democrats have a LONG history of doing the very thing they now claim is so evil:

While Democrats in the upper chamber – including Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York and former Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, both of which called for blocking former President George W. Bush’s nominations – have slammed the GOP for its decision not to consider a nominee until after a new president is elected, Democrats have not always held that stance. The Democrat-controlled Senate passed a resolution in 1960 preventing a recess appointment, much to the dismay of Republicans.

As first reported by The Washington Post – S.RES. 334, also known as Expressing the Sense of the Senate That The President Should Not Make Recess Appointments to the Supreme Court, Except to Prevent or End a Breakdown in the Administration of the Court’s Business – passed the Senate in a 48-33 vote in an attempt to prevent former President Dwight Eisenhower from filling a seat last-minute.

Democrats have frequently played this same game.   New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, now the Senate Minority Leader and leader of all the Senate Democrats, said when a Republican was president that the Senate should not confirm another U.S. Supreme Court nominee under President Bush “except in extraordinary circumstances.”

“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer told the American Constitution Society convention in Washington. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.”

And so this incredibly dishonest claim from Obama and the Democrats is so much nonsense it is beyond unreal: if anything, it IS unprecedented, other than all the damn times THEY did the very thing they now so loudly and dishonestly and hypocritically insist that Republicans would be violating sacred precedent to do.

If you are a Democrat, you are an evil being who belongs to the Party of Evil Beings.  Period.  There is nothing honest about you, or decent about you, or virtuous about you whatsoever.  You are a moral cockroach.

Here’s another thing: the Senate is now firmly in Republican hands (after disgraceful Democrats were caught being evil maybe a million times too often).  But when Democrats owned the Senate, they shoved their crap right down the Republicans’ throats and changed the damn Senate rules to do it with a process that was so toxic to the Constitution that it was called “the nuclear option.”

On November 21, 2013, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid declared that “unbelievable, unprecedented obstruction” by Republican filibusters had made the confirmation process “completely unworkable.”^[1] As a result, he said, Democrats were forced to eliminate virtually all nomination filibusters. […]

For nearly all of its history, proceeding to a final vote on a matter before the Senate required a supermajority.

But not when Democrats stole the show.  No, no, no, the rules of all propriety and decency and civility go right out the damn window every damn time it pleases them.  Just like the Nazi Party and Jews, the Democrat Party calls the Republicans “evil” and then justifies the most wildly partisan and cynical “final solutions.”

Ever since the Supreme Court became a “super legislature” thanks to the wicked Democrat Party, where they ruled by imposing massive societal change by finding “penumbras and emanations” that justified whatever the HELL they wanted to do, the SCOTUS has become a political branch.  And Obama just started another vicious war while blathering dishonest words that he was somehow above doing the very thing he is clearly doing.

And oh, I can go on.  The Democratic Party is the party that turned the name of a Supreme Court nominee into a verb by so utterly pouring out their demonic hate to poison the nomination that the process became known as “Borking.”  It had never been done before the Party of Cockroach Fascism started it.  This infamous Ted Kennedy slander was the worst of the slanders:

“Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists would be censored at the whim of government, and the doors of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is often the only protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy.”

Robert Bork was a good man and eminently qualified to sit on the Court.  But Democrats are truly breathtakingly evil and hypocritical people.

And so, all the Obama crap about it being beyond the pale for a Senate to treat a nomination to the Supreme Court this way, all I can say in response is eat my fecal matter right out of the toilet bowl, you wicked hypocrite LIAR.

NO Democrat EVER has the right to question how Republicans treat a Supreme Court nominee or the entire nomination process after the same Democrats who have themselves refused to prevent appointments or allow confirmations of SCOTUS nominees also crawled into the gutter and invented the process of “borking” qualified nominees.

Speaking of “being qualified,” Barack Obama actually openly ACKNOWLEDGED that Judge Roberts was qualified.  But that didn’t MATTER then:

Obama admitted that Roberts was eminently qualified. He praised him highly.

“There is absolutely no doubt in my mind Judge Roberts is qualified to sit on the highest court in the land. Moreover, he seems to have the comportment and the temperament that makes for a good judge. He is humble, he is personally decent, and he appears to be respectful of different points of view. It is absolutely clear to me that Judge Roberts truly loves the law. He couldn’t have achieved his excellent record as an advocate before the Supreme Court without that passion for the law…”

But, no he wasn’t going to vote for him anyway.

“I ultimately have to give more weight to his deeds and the overarching political philosophy that he appears to have shared with those in power than to the assuring words that he provided me in our meeting. The bottom line is this: I will be voting against John Roberts’ nomination.”

In short, Obama chose to vote against Roberts because of his perceived conservative politics. Nothing else.

I mean, understand this in terms of what Obama said today as I write this:

“To suggest that someone as qualified and respected as Merrick Garland doesn’t even deserve a hearing, let alone an up-or-down vote, to join an institution as important as our Supreme Court, when two-thirds of Americans believe otherwise — that would be unprecedented,”

Gag me.  Just gag me.  It might have been “unprecedented” if it hadn’t been for YOU, Obama, you miserable roach.

Okay, so I just recorded the FACT that Obama voted AGAINST John Roberts EVEN AFTER HIMSELF ACKOWLEDGING THAT ROBERTS WAS “ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT IN MY MIND” QUALIFIED TO BE A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE.  Not only that, but Obama actually joined in a FILIBUSTER ATTEMPT to prevent Judge Samuel Alito’s nomination from ever seeing the light of day.  And the fact that the man is sitting on the SCOTUS this very day is historical proof that Alito was “qualified” to sit on the bench.

So in other words, just treat this guy Merrick Garland the same damn way that our Hypocrite-in-Chief treated Republican-appointed judges to the court when HE was a nothing Senator.  That and just burn in hell, hypocrites.

Republicans have the SAME right and duty to reject any judge Obama nominates simply because they don’t agree with Obama’s “overarching political philosophy.”  Period.  And you people are nothing but cockroach vile hypocrites to say otherwise.

In the same vein, Obama said in the same speech:

“At a time when our politics are so polarized, at a time when norms and customs of political rhetoric and courtesy and comity are so often treated like they’re disposable, this is precisely the time when we should play it straight,” Mr. Obama told an audience

And maybe, just maybe, our politics are so divided right now because the current occupant of the White House degenerated discourse to the point where he actually slandered Republicans by claiming that Republicans were actively trying to seek dirtier air, dirtier water, less people with health insurance.  Obama actually slandered Republicans by insinuating that they wanted to kill off “grandparents who couldn’t afford to go to nursing homes, poor children with Down syndrome, and autism, and the profoundly disabled.” As the US News & World Report article points out, Obama is literally willing to say ANYTHING when it comes to viciously slandering his opponents.

Obama is our Thug-in-Chief who actually said when HE was a candidate for president, “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” is now actually hypocrite enough to criticize Donald Trump – who correct me if I’m wrong but I don’t recall ever having commanded his followers to shoot their opponents with guns – for his “violence.”

But oh, when Obama dishonestly and hypocritically starts blathering patently false words about “courtesy and comity,” we are supposed to saw off the top of our skulls and scoop out our damn brains and believe this lying turd.

Or how about instead I realize that our politics are polarized because Barack Obama is a wicked man who polarized them, and then say, “Right back down your scrawny little weasel neck, you liar!”

I came across something Wednesday night that is just so illustrative of the left: I saw an article from USA Today titled, “Clinton Caught On Hot Mic Unknowingly Shares Good Things.”  And I’m thinking, what sweetness and light did Hillary Clinton share in her hot mic moment?  And I clicked on it obviously assuming that she’d said something nice and positive about somebody.

LIE.  Here’s all the article revealed about Clinton’s hot mic comments as Clinton talked to leftist propagandist Chris Matthews:

“You guys can’t stop covering (Trump),” Clinton said to Matthews. “He is a dangerous presence.”

Matthews seemed to put the onus on the viewer. “Nobody can tell what people want to watch,” he said. “They laugh at him.”

The conversation then shifted to Christie, with Clinton asking why he’s supporting Trump. “Did he have a debt?” she asked.

Seriously.  There were NO “good things” at all.  Unless you’re a hater to the nth power.  Does anyone seriously think for one second that Donald Trump thought that “dangerous presence” remark was a “good thing”?  Do you think Chris Christie thought Clinton’s mockery was?  Do you think ANY of Trump’s supporters think it was a “good thing”?

I’m just saying that the leftist media characterizing Clinton’s obviously polarizing and hostile comments to Donald Trump as a “good thing” reveals something that is just psychopathic in its delusion about the left in general.  Obviously, I say negative things about people; but I have the ability that Democrats very clearly lack to realize that I’m saying negative things rather than “good things.”  For some bizarre reason that again I can only see as a psychotic disconnect from reality, Democrats believe that Obama is this positive spirit when he has said so many hateful things about the Republican Party it is beyond unreal.  And I will challenge any Democrat out there to post all the hateful remarks George W. Bush made about the left and I’ll post all the hateful remarks Barack Obama has made about the right, and we’ll just see right quick who is the “positive spirit” and who is the true hater.  And I can guarantee you, Democrat, you won’t be happy with the result.  Because George W. Bush was for the most part a gracious man, whereas Barack Obama has been far too often a dark, bitter, hateful man who has stirred up rage in this nation as no other president before him.

The Bible teaches that Satan masquerades as an angel of light (2 Corinthians 11:4).  I don’t think the devil wears his angel of light costume as mere disguise; rather, this warped, ugly, deluded, hateful being actually thinks of himself that way.  He’s the good guy and God is evil.  Just as Democrats who worship homosexual perversion on an altar of murdered babies think that God is evil for being so intolerant for being opposed to the holocaust of His babies and of fatherhood in general, or to the perversion against nature itself that homosexuality truly is.

And who is the dark, evil, perverted force?  It’s the people who believe that human beings are of incommensurate, literally infinite value, who value LIFE.  It’s the people who honor God and pursue His ways.  And that is just one of the many ways that Democrats are the living embodiment of Isaiah 5:20 – “Woe to those who say that evil is good and good is evil, that dark is light and light is dark, that bitter is sweet and sweet is bitter.”

