The Leftist Hypocrite Train Continues Chugging Along, Destination Fiery, Agonizing Hell.

November 9, 2015

Rest assured I will get to the Ben Carson story that is all over the place.  Let me warm up to it.

So Carly Fiorina appeared on the View to hold the liberal witches on that program accountable for their shrill attacks against the Republican woman running for president in which, among other things, her face was attacked as a “demented Halloween mask.”

Here was how the View characterized the vicious personal attack against a Republican woman by shrews who have made it abundantly clear that they rabidly hate Republicans:

Co-host Joy Behar was visibly upset that her comments about Fiorina’s face were offensive to the female Republican presidential candidate.

“I don’t get why any candidate is exempt from my comedic jokes,” Behar.

Well, here’s what I don’t get, Behar: why do YOU believe that YOU should be exempt from your awful partisan ideologically rabid attacks???

I don’t have a transcript, but I can accurately sum up Behar’s position thus: she’s a COMEDIAN, you see.  And while Donald Trump should be viciously attacked for saying the SAME EXACT THING that the View said, he’s NOT a comedian.

We call this a double-standard.  We also call it a fascist passive-aggressive tyranny trip by a loathsome jug of fecal matter.

The same View that believes – you know, because they believe they’re “funny” and the rapidly shrinking audience of “the toxic environment” that is The View agree with them – believes that Donald Trump should be shouted down.  I mean, he’s had his own television program that was a hell of a lot more successful than The Poo, but Whoopie Cushion Goldberg and Joyless Behar have decreed that they are funnier than him regardless of what a far larger audience than theirs thinks.  So off with his head.

Do I have the right to speak out about the wickedness of homosexuality?

What if I speak what they call my hatred in a “funny” way.  Do I then?

NO! they shriek.  Absolutely NOT.  This “comedic exemption” where only true “comics” (as defined by the ideological left) means that you’ve got to be funny only in the politically correct manner.

There is no comedic exemption to your fascist views against actual free speech, ye cast of feminist warthogs.  Either we ALL have the right to say what we want to without being attacked for it, or NONE of us do, most especially if you sit on a show that should have been cancelled five years ago.

For the record, Donald Trump is a “comedian” too.  He’s supposed to host the comedy program Saturday Night Live, which proves it.  One of the reasons his attacks against the other Republican candidates work so well is that he pulls them off with a comical flair and brilliant comedic timing.

Donald Trump is a better comic than Whoopie Cushion Goldberg or Joyless Behar have EVER been: his enormous wealth proves it.

But when Donald Trump espouses what he considers “The View,” does he get to say his spiel without criticism?  Not from ideological liberals and not from YOU, Joy Behar, you rabid hypocrite.  Where’s his comedic exemption to the left’s criticism the way you propose you ought to be exempt from the right’s criticism?

But of course, that’s just one of the many examples of stops the Rabid Hypocrite Liberal Choo-Choo makes.  Here’s another one:

The media is going after allegedly false statements that Ben Carson has made about his life the way a type-A personality terrier who thinks it smells a gopher digs holes in the back yard.  The gleeful report from Reuters is “Carson LIED.”

The reality is much more nuanced than the story reveals.  In fact, Ben Carson was “the top ROTC student in the City of Detroit.”  He met with General William Westmoreland, who was one of if not THE most powerful general in the Army, having just returned from command of all US forces in Vietnam.  And according to Carson, Westmoreland promised “the top ROTC student” that if he applied, his application would most certainly be granted.

So the headlines trumpeting Carson “admits fabricating” kind of skip a lot of facts that kind of at least help you understand why Ben Carson would say that he was “accepted” at West Point when all he had to do to have that status was turn in an application that he decided to pass on.

Politico demonstrated to any objective follower of media that it is blatantly partisan in its hithobs.  It walked the story back without every having the decency to admit it got the story wrong or even WAS walking it back.

It’s called “Gotcha.”  And the media plays it best against conservatives, and rarely ever plays it at all against liberals.

Now even Politifact – and you need to understand that while Politifact DOES do good work, it generally “fact checks” from a leftist perspective – acknowledges that Ben Carson is the honest one and Politico is the dishonest one.  They rank his defense as “mostly true” which means that Politico has to be at LEAST “mostly false.”

You find that Politico and much of the left-wing media that reported this story flat-out LIED about what Ben Carson said in order to dishonestly frame him as a liar.  Carson never SAID he’d been admitted to West Point; he never said that he’d been accepted at West Point; what he said was that he was “offered” a full scholarship and the dishonesty the media used to slander him is amazing.

The same Reuters that joyfully trumpeted the “Carson Lied” article called Hillary Clinton’s Benghazi very real pile of dishonesty and lies “the zombie scandal.”  Which is precisely why Marco Rubio in that leftist assassination attempt also known as the CNBC debate caricatured the mainstream media as “the biggest and most powerful super PAC of all” working for the Democrat Party.

I’ll give a couple of examples of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton NEVER being similarly scrutinized for FAR WORSE deceit in their academic careers.  But let me work on another aspect of Hillary Clinton and the mainstream media caught covering for her first.

Hillary Clinton got caught dead-to-rights, red-bloody-handed, smoking-gun-in-her-gunpowder-residue-tested-hands LIE over Benghazi.  There is absolute NO QUESTION AT ALL that Hillary Clinton said one thing to the victims over the caskets containing the murdered bodies of their loved ones one thing and her own daughter and the foreign minister of Egypt another thing.  As part of an overall incredibly cynically dishonest campaign strategy of the Obama administration to lie about what was very clearly a TERRORIST ATTACK AGAINST THE UNITED STATES by “fundamentally transforming” it into a “spontaneous demonstration.”

Let’s look at the timeline:

At the day and time of the attack in Benghazi, literally AS the TERRORIST attack was underway against the US compound, Hillary wrote:

Lied1

Hillary Clinton’s exact words the day of the attack, literally as the attack was underway:

“…there is a gun battle ongoing, which I understand Ansar as-Sharia [sic] is claiming responsibility for.”

The very next day after the attack, Hillary wrote to the Egyptian foreign minister and categorically stated:

Lied2

Again, Hillary Clinton’s EXACT WORDS: “We know that the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film.  It was a planned attack — not a protest.”

And later that same day, Hillary wrote to her daughter and said:

Lied3

Her exact words again: “Two of our officers were killed in Benghazi by an Al Qaeda-like group.”

So what did Hillary say to the families of the victims literally over the victims’ dead bodies when they returned to America on September 14, 2015:

Tyrone Woods’ father (who took notes about their meeting): “I gave Hillary a hug and shook her hand. And she said we are going to have the film maker arrested who was responsible for the death of my son…’She said — the filmmaker who was responsible for the death of your son’…”

Sean Smith’s mother: “She’s absolutely lying. She told me something entirely different at the casket ceremony. She said it was because of the video.”

Sean Smith’s uncle
: “Mrs. Clinton really has a problem embracing the truth.”

Glen Doherty’s sister: “When I think back now to that day and what she knew, it shows me a lot about her character that she would choose in that moment to basically perpetuate what she knew was untrue.”

THREE FAMILIES out of the four murdered men specifically claim and have consistently claimed from DAY ONE that Hillary Clinton told them that it was a damn Youtube video and NOT the terrorist attack that it is now documented as FACT that she KNEW was the truth.

Now let’s look at some more emails from the State Department the same damn DAY that Hillary Clinton was saying what she KNEW to be an incredibly cynical and depraved LIE to the murdered victims’ families literally over their dead bodies:

It turns out, three days after the Benghazi attack, on Sept. 14, 2012, the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli specifically warned the State Department in an email not to promote the idea that an anti-Muslim YouTube video was the cause of the attack.

The embassy issued this warning for two reasons: one, it was not true. And two, by calling continued attention to the video, anti-American sentiment in Libya was inflamed, where the video had not been a factor to any significant extent.

“[O]ur view at Embassy Tripoli is that we must be cautious in our local messaging with regard to the inflammatory film trailer, adapting it to Libyan conditions,” wrote an embassy official whose name was redacted from the Sept. 14, 2012 email.

“[I]f we post messaging about the video specifically, we may draw unwanted attention to it,” the official said. “And it is becoming increasingly clear that the series of events in Benghazi was much more terrorist attack than a protest which escalated into violence.”

Let’s continue with the unraveling White House timeline and the fact of the most wicked lie imaginable as it unfolded:

In this light, it is worth recalling how many times members of the Obama administration promoted a narrative that was not only apparently a concoction, but also potentially a match set to a tinderbox of anti-American hatred.

September 12: Clinton and President Obama issue statements condemning both the video and the attacks.

September 13: Press Secretary Jay Carney condemns video and violence at a news conference.

September 14: The bodies of slain Americans return to Andrews Air Force Base. Obama again blames the YouTube video.

September 16: U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice appears on Sunday talk shows and says the attacks were provoked by the video, exclusively.

September 25: Obama appears at the United Nations, denouncing “a crude and disgusting video that sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world.”

September 27: The “Innocence of Muslims” film-maker Mark Basseley Youseff is arrested and denied bail for a “probation violation.”

Why did the administration go to all this trouble? A memo, sent by Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes said that one of the “goals” of Rice’s appearances was “to underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not in a broader failure of policy.”

Yet, as noted by Pete Hoekstra, former chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, in his new book, “Architects of Disaster: The Destruction of Libya,” the attack in Benghazi was “the culmination of a foreign policy on Islamic terrorism that was grounded in wishful thinking and self-delusion.”

With every revelation, this tragic policy failure is becoming ever clearer.

It is frankly EVIL the way the mainstream media has flocked around Hilary Clinton and said that the day of her testimony before Congress in which her greatest ignominy was factually established was “actually” the greatest day of her political career.  And it is EVIL that the Washington Post subsequently did a quibbling “fact check” about Marco Rubio’s claim that “Hillary Clinton lied” when it is in FACT a FACT that she DID lie.  As it is easy to demonstrate as I just did above.

Hillary Clinton lied and directly participated in a campaign of lies by the most dishonest administration in the history of the republic.