You people literally have NO idea whatsoever what a dark and bitter and divisive force that you are.  You keep pushing and pushing and imposing and imposing; you shove homosexual marriage down our throats when no civilization in the entire history of the human race had ever done such an evil thing; just as you shoved abortion down our throats when likewise all of human history viewed children as a good thing for society and NEVER an evil thing.  And then after shoving these things down our throats – and I can go on, ObamaCare, the massive and foolish $862 billion “stimulus” that was actually a $3.27 trillion waste of money, pretty much ALL of Obama’s executive power-grabs, the dozens of times Obama has been voted down unanimously by the Supreme Court for his illegitimate and immoral power grabs, etc. – you call us “obstructionists” and “intolerant” just for standing in the way of your pursuit of hell.  Because change is good, after all.

Well, Donald Trump sure represents “change,” all right; and all of a sudden it’s a marvelous thing to be obstructionist and intolerant of change.

It is an amazing thing, how this label “obstructionist” has persisted throughout the liberal propaganda media for these years of Obama.  There was a time when Democrats controlled all three branches of elected government, and the Republicans couldn’t do anything.  But due to the Democrats’ unpopular and failed vision, the GOP won first the House and then the Senate.  We dominate in governors and in state governments.  But even now when they have firm control of two out of the three elected branches of government, they are STILL called “obstructionist,” because liberals believe with all their hearts that Obama is a Führer if not a god, and that to deny him anything amounts to unholy blasphemy.

There is frankly no other explanation for this; because when Democrats were the ones in the same exact position, they had a decidedly different view.

This article represents a classic example of this being not uncharacteristic, but ENTIRELY in harmony with the twisted, deluded, pathologically hypocrite roaches Democrats are.

But Democrats are the kind of people who say – and more frighteningly actually believe – “It’s never fascist when we do exactly what we accuse you of being fascist for doing.”

Yes, yes, good things.  Nothing but sweetness and light.  I mean, how can you imagine any “bad things” coming out of this rabid, toxic, vile witch???

If you are a Democrat, I call you out as a Nazi because you are TEN TIMES as murderous as the Nazis ever were, you baby butchering monsters.  Sixty million babies have been murdered with every single Democrat held to account for that Holocaust of life.  Even just as the Nazi brownshirts, you are utterly rife with homosexual perversion.  And in the same manner, you are about a thousand times the hypocrites that they were.  And so no thank you to your Supreme Court appointment who would make even more of that hell possible.

The Republican majority Senate will do what the hell it wants and the Democrat minority will shut the hell up.  By the Democrats’ own damn rules.  And if Obama and Democrats now say those rules were wrong, then Obama and Democrats should kindly burn in hell for having imposed them in the first place.

If Obama gave a flying damn about the unity of the United States that he has so fractured and broken that on the Republican side we have Donald Trump and on the Democratic side we have socialist Bernie Sanders, he would yield in this election year and allow the incoming president to nominate a Justice with the support of a majority of the people.

But Obama DOESN’T give a flying damn about uniting America.  That was, as I pointed out only months into his dishonest presidency, merely one of his signature lies.

Obama has broken and torn any hope for unity in this nation apart by his wicked rule.  And because of Barack Obama and because of the vote and support of every single Democrat who sided with Obama in the most cynically ideological and divisive wars this nation has ever seen since Democrats started the damn Civil War in 1861, this nation will be at one another’s throats until it burns to the ground.

So LET this nation burn due to your continued pushing toward more and more divisiveness, Obama, but we will NOT be ruled by a tyrant one more minute.  I want nothing whatsoever to DO with a nation whose God is NOT the LORD, and I demand that Republicans stand up in the name of the last decent American citizen left – even if there is only ONE of us left – and stop Obama from appointing another tyrannous judge who will strip away my God-given and constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms.

It is just another amazing lie from the party of amazing liars that we’re told that Merrick Garland is a “moderate” when his own judicial history betrays him as anything but.  But to be a Democrat means to have no part in the truth.

 

 

If You Were REALLY A Liberal, You’d Vote Straight-Ticked Republican. Here’s Why.

There are a lot of people – and I’m one of them – who find it distasteful to have to describe my opponents as “liberals.”  They AREN’T “liberal” in the political sense.

Liberalism in the classical sense – and I’M a liberal in that sense – has nothing whatsoever to do with modern American “liberals.”

Note the definition of classical liberalism:

Classical liberalism is a political philosophy and ideology belonging to liberalism in which primary emphasis is placed on securing the freedom of the individual by limiting the power of the government. The philosophy emerged as a response to the Industrial Revolution and urbanization in the 19th century in Europe and the United States.^[1] It advocates civil liberties with a limited government under the rule of law, private property rights, and belief in laissez-faire economic liberalism.^[2][3][4] Classical liberalism is built on ideas that had already arisen by the end of the 18th century, including ideas of Adam Smith, John Locke, Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Malthus, and David Ricardo. It drew on a psychological understanding of individual liberty, natural law, utilitarianism, and a belief in progress.^[5]

Do modern American “liberals” want limited government?  No, they want the opposite; they are the OPPOSITE of liberals.  Do they want to emphasize private property rights?  Do they believe in laissez-faire free markets?  Do they believe in individual liberty and natural law?  Absolutely not.  Do Democrats believe in “progress” in this classical sense?  No.  In fact they demonize it as evil:

This painting (circa 1872) by John Gast called American Progress, is an allegorical representation of the modernization of the new west. Here Columbia, a personification of the United States, leads civilization westward with American settlers, stringing telegraph wire as she sweeps west; she holds a school book as well. The different stages of economic activity of the pioneers are highlighted and, especially, the changing forms of transportation.^[1]

So-called “liberals” don’t want ANY of the things that actual, real liberalism embraces.

What modern American “liberals” actually are is “fascist.”

The only component of “fascism” that is NOT directly embraced by the modern American left is the doctrine of racism, which of course these leftists exploit to demonize their opponents.  I submit that yes, in face, modern American “liberals” ARE racist and exploit race and race-baiting and racial politics at every turn to document their racism.  And I submit that “fascism” and “racism” do not need to be connected in any way.  As an example, while Nazi fascism was fundamentally racist, Italian fascism was NOT.

So, while I submit that modern American “liberals” are in fact even fascist in the NAZI sense – and if there were a “National Socialist American Workers Party” you’re d damn FOOL if you don’t believe it would be the Democrat Party in America today – let’s exclude that from our calculus.  Because when it comes to all the other criteria for membership as a fascist – belief in a leader with dictatorial powers, belief in the exaltation of the state, belief in the right of the state to dictate to corporations what should be produced and at what price produced goods should be sold, belief in “corporatism” in which people organize into groups a la unions that then negotiate with other groups within the dominance of the state to make “progress” in the fascist sense of “progress,” belief in the power of the state to extend its influence into every sphere of society – modern American liberals are not only fascist but enthusiastically fascist.

Let me quote a remark the Hollywood liberal actress Gwyneth Paltrow recently made at a fundraiser she hosted for our so-called “Democrat” president:

“It would be wonderful if we were able to give this man all of the power that he needs to pass the things that he needs to pass.”

That’s right.  If the Führer only had more power, he’d be a much better Führer.  And think how wonderful the world would be.

The only problem is that’s actually been tried as socialists banded together in Germany under a man to whom they gave all of the power that he needed to pass the things that he needed to pass.

Now, some liberal is going to come here and say that it’s unfair to associate liberals with this big-time major liberal who just hosted a major fundraiser for Obama.  Kind of like all the Democrats running for re-election saying its unfair to associate them with Obama after they spent the last six years voting with Obama an average of 95% of the damn time.  But in fact Gwyneth Paltrow is not some idiot bimbo here, but an informed leftist describing the mindset of intellectual leftism here.  Let me quote a great liberal of a former era – in fact the Godfather of American liberalism – H.G. Wells:

In a talk at Oxford provocatively titled “Liberal Fascism,” he called for liberalism to be “born again.” After his customary denunciation of parliamentary politics as an anachronism, he let out his frustrations, calling for fascist means to serve liberal ends by way of a liberal elite as “conceited” and as power-hungry as its rivals. “I suggest that you study the reinvigoration of Catholicism by Loyola,” Wells said. “I am asking for a Liberal Fascisti.” It was also to Communism that “we shall have to turn—we outsiders, that is, the young people with foresight for enlightened Nazis; I am proposing that you consider the formation for a greater Communist Party; a western response to Russia.”

Wells thought he had found that Western response in 1934, when he met with President Franklin D. Roosevelt and with key members of FDR’s Brains Trust. “My impression of both him and Mrs. Roosevelt,” he wrote, “is that they are unlimited people, entirely modern in the openness of their minds and the logic of their actions.” Here, for a time at least, was another political hero with whom he could identify wholeheartedly. FDR was “continually revolutionary in the new way without ever provoking a stark revolutionary crisis,” wrote the ever-certain Wells. “I do not say that the President has these revolutionary ideas in so elaborate and comprehensive a form as they have come to me, [but] unless I misjudge him, they will presently possess him altogether.” Indeed, FDR was “the most effective transmitting instrument possible for the coming of the new world order,” and in Brains Trusters Raymond Moley, Felix Frankfurter, and Rex Tugwell, Wells found the nucleus of the new elite, those who were destined to take full power in time.

Consider another of the great fathers of modern American liberalism, Woodrow Wilson:

“If any trait bubbles up in all one reads about Wilson,” rites the historian Walter McDougall, “it is this: he loved, craved, and in a sense glorified power.”

Wilson’s fascination with power is the leitmotif of his whole career.  It informed his understanding of theology and politics, and their intersection.  Power was God’s instrument on earth and therefore was always to be revered.  In Congressional Government he admitted, “I cannot imagine power as a thing negative and not positive.”  Such love of power can be found in many systems and men outside the orbit of fascism, but few ideologies or aesthetics are more directly concerned with the glory of might, will, strength, and action.  — Modern Fascism, by Jonah Goldberg, p. 84

Gwynet Paltrow simply stated what is necessarily true about what modern American “liberals” believe and HAVE believed.

Now with that awareness of ACTUAL American “liberal” history, consider Obama.  Consider the massive, sweeping executive orders that the man has passed by dictatorial fiat.

This is a president who has been smacked down by UNANIMOUS Supreme Court rulings condemning his totalitarian power grabs THIRTEEN TIMES.  That has NEVER happened in the entire history of our republic.

Just as a Senate Majority leader seizing more power to block amendments than all the previous Senate Majority Leaders COMBINED TIMES TWO has never happened before.

We live in an age of raw, distilled FASCISM that is coming out of the Democrat Party.

As we speak, Obama is waiting until after the election – because otherwise he would be held accountable for his raw, naked fascist power-grab – to give amnesty to as many as 34 million “future Democrat voters.”

Fascist.

I was nearing the end of my long walk two nights ago and was walking in the parking lot of a gym that I belonged to.  I was four-tenths of a mile from my home in a public place.  A police officer flashed me with his lights and demanded I show my ID.

As I gave the officer my information I gave him a piece of my mind, pointing out that I don’t have the right to walk near my house in a public area in the parking lot of an establishment that I am a member of without being required to produce identification.  But I can vote for the God damned president of the God damned United States – and I used that then as now as a technical term to denote the damnation of this president and the country he represents by the God of the Bible – without being required to produce any identification whatsoever.  And that this is a patently immoral and fascist system.

I mentioned the shenanigans that were taking place as we speak in Colorado and other states by fascists who have bought and rigged the system.

The officer said he completely agreed with me.  “What can we do?” He asked me.

I didn’t have an answer.  Democracy has been perverted by perverted, fascist people with a perverted, fascist end and a perverted, fascist means to achieve that perverted, fascist end.  Because these are the last days and the beast is coming.

As much as the left demonizes the Koch brothers, they are not even ON the list of the top fifty political donors with said list leaning overwhelmingly DEMOCRAT.

Right now, with Obama so far down in the polls and so unpopular with Democrats running for office that Chris Matthews was forced to state on MSNBC:

“It’s like Obama has ebola.”

Obama has “moral Ebola.”  He is a wicked man with a wicked ideology and a wicked means to attain his wicked ends.

But filthy rich leftist who demonize the other side for giving any money to support their values have pumped MILLIONS into the Democrat Party attack machine to try to buy elections.  The money is coming almost entirely from the uber rich because every poll is demonstrating that the Republican base is FAR more energized than the Democrat base.  So where the hell else is the damn money coming from?  Because it sure as hell isn’t coming from the rank and file.

Obama was the first major candidate in history to refuse federal matching funds as he raised over a billion dollars.  It was Barack Obama and the Democrat Party who fundamentally perverted and broke the campaign finance system.

Democrats KNOW they’re liars as they demonize Republicans as being responsible for elections being bought when THEY’RE THE ONES WHO INVENTED IT AND THEY’RE THE ONES WHO ARE DOING IT TO THE TUNE OF TWENTY-TO-ONE.  Look again at the damn list of donors, the numbers, the amounts.

You liberals say you want money out of politics.  Because you are incredibly cynical hypocrites and liars and frauds.

And if these hypocrites and  liars and frauds can’t buy their elections, they’ll do it with fraud.  Because they will stop at nothing to impose their fascist agenda on America any more than Obama will let Congress or the Constitution stop him from imposing his fascist agenda on the American people with the most sweeping and far-reaching and illegal executive order power-grabs in history.

That is why they so rabidly and so militantly oppose ANY ATTEMPT WHATSOEVER NO MATTER HOW REASONABLE IT IS to have any kind of voter identification whatsoever.

I keep hearing Democrats saying there’s no evidence of voter fraud.  WHEN YOU CAN’T CHECK IDs, HOW THE HELL CAN YOU EVER PROVE ANY KIND OF VOTER FRAUD???

Remember refusing to say whether she voted for Obama?  Remember how she punted to some higher principle of being allowed to cast your vote privately rather than admit something that would hurt her as she runs for an office in which all of her votes would necessarily be public when she herself proudly declared that she had voted for Hillary in the primary???  Democrats do the same thing when they punt to some higher principle of voting and that it is immoral to in any way suppress voter turnout.  BECAUSE THEY ARE DOING EVERYTHING THEY CAN TO SUPPRESS THE REPUBLICAN VOTE.

Democrats are on the record desperately searching for “effective messaging to degrade Republican enthusiasm” and thus keep Republicans out of the voting booths.  That from the TOP donor in American politics who by himself contributed more than the top 31 Republican donors COMBINED.

Get off your damned high-horse when you talk about voter suppression, you so-called “liberal.”

So allow me to simply state it as a bald FACT: if you want money out of politics, you vote straight-ticket REPUBLICAN.  Or you’re a hypocrite and a liar like the fascist party you support is a bunch of hypocrites and liars.

Here’s another one.  Do you want “transparency”???

Then don’t you DARE vote for a single damn Democrat.

First of all, let’s talk about the Obama administration’s “transparency.”

Oh, wait.  There ISN’T any.  As even leftist writers in “Democracy Now!” openly admit.  Barack Obama is “the least transparent president in American history.”

An Associated Press analysis called the Obama administration “the least transparent in 2013.”  You get to 2o14 and the change of year was just “One more reason why the Obama administration is the least transparent EVER.”

But let’s move beyond the fact that the Democrat Party machine is the party of opaque fascism.

Let’s move to expose “liberalism” itself as an ideology as being inherently non-transparent.

As a blogger who is openly partisan, I know what it’s like to encounter facts that are either unpleasant to me or hostile to my point-of-view.  And the tendency is to simply ignore it and refuse to talk about it.  And the more rabidly partisan you are, the more you will refuse to deal with facts that you don’t like.

Which is what the mainstream media is doing with the mid-term elections.

When Bush was unpopular, the “news” covered Bush’s unpopularity with glee.  Now that Obama’s every bit as unpopular, all we hear is the crickets chirping.

When Republicans were in danger, the media rushed in to cover the story massively in hopes of finishing Republicans off.  Now that its Democrats in trouble, SILENCE.  ABC ran 36 stories on the 2006 mid-term elections.  How many have they ran now that Democrats are in danger?  ZERO.

You find that a decidedly liberal partisan political agenda outstrips and outweighs any objective reporting of the news by a SIX-TO-ONE MARGIN – 159 stories then when Democrats were ascendant to 15 stories now when Republicans are ascendant.

The mainstream media is nothing short of a Democrat fascist propaganda machine that reports what the Democrat Party wants them to report the way the Democrat Party wants them to report it.

History overwhelmingly proves that if you want a media that will investigate and report on the activities of a presidency and a political party, you will vote to ensure that that president and those politicians are REPUBLICAN.  Because otherwise the fascist so-called “liberal” media will NOT investigate and will NOT report the facts.

So if you’re in any way an honest person and you want openness and transparency, you will NEVER vote Democrat.

Of course, the fact of the matter is that Democrats DO NOT want openness or transparency.  They most certainly do NOT want money out of politics.  They do NOT want any of the things that actual “liberals” would want and in fact they want what only FASCISTS want.  Which is why they vote the way they do for the people who do what the Democrat Party machine does.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Elijah Cummings’ (Incredibly Hypocritical) Rant And What It Means Post-Obama. It Means The Beast Is Coming.

Listen to what Cummings says when Lois Lerner documented that she is a criminal who knows she is a criminal and would be prosecuted as a criminal if she told what happened when she was at the IRS obeying Obama’s orders to use the agency to target nearly 300 conservative organizations:

 “For the past year, the central Republican accusation,” Rep. Elijah Cummings said just before his microphone was cut. “This investigation has been a political collusion directed against the White House.”  When Rep. Darrell Issa got up to leave, Rep. Elijah Cummings exploded.

“If you would sit down and allow me to ask a question,” Rep Elijah Cummings said.  “I am a member of the Congress of the United States of America. I am tired of this. We have members over here each who [sic] represents seven hundred thousand people. You cannot just have a one-sided investigation. There is absolutely something wrong with that and it’s absolutely un-American.”

Well, dude, I’d say you WERE entitled to some kind of right to speak as a United States Congressman.  I’d say you DID have a right to something that wasn’t totally “one-sided.”  But that was before Obama.  Now, because of YOUR party, the Democrats, it most certainly is not true now and will almost certainly never be true again.

Hey, did the Democrats allow Republican representation in a health care law that essentially amounted to a hostile takeover of the government and therefore the private sector by socialists who were hell bent on “controlling the people” and ramming their takeover through with only Democrat votes and using all the procedural gimmickry and by just one (bought) vote if necessary?  How about “not”?

NOT ONE SINGLE REPUBLCIAN IN EITHER THE HOUSE OR THE SENATE VOTED FOR OBAMACARE.  Democrats shoved it down Republicans’ throats.   All of their concerns were ignored.  All of their suggestions were ignored.  The only people Democrats bargained with were a) other Democrats who had to be bribed to vote for the godawful bill; b) unions; and c) the health industry in order to either get their cooperation or stifle their complaints.  Republicans were entirely left out.  Just as YOU should be left out now, Elijah Cummings.

How about Obama’s massive $862 billion stimulus package that only “stimulated” the massive expansion and power of socialist government rather than the economy?  How many Republicans voted for that vile piece of legislation in your House again, Elijah?  What’s that?  Could you say that louder, please?  That’s right, ZERO.

You rammed that garbage down our throats and you didn’t give one lousy damn if it bothered us, either.

And Obama told so many damn lies to pimp that bill that it is downright demonic.

I have seen in Barack Obama the very worst demagogue in all of American history, easily dwarfing McCarthy and his “McCarthyism.”  And I tell you that Obama has spent more time demonizing Republicans than McCarthy ever did demonizing communists.

Oh, but now suddenly it’s “un-American” to treat Democrats the way Democrats have been treating Republicans since Obama took office and began destroying America.  It certainly isn’t “un-American” to take over the nation’s entire health care system on a giant lie, though.  Because that would make YOU and all your Democrats “un-American,” wouldn’t it, Elijah???