I submit that Marco Rubio’s claim not only exposed the vicious dishonesty of Hillary Clinton but also the vicious ideological propaganda that masquerades as the face of “journalism” today when he said during the vile media hitjob “debate” (there’s NO debate that the CNBC debate was unfair).  Rubio pointed out during that communist show-trial masquerading as a “debate”:

“I know the Democrats have the ultimate Super PAC, it’s called the mainstream media,” Rubio said. “Last week, Hillary Clinton admitted she sent emails to her family saying ‘Hey, this attack in Benghazi was caused by Al qaeda-like elements.’ She spent over a week telling the families of those victims and the American people that it was because of a video. And yet, the mainstream media is saying it was the greatest week in Hillary Clinton’s campaign. It was the week she got exposed as a liar. […] But she has her super PAC helping her out: the American mainstream media.”

Rubio declared the mainstream media the ultimate Super PAC.  And thank you, Washington Post, thank you, Reuters, thank you, CNBC for proving it is true.

But Ben Carson’s so-called “lie” matters to these LIARS????  Again, to put it in credit-card offer terms, from Ben Carson’s perspective, had he turned in an application, he was already pre-approved for an appointment to West Point based on his ROTC-award status and based on a four-star general’s assurances.  So a brilliant young black man who had already shown his stuff in the military universe through ROTC would certainly get.  But he decided not to go, so he didn’t fill out the application.  But he “lied” or “fabricated” because what he said wasn’t completely technically true, screamed the mainstream media.  Even though it turned out that in actual fact Ben Carson HAD NEVER ACTUALLY claimed that he had been admitted to West Point – he merely claimed that he had been offered a full scholarship (which any appointment automatically would have essentially been). And any unbiased reader can readily understand why he would have explained it in that common parlance of “offered a scholarship” versus “offered an appointment.”  It was the MEDIA that lied about this story; not Ben Carson.  But Hillary Clinton’s outright lies about coming under sniper fire when it is a FACT that she lied about that, her outright lies about her family history that all four of her grandparents were immigrants when in FACT only one was, her lie about being named after Sir Edmund Hillary when there is simply no way that could have been true given that when Hillary Clinton was born/named, Sir Edmund Hillary was a nobody, her lie about her daughter being at ground zero on 9/11 when it is a FACT that she was not, etc, none of those lies matter to our elite media class.

How about this one given the fact that supposedly Ben Carson’s “scholarship” is such a travesty of truth: Hillary Clinton actually claimed that she had tried to enlist in the Marines.  And then with NOTHING TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT SHE HAD EVER TRIED TO DO SO, Team Clinton switched the story from Marines to Army.  But there’s no reason to buy that load of manure, either.  But so what if Hillary lies on a far more egregious basis in the span of a single afternoon than Ben Carson ever has in his entire life combined?

What about Barack Obama’s college days?  What about the fact that there is no possible way that a stoner like Obama says he was with the poor grades Obama said he had NEVER would have got into Ivy League schools such as Columbia and Harvard without some kind of serious shenanigans.  And we’re talking about ILLEGAL shenanigans.  What about the fact that Obama’s time at Occidental took place during an incredibly awful grade-inflation scandal?  What about the fact that Obama’s college records are STILL sealed and the media has refused to investigate any of it???

Why is it the same damn leftist propaganda media that is going tooth and claw after Ben Carson has steadfastly stood against any attempt by any body to see or hear the tape of Obama at an incredibly controversial event where PRO-TERRORIST CAUSES were clearly espoused???  The Lost Angeles Slimes has repeatedly now said that we would only find out the truth about Obama over their dead bodies.

How can this same media that is so rabid to protect Obama against the truth being revealed be so rabid to destroy Carson by fabricating their story?

I’ve documented this before, and so only need to copy-and-paste, but leftwing journalists of today come from a very uber-defined belief that they are NOT charged with merely reporting the facts – because they’ve been taught to believe that the unwashed masses are far too stupid to be trusted with the facts – but that their role is to shape mass culture and mass opinion with their superior perspective as our masters:

As icon of leftwing journalists Walter Lippmann put it:

“News and truth are not the same thing and must be clearly distinguished.”

Which of course allows the mainstream media to misrepresent the truth in the guise of reporting “the news” in order to stimulate the public to act “responsibly” NOT out of truth and any true “picture of reality,” but rather out of the journalists’ opinion of what we need to know in order to think or do what the journalist believes the public ought to think or do.

As Walter Lippmann believed:

Walter Lippmann described a “revolution” in “the practice of democracy” as “the manufacture of consent” has become “a self-conscious art and a regular organ of popular government.” This is a natural development when public opinion cannot be trusted: “In the absence of institutions and education by which the environment is so successfully reported that the realities of public life stand out very sharply against self-centered opinion, the common interests very largely elude public opinion entirely, and can be managed only by a specialized class whose personal interests reach beyond the locality,” and are thus able to perceive “the realities.” These are the men of best quality, who alone are capable of social and economic management.

Which gives the mainstream media elite who stand above the rest of us mere mortals the right to serve as “gatekeepers,” and prevent the people from learning anything that might otherwise cause them to discover that conservatives have it right and liberals have it dead wrong.

And as fellow member of the leftwing journalist hall of fame Edward Bernays put it:

“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society.  Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.”

Because what is power if you can’t even manipulate the truth and shape it to serve your agenda?  And if you’re a leftwing liberal progressive journalist – as basically 90 percent of journalists are today – what could be better than being one of the people “who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society” so you can “constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country”???

We live in an age just before the coming of the beast where a spirit of fascism is determined to use the unholy power of wicked government to take over and dominate our lives.  And there are a lot of people who are functioning as priests of this new unholy religion of Government as Savior and Lord and Master.

There are only two paths that this nation can now take: the Auschwitz train ride to hell on earth as we follow the media to Democrat Party fascism and totalitarianism, or literally to hunt down every single Democrat down with dogs and burn them alive.  We’re most definitely not going to do the latter, and so therefore the former is ultimately going to be our fate and the cause of our national doom.  We can’t rid our nation of the living disease that Democrats are, and so like a virus they will continue to infect the host organism of America with cancer until that host collapses and dies an awful death.

The beast is coming.  The beast, a.k.a. the Antichrist, is identified both in Old Testament prophecy (Ezekiel and Daniel) as well as in the New Testament.  There are things going on RIGHT NOW that tell anyone with wisdom that we are truly IN the very last days that these Books prophetically and staggeringly described.  We are in the time just before the War of Gog and Magog described in the last days prophecy of Ezekiel 38.  The two nations described as leading this demonic end-times attack against Israel have NEVER both been where the Book of Ezekiel said they would be – until TODAY as both Russia AND Iran are in Syria to the north of Israel.  I’m not playing games with renamed nations: When Russia was Scythia and when Iran was Persia, these nations were never where they are right now before in all of human history.  But they’re both there together now.  Just as the Bible said would happen in the very last days when it prophesied that these two nations in the last days would lead an all-out attack against Israel leading a host of nations that today are ALL Islamic republics.

The Antichrist will be a “master of dark sentences,” “a master of intrigue.”   This according to the Book of Daniel that prophesied the coming of Alexander the Great a full 200 years before his birth in such terrifyingly accurate prophetic description that skeptics are forced to say that the Book had to have been written after the fact when there is NO evidence that it was and great evidence that it wasn’t.  As just one example, the record of antiquity documents that Alexander somehow read the very prophecies that the skeptics claim weren’t written until after his conquestAlexander became a friend to the Jews whose prophecies had inspired him and given him the confidence that he would in fact succeed in the most grandiose conquest in all of human history, and invited them to Alexandria when he built that city in 331BC.  It was in that very city that the Septuagint – the translation into Alexander’s Greek of the Hebrew Old Testament – was completed.  Getting back to the coming Antichrist, he WILL be the ultimate big-government tyrant that Democrats are so eagerly seeking; he will be the fulfillment of all of their dreams.  Because he – like all liberals – will believe the end justifies the means, he will be the ultimate craftsman of lies and deception.

I actually believe that Ben Carson – who has been one of the three Republicans I have most hoped would emerge as our eventual nominee along with Carly Fiorina and Ted Cruz – will probably be destroyed by this revelation of his less-than-perfect honesty.  Even though, when you look at the whole story, you ought to be able to understand why he said it the way he said it.  The reason is not merely the unholy attack by the mainstream media, but ultimately because Republicans care about honesty and integrity and the truth the way that no Democrat has in very nearly my entire lifetime.  Conservatives don’t put up with dishonest people the way liberals do.  Democrats at this point in this incredibly degenerate party’s history not only don’t mind liars, they DEMAND them.  Their is no honesty or integrity or virtue or decency in their shriveled souls whatsoever.  They have no God; they have only Government to worship.  Jesus said He came to testify to the truth, and everyone who was of the truth listened to Him; Democrats responded with Piss Christ  –

piss fax

And they are STILL responding that way as they piss on The Word of God that Jesus as the Word revered and commissioned.  If Jesus believed it, Democrats believe the exact opposite; if Jesus stood for it, they stand against it.  They are as determined to advance their god – the State – as much as the Islamic radicals are determined to advance their god Allah.  And both gods are the one and same unholy person: the devil.

Hell is coming.  And if you’re a Democrat, if you’re a mass-murdering sodomy worshiper, you’re on the train taking you right to it and right through its gates.

The Demonic Hypocrisy Of Democrats Who Invoke Reagan With The Words, “Why, Even Ronald Reagan [Fill In The Blank].”

November 5, 2015

I don’t know how many times I’ve heard “even Reagan” attacks on Republicans from liberals such as, “Even Reagan raised taxes,” or “Even Reagan granted amnesty to illegal immigrants.”

I mean, Reagan cut the damn taxes, okay?  Can we please stop the bullcrap?  The top rate went from 70% to 28% under the Reagan tax cut which ignited the economy like nothing ever has before or since.  You’ve got to be not only a fool but a DAMNFOOL – which unfortunately is a synonym for “Democrat” – to try to argue that Reagan “raised taxes.”  If some taxes went up, while most taxes went down and the overall tax rate went WAY down, it’s pretty pathetic to cling to the couple of times that Reagan raised some minor tax to try to argue against the FACT that Reagan cut taxes.  And yet the left does it all the time.