Barack Obama has so divided and fractured this nation with his über-hard-core fascist socialism and his radical moral perversion that he will leave a ruthless battlefield that will never be anything but an increasingly vicious nation at one another’s throats.  And it’s about time Republicans understood that.

Following Obama’s fascist hijacking of America as even LIBERAL legal analysts are now openly screaming about as they warn us where Obama has taken America, the presidency is a zero-sum game.  Congress no longer matters, because the president can literally invent laws out of thin air by himself or abrogate laws that were passed by Congress and signed into law.

Politics will never be the same in America again.

And you can thank Obama, the man who also was THE first candidate in history to refuse the matching funds system that exploded the race for president into such a huge-spending money pit.

You can thank Obama, the man who was THE first president in history to actually use the IRS to TARGET his political opponents.  Nixon only talked about the possibility of doing what Obama DID.

And so here is Elijah Cummings, a transparent hypocrite who actually has the balls to be angry that the spirit of his party’s hate and anger would come back at him like a boomerang.

Get used to it.  Because thanks to the Democrat Party and thanks particularly to Barack Obama, Americans are going to be at each other’s throats until we implode and collapse under the weight of our debt and our unsustainable socialism.

And then the beast will come, and Democrats will worship him and take his mark.

Progressive Liberals, Open-Mindedness And Tolerance: The Great Oxymoron

It’s an amazing thing how the word “tolerance” has been perverted by secular humanist progressive liberalism.  A couple of articles point this out (see here and here and here and  here).  It’s not like I’m inventing anything with this charge.  Basically, in classical usage, the word “tolerance” meant the following as recorded in the 1828 Webster’s definition:

The power or capacity of enduring; or the act of enduring.

And according to Webster in 1828 it also carried the meaning of:

The allowance of that which is not wholly approved; to suffer to be or to be done without prohibition or hinderance; to allow or permit negatively, by not preventing; not to restrain; as, to tolerate opinions or practices

In other words, what did you “endure”?  Stuff that you didn’t approve of, such as opinions or practices.  There is absolutely no sense according to this definition that you have to AGREE with the stuff you “tolerate.”  In point of fact, in order to “tolerate” something, you had to NOT approve of it.

But, like pretty much everything else secular humanist progressive liberals have touched, they perverted the notion of tolerance.  They turned the definition on its head and today it has the sense of somehow being open minded to all ideas.

The problem is that liberals are anything BUT that.

An ostensibly humorous definition of “tolerance” from a liberal point of view is this:

 A fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward the opinions and practices of others as long as they fit the liberal agenda

But what you find out pretty quickly is that as much of a joke the above might appear to be, it is actually quite true.  Read this piece, for example, from liberal Lauren Jacobs on the liberal Huffington Post:

Many people I’ve spoken to lately seem to be confused about the true meaning of “tolerance” and “liberalism.” I think it is time to set the record straight. Tolerance in its simplest definition is “freedom from bigotry.”

Liberalism in its simplest definition is a belief in tolerance (freedom from bigotry) and in progressive reform in socio-cultural, moral/religious, and political matters.

Neither one is about being required to accept all people’s viewpoints all the time, especially when those viewpoints are themselves the opposite of tolerant and liberal, containing bias, prejudice, hate, or a belief that someone other than the self is less-than the self.

Americans who are poor, female, of color, queer, or not Christian cannot afford to practice the nonchalant type of acceptance-of-any-and-all-opinions when the opinion of many hardline social conservatives is that it would be preferable to exclude these people from the conversation altogether (if not to eliminate their equal/human rights).

Lauren says that “many people … seem to be confused.”  So she volunteers to be the blind leading the blind into further blindness.  I want you to note that she immediately manages to redefine “tolerance” as “freedom from bigotry” rather than what it always used to mean before secular humanist progressive liberals came along to pervert it.  And then she immediately goes on to impose HER OWN bigotry on her already twisted definition.  Note that white male heterosexual Christians such as myself are all but guaranteed to be the bogeyman on her presentation.  I mean, somebody please help me, I’ve been “labeled” by a narrow-minded, bigoted, intolerant – and oh, yeah, misandrist – liberal.

As a Christian and a conservative, I am very definitely NOT “open-minded” in the sense that the liberals demand I be.  I’m one of those who believes that the Bible says it, I believe it and that settles it.  And I submit that the first being who suggested “open-mindedness” was the devil in the Garden.  God told Adam and Eve some very specific things, and they believed what God said.  But then the devil came along in Genesis chapter 3 and told Eve that she should question God, that she should be open-minded to other possibilities – such that God was lying to her and Adam and that God was lying in order to keep them down.

And in being “open-minded” to God, Adam and Eve committed the first sin.  Which resulted in total human depravity.  Which of course ultimately resulted – after a long string of degeneration and perversion – in secular humanist progressive liberalism.

That being admitted, let’s look at liberals and see just how “open-minded” and “tolerant” they are to opposing ideas and views.

Are liberals more “open-minded” than conservatives?  They sure do have a funny way of showing it:

Today the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee held a hearing in DC called “A Conversation on Race and Justice in America”. The three panelists were all far left people who believe America is essentially an unjust country. How exactly is this a “conversation”?

That is a very accurate description, given that:

Pelosi will preside over the hearing, which will include Democrats from the party’s Steering and Policy Committee.

The scheduled panelists are Southern Poverty Law Center founder Morris Dees, Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson and civil rights lawyer Maya Wiley, president of the Center for Social Inclusion.

Hey, Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas and Allen West, did your invitations get “lost in the mail” again?  Darn.  We’re so, so sorry.  Better luck next year.  And of course, if those invitations get lost in the darn mail again, better luck the year after that.  Or maybe the year after that.

Ah, yes, “tolerance” is refusing to allow the side and the people you disagree with to not even have a VOICE.  “Open-mindedness” is only allowing liberals in the door.  Just like that not-so-funny-after-all-definition said above.

Just imagine if the State of Israel were to have “A Conversation on Race and Justice in Jerusalem” and only invited ultra-Zionist Jews to attend it who of course would offer nothing but ultra-Zionist Jewish conversation.  Because who needs Palestinians to have such a “conversation,” am I right???  I’m just guessing that liberals – who hate Israel as much as they hate Christianity – would be outraged at the hypocrisy and the intolerance and the narrow-mindedness.

Not that liberals aren’t über hypocritical and über intolerant and über narrow-minded, but they’d sure hate it if Israel did what THEY do on a daily basis.

Yeah, that’s right.  I’m a conservative and I’ve pretty much made up my mind about the world.  And the liberals who have every scintilla as much made up THEIR minds about the world constantly demonize me for doing what they’ve done because they are hypocrites and liars.

For the record, “making up your mind about the world” is NOT a bad thing to conservatives like me.  Moses demanded, “Whoever is for the LORD, come to me.” And people like me made up their minds and came over to where Moses stood.  Joshua said, “Choose this day whom you will serve” and people like me made their choice to serve God.  We made up our minds.  And the secular humanist progressive liberals have been demonizing us for it ever since.  Literally dating back to Adam and Eve when the very first open-minded and tolerant liberal started crawling around.

Yet Another Vile Liberal (And Is There Any Other Kind?) Busted For Faking Hate Crimes Against Conservatives

I have detailed several examples of this crap on my blog.  There was the case of the liberal who vandalized a Democrat headquarters in Colorado in a deliberate effort to blame Republicans.  I recounted the case of a liberal woman who literally carved swastikas on her own body in an attempt to frame innocent people for a bogus “hate crime.”  There was the case of a liberal public school employee who started a movement to brand Tea Party protestors as racist bigots by encourging liberals to infiltrate the movement with hateful signs.  I have also pointed out that the media is now INFAMOUS for screeching hate against the Tea Party when they have done NOTHING wrong even as they have continually covered up the liberal and Democrat-praised Occupy Movement whose members have been arrested going on eight-thousand times for crimes including rape and actual terrorism.  I’ve documented that we can go back to Saul Alinsky encouraging liberal demonstrators to show up at Republican events wearing KKK outfits to falsely insinuate that racists are pro-Republican.

It doesn’t even matter to Democrats that they steal their targets from the Nazis.  These people are THAT wicked.

The leftist-owned mainstream media is all over this: they falsely accuse conservatives all the damn time at the very highest levels.  And of course they are joined by uber-Democrat Nancy Pelosi.

I’ve pointed out that this is so damn typical of the left it is beyond unreal.  And documented cases of where liberals tried to pull their crap off on me.

This crap happens all the time on the part of the left because they are bad people with no morals and no decency and no integrity and no honor whatsoever.

At least this one got busted (Note that this psychotic fraud is an “award-winning” blogger from a known liberal and pro-Democrat Party organizaton):

Lib Blogger Meg Lanker Allegedly Faked Rape Threat from Conservative
By Howard Portnoy | May 02, 2013 | 14:55

If you can’t beat ‘em, frame ‘em. That in a nutshell would appear to be the motivation behind Think Progress award-winning blogger Meg Lanker-Simons’s false claim that she had been threatened with a hate crime via social media. On Wednesday, she was charged by University of Wyoming Police with faking her own threat.

Trib.com reports that Lanker-Simons was charged with interfering in a police investigation, which is a misdemeanor. University police say that Lanker-Simons admitted to authoring an anonymous threat of sexual violence targeted at her on Facebook last week.

---

Lanker-Simons accused an anonymous source of posting a threat of rape on the Facebook page ‘UW Crushes’ on April 24. But the citation issued Monday claims Lanker-Simons admitted to making the post, then lying about it….

The post, purported to be the work of an out-of-control conservative detractor, read:

I want to hatef**k Meg Lanker — so hard. That chick that runs her liberal mouth all the time and doesn’t care who knows it. I think its [sic] hot and it makes me angry. One night with me and she’s gonna be a good Republican b**ch.