I googled the phrase (with quotes) “even Reagan” and got 27,700 hits, including the first one from the New York Slimes titled, “ObamaCare and Reagan.”  The author’s thesis is apparently that Reagan was a confused man who didn’t understand socialism (you know, because he only understood it enough to defeat the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics against the steadfast resistance of the Democrat Party whose mantra had become, “If you can’t beat ’em, join ’em”).  If you search for “Even Ronald Reagan” you get another 33,800 results, with the first one being titled, “Even Ronald Reagan Agrees With Bernie Sanders.”  Oh yes, Ronnie would be a wild-eyed socialist today, wouldn’t he, you deluded liberals?

This actually isn’t about Reagan, although if any group of people on earth would refuse to allow a dead man to rest in peace, it would most assuredly be liberals.  This is about the current conservative view on policy issues and the left’s rhetorical game to take down those conservatives.

First of all, it’s kind of interesting for the left to play the “Even Reagan” game.  If you actually believe that what Reagan believed wasn’t right, why on earth would you ask someone to hold to the views of a guy you say is ignorant?  Isn’t that kind of crazy of you to do?  I mean, do you want to say “Even Hitler…” in a way intended to make one side hold more closely to Adolf Hitler’s policies?  It’s like virtually all other leftist talking points: it’s a word game.  It’s actually a pretty stupid one.

Let me explain what is so desperately wrong with this attack and why the left keeps advancing it by a parallel argument: “Even Jimmy Carter was opposed to abortion.”  As president, Jimmy Carter said, “I am convinced that every abortion is an unplanned tragedy, brought about by a combination of human errors and this has been one of the most difficult moral and political issues I have had to face. As president, I accepted my obligation to enforce the “Roe v. Wade” Supreme Court ruling, and at the same time attempted in every way possible to minimize the number of abortions.”  Hardly a triumphant shout of “women have the right to choose to kill as many of their babies as they want to and let the fathers of those babies rights be damned!” statement; it was a regretful, “This is wrong, but I have no choice” statement.  So even Jimmy Carter believed abortion was a “tragedy.”  And why shouldn’t you be flash-frozen to that view the way you want to flash-freeze me to Regan’s views?

Here’s another one: “Even President Jimmy Carter didn’t believe in same-sex marriage.”

Even Jimmy Carter didn’t believe in …” and you name it, you could certainly advance that thesis if you want to compare Carter’s stated views and policies to Obama’s.

But on the left’s incredibly disingenuous and profoundly hypocritical narrative, only Democrats have the right to have any evolution of their views.  Democrats have “evolved” a damn MILE, but let Republicans evolve an INCH and they are therefore on this incredibly hypocritical narrative without any question a bunch of extremists.

I mean, even REAGAN!

Let’s put aside the fact that EVEN JFK believed that reducing taxes caused increased opportunity and incentivized economic growth.  That is a FACT of history, and anyone who isn’t an idiot knows it.  But hell, Republicans are “extremists” for wanting a little more than what Reagan wanted, whereas Democrats are WHAT for doing a COMPLETE U-TURN AND WANTING SOMETHING FUNDAMENTALLY AND PROFOUNDLY DIFFERENT FROM WHAT THEIR GREATEST PRESIDENT WANTED????

Which party has actually wildly veered into extremism???  It sure couldn’t be the damn party that urinated on the entire history of the human civilization in imposing homosexual marriage, let alone their precious Darwinian evolution and it’s edict of “survival of the fittest” defined as “Survival of the form that will leave the most copies of itself in successive generations.”  Good luck fertilizing an egg by all the sodomy in the world, queers.  And if you’re a lesbian, keep licking furiously; but if you’ve got a functioning brain cell in your head, you ought to know naught will come from it beyond the hairballs you cough up.

One party not only utterly abandoned the history of civilization, not only abandoned the history of every major religion, but also abandoned the very pretense of science they claimed they held the mantle of.  But it’s not like they went “extremist” or anything.

I think we should “fundamentally transform” our calendars and start with BS: “Before Sodomy.”  Because one rabidly extremist political party wildly transformed the universe (in a shockingly depraved way).

If you’re a Democrat, you are at this point by definition a hypocrite to the last cell of your vile little cockroach brain, so there is absolutely NOTHING WRONG with MASSIVE SHIFTS in policy; if you are a Republican, however, any change is somehow defined as a “radical” and as an “extremist” shift toward some demagogic monster.

Since Democrats love the mantra “even Ronald Reagan…” let’s punch them in the mouth with a little bit of “Even Bill Clinton…”

Let’s look at what an actual QUESTION would have looked like had the one Democrat debate not been an example of the Democrat Party’s most powerful super PAC rather than legitimate journalism:

Mrs. Clinton, back in the 1990s your husband concluded the North American Free Trade Agreement, signed legislation repealing the Glass-Steagall restrictions on affiliations between banks and securities firms, and embraced welfare reform and cuts in capital gains taxes. In 1996, he famously declared “the era of big government is over.”

Today you are running on a pro-tax, pro-regulation, pro-spending platform that is almost the opposite of your husband’s economic record. If his policies worked so well in the 1990s, why are you running against them today?

I mean, EVEN BILL CLINTON…  not that Democrats give a flying damn about their wild swing into the most extremist policies imaginable even compared to their last Democrat president.

There is a constant, unwavering attempt by the mainstream media and the Democrat Party and in particular the most demagogic president in the entire history of the republic, Obama, to demonize and slander the Republican Party has having become “extremist.”  And their most darling argument to that bogus end is the “even Reagan” mantra.  Reagan was a great president.  But he was last president very nearly thirty years ago.

Ronald Reagan massively changed the social, political and economic landscape with policies that were fundamentally different from what had been done before.  He fought very hard for his core beliefs and was willing to do something that Barack Obama has proven to be pathologically incapable of doing: reaching out to the other side.  Reagan REGULARLY met with his Democrat Party opposites and worked out deals.  You tell me the number of times that Obama ever sought to meet with Republican leaders.  He was either arrogantly stating to them, “Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won” or neither he nor anyone on his damn STAFF even had the Republican leaders’ phone numbers to reach them.

How about this one, “Even Reagan” leftist lecturers: how about “EVEN OBAMA”

On the debt:

Obama: The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents – #43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic. — July 3, 2008

What’s the damn debt again, you demon-possessed HYPOCRITE???  It’s $18.5 trillion and skyrocketing by the nanosecond.  You’ve added NINE TRILLION by your lonesome and you aint even DONE yet!

Or how about this one:

“I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. For me, as a Christian, it’s also a sacred union. God’s in the mix.”

Oops.  So much for gay marriage.  “Even Obama!”  I mean, holy crap, what about THAT “even Obama” compared to your current precise opposite “even Obama”!!!???!!!???

How about this “even Hillary” from Hillary, who now is actually trying to claim that her installation of a secretive private server giving her sole control over her emails so that she could purge tens of thousands of them without ANYONE being allowed to examine them even after her secret server and all of her emails on it had been lawfully subpoenaed by Congress?   Consider what Hillary said about the Bush White House that did NOT use secretive private servers:

HILLARY CLINTON: You know our Constitution is being shredded. We know about the secret wiretaps, about the secret military tribunals, we know about the secret White House email accounts.

So Hillary Clinton needs to be thoroughly investigated and convicted for her shredding the Constitution.  EVEN HILLARY agrees.  At least when she’s not being an abject cockroach hypocrite.

We’re not talking about a party “evolving” over thirty years; we’re talking about a party that swung wildly and radically extremist in ONE CANCEROUS PRESIDENCY that now seeks to further infest and infect America with THE NEXT CANCEROUS PRESIDENCY.

Every single Democrat or “journalist” who has ever used any phrase containing the words “even” and “Reagan” is simply demon-possessed.  There is no other way to explain such massive hypocrisy and such massive dishonesty and such massive depravity.

Barack Obama has just as massively “fundamentally transformed” the political landscape by his tyrannical determination to either get his way exactly the way he wants it or do what he wants through executive order without bothering to deal with the inconveniences of the House and Senate or the Constitution.  And Reagan’s way of doing things won’t work with that level of fascist hate for everything our republic stands for that the Democrat Party has degenerated into since Reagan left office.

This was frankly proven even in Reagan’s own time.  Consider what the Associated Press tried to do to Republicans by invoking Reagan’s “amnesty” for illegal immigrants in a manner that attempted to frame them as hypocrites for opposing Obama’s amnesty.  It’s just another example of “even Reagan..”  Hey, let’s ignore some major differences, such as the fact that Reagan signed a bill into law that had been duly passed by the House and Senate; whereas Obama IMPOSED an amnesty that had been explicitly voted down by Congress by act of sheer executive tyranny.  AFTER having repeatedly stated that he didn’t have the authority to do what he did, that it would violate democracy, that he would be an emperor, etc.  HOW ABOUT THAT EXAMPLE OF “EVEN OBAMA…”???  Let’s also consider the fact that Reagan’s amnesty FAILED by all accounts – so why the hell do more of what already has been proven not to work???  And let’s also consider the flat-out LIAR that Democrats proved to be given a condition for Reagan’s signing that law in the first place:

Rising levels of illegal immigration [led to] the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA).  It provided amnesty for 3 million illegal immigrants, in return for increased border security and penalties for companies “knowingly” hiring illegal immigrants.

Democrats dishonestly proved to be liars who refused to make good on either one of those two conditions.  They proved that they are utterly illegitimate negotiating partners.  And they have been dishonest negotiating partners ever since.

Even Reagan can’t be “even Reagan” when he could literally trust the pathologically dishonest Soviet Union more than he could trust the Democrat Party.

Again, this is just another example of “even Reagan,” so if Republicans oppose Obama doing what he did, it’s only because they’re “extremist.”  Because you see, it’s only fascist when Republicans evolve, at least it is if you’ve got enough legions of demons screaming in your insane brain.

To hold one party to a standard that old even as your own party has swung wildly and massively to the left is quite literally clinically insane both in terms of schizophrenic (by believing “facts” that are blatantly false) and sociopathic (by manifesting profound deceit and insincerity and an appalling absence of remorse or shame).

I am so sick of these sneering pseudo-intellectual HYPOCRITES creating “facts” by the despicable manipulation of rhetoric otherwise known as “political correctness.”

We now live in a time when liberals are so hypocritical and frankly so blatantly morally depraved that liberals believe that it is okay for their members to label police as “murderers” and that “law enforcement” is tantamount to “white supremacy” but it is somehow intolerable for a Republican to talk about the ACTUAL MURDERERS and criminals who are flooding into our nation via illegal immigration.