Trib.com notes that Lanker-Simons has been in similar situations in the past. She reported receiving a death threat via email in March 2011 just before syndicated columnist Ann Coulter was to visit the University of Wyoming.

The message, which was emailed to the Star-Tribune, read, “If I see her I will send her to Hell with one shot and you can bet I wont [sic] miss.”

Cross-posted from Liberty Unyielding.

And by “busted” I mean “arrested” by the police:

Liberal Blogger Cited For Allegedly Faking Facebook Rape Threat And Blaming It On Conservative
May 1, 2013 by Ben Bullard

A liberal University of Wyoming student who routinely berates conservatives on her blog and college radio show has been charged for allegedly staging an anonymous rape threat against herself and attributing it to a fictitious conservative Facebook poster.

Meg Lanker-Simons, whose cognitive dissonance blog last year even garnered her an honor from liberal spigots Mother Jones and Think Progress, was cited by University of Wyoming police for interference with an investigation and making false statements to the police department, following this rape threat she allegedly made against herself on the “UW Crushes” Facebook page, posing as a close-minded conservative creep:

I want to hate f**k Meg Lanker-Simons so hard. That chick that runs her liberal mouth all the time and doesn’t care who knows it. I think its hot and it makes me angry. One night with me and shes gonna be a good Republican bit*h.

The threat gave Lanker-Simons, pictured, the opportunity to scold the allegedly phony, would-be “hate f**ker” on her award-winning blog, where she called the threat “disgusting, misogynistic, and apparently something the admins of this page think is a perfectly acceptable sentiment.”

In 2011, Lanker-Simons reported she’d received an emailed death threat, which was allegedly timed to coincide with a campus visit from conservative columnist Ann Coulter.

“The message, which listed Lanker-Simon’s address and included a description of her car, was emailed to the Star-Tribune,” reported the Casper Star Tribune of the 2011 incident.

H/T: campusreform.org

These liberals are demon-possessed people.  There is no other way around it.

Liberals are people who live in a world of lies.  They are people who prefer lies and hate the truth.  Falsely slandering conservatives is merely the next logical step to actualizing the world of  lies that they live in.

And the demon-possessed mainstream media propagandists are on their side.

Message For The GOP: Dog Shows Republicans How To Handle Democats

Okay, maybe I’m reading too much politics into everything. But I sure wish Republicans would take after this pooch in their ability to deal with their adversaries:

Yep.  Definitely reading too much politics into everything.

The Real Target Of The Democrat Party Is Not Economic Class, It is JUDEO-CHRISTIANITY. Which Is Why America Will Soon Worship The Beast.

Jonah Goldberg – a politically conservative American Jew – makes a very strong case for that thesis; many of the immigrants are not voting “socialist” because they want to parasitically leech off of others, but rather because they are not Christian and the Republican Party strongly identifies with the Christian faith and Judeo-Christian moral and social values.  And so groups such as Asians vote overwhelmingly Democrat even though they themselves are hard-working people who otherwise would not want the socialism of the Democrat Party.

I ultimately disagree with Jonah Goldberg’s assertion – that the Republican Party must “de-Christianize” itself in order to compete with the Democrat Party for a post-Christian American culture as that culture prepares itself to worship the beast and take his mark.  Rather, I cite this to document just how hostile to Jesus Christ the Democrat Party has become and by extension how traitorous to the name of Jesus that Democrats who call themselves “Christian” truly have become:

Goldberg: The GOP — not a club for Christians
Perhaps the most common explanation for the Republican Party’s problem with Asian Americans is its pronounced embrace of Christianity.
By Jonah Goldberg
December 11, 2012

In the scramble to make the GOP more diverse, a lot of people are looking at Asian Americans, whom many believe are a natural constituency for the party. I would love it if Asian Americans converted en masse to the Republican Party, but the challenge for Republicans is harder than many appreciate.

President Obama did spectacularly well with Asian Americans, garnering nearly three-quarters of their vote. This runs counter to a lot of conventional wisdom on both the left and the right. On average, Asian American family income is higher and poverty is lower than it is for non-Latino whites. Entrepreneurship, family cohesion and traditional values all run strong among Asian Americans, and reliance on government runs weak.

And yet, Asian Americans — now the fastest-growing minority in America — are rapidly becoming a core constituency of the Democratic Party.

I’ve joked for years with my Indian American relatives and friends that they are the new Jews because their parents bury them in guilt and overeducate them. Sociologist Milton Himmelfarb observed that “Jews earn like Episcopalians and vote like Puerto Ricans.” Well, Indian Americans earn like Jews and … vote like Jews.

The comparison to Jews is instructive. Perhaps the most common explanation for the GOP’s problem with Asian Americans is the party’s pronounced embrace of Christianity, which turns off many Jews as well.

According to Pew studies, barely a third of Chinese Americans are Christian and less than a fifth of Indian Americans are.

“Whenever a Gujarati or Sikh businessman comes to a Republican event, it begins with an appeal to Jesus Christ,” conservative writer Dinesh D’Souza recently told the New York Times magazine. “While the Democrats are really good at making the outsider feel at home, the Republicans make little or no effort.” My friend and colleague Ramesh Ponnuru, an Indian American and devout Catholic, says the GOP has a problem with seeming like a “club for Christians.”

That rings true to me. I’ve attended dozens of conservative events where, as the speaker, I was, in effect, the guest of honor, and yet the opening invocation made no account of the fact that the guest of honor wasn’t a Christian. I’ve never taken offense, but I can imagine how it might seem to someone who felt like he was even less part of the club.

A few years ago, Robert Putnam, a liberal sociologist, reported this finding: As racial and ethnic diversity increases, social trust and cohesion plummets. “Trust (even of one’s own race) is lower, altruism and community cooperation rarer, friends fewer,” Putnam found. “People living in ethnically diverse settings appear to ‘hunker down’ — that is, to pull in like a turtle.”

The villain isn’t racism or bigotry or anything so simple. The phenomenon is much more complex. Indeed, it’s not clear why this happens, but it’s clear that it does. Economic inequality and cultural attitudes do not matter much. “Americans raised in the 1970s,” Putnam writes, “seem fully as unnerved by diversity as those raised in the 1920s.”

Part of the explanation stems from the fact that people with shared experiences and cultures draw strength from working together, whereas with strangers, language often becomes guarded, intentions questioned.

The GOP is not a Christian club, but there’s no disputing that Christianity is a major source of strength and inspiration for many Republican activists. This is nothing new. The abolitionist, progressive and civil rights movements were all significantly powered by Christian faith.

As someone who’s long argued for theological pluralism and moral consensus on the right, it strikes me as nuts for the GOP not to do better with Asian Americans, particularly given how little religion has to do with the policy priorities of the day.

Twenty years ago, conservatives started referring to Judeo-Christian values in an effort to be more inclusive. The challenge now is to figure out how to talk in a way that doesn’t cause decent and dedicated Christians to pull in like a turtle, while also appealing to non-Judeo-Christians and the nonreligious. That’ll be hard, requiring more than name-dropping Confucius or Krishna.

Now, one can go back and look over my blog and see how many times I have used the term “Judeo-Christianity” to refer to my own faith and worldview.  Here’s an example of my using that term as a reference to my faith in an article that also shows how determined Democrats are to undermine Christianity while promoting radical Islam in the guise of “cultural diversity.”  If that is all Goldberg is telling us to do, I’m already walking across that ground.  But the deterioration of our culture in this post-Christian era and the demonic divide-and-conquer nature of the Democrat Party has made anything short of abandonment of Jesus the only way we can reach the “potential Republican” minority groups that Goldberg is describing.

But my faith is far more important to me than my political party, and it simply isn’t an option.

Goldberg cites a statement by Dinesh D’Souza – a deeply Christian man of Indian descent I truly respect and admire – as saying that the Republicans (or should I more correctly say “the Christians” given that that’s who we’re really talking about) – have done a very poor job making “outsiders” feel at home.  And while that may be true, I can again point to my own example: in my church, which is overwhelmingly Republican, we started a Hispanic ministry years ago and now have a substantial Hispanic congregation.  We have a large ESL program on our church campus.  The Anglo congregation that devoted the resources to do these things is well over ninety percent Republican.  And many evangelical congregations who view themselves as “Judeo-Christian” have done the same things and more.

But that has done nothing to stem the tide of a massive wave of illegal immigrants pouring into America and helping the Democrat Party to transform our country into the failed socialist state from which those illegal immigrants fled.

To quote the sub-title (which Goldberg likely did not write), “Perhaps the most common explanation for the Republican Party’s problem with Asian Americans is its pronounced embrace of Christianity.”  I write as somebody who doesn’t believe the “pronounced embrace of Christianity” IS NOT A BAD THING THAT SHOULD BE STOPPED.

I am not writing this to in any way attack Jonah Goldberg.  He’s another man I deeply respect and I am very glad that he’s on the side of political conservativism.  I am merely citing his very correct and well-documented thesis that Christianity is the real target of Democrats while disagreeing with his “cure” for what I could call “the Republican Party’s Christian problem.”

There is simply more going on here.

The Bible told us in numerous passages such as 2 Timothy 3:1-5 that in the last days, there would be an increasing departure from the Judeo-Christian worldview and faith.  And when you look at the true debt of America – $222 trillion PLUS which doesn’t take into account the massive union-public pension debt of states like California which by itself has $500 billion in unfunded liabilities – you need to realize that America is very much in those “last days” just before Antichrist comes.  Revelation chapter 13 tells us that Antichrist will be the ultimate big government liberal who will so “socialize” the economy that his government will completely take over the “private sector” and impose a system of complete government control over the monetary system and the ability of the people to buy and sell.  Democrats will embrace his coming; they will worship him; and they will take his mark on their right hand or their foreheads.  Because the man described in Revelation as “the beast” will be the epitome of everything the Democrat Party has spent the last fifty years trying to impose: a one-world system in which the state controls the economy.

Jonah Goldberg cites a liberal sociologist in a telling passage:

A few years ago, Robert Putnam, a liberal sociologist, reported this finding: As racial and ethnic diversity increases, social trust and cohesion plummets. “Trust (even of one’s own race) is lower, altruism and community cooperation rarer, friends fewer,” Putnam found. “People living in ethnically diverse settings appear to ‘hunker down’ — that is, to pull in like a turtle.”