Liberal Hollywood tycoon Quentin Tarantino appeared on liberal MSNBC and doubled-down after calling police murders.  He said (“whined” being a more accurate term):

That’s the way they attack me …  for standing up for the rights of unarmed citizens who have been killed by the police.

They want to demonize me.  They want to slander me and imply that I said things I didn’t say.  And the reason is because they want me to shut up and they want to make sure that no other people like me, prominent citizens, will stand up for that side.

First of all, you turd, WHY ARE THE CITIZENS UNARMED AGAIN???  Oh, that’s right; because of liberals like YOU dedicated to denying us our 2nd Amendment freedom in spite of the fact that basically every single movie you ever made glorified gun violence – because, yeah, to be a damn liberal is to be a damn hypocrite.  And second, what about the left trying to destroy Donald Trump for pointing out the fact that “unarmed citizens” are rather routinely getting MURDERED by illegal immigrants that this administration refuses to deal with?  What about the far MORE fascist tactics that the left routinely uses to demonize any debate???

You can’t reason with or argue with a hypocrite.  Democrats constantly shift in their double-standards.  As I believe I’ve amply demonstrated above, the goal posts move on every single play with them while they demonize us for not PERFECTLY holding to the ideals of a man from three decades ago.

It is literally Satanic for the Democrat Party that has swung further to extremism than any political party has in American history to label the Republican Party as “extremists.”  Just as it is literally Satanic for the mainstream media to act as that extremist party’s most powerful super PAC by backing their demagoguery.

Why Isn’t Obama Held Responsible For The Catastrophic Results Of HIS All-Out War The Way Liberals Blame Bush For His War?

November 2, 2015

It’s not that difficult to frame this.  Let’s start with the Democrat mantra that Bush is responsible for the current disastrous state of the world because of his wars.  I mean, yes, Bush won his war, he took down Saddam Hussein and the man was executed for his crimes; he took down the al Qaeda uprising as can be demonstrated in al Qaeda saying in its cables, “We are defeated, don’t send any more foreign fighters,” and Joe Biden’s boast that Iraq would be Obama’s greatest achievement and Obama’s own boast that he was leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq and he could therefore [amazingly stupidly] pull all the American troops out.

Now, it is a fact that Bush WON his war and Obama LOST what America’s warriors had won with their blood and America’s treasure.  Obama foolishly, wickedly and catastrophically ignored his own generals’ pleading urging to remain in Iraq.

I can document again and again Obama’s rabid, wicked and morally and intellectuall idiotic refusal to follow his own generals’ and experts’ recommendations in foreign policy.  I can document that Obama utterly refused to follow his own generals’ recommendations on the Syria that is now an open hellhole.

I can show that Obama’s own top ex-officials pleaded with him not to pursue his idiotic Iran deal.

But it doesn’t matter to Democrats whose spirit is frankly the spirit of stupidity through pathological dishonesty and hypocrisy.

But for the sake of argument, let’s suppose that Bush somehow DID – by going to war in Iraq – ultimately set in motion a process that resulted in the toppling of several Middle Eastern governments and create a spirit of anti-American hate and rage that is now swallowing the world up in an ogre of violence to such an extent that not even the messianic, divine wisdom of Barack Obama is enough to solve “the results of Bush’s wars.”

With that, here’s my question: why is Bush held responsible for a war that he won being the cause of all the horrible disasters that have erupted under Obama’s watch, but Obama isn’t held responsible for HIS singular war that he managed to win that has – and this according to Democrats more than ANYONE – had terrible consequences for America?

I’m talking about Obama’s war on Republicans.

Obama has been at war with Republicans – and conservatives can only WISH that Obama would EVER have been as vicious and determined and hell-bent on winning against the terrorists, against Islamic State, against Russia, against China, etc. as he has been on warring on his own countrymen – literally since he took office.

I can document for you Obama’s goal: to divide the Republican Party, to break the Republican Party:

The Other Goal in Obama’s Budget: Dividing Republicans
by Mike Dorning
February 2, 2015 — 12:59 PM PST

President Barack Obama’s $4 trillion budget plan lays out a wish list for populist Democrats, but it also does something more subtle: It tries to drive a wedge between Republicans on taxes and spending.

Obama proposes busting defense spending caps with $38 billion in new money, matched with a similar amount in new domestic funding. That could pit Republican defense hawks like Senator John McCain of Arizona against budget hawks like Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, a Tea Party favorite.

Even Obama’s plan for new corporate taxes on overseas profits puts two of the party’s most powerful interests in conflict: U.S. companies with foreign earnings versus the Chamber of Commerce, which has been pushing for a new way to pay for infrastructure projects. Obama’s tax proposal puts $478 billion toward roads, bridges and other projects over six years.

“This is mostly a political document designed to help Democrats in 2016.” — Stan Collender

The U.S. needs “to replace mindless austerity with smart investments that strengthen America,” Obama said Monday after releasing his proposed budget.

Republican leaders such as House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky already have enough trouble keeping their restive caucuses united. If Obama can attract some Republicans in each chamber to his plans to boost spending — which for many lawmakers is popular at home — that could set off even more intraparty fights that have split Republicans in the past.

And:

Top aide: Obama seeks to split Republican Party into warring factions before 2014 midterm election
Neil Munro
White House Correspondent
1:42 AM 01/21/2013

President Barack Obama’s top political aide used an Inauguration Day interview to sketch out a provocative political strategy intended to split the Republican Party in time to impact the 2014 midterm elections.

“The barrier to progress here in many respects, whether it is deficits, measures to help economy, immigration, gun safety legislation … is [that] there are factions here in Congress, Republicans in Congress, who are out of the mainstream,” White House advisor David Plouffe said on CNN’s “State of the Union with Candy Crowley.”

“We need more Republicans in Congress to think like Republicans in the country who are seeking compromise, seeking balance,” he claimed.

Plouffe’s statement likely will strengthen the GOP’s consensus that Obama is seeking confrontation prior to 2014, not bipartisan cooperation to spur the stalled U.S. economy. […]

An agressive political strategy in dealing with Republicans has already been endorsed by major media figures including CBS “Face the Nation” host Bob Schieffer and CBS political director John Dickerson.

“Go for the Throat! Why if he wants to transform American politics, Obama must declare war on the Republican Party,” declared the headline of a Jan. 18 article penned by Dickerson.

“The president can stir up these [needed] fights by poking the fear among Republicans that the party is becoming defined by its most extreme elements, which will in turn provoke fear among the most faithful conservatives that weak-willed conservatives are bending to the popular mood,” wrote Dickerson, who shapes CBS’ coverage of politics.

And:

January 18, 2013
Obama’s Goal Is to Break the Republican Party
By James G. Wiles

In the pre-9/11 movie “Independence Day,” an embattled American president questions a captured alien.  What, the fictional President – in full Rodney King mode – asks, do you invaders want us earthlings to do so that our two peoples can live together in peace? The answer, of course, is famous.
“Die.”

That’s pretty much President Obama’s position to the Republicans – especially the GOP majority in the House of Representatives. In a penetrating analysis today in Washington Free Beacon, Matthew Continetti writes of how “a president known for his passivity and cool…displayed enormous and impressive energy as he moved to break the Republican Party” in the fiscal-cliff negotiations. Breaking the Republican Party is what this President is now all about.

Unfortunately, some conservatives – such as Michael Savage – seem to be helping him.

Leftist commentators in The New Republic sense it too. Paul Begala is openly gloating. A concerned Charles Krauthammer this  morning offered his take on how a GOP break-up can be avoided.

The President and the Congressional Democrats are basically engaged in a pincer movement. In the Senate, the goal is to repeal – or, at least, defang – the filibuster rule.  If that can be done, the Republican minority will be neutered. The way will then be open to confirm leftist nominees to Cabinet positions and to the Supreme Court which Republicans would otherwise be able to block.

And:

Official: Goal of ‘Fiscal Cliff’ to Break GOP on No Tax Increase Pledgeby
Dr. Susan Berry1 Jan 2013

According to Ed Henry of Fox News, the “fiscal cliff” deal passed by the Senate served its ultimate goal for President Obama. An official close to the negotiations said: “The President fulfilled a major campaign promise,” referring to raising taxes on the rich. The official added that the president “broke the Republicans’ backs on a 20-year pledge” not to raise tax rates.

“It is one of the most consequential policy achievements of the last couple decades,” the official said.

Senate Democrats overwhelmingly supported the deal, largely negotiated by Senate Minority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)

So, yes, Obama very clearly went to war with an agenda to break and divide the Republican Party.

I can show you the articles that categorically state that the Republican Party has been divided and broken – precisely according to Obama’s goal – according to decidedly left-wing analysts:

GOP hopelessly divided, US faces another shutdown

Rachel Maddow reports on how President Obama’s actions on immigration have so divided the Republican Party in terms of how respond that they’re stuck in gridlock as another expensive shutdown of the federal government is just days away.  Duration: 4:31

And:

A Way Around the Divided House Majority
By Charles Weise & Bruce Larson
October 16, 2015

For observers of the U.S. Congress, the inability of Republicans to unite behind a candidate for speaker has been by turn fascinating, exasperating, and frightening. When and if a candidate is finally chosen, Republicans will breathe a sigh of relief, as will many commentators. The real crisis, however, will have just begun.

The Republican Party is hopelessly divided between conservatives who nonetheless recognize their responsibility to participate in governance and radicals intent on disrupting government at every turn to advance their agenda.

And here the Daily Kos Headline says it all:

The Hopelessly Divided Republican Party: Where’s the Coverage?

I notice that the Daily Kos desperately wants more attention on how “hopelessly divided” the Republican Party is, but they have no desire whatsoever to acknowledge WHO “hopelessly divided” the Republicans as part of a deliberate and vindictive campaign.  That hater’s name is Barack Hussein Obama.  And Democrats have cheered that dividing and that breaking at every turn.

I can show you – again, even from the leftist perspective – articles that categorically state that this division and breaking of the Republican Party has been a terrible thing for America:

Let’s just say it: The Republicans are the problem.
By Thomas E. Mann and Norman J. Ornstein April 27, 2012

Rep. Allen West, a Florida Republican, was recently captured on video asserting that there are “78 to 81” Democrats in Congress who are members of the Communist Party. Of course, it’s not unusual for some renegade lawmaker from either side of the aisle to say something outrageous. What made West’s comment — right out of the McCarthyite playbook of the 1950s — so striking was the almost complete lack of condemnation from Republican congressional leaders or other major party figures, including the remaining presidential candidates.

It’s not that the GOP leadership agrees with West; it is that such extreme remarks and views are now taken for granted.

We have been studying Washington politics and Congress for more than 40 years, and never have we seen them this dysfunctional. In our past writings, we have criticized both parties when we believed it was warranted. Today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the Republican Party.

The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.

When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country’s challenges.

It doesn’t matter that Allen West was in fact ENTIRELY CORRECT when he made his factually true accusation.  Nor does it matter that leftist’s are literally now arguing that “Barack Obama broke the Republican Party, and it’s the Republicans’ fault that Obama broke them.”

I have seen numerous comparisons – and from the very highest levels – comparing Republicans to terrorists.  From the very party that refuses to call TERRORISTS terrorists.  But I want you to consider the Democrats’ charge from their own viewpoint: their argument is that it was Bush’s fault that the terrorists became terrorists, because Bush radicalized them with his war.

Which is precisely what the hell Obama intentionally set out to do to the Republicans.

And he succeeded.

Now, that wasn’t what Obama promised the American people to do if we elected him.  He is a LIAR who SWORE he would do the precise OPPOSITE.  Go back to 2008 and read this and then explain to me how to reconcile that with the above where Obama is intentionally dividing and breaking what he SWORE he would unite and heal:

WASHINGTON — At the core of Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign is a promise that he can transcend the starkly red-and-blue politics of the last 15 years, end the partisan and ideological wars and build a new governing majority.

To achieve the change the country wants, he says, “we need a leader who can finally move beyond the divisive politics of Washington and bring Democrats, independents and Republicans together to get things done.”

But this promise leads, inevitably, to a question: Can such a majority be built and led by Mr. Obama, whose voting record was, by one ranking, the most liberal in the Senate last year?

Obama NEVER even TRIED to fulfill that promise.  Right from the start he demonized Republicans and their ideas.  Immediately after being elected, he was already beginning his campaign to marginalize and demonize the people he had falsely and deceitfully promised he would reach out to:

“Don’t come to the table with the same tired arguments and worn ideas that helped to create this crisis.” — Barack Obama, February 5, 2009

Obama falsely and dishonestly talked about his heroic efforts to reach out to Republicans, but in actual fact the man not only never bothered to even TRY, but IT TURNS OUT HE DIDN’T HAVE THE REPUBLICAN LEADERS’ DAMN PHONE NUMBER WHEN HE BECAME THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE:

The failure of Obama to connect with Boehner was vaguely reminiscent of another phone call late in the evening of Election Day 2010, after it became clear that the Republicans would take control of the House, making Boehner Speaker of the House.

Nobody in the Obama orbit could even find the soon-to-be-speaker’s phone number, Woodward reports. A Democratic Party aide finally secured it through a friend so the president could offer congratulations.

You explain to me how Obama heroically tried for two years to reach out to Republicans when he didn’t even have the freaking phone number of the leader of the Republican Party for that entire damn two year period when Obama was saying, “Elections have consequences, and I won.”

But facts don’t matter to Democrats.  They simply invent false narratives to masquerade for the TRUTH that they never bothered to reach out to Republicans because they hated their guts more than they ever hated any enemy or any terrorist.

Obama arrogantly and imperiously said that since he won, he had the right to shut Republicans out in 2008.  But when Republicans won the House in 2010 and then kept the House and won the Senate in 2014, Obama hypocritically and dishonestly claimed that elections most certainly should NOT have consequences and has governed by fascist Führer Directives ever since in a clear hyper-partisan maneuver to further break and divide the Republicans and divide the American people in a plan to win 50%-plus-one-vote and throw burning hell in the angry faces of the rest of the American people and their representatives.  Obama has done things he repeatedly said that he had not and did not have the constitutional right to do.  He has flat-out lied and flat-out broken his word to the American people.

But it’s the other side’s fault that they didn’t come crawling to him and worship him and do his bidding exactly as he dictated it to them.

Barack Obama is a pathologically wicked man and America is a hopelessly divided and embittered nation because of the cancer of his presidency.

There is a rabid, undying hatred by Democrats for their fellow American citizens that they would NEVER have for America’s actual enemies.  The same people who opposed fighting our worst enemies who were at war with us and murdered thousands of Americans have loved every minute of a savage war waged against Republicans.

So other than my contention that the spirit of liberalism is abject moral hypocrisy and to be a Democrat is essentially to be a cockroach, why haven’t Democrats vehemently condemned Obama’s toxic war with the Republican Party that has left this nation poisoned and divided in a way that we have never seen since the Civil War?

I am personally fine at this point with Republicans shutting down the government, shutting down EVERYTHING, until America literally completely collapses and the survivors live out the horror of one of those zombie movies.  Because it would be an all-too-fitting conclusion of Barack Obama’s vicious war against the Republican Party.

And it would serve this nation right for refusing to hold him personally responsible for the results of his damn war.

Why hasn’t the same media that has dishonestly tried to blame Bush for the failures of Obama in terms of “the results of Bush’s wars” – (that Bush won and Obama treasonously and stupidly lost by ignoring his own experts’ and his own generals’ advice) – not held Obama responsible for the terrible result of HIS war on Republicans?

Help, Has Anyone Seen Obama’s Missing $1.4 Billion Blimp? It’s Destroying Power All Over Pennsylvania

October 28, 2015

I feel sorry for Obama, in a way.  I mean, it can’t be easy being a demon-possessed incompetent fool who is pathologically incapable of acknowledging personal responsibility for ANYTHING.

Just last week during the Benghazi hearing I heard Democrat after Democrat wax indignant that Republicans were “wasting” $5 million on a hearing into the murder of the first United States Ambassador since 1979 who had begged and pleaded for additional security more than 600 times to deaf State Department ears.  It also just happened to come up that Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State had personally and repeatedly lied to the American people and had literally lied while standing directly over the flag-draped coffins of men who deserved better than America gave them.

Doesn’t matter.  It was an appalling waste of money.

Let’s see how many Democrats become appalled at the waste of more than $1.4 BILLION – 280 TIMES what they were appalled about when Hillary Clinton’s lies were being revealed – and counting as this giant blimp drags a huge 5,000-foot tether cable across power line after power line until it either massively explodes or is shot down.

Here’s a link to the story.

More than 20,000 people are without power and that number is basically going up by the minute as power lines and transformers blow up.

They will eventually have to shoot it down because otherwise the helium in the football-field-sized blimp will detonate and massively explode.

And what a damn waste.  The Army tried to kill the blimp program but the Obama Pentagon said no way, Jose.  So it became one of Obama’s “zombie programs.”

Nothing like this has ever happened before because we’ve never been so damn poorly and miserably misled before.

This blimp is a portrait of its leader: just floating around causing massive damage wherever the hell it goes.

Meet The Monster Responsible For The Giant Rise In Violence And Crime In America

October 26, 2015

Barack Obama is the monster who breathed life into the “Black Lives Matter (White Lives DON’T)” bowel movement.

Barack Obama has been demonizing and delegitimizing police departments his entire cancerous presidency.

We have a MASSIVE and SHOCKING surge in violent crime:

Sudden Spike in Violent Crime Across US Raises Alarm
By Melanie Batley   |    Thursday, 04 Jun 2015 12:28 PM

Major cities across the United States are seeing their crime rates skyrocket, sparking alarm about the causes, particularly given that there had been a two-decade drop in crime.

A city-by-city look shows:

  • In Baltimore, shootings are up 82.5 percent, or nearly double from last year, the Baltimore Brew reported.
  • In Chicago, there have been over 900 shootings this year, a 40 percent increase, and a 29 percent increase in homicides in the first three months of the year, USA Today reported.
  • In New York City, murders have increased 20 percent and the mayor has already announced that he will put an additional 330 cops on the street by Monday in response to the spike in homicides and shootings.
  • In Los Angeles, violent crime rates increased by more than 25 percent and the city is also deploying more officers to areas where crime is on the rise, The Los Angeles Times reported.

And according to Townhall.com:

  • In St. Louis, there have been 55 murders this year
  • In Dallas, violent crime is up 10 percent
  • In Atlanta, homicides are up 32 percent
  • In Milwaukee, homicides have increased by 180 percent

Some attribute the rise in crime to a “Ferguson” effect, or a rise in anti-police sentiment born out of the protests and clashes around the country that followed the deaths of unarmed black men at the hands of police, The Week reported.

A dynamic may have emerged in which criminals are more brazen and police are more cautious in fighting crime.

“There’s a war on cops. Not bad cops, not bad apples, but all cops and the police know it. The conduct of the suspects is never in question — they’re always right, it’s usually drawn on racial lines. It’s a complete, toxic formula to actually do police work,” said former Los Angeles Police Department Homicide Detective Mark Fuhrman, according to Townhall.com.

“The police are simply scaling back, exactly what everybody’s chanting for in all of these protests. ‘Don’t be so aggressive. Don’t stop and frisk. Don’t stop and ask where people are going. Don’t make traffic stops.’ So, they are,” Fuhrman said, and now crime’s skyrocketing.

Oh, that’s just some right-wing rag, Democrats who worship their Fuehrer say.  Okay, let’s try another one, then:

Murder Rates Rising Sharply in Many U.S. Cities
By MONICA DAVEY and MITCH SMITHAUG. 31, 2015
The New York Times

MILWAUKEE — Cities across the nation are seeing a startling rise in murders after years of declines, and few places have witnessed a shift as precipitous as this city. With the summer not yet over, 104 people have been killed this year — after 86 homicides in all of 2014.