This is what is really happening: liberals have divided America into a land in which they divide women against men and race against race and Marxist class against capitalist class.  And as they have poured their demagoguery and demonization and hate on whites and on men and most especially on evangelical Christians, the fruits of their hate is “the plummeting of social trust and cohesion.”  And Democrats have been cynically exploited the fractures and divisions they have created, because as “social trust and cohesion plummets”, there is more opportunity to create more of the same, and still more of the same, until the Democrat Party divides and conquers and exploits its way to power.

And the Marxist class rage – described here – is the most powerful tractor that Democrats have to rage their way to power.  In short, Karl Marx asserted that “religion is the opium of the masses” because of his view that the Christianity of the Russian people kept them content even in their poverty and difficulty.  Marx believed that rather than embrace the “opium” of faith and the teachings of Jesus to BE content in poverty, the poor should throw off the shackles of Christian contentment and happiness and instead rise up in a spirit of rage and violence and seize what was theirs by force and kill anyone who tried to stop them.  That’s Marxism.  That’s also Obama’s Liberation Theology.

It’s not that liberals, socialists, communists, fascists, Democrats – whatever the hell you want to call these sons of hell – don’t love religion.  It is just that they ONLY love religion if said religion advances the cause of their TRUE GOD of a big government which is intended to be the “savior” that replaces the true Savior Jesus Christ.  Don’t search for the peace, contentment and happiness of Jesus; rise up in anger and hate and demand what you greedily say is yours instead.  It was the tactic that Karl Marx created and it is that very same tactic that Barack Obama and the Democrat Party embrace today; God has failed you and you need to replace Him with the State.  Kick Jesus off the throne and let Government be your savior and the only savior with whom you have to do.  Obama is your messiah and Obama will save you with big government programs.  And Democrats have very literally pissed on Jesus Christ even as they forced taxpayers to fund that urination on Jesus and on His cross:

Because the “Piss Christ” attitude of liberalism and of the Democrat Party has replaced the Judeo-Christian values that propelled America to greatness, the nation now known as “God Damn America!” is about to go down and go down hard.

What kind of “religion” do liberals love?  Well, take the “Christianity” of Barack Obama and his spiritual leader and reverend Jeremiah Wright and their Liberation Theology; liberation theology came about in the 1970s as the Marxist Sandinistas struggled to dominate a population that was over ninety percent Catholic.  Heretical Marxist priests packaged communism with Christian slogans such that Jesus became a communist.  Cardinal Ratzinger – today better known as Pope Benedict – decried this “faith” as a true demonic heresy:

“…it would be illusory and dangerous to ignore the intimate bond which radically unites them (liberation theologies), and to accept elements of the Marxist analysis without recognizing its connections with the (Marxist) ideology, or to enter into the practice of the class-struggle and of its Marxist interpretation while failing to see the kind of totalitarian society to which this process slowly leads.“ – (Author: Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect, now Pope Benedict XVI; written in 1984)

And:

“Wherever politics tries to be redemptive, it is promising too much. Where it wishes to do the work of God, it becomes not divine, but demonic.” — Pope Benedict XVI

Jonah Goldberg doesn’t grasp this terrible prophetic truth even though as a Jew his own Book of Daniel described it.  He thinks some gimmick or word-game or abandonment of “Christianity” will somehow save the Republican Party.  But the Republican Party is dying just as everything that made America great is dying as we become a nation that will worship the beast just as the Bible told us would happen.

We can’t be more like the party of hell and not expect hell.

If the Republican Party abandons Christianity to woo voters, it will stand for nothing; if it becomes more like the Democrat Party to compete with liberalism, it will join the Democrats in “fundamentally transforming” itself into the party of hell.

And if you don’t mind my saying, liberals form the army of hell.  We’ve watched unions strike at businesses the last couple of weeks during the rush of the Holiday shopping season much the way terrorists would strike; because what the unions did was sheer economic terrorism.  We saw the SEIU (that’s Obama’s bestest friend) union target Los Angeles International Airport on Thanksgiving – which happens to be the single largest flying day of the entire year.  Even though they were lying about the hardships that were being suffered by employees who were actually trying to get the hell OUT of their union.  That’s economic terrorism, waiting to strike at your enemy when and where it will cause him the most harm; especially if there’s lots of collateral damage with the American people being incredibly put upon by the lengthy delays and the canceled flights while trying to see their families.  We saw unions targeting Wal-Mart on Black Friday – the busiest shopping day of the year – trying to cause as much harassment and disruption as they could (it turned out they were far weaker than they figured they’d be).  We actually saw 5,000 Baker’s Union workers at Hostess decide to destroy a major and beloved corporation and eradicate 18,500 jobs by forcing them into liquidation.  That’s economic terrorism.  We saw a handful of union clerical workers shut down the massive Port of Long Beach for eight days and cost the Port over $8 billion in lost productivity in an attempt to force their way.  According to the LA Times, “600,000 truckers, dockworkers, trading companies and others depend for their livelihoods” on that port; but 800 union workers decided to shut it down during the rush of the Christmas shopping season when they could do the most devastating (i.e., economic terrorist) damage.  And no other union worker would cross the picket line no matter how immoral and insane the union protest was.  Because if you’re in a damn union, you are literally just that evil and that selfish and that hateful and that bitter.  And you refuse to cross the picket line for other stupid strikes so other unions won’t cross the picket line for your stupid strike.

Today, as I write, unions went violently nuts as Michigan tried to save itself by allowing people to actually have a right to work without being forced to pay union dues even if you don’t want to belong to the union.  Union thugs attacked a right to work group called Americans for Prosperity and forcibly tore down their tent with people inside; they also physically attacked a journalist named Steven Crowder just for asking a few questions – with union thugs literally repeatedly punching him in the face.  One is distinctly heard threatening to murder him with a gun.

A black hot dog vendor named Clint Tarver committed the “crime” of selling hot dogs to anyone who wanted to buy a hot dog.  For that refusal to mindlessly hate whoever the union thugs told him to hate, they called him a “nigger” and an “Uncle Tom” and tore his vending cart to pieces while he stood there helpless to stop these rabid hyenas.

Just yesterday an “arbitrator” decided that thirteen stoners and potheads ought to have a job at Chrysler for life because they’re in the UAW and that’s how thug unions work.  Because, yeah, they got caught on CAMERA by a REPORTER getting stoned and drunk during their break but apparently Chrysler doesn’t have a right to decent or safe or useful workers in a union shop.  Chrysler fired them after seeing the video and noting that they were easily able to identify the specific workers who were getting drunk and stoned, but the union went to bat for their fellow wastoid thugs and forced Chrysler to reinstate them no matter how despicable they are. And thus the criminal UAW guaranteed that thirteen lowlife scumbags can continue to crappily build the crappy cars your parents and your spouses and your children will be driving.  Until Chrysler goes bankrut just like Hostess did, anyway.

Today a Democrat congressman named Douglas Geiss threatened an eruption of violence from his side, claiming – and I quote – “There will be blood on the streets.”  Imagine the uproar that would be caused by a Republican congressman predicting violence from Republicans if they didn’t get their way on the fiscal cliff talks.  But it’s a liberal, so threatening violence is okay.  In the same way, asking for quid pro quo bribery is okay as long as you’re a liberal, too, judging by another Democrat representative named JoAnn Watson.  She literally specifically stated the precise technical language of an illegal act in urging Obama to commit precisely that illegal act in paying Detroit back for its vote for him.  Again, she’s a liberal, so her role in the destruction of the democratic political system for a quid pro quo political racketeering system is also okay.

This isn’t about economics; workers in right to work states enjoy substantially more personal income growth and higher real wages than workers in forced union states (see here for more).  Rather unions represent one army of hell in the corps of a truly demonic liberal army of hell that is seeking to throw religion out of America while it has murdered fifty-five million innocent human babies in abortion mills and imposed homosexual marriage and the destruction of the American family.  They’ve already crippled our criminal justice system with the liberal army of hell led by the ACLU and turned most of the large urban cities of America into violent, drug-ridden hellholes for welfare-dependent single mothers.

That liberal army of hell is going to win.  God has sovereignly decreed that very soon, the forces of hell are going to get their way in America and the rest of the world.  America will get the leader it truly deserves in the form of Antichrist just as now has the leader it truly deserves in the form of Barack Obama and a Democrat-controlled Senate.

The Tribulation that the books of Daniel and Revelation described is about to come to pass.  Liberals always said that if they could just get rid of the Christians (and Republicans) they could lead the world into a Utopia of Socialism By Any Other Name.  God is going to give them their chance.  He’s going to remove His true Christian believers in the Rapture and then He’s going to let the ultimate liberal a.k.a. Antichrist have at it for seven years of hell on earth.  And by the time Jesus returns as King of kings and as Lord of lords, it will be to stop the forces of hell from annihilating planet earth.

The beast is coming.  We just voted for him to come in November.

The Hell With It. Let’s Just Go Off The Damn Fiscal Cliff. Because You Just Can’t Negotiate With These People.

I just got through writing an article calling for a compromise on the tax hike Obama is demanding.  I already have to eat my words.

It is frankly hard to believe how pathologically Democrats prove themselves to be on a constant basis, even as much as I distrust Democrats and call them liars to their faces.

Realize that Democrats – and particularly Obama – have been saying that we need to hike taxes on the rich.  In order to do what?  In order to reduce the deficit, they said.  A nice, noble-sounding reason.  I mean, how can you possibly be against wanting to reduce the deficit???

Here’s a headline of Obama demagoguging tax hikes on the rich under the pretense that it would be to reduce the deficit:

Obama proposes $1.5tn tax hike to cut deficit
US president announces a number of measures aimed at reducing deficit in next 10 years, saying rich should pay more tax.
Last Modified: 19 Sep 2011

Here’s Obama over a year later, preaching the same message:

Obama says deficit plan must include higher taxes for wealthy
By Amie Parnes and Russell Berman – 11/09/12 03:51 PM ET

President Obama called on Congress on Friday to reduce the deficit in “a balanced and responsible way” in his first public remarks since winning reelection.