More than 30 other cities have also reported increases in violence from a year ago. In New Orleans, 120 people had been killed by late August, compared with 98 during the same period a year earlier. In Baltimore, homicides had hit 215, up from 138 at the same point in 2014. In Washington, the toll was 105, compared with 73 people a year ago. And in St. Louis, 136 people had been killed this year, a 60 percent rise from the 85 murders the city had by the same time last year. […]

Well, but that’s just New York or it’s just regional, Democrats say.  Because Democrats are WRONG:

L.A. Has Bloody Weekend as Murders Soar in 2015
by William Bigelow30 Sep 2015528

19 people were shot last weekend in Los Angeles, and five were killed, as the city’s homicide rate continues to rise, despite a program instituted and championed by L.A. Mayor Eric Garcetti to reduce crime in the city.

The Los Angeles Times reported that LAPD Chief Charlie Beck acknowledged that it had been a “very, very tough weekend” and that homicides had risen almost 11% in 2015. He added that gang-related crime was up roughly 15.6% from 2014.

Beck informed the weekly meeting of the Police Commission’s board that the majority of the shootings were triggered by gang violence.

Beck insisted that programs have been implemented to reduce violence: “This is not Dodge City. And unfortunately it looked a little too much like Dodge City this weekend.”

39 people were killed in Los Angeles in August, more than any month in six years.

Now, we can also consider Proposition 47 – the morally idiotic law passed entirely by stupid, evil Democrats to basically let criminals run out of our prisons and go hog-wild on our streets.  Democrats sowed the wind for us and now we get to all reap the whirlwind of their moral idiocy.  But Prop 47 isn’t to blame for everywhere else:

The nation’s two-decades-long crime decline may be over. Gun violence in particular is spiraling upward in cities across America. In Baltimore, the most pressing question every morning is how many people were shot the previous night. Gun violence is up more than 60% compared with this time last year, according to Baltimore police, with 32 shootings over Memorial Day weekend. May has been the most violent month the city has seen in 15 years.

In Milwaukee, homicides were up 180% by May 17 over the same period the previous year. Through April, shootings in St. Louis were up 39%, robberies 43%, and homicides 25%. “Crime is the worst I’ve ever seen it,” said St. Louis Alderman Joe Vacarro at a May 7 City Hall hearing.

Murders in Atlanta were up 32% as of mid-May. Shootings in Chicago had increased 24% and homicides 17%. Shootings and other violent felonies in Los Angeles had spiked by 25%; in New York, murder was up nearly 13%, and gun violence 7%.

Those citywide statistics from law-enforcement officials mask even more startling neighborhood-level increases. Shooting incidents are up 500% in an East Harlem precinct compared with last year; in a South Central Los Angeles police division, shooting victims are up 100%.

America is suffering an explosion of Democrat Party- and Obama-viciousness.

Now I would like to show you HOW Obama has created this surge in violence in an article that appeared today in the Los Angeles Times under the print headline “A ‘hammer’ for policing the police” and with the subtitle “Under Obama, the Justice Department veered from memos about abuse and headed for court“:

In the previous four years under President George W. Bush, the Justice Department had stopped taking police departments to court over allegations of misconduct or violations of civil rights. But Thomas Perez, a liberal former Justice Department lawyer, had just been nominated to take over the civil rights division by President Obama, and he was determined to play hardball with rogue cops and departments.

In the nearly seven years since Obama came to office, his Justice Department has investigated 21 police departments — big departments, including New Orleans and Detroit, and small ones, such as East Haven and Ferguson, Mo.

But rather than reach informal agreements to correct misconduct, as the Bush administration often preferred, most of the cases under Obama ended up in court, either in settlements approved and monitored by a judge, or, in a few examples, with lawsuits filed by the federal government against police departments and officers.

“Under Bush, the Department of Justice took the view that they could not force, or did not want to force, police departments into court,” said Stephen Rushin, a professor at the University of Alabama Law School and an expert on federal enforcement of police reform. “Under the Obama administration, they take the view that if a city isn’t willing to play ball, that the DOJ will go to court and force that city to comply.”

The department’s civil rights division has relied heavily on a 20-year-old enforcement law, passed in the wake of the 1991 Rodney King beating in Los Angeles, using it as a legal “hammer” to pressure police departments into signing court-enforced settlement agreements and do extensive monitoring to measure their progress, said Joshua Chanin, a professor at San Diego State University. “The Obama administration is using it more actively than past presidents have,” he said.

Many on the left applaud the new, tougher approach, saying it has sent a strong message to local law enforcement agencies that misconduct, abuse and overzealous or racist behavior will not be tolerated.

But others question whether the department, with only about 18 lawyers to oversee roughly 16,000 police departments, is making a dent in the problem.

The Obama administration is also facing a backlash over its tactics. Heather Mac Donald, author and fellow at the Manhattan Institute, said the Justice Department has effectively “declared open season” on police departments.

Obama declared “open-season” on police departments.  And he did it in the most underhanded, snotty way imaginable.

After detailing examples of how the Obama Justice Department just came in and demonized and slandered good police and good policing, one official said this:

“The Department of Justice is engaging community after community in what seems like an oppressive bargaining process where you know they are going to sue and get you [into a] very, very, costly back-and-forth from which you will certainly lose,” said Ron Hosko, a former assistant FBI director and president of the Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund, which provides legal support to police accused of misconduct.

It’s called “the jackbooted-fascist-THUG” approach.  And Obama has used it over and over again to impose his dictatorship.

It comes down to this little factoid: Bush brought crime DOWN.  Obama has caused crime to SKYROCKET.  Somebody has MASSIVELY screwed up the engines of society.

The Director of the FBI had this to say just a couple of days ago:

F.B.I. Chief Links Scrutiny of Police With Rise in Violent Crime
By MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT and MATT APUZZOOCT. 23, 2015

CHICAGO — The F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, said on Friday that the additional scrutiny and criticism of police officers in the wake of highly publicized episodes of police brutality may have led to an increase in violent crime in some cities as officers have become less aggressive.

With his remarks, Mr. Comey lent the prestige of the F.B.I., the nation’s most prominent law enforcement agency, to a theory that is far from settled: that the increased attention on the police has made officers less aggressive and emboldened criminals. But he acknowledged that there is so far no data to back up his assertion and that it may be just one of many factors that are contributing to the rise in crime, like cheaper drugs and an increase in criminals who are being released from prison.

“I don’t know whether that explains it entirely, but I do have a strong sense that some part of the explanation is a chill wind that has blown through American law enforcement over the last year,” Mr. Comey said in a speech at the University of Chicago Law School.

Mr. Comey’s remarks caught officials by surprise at the Justice Department, where his views are not shared at the top levels. Holding the police accountable for civil rights violations has been a top priority at the department in recent years, and some senior officials do not believe that scrutiny of police officers has led to an increase in crime. While the department had no immediate comment on Friday, several officials privately fumed at Mr. Comey’s suggestion.

You know, the same officials who privately cheered when their incredibly cynical “Justice” Department managed to decide not to prosecute Lois Lerner or ANY IRS official for clearly targeting conservative groups as Obama weaponized the IRS into his own “Internal Revenge Service.”  It doesn’t matter whether the woman scrubbed her emails, it doesn’t matter that the emails we were able to find showed a CLEAR rabid bias – such as when she literally called conservatives “terrorists” and “crazies” and “a**holes” – Obama said his IRS was pure as the driven snow, and pure as the driven snow his Justice Department therefore claimed Obama’s IRS was.

The Black Lives Matter bowel movement came right out of the toxic, wicked soul of Barack Obama.  It was born because all of Obama’s slanderous Communist show-trial investigations kept publicly delegitimizing police and undermining trust in law enforcement.  In short, Obama provided the Black Lives Matter movement everything they needed to demonize the police.

And it is therefore because of Obama that we have Democrats chanting:

“WHAT DO WE WANT?” “DEAD COPS!” “WHEN DO WE WANT IT?” “NOW!!!”

I want you to understand, the same Al Sharpton who organized that march and is responsible for that chant is Obama’s point-thug for race-pimping.

And:

PIGS IN A BLANKET, FRY ‘EM LIKE BACON!

Allen West summed it up well: “Black Lies Matter.”  Police officers have literally repeatedly been ASSASSINATED across America as a result of these wicked Obama lies.

Police have been intimidated by Obama and his lawsuits and his armies of demon-possessed thug-mobs out of doing their jobs.  And society is suffering as a result.

You’ve got to ask the question: what do Obama and his liberal roach army want?  I mean, why would they be de-legitimizing the police at every single turn across the nation?  And the answer is actually quite simple (and quite terrifying): because liberals worship mega-government; they worship totalitarianism.  What they want – and what they will keep agitating for as they exploit the liberal maxim, “Never let a serious crisis go to waste” – is a Soviet Union-style “People’s Commissariat for Internal Affairs.”

In short, what the left wants is a true nakedly politicized “law enforcement agency” that will essentially be the Obama (and then the Clinton, and so on ad nauseam) Police Force.  They want to do to our police what they’ve already pulled off with the IRS.  No Christian, no conservative, need ever run for any office again when Democrats get their way, because there will inevitably be an “investigation” that will surely find that Christian or that conservative guilty.

It won’t ever find a Hillary Clinton guilty, even though she’s about fifty-thousand times more guilty of the crime they destroyed our greatest war hero over.

You want another current example of what I’m talking about?  I just recently threw up over this one:

L.A. leaders struggle with disruptive ‘Black Lives Matter’ protests
Kate Mather, Peter Jamison and Angel Jennings
October 20, 2015, 8:36 PM

Today, the big crowds have faded. But a cadre of activists under the Black Lives Matter banner have kept the movement alive in the city with smaller but decidedly aggressive protests targeting top L.A. police officials and the mayor.

The disruptive tactics pose a political challenge for city leaders who are still struggling to effectively engage the activists about issues that have prompted heated debate across the country.

Protesters have camped outside police headquarters and regularly disrupted the city Police Commission’s weekly meetings, turning normally dry public hearings into hours-long confrontations that frequently devolve into officers clearing demonstrators from the room.

The group has also set its sights on Mayor Eric Garcetti. A summer protest outside his Windsor Square home turned into an embarrassing episode, captured on video and spread on the Internet, when he left through a back gate for a trip to Washington, D.C.

On Monday, about 50 of the group’s supporters confronted the mayor at a town hall meeting in South Los Angeles, forcing Garcetti to make a hasty retreat to his car, surrounded by police and shouting audience members.

[… WARNING: VOMIT ALERT.  HERE IT COMES …]

After Monday’s clash, city leaders took great pains to support the rights of the protesters and the thrust of their message.

Garcetti, speaking to reporters Tuesday morning, pointedly declined to criticize the protesters’ conduct the night before.

“As mayor, that’s part of the job. Sometimes people scream. Sometimes people shout,” he said. “Any person who talks about their frustrations … you know, those are real problems with jobs, with housing, with policing. But I just keep doing the work.”

Imagine instead of “Black Lives Matter” the group that shut down city hall was called “Aryan Brotherhood.”  The same city leadership that did NOTHING and REFUSED TO EVEN CRITICIZE the mob would have ordered the police to use the most vicious attics in the arsenal to put down the demonstration.

How many white organizations have had the mayor of the city they were rioting in say, “We gave them space to destroy?”

Or take Obama’s refusal to do ANYTHING to enforce our illegal immigration LAWS or do anything to enforce cities whose “sanctuary” policies flout those laws?  Just take a moment to ponder how Obama would be dealing with this issue if three-quarters of Hispanics voted REPUBLICAN.  He would use every jackbooted tactic in his book to break them, crush them, destroy them.

This is the most blatantly politicized and ideologized “Justice” the world has ever seen outside a communist dictatorship.   Which is precise what Obama is trying to achieve.

Bottom line, in Obama’s “AmeriKKKa” Obama ripped off the blindfold of Lady Justice and all his new version of “JustiSS” sees race and political ideology such that he WILL use his lawthugs to attack ANY group or ANY organization that doesn’t see the world the way Obama wants the world to be seen.

It’s a rather massive act of blindness that neither Obama nor his Black Lives Matter mob give one flying DAMN about the fact that more than 93% of black people are murdered by other black people.  Obama cynically and brutally exploits every death at every opportunity to demonize the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution and the fundamental right to ear arms that it enshrines.  He doesn’t give one flying DAMN that black thugs are using guns to murder other black people because he is a truly wicked man who can cynically demagogue the violence as he uses it to advance his true target of seizing guns from law-abiding WHITE people.  THAT’S the goal, THAT’S the agenda.

So basically, what I described above is a Hitler-style Führer-thug who like a parasite sucks up all the blood his policies have generated and uses that blood to nourish even MORE wicked policies.

 

Okay, That’s It. Democrats Need To Take Away Our Right To Keep And Bear CARS

October 24, 2015

This wouldn’t happen in this country if people were barred from having the right to keep and bear cars:

3 Dead, 22 Injured at Oklahoma State Homecoming in Stillwater After Car Plows Into Crowd
By ABC NEWS
Oct 24, 2015, 1:26 PM ET

Three people were killed and 22 injured when a car plowed into a crowd at the Oklahoma State University homecoming parade Saturday in Stillwater, according to officials.

The driver was taken into custody for driving under the influence after the horrific crash after 10:30 a.m. The case was being treated like a homicide investigation.

Police said the vehicle, a Hyundai Elantra, smashed into an unmanned police motorcycle on Main Street and then into a crowd of people at the parade.

Eight of the injured were in critical condition, seven in serious condition and seven others were less seriously injured, police said

“We are heartbroken,” said Mayor Gina Noble.

Witnesses told the Associated Press that they saw a vehicle careen into the crowd.

“We heard somebody scream, ‘Look out!.’ (He) plowed through a police motorcycle, and then a crowd of people,” Dave Kapple told the Associated Press. “People were flying everywhere.”

Most other countries don’t have anywhere NEAR as many deaths caused by cars as the United States.  I mean, look at SWEDEN!

People don’t kill people; guns kill people.  Wait, I mean CARS kill people.

Thirty-seven thousand people every YEAR would be alive to walk the streets today if you were forced to have to walk the streets the way you ought to be doing.

Which is another way of pointing a finger at Republicans as being responsible for the murders of 37,000 innocent people.

How much longer is this entirely preventable tragedy going to continue???  There should be no right to own a car when cars murder so many innocent people.  Think about it; guns are evil because they hurl out small metal objects at great speed.  CARS ARE LARGE GIANT METAL OBJECTS THAT TRAVEL AT GREAT SPEED.

Every car is like a great big giant bullet.  And hundreds of people are being killed by these great big giant bullets every day in America.  And this horror needs to STOP and your rights and your freedoms be DAMNED.

We’re clearly too stupid to be trusted with the right to keep and bear arms OR cars.  We need fascist Democrats to take away our freedoms so we won’t use them to hurt ourselves like kindergarten kids racing around with scissors.  We need to be herded into large zoos – I mean cities – and taken care of by our bureaucrats who ALONE can be trusted with our best interests.

Whenever you look at an electoral map, recognize that it’s basically the difference between the farm animal herded-into-zoos vote versus those who love freedom:

Electoral Map

That’s what Democrats are for, to put the farm animals in their proper place.  And of course, to subjugate the REST of us, as well.

If we were human beings created in the image of God, that would be one thing.  But Democrats know that we evolved from the nastiest form of slime and we’re nothing more than glorified monkeys.  And you just shouldn’t allow a damn monkey to have a gun.

PLEASE vote Democrat, mindless farm animals; you’re just too damn stupid to be trusted to vote for anything else.

Barack Hussein Obama, The First True Anti-Israel And ANTICHRIST President

October 20, 2015

Barack Obama just demonized Israel again.

In the face of a wave of vicious knife attacks in which rabid Palestinian youth are slashing at any Jew they can find with a knife.  There have been NUMEROUS vicious “lone-wolf-style” attacks so far in Israel against Jews whose crime was being Jewish in a world that hates Jews.

The Palestinian leadership, including the Palestinian Prime Minister himself, have been egging on those attacks.  They maliciously and falsely began reporting that Jews were destroying the Al Aqsa Mosque.  They began publishing on their state-controlled television and in their state-controlled schools propaganda material such as “How to kill a Jew” detailing the points to stab Jews.  At the very top levels of their leadership, there are “Statements by Fatah, Hamas and PIJ spokespersons have described the attacks as “heroic actions” and “the natural response to Israel’s crimes.”  These leaders of the Palestinian people are publicly and routinely broadcasting outright lies, with the Prime Minister claiming that the Jews had “executed” a Palestinian terrorist who had just viciously attacked a 13-year-old Jewish boy with a knife.  That was a lie, but when does the truth matter in these dark days just before the Antichrist?

One of those who hates Jews is Barack Obama.

Amazingly, Obama Administration tools have continued to mock – I mean make – the claim that Obama has been the most pro-Israel president like EVER.  I mean, you know, aside from Hitler, who loved Jews so much he decided to keep them all nice and warm by putting them in ovens.  I mean, okay, Obama has been calling for Israel to return to the completely indefensible pre-1967 borders which would force them to give up their holy city of Jerusalem – but pissing on their religion is good for them, I mean, right? – and force them to die to the last man trying to keep a border that is only nine miles wide from being cut which would cut the nation in half and allow the hundreds of millions of Muslims on all sides of them to kill them all.  Obama wants Israel to be forced to give all the strategically vital high places to the enemy so that they can rain down artillery fire that would destroy them city by city.  The Muslims are already showing their desire to do precisely that in their incessant launching of rockets.   And you need to understand that those thousands and thousands of rocket attacks were made possible because the Obamas of the world talked Israel into withdrawing from Gaza.

Adolf Hitler, I mean Barack Obama, sold Israel out to Iran.  Or at least please explain to me why the “pro-Israel” thing to do is to impose a nuclear deal with Israel’s most vicious enemy that is opposed by Israelis on the order of seven against to every one in favor of the end-times horror that Obama wrought in his wicked “deal” with Lucifer.  Maybe it’s because the woman who runs the Obama administration is a native of Iran, maybe it’s just because Obama spent his entire adulthood under a rabidly anti-Israel reverend in a rabidly anti-Israel church which was part of a rabidly anti-Israel denomination.

Iran has ALREADY violated the deal:

U.S. envoy says recent Iran missile test violated UN sanctions
By Edith M. Lederer, The Associated Press 12:04 p.m. EDT October 16, 2015

UNITED NATIONS — U.S. Ambassador Samantha Power said Friday that Iran’s recent ballistic missile test was “a clear violation” of U.N. sanctions.

Power said that after reviewing available information the United States has confirmed that the medium-range ballistic missile launched on Oct. 10 was “inherently capable of delivering a nuclear weapon.”

Can anyone explain to me why Iran continues to work on ballistic missiles if they truly aren’t determined to build a nuclear warhead to put on the damn missiles???

Just like every opponent of the deal said Iran would do.  Only they didn’t even wait for the damn INK to dry before they showed what a butcher Obama will be the moment Iran gets nuclear weapons AND the ballistic missiles to deliver them BECAUSE of Obama’s damn deal.

Obama is FINE with that.  In fact, Obama just gave Iran $150 BILLION to invest in their nuclear missiles and their worldwide campaign of jihadist terrorism.

Obama is either a militant atheist or he is a Muslim.  The only reason I wouldn’t just flat-out call him a Muslim is because Obama is such an arrogant narcissist that it’s hard to believe he believes there is actually a deity greater than himself.  Obama has called himself a Christian and even gone into a church a very few times during his presidency – much the way I could call myself a car and lay down on a parking space.  The problem is that Obama’s “Christianity” has about as much to do with what the Bible teaches as the homosexual marriage he imposed on America.  Obama is considered a “Christian” to a postmodern nation that has wildly abandoned the concept of “truth” and therefore believes we each create our own “truth” – as long as that “truth” is deemed politically correct.  So Obama claims he’s a Christian and that’s supposed to settle the matter – you know, the same way that if Donald Trump claims he cherishes women then every Democrat ought to accept that claim at face value.  But the fact of the matter is that Obama’s “Christianity” is utterly incompatible with Christianity according to the Holy Book that DEFINES Christianity.

So what is biblical faith?

Look at this PDF handout and read the Bible verses.  Biblical Christianity versus cultural (pseudo) Christianity:

Christianity_Biblical vs Cultural

You find Obama’s version of “Christianity” in the Bible.  Show me where Obama’s declaration of “collective salvation”

“… working on issues of crime and education and employment and seeing that in some ways certain portions of the African American community are doing as bad if not worse, and recognizing that my fate remain tied up with their fates, that my individual salvation is not going to come about without a collective salvation for the country.

– can be found in the Word of God.  Because it CAN’T be found.  It is a lie.  It may sound nice, it may sound selfless, but it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with what the Holy Bible teaches about salvation.  What Obama is doing is claiming that only by his socialism, only by his economic Marxism, only by imposing his vile ideology onto the world and only by perverting true biblical Christianity with his socialist blasphemy and creating a “secular humanist theocracy” that makes Government the Savior and Provider rather than God and His people, can there be salvation.  That is a LIE from the devil.

Obama is telling us that he – and implicitly all the rest of us unless he’s such a malignant narcissist that he is arguing that God has a different way of saying Barack Obama from the rest of mankind – are saved not by faith in Jesus Christ but by the works we do.  And specifically that work is the work of leftist socialists making the human State more powerful.  He’s telling us the only way to salvation is to bring the work of human socialist Government to the country.  We’re all saved by Government, not by faith in God in Christ.

Barack Obama is dead, wicked, demonic wrong.

And any true Christian knows it.

During Jesus’ ministry on earth, the crowds heard His teaching and asked him this question: “What must we do to do the works God requires?” (John 6:28).  And Jesus answered:

“This is the ONLY work God wants from you: believe in the One He has sent.” (John 6:29).

Everything Barack Obama believes is in massive, fundamental contradiction to what Jesus taught.  Obama doesn’t believe in Jesus, worship Jesus, or have ANY part in Jesus or in His Church; Obama’s “god” is GOVERNMENT.  It is Government that he is determined to exalt and he is using his wicked government to routinely persecute true Christians while he allows true Christians all over the world to be murdered in the greatest numbers in all of human history.

I mean, let’s compare and contrast Obama’s belief in “collective salvation” through his government-as-savior with what actual biblical Christianity teaches (as I’ve presented before):

What does Jesus say?  Consider Matthew 16:24-25:
Then Jesus said to His disciples, “If any one (individual) wishes to come after Me, he (individual) must deny himself (individual), and take up his (individual) cross and follow Me.  For whoever wishes to save his (individual) life will lose it; but whoever loses his (individual) life for My sake will find it.
 Consider 2 Corinthians 5:10 for the thoughts of St. Paul:
For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one (individual) may be recompensed for his (individual) deeds in the body, according to what he (individual) has done, whether good or bad.
 And again, St. Paul in Romans 14:12:
So then each one of us (individual) will give an account of himself (individual) to God.
 Or consider Galatians 2:20:
“I (individual) have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I (individual) who live, but Christ lives in me (individual); and the life which I (individual) now live in the flesh I (individual) live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me (individual), and delivered Himself up for me (individual).”
 And, again, in the words of Jesus as recorded in Revelation 3:20:
“Behold, I stand at the door and knock.  If any one (individual)  hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him (individual) and will dine with him (individual), and he (individual) with Me.”
 Barack Obama is most certainly not a Christian to so miserably misunderstand that we are EACH INDIVIDUALLY saved by our PERSONAL faith in Jesus Christ through what He did for us on the cross.  This is not some esoteric “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?” sort of question; it is a core fundamental of the Christian faith.

Barack Obama’s concept of “salvation” frankly is “a doctrine of demons” that “preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we [the apostles] preached.”  Which is why Obama has a “different spirit” from the Holy Spirit Who fills genuine Christian believers.  St. Paul in his second to last letter before his martyrdom nailed the essence of Barack Hussein Obama:

Now the Holy Spirit tells us clearly that in the last times some will turn away from the true faith; they will follow deceptive spirits and teachings that come from demons. — 1 Timothy 4:1

And the last days is precisely where we ARE, baby.  And we have a son of hell as our president to lead us to that promised land of hell.

Now that I have documented that Barack Obama’s gospel has nothing whatsoever to do with the teachings of the apostles or the Bible they wrote through the Holy Spirit, let me share this:

But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! — Galatians 1:8

The literal Greek rendering is “let them be damned by God.”  And Barack Obama and because of Barack Obama the nation he leads are under God’s curse as a result of Obama’s deceiving wickedness.

Obama worships GOVERNMENT, not God.  He believes inherently in human Government as his power that saves us.  That’s NOT what the Bible teaches about human government.  Jesus Christ will ultimately be the Rock that smashes and DESTROYS wicked human government (Daniel 2:44-45).  God condemned wicked man’s desire to replace Him with human government (1 Samuel 8:4-22).  When Jesus was on earth, and the crowds were hungry, He did NOT order His disciples to go to King Herod or Governor Pilate to start a government welfare program; He told them YOU (the CHURCH) feed them (Matthew 14:14-21).

Barack Obama is NOT a Christian; he is a wicked man with a wicked agenda to replace people’s faith in God with his own blind faith in human government.

Obama calls himself a “Christian”?  SERIOUSLY?  Even the NEW YORK TIMES is openly asking this question that is a result of Barack Hussein Obama’s wicked policies:

Is This the End of Christianity in the Middle East?
ISIS and other extremist movements across the region are enslaving, killing and uprooting Christians, with no aid in sight.
By ELIZA GRISWOLDJULY 22, 2015

It is an amazing aspect of what St. Paul referred to as “the secret power of lawlessness” that in the last days a man would call himself a “Christian” while doing more harm to Christ and His Body than every human being before him combined.  Millions of Christians are either fleeing or they are murdered or they are sex slaves to Islamic State animals because of the brutal contempt Barack Obama has demonstrated for the followers of Christ.

Barack Obama has made it his mission in life to destroy religious freedom and the conscience of Christians.  Christians no longer have the right to their Bible or their conscience under this demon-possessed man.  He is coercing them and punishing them if they take any stand against the abortion that has murdered sixty million innocent babies in flagrant violation of Psalm 139 or if they take any stand against the homosexual marriage that is promised to bring God’s WRATH according to Romans chapter one.  He’s a bully and a tyrant who has attacked the Christian baker and the Christian florist and the Christian wedding photographer and the Christian fire chief and the Christian county clerk and he will not stop until he’s attacked every true Christian in every true Christian church.

Barack Obama has inaugurated a demonic America where you can choose your Christian faith or you can choose “personal ruin.”

What is “religious liberty”?  What is “free speech”?  It is a threat to liberalism and it must be quashed in the interest of the State.  Just as the 2nd Amendment and the right of the people to keep and bear arms so they can resist tyranny is a threat to liberalism that must be quashed in the interest of the State.

Freedom is an anathema to the Democratic Party member.  You must be placed in a position of submission where you are compelled by the naked power of the State to do what liberals want you to.  In that the liberal is no different from the jihadist Muslim.

Barack Obama’s “faith” is not in God, but in Government.  He worships the State, and the unholy POWER of the State to impose socialism which has always before been state atheism.  Only Obama’s form of state atheism is like an M&M candy with aforementioned atheism masquerading as a secular humanistic version of  universalistic “Christiantiy.”

You call Obama a Christian.  I call you a LIAR.  I call you a demon-possessed moral idiot.

And so here we are, with Obama the “pro-Israel” president whose administration has just officially accused Israel of being a terrorist state no different from the terrorist group Hamas because Obama’s people equally condemned them both in the same moral equivalent breath:

As Palestinians assailants continue to murder Jews across Israel, the Obama administration on Wednesday accused the Jewish state of committing acts of “terrorism,” drawing outrage from many observers.

As the number of Israelis murdered during a streak of Palestinian terrorism continues to rise, the Obama administration sought to equate the sides and told reporters that, in its view, Israel is guilty of terrorism.

“Individuals on both sides of this divide are—have proven capable of, and in our view, are guilty of acts of terrorism,” State Department Spokesman John Kirby told reporters following questions about the spike in violence.

Kirby also said the administration has obtained “credible reports” of Israelis using excessive force as it deals with a rash of terrorist murders carried out by Palestinians seeking to cause havoc and spark an intifada.

I’ll give you some examples of “individuals on both sides” being “terrorists”: how about Jews destroy the Dome of the Rock the way Muslims just destroyed Joseph’s Tomb???  How about if Benjamin Netanyahu directly incites acts of violence with anti-Palestinian LIES the way Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas falsely and maliciously publicly claimed that Israel had “executed” a Palestinian youth whose only crime was trying to slash to death a 13-year-old Israeli boy???  See here and here for that one.

Barack Obama is a demon-possessed man who seethes with hatred for God and for God’s people, whether they be Christians or Jews.

He embodies the spirit of antichrist.  And soon the one true Antichrist will be revealed.  This coming world leader will be a master deceiver.  He will take total power over all government and Government shall be his weapon against the faithful.  He will take total power over the economy and will institute the infamous mark of the beast, by which no one will be able to buy or sell ANYTHING without having taken that mark that will cause all who accept it to burn in hell.

That spirit is now alive in America as it has never been in the entire history of the republic.

I tell you, Obama is about to fulfill the last-days war of Gog-Magog with his demon-possessed foolishness.  He has not only allowed, he has practically INVITED, Russia to enter Syria so they could destroy every vestige of the US-backed rebels Obama cowardly turned his back on after YEARS of dithering as a quarter million Syrians were slaughtered.  Russia in turn invited Iran.  Right on the doorstep of Israel.  Just as the prophet Ezekiel declared would happen in the last days more than 2,600 years ago.

Democrat Debate Showed All You Need To Be A Democrat Is A Radical Contempt For Reality

October 14, 2015

It was amazing to see this debate.  CNN deliberately – out of their blatant bias – engineered their shot at the Republican debate to force Republicans to attack each other.  Every single question they asked in the Republican debate was, “Why don’t you think your opponent should be the next president?”

Many of the questions were framed in a way designed to encourage candidates to criticize other candidates’ positions on issues (or nonissues) rather than addressing issues themselves. (Others disagree with you. What do you think?! was the general thrust of the questioning.) “Mr Trump has repeatedly said that the $100 million you’ve raised for your campaign makes you a puppet for your donors. Are you?” Tapper asked Jeb Bush early on in the debate. There is no possible world in which that question could ever elicit an interesting or valuable answer.

But did CNN follow their own, let’s make the candidates eat each other and enjoy the Republican-on-Republican violence we ginned up?  Nope.

[…] Moderator and CNN host Anderson Cooper said in a Sunday interview, “Going into the Republican debates, you