The president said Congress should extend the current tax rates for 98 percent of Americans, but raise taxes on households with annual income of more than $250,000.

Obama did not talk about higher tax rates in his speech, but said he would not accept a deal that cut spending and entitlements but did not ask wealthier households to pay more taxes.

“If we’re serious about reducing the deficit, we have to combine spending cuts with revenue and that means asking the wealthiest Americans to pay a little more in taxes,” Obama said. “That’s how we did it in the 1990s when Bill Clinton was president, that’s how we can reduce the deficit while still making the investments we need to build a strong middle class and a strong economy.”

But Democrats are LIARS and you simply cannot do a deal with these liars because they have no integrity at all in any way, shape or form.

Take a look at this:

Senate Democrats say deficit package must include stimulus
By Alexander Bolton – 11/14/12 01:42 PM ET

Senate Democrats, feeling confident from their net gain of two seats in last week’s election, say any deficit-reduction package negotiated in the coming weeks must include stimulus measures.

They have yet to decide which prime-the-pump measures to push, but are mulling options such as new infrastructure spending and an extension of the payroll tax holiday.

Some Republicans are likely to balk at the notion that a package to cut the deficit would include new spending. But Democrats argue the No. 1 concern for voters is job creation and that the government needs to take a more aggressive role in spurring the economy.

“We need to do something on stimulus as part of the overall fiscal cliff,” said Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), the Senate Democrats’ chief political strategist. “We have to do something because the economy is not growing fast enough in the first year or two.”

Democrats are liars, and they are particularly liars ANYTIME they say ANYTHING about cutting government spending.  Period.

Obama is the selfsame president who promised to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term and instead tripled that deficit.  And now they’re already at it again just days since they ran a campaign based entirely on lies.

Democrats are now implicitly acknowledging that the “hike taxes so we can pay down the deficit” was a lie and a ruse from the deceitful party of lies and ruses.  Now they’re saying, “People who believe what we say are fools, so we have no qualms about lying in every single ‘promise’ we make.  We’ll promise one thing and then do another, and if you’re dumb enough to believe us then doom on you!”

Here’s another headline to show you just how damn far Obama is from “compromise” while he demonizes the Republicans for not compromising:

Obama Demands $1.6 Trillion More In Taxes Posted
by Adam English on the Wealth Wire
Wednesday, November 14th, 2012

President Obama will begin budget negotiations on Friday morning but moving twice as far away from Republican interests. Instead of the $800 billion in extra federal revenue from tax hikes,Obama will be calling for a whopping $1.6 trillion.

On the other side of the table, House Speaker John Boehner hasn’t specified a revenue target, but he has said he would be willing to accept new tax revenues. He is still unwilling to consider higher tax rates.

As a condition for the possible concession, Boehner continues to insist that Democrats accept structural changes to entitlement programs which are causing long-term budget concerns.

President Obama just attended a meeting with union officials and other activists and will be meeting with CEOs of a dozen companies today. Many executives have already voiced grave concerns about the consequences of the looming standoff over the fiscal cliff.

73% of participants of a Wall Street Journal CEO conference earlier this week said their primary concern was the fiscal cliff.

How the hell do you actually move TWICE as far away to the left from your previous bargaining posture while simultaneously self-congratulating yourself for “compromising” and demonizing the party that HASN’T moved twice as far to the right on their bargaining position?  I don’t know, but with the help of the worst media propaganda since Goebbels, Obama has managed to do it.

Statement of fact: “The offer is twice as high as a deal Obama scuttled last year, suggesting he may be prepared to let talks fail again.”  That deal – which took Boehner to the breaking point – called for $800 billion in tax hikes.  Now Obama is demanding tax hikes that will be TWICE as high as last time.  While somehow trying to simultaneously claim that HE is the one willing to compromise!

Republicans – you know – “the obstructionists” – have offered Obama revenues that match what he says he needs by eliminating and/or capping deductions.  And it turns out that Obama HIMSELF has argued that what the Republicans are proposing is a solution:

The idea of curbing tax breaks isn’t new. Tax policy experts have touted it for  years and Democrats, including President Obama, have proposed it in one form or  another. That’s why it may offer a key to resolving the fiscal cliff.

So this isn’t about raising revenue; this is about targeting one group of people to punish them for daring to try to be successful in America.  This is about an out-of-control government demanding more and more control.  This is about pure demagoguery, pure and simple.

The fact of the matter is that Obama has DOUBLED DOWN on his demand while the Republicans have offered a surprising concession in being willing to increase government revenues.  But because we live in a world that Joseph Goebbels would love, the media STILL portrays Obama as the man who is “compromising” even though he is in fact demanding TWICE as much and the Republicans as “obstructionists” even though they are massively compromising.

I’m not the only human being who can see the massive, galling, astonishing hypocrisy and dishonesty from the Democrat Party, am I?

It doesn’t matter if the Republicans come to the table willing to compromise or not; they are demonized anyway, just the same.  So why compromise?

If Democrats want tax hikes, let’s give them to EVERYBODY.  If you want somebody else to pay more taxes, dammit, YOU should pay higher taxes.

I was looking for some way forward for Republicans and some way out of this fiscal cliff mess.  But let’s just go off that damn cliff.  Because there is no possible way to negotiate with people as deceitful and dishonest and disingenuous as Democrats have proven themselves to be.  And because “the cliff” can’t be any worse than the direction Obama wants to take America, anyway.

Democrat=’Demonic Bureaucrat’ Alert: Dishonest Debbie Wasserman-Schultz Fabricates Bogus Quote From Israeli Ambassador To Demonize Republicans

You literally cannot be a Democrat today unless you are a liar from hell:

Tuesday, September 04, 2012
Wasserman Schultz lies: Israeli ambassador categorically denies saying Republicans dangerous to Israel

Debbie Wasserman Schultz told a training session of Jewish Democrats on Monday that Israel’s Ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren, has said that Republicans are dangerous to Israel because they criticize President Obama’s record. (Hat Tip: Memeorandum). In a statement issued by Israel’s embassy in Washington, Ambassador Oren categorically denies saying any such thing. In other words – at least according to Oren (and probably correctly) – the Chairlady of the Democratic party is a liar. This is from the first link.

The Florida congresswoman made the charge at a training session for Jewish Democrats held by the Obama campaign here at the Democratic National Convention, aimed at teaching Jewish Democrats how to convince their fellow Jews to vote for Obama.

Much of the session, which featured a string of speakers from the Obama campaign, was devoted to defending Obama’s record on Israel. During her talk, Wasserman Schultz said that Republicans, who “can’t get anywhere with our community on domestic issues” instead “do everything they can to lie and distort and mischaracterize this president’s stellar record on Israel.”

As she was wrapping up her remarks, she claimed that, “We know, and I’ve heard no less than Ambassador Michael Oren say this, that what the Republicans are doing is dangerous for Israel.”

…

Wasserman Schultz went on to elaborate that Republicans were “undermining Israel’s security by suggesting that the United States and Israel don’t have anything other than a unique and close and special relationship. It undermines Israel’s security to its neighbors in the Arab world and to its enemies. And we need to make sure that the fact that there has never been and will never be daylight between the two parties or the support for Israel that we have in the United States, that that is conveyed to Jewish Americans across this country. That’s our responsibility. It’s the responsibility we’re asking all of you to take on.”

She made similar remarks in a recent interview with Hadassah magazine.

It’s especially ironic for her to argue that Republican attacks were dangerous because they were creating a perception of “daylight” between the U.S. and Israel. Creating daylight was precisely the goal Obama adopted when he took office. As the Washington Post reported, a few months into his presidency, Obama told a group of Jewish leaders that the peace process didn’t advance during the prior administration because President Bush was too reflexively pro-Israel.

Oren denies the charge. This is from the second link.

The Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. has released a statement “categorically” denying Democratic National Committee chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s claim that he accused Republicans of being “dangerous for Israel.” The Washington Examiner earlier reported that at a Monday event here, Wasserman Schultz decried Republicans attacks on President Obama’s record on Israel, and insisted that, “We know, and I’ve heard no less than Ambassador Michael Oren say this, that what the Republicans are doing is dangerous for Israel.”

But the Israeli embassy has now released a statement from Ambassador Michael Oren responding to the Examiner report. “I categorically deny that I ever characterized Republican policies as harmful to Israel,” the statement reads. “Bipartisan support is a paramount national interest for Israel, and we have great friends on both sides of the aisle.”

Gee, wasn’t it the Democrats who were complaining last year about Israel being made into a ‘wedge issue‘?

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 10:22 PM

For the record, Michael Oren was appointed as Israeli ambassador to the United States in 2009 by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu – and he serves at Netanyahu’s pleasure just as American ambassadors serve at the pleasure of the U.S. president. Furthermore, there is little question that Benjamin Netanyahu would very much like to see Romney win in November. Not only is Netanyahu a conservative, but he is a personal friend of Mitt Romney as the two men once worked together and forged a lifelong friendship. Even the liberal New York Times has acknowledged this friendship. If that isn’t enough, it is a further fact that Michal Oren is a conservative himself. There is simply no way Ambassador Oren would have said what Wasserman-Schultz deceitfully says he said either professionally or personally.

Particularly after the Democratic Party Platform just cut and ran on Israel the way it just did whereas Romney is standing on Israel’s side.

Now, to make Wasserman-Schultz an even MORE blatant liar than the above shows, Debbie Blabbermouth again went on the record to demonize the paper that reported on the story:

“Unfortunately, that comment was reported by a conservative newspaper–not surprising that they would deliberately misquote me,” Wasserman Schultz said.

Her statement for the record:

“I didn’t say he said that,” Wasserman Schultz insisted. “And unfortunately, that comment was reported by a conservative newspaper. It’s not surprising they would deliberately misquote me. What I always say is that unfortunately the Republicans have made Israel a political football, which is dangerous for Israel. And Ambassador Oren has said that we can’t ever suggest that there is any daylight between the two parties on Israel because there isn’t. And that that’s harmful to Israel. That’s what I said, and that is accurate.”

The problem for Debbie Blabbermouth is that the paper is confirmed on video as Wasserman-Schultz says on tape the very lie that she then lies about having lied about:

Yeah, you did SO say it, Debbie, you blathering liar.  You clearly demonize the Republicans EXACTLY as the paper reported.  You are a liar.  You have zero credibility.  You should resign.  Let’s see if MSNBC and CNN reports on that.

So there is simply no way around it: Debbie Wasserman Schultz is a liar and a terrible human being. Period.  And the fact that this vile, dishonest psycho is the DNC chair is a screaming indictment against the party of lies.

And every single Democrat who supports this party is a dishonest liar by proxy as well as by result of your completely failed worldview.

Democrat dishonesty is pathological.  And hypocrisy is their quintessential essence.

Democrats have been DEMONIZING Mitt Romney as rich.  It didn’t matter to them when just-as rich-as-Mitt John Kerry ran for president in 2004.  Nor does it matter that their candidate who ran for president in 2000 is worth over $100 million.  To be a Democrat is to say, “It doesn’t matter to us if our guy is rich, but if your guy is rich he’s evil because being rich is evil and greedy.”

Democrats have been all hoity-toity about not taking any money from corporate donors because corporations are evil and greedy.  Democrats said they’d have the most open books in history for who paid for their national convention because they are flagrantly dishonest hypocrites who try to falsely posture themselves as being so much better than Republicans when reality screams otherwise.  And so it is no surprise that we learn that Democrats are secretly and hypocritically doing everything they can to get corporations to donate to their convention:

While publicly pledging to refuse corporate money, the official host committee for this week’s Democratic National Convention has quietly and aggressively courted corporate donors — using a sister nonprofit that has been offering firms special “sponsorship opportunities” if they ponied up $1 million or more to help cover the costs of the event.

A 13-page marketing brochure obtained by NBC News shows how New American City, a nonprofit that is closely affiliated with the official Democratic convention host committee, offered package deals to corporate contributors — with different benefits starting at levels of $100,000 and escalating to the top “Tryon Street Level” of $1 million.

The companies that reached the seven-figure level got “naming rights” at “villages” set up for a Charlotte street festival that opened up the convention, as well as guarantees that “your logo will be featured prominently.” The firms also got to put up banners and logos at other convention-related events — such as a delegate and media welcoming parties — as well as the chance to include their logos in gift bags that are being handed out to 6,000 delegates and over 15, 000 members of the media.

Democrats lie about everything.  Absolutely EVERYTHING.  They are saying that they’re going to move Obama’s Thursday night speech to a smaller venue because it’s going to rain Thursday.  Bullcrap.  The Los Angeles Times article titled, “Rain or shine, Obama to address Democratic convention outdoors” kind of debunks that pathetic excuse.  Remember when Nancy Pelosi falsely labelled the Tea Party as “AstroTurf”?  They were busing an AstroTurf audience in as fast as they could to compensate for the fact that North Carolinians didn’t want anything to do with Obama and his turd policies.  Only they just couldn’t find enough AstroTurf to bus in.  So now they’re suddenly cancelling the 74,000-seat Bank of America Stadium venue because of “rain.”  Even though meteorologists are reporting that rain is unlikely.  Thursday night is going to be the best weather of the entire week, they say.

This versus Republicans who packed 50,000 people during a nationally televised HURRICANE in Tampa.

Democrats lie about every little thing and lie about every big thing.  They’re just liars.  It is their nature.  It is what they are.

You Democrats just make me sick in a way a simple vomit can’t even begin to cure.

Update, 9/6/12: I got a beautiful comment to another article that makes you think about Clint Eastwood’s address and then makes you laugh:

IF anyone is in NC they should get into Bank of America stadium put up an empty chair with an Obama sticker and film the DNC convention of the empty chair talking to the empty chairs.

The skies are crystal clear in Charlotte.  President “Empty chair” was terrified that there would be way too many other empty chairs in that stadium.

What Were The Best Quotes From the 2012 Republican National Convention?

I thought this looked like a pretty good list:

The 30 Best Quotes From The 2012 Republican Convention
Written By : John Hawkins
August 31, 2012

30) “Self esteem comes from achievements. Not from lax standards and false praise.” — Condi Rice

29) “(My father) stood behind a bar in the back of the room all those years, so one day I could stand behind a podium in the front of a room. That journey, from behind that bar to behind this podium, goes to the essence of the American miracle — that we’re exceptional not because we have more rich people here. We’re special because dreams that are impossible anywhere else, come true here.” — Marco Rubio

28) “Fifty-five years ago, when my dad was a penniless teenager, thank God some well-meaning bureaucrat didn’t put his arm around him and say ‘let me take care of you.’” –- Ted Cruz.

27) “None of us have to settle for the best this administration offers – a dull, adventureless journey from one entitlement to the next, a government-planned life, a country where everything is free but us.” — Paul Ryan

26) “And on a personal note – a little girl grows up in Jim Crow Birmingham – the most segregated big city in America – her parents can’t take her to a movie theater or a restaurant – but they make her believe that even though she can’t have a hamburger at the Woolworth’s lunch counter – she can be President of the United States and she becomes the Secretary of State. Yes, America has a way of making the impossible seem inevitable in retrospect. But of course it has never been inevitable – it has taken leadership, courage and an unwavering faith in our values.” — Condi Rice

25) “With all their attack ads, the President is just throwing away money…and he’s pretty experienced at that.” — Paul Ryan

24) “The only just government is the government that serves its citizens, not itself.” — Cardinal Timothy Dolan

23) “President Obama has thrown allies like Israel under the bus, even as he has relaxed sanctions on Castro’s Cuba. He abandoned our friends in Poland by walking away from our missile defense commitments, but is eager to give Russia’s President Putin the flexibility he desires, after the election. Under my administration, our friends will see more loyalty, and Mr. Putin will see a little less flexibility and more backbone.” — Mitt Romney

22) “They’ve got a Jobs Council that never meets. A Democratic Senate that doesn’t act. A President who doesn’t believe and a Vice President who won’t stop talking. They just don’t get it.” — Tom Stemberg

21) “Here is their plan. Whistle a happy tune while driving us off a fiscal cliff as long as they are behind the wheel of power when we fall.” — Chris Christie

20) “I read somewhere that Mitt and I have a ‘storybook marriage.’ Well, in the storybooks I read, there were never long, long, rainy winter afternoons in a house with five boys screaming at once. And those storybooks never seemed to have chapters called MS or Breast Cancer. A storybook marriage? No, not at all. What Mitt Romney and I have is a real marriage.” — Ann Romney

19) “I’ve come to realize that Barack Obama is the tattoo president. Like a big tattoo, it seemed cool when you were young. But later on, that decision doesn’t look so good, and you wonder: what was I thinking? But the worst part is you’re still going to have to explain it to your kids.” — Tim Pawlenty

18) “(Obama) hasn’t been working to earn reelection, he’s been working to earn a spot on the PGA tour!” — Mitch McConnell

17) “You see, Mr. President – real leaders don’t follow polls. Real leaders change polls.” — Chris Christie

16) “The man assumed office almost four years ago – isn’t it about time he assumed responsibility?” — Paul Ryan

15) “My working poor parents told me that I could do better. They taught me that I was as good as anybody else. And it never occurred to them to tell me that I could just rest comfortably and wait for good old Uncle Sugar to feed me, lead me and then bleed me.” — Mike Huckabee

14) “It all started off with stirring speeches, Greek columns, the thrill of something new. Now all that’s left is a presidency adrift, surviving on slogans that already seem tired, grasping at a moment that has already passed, like a ship trying to sail on yesterday’s wind.” — Paul Ryan

13) “You know there is something wrong with the kind of job he has done as president when the best feeling you had was the day you voted for him.” — Mitt Romney

12) “They believe in teachers’ unions. We believe in teachers.” — Chris Christie

11) “You, me…we own this country. Politicians are employees of ours….And when somebody does not do the job, we got to let them go.” — Clint Eastwood

10) “When you hear the party that glorified Occupy Wall Street blast success; when you hear them minimize the genius of the men and women who make jobs out of nothing, is that what you teach your children about work?” — Artur Davis

9) “Mom and Dad were married 64 years. And if you wondered what their secret was, you could have asked the local florist – because every day Dad gave Mom a rose, which he put on her bedside table. That’s how she found out what happened on the day my father died – she went looking for him because that morning, there was no rose.” — Mitt Romney

8) “Ronald Reagan used to say America was a city on a hill. Under Obama, America is becoming a tent city with people waiting in line for government handouts.” – Yash Wadhwa

7) “College graduates should not have to live out their 20s in their childhood bedrooms staring up at fading Obama posters and wondering when they can move out and get going with life.” — Paul Ryan

6) “Barack Obama’s failed us. But look, it’s understandable. A lot of people fail at their first job.” — Tim Pawlenty

5) “Well I’m sure now that the press is going to tell you (Mitt Romney) isn’t perfect. Now my friends for the past four years, we’ve tried the one that the press thought was perfect and that hasn’t worked out all that well for us.” — Mike Huckabee

4) “The EPA is now the ‘Employment Prevention Agency.’” — Bob McDonnell

3) “In 1923 there were no government benefits for immigrants except one: Freedom!” — Rick Santorum

2) “President Obama promised to begin to slow the rise of the oceans and heal the planet. MY promise…is to help you and your family.” — Mitt Romney

1) “The Democrats say we ought to give Barack Obama credit for trying. That sounds like the nonsense of giving every kid a trophy for showing up. Friends, we’re talking about leading the country, not playing on a third-grade soccer team! I realize this is the man who got a Nobel Peace Prize for what he would potentially do, but in the real world, you get the prize for producing something, not just promising it.” — Mike Huckabee

Update: Two quotes that should have been on the list, but were accidentally deleted were added back in.

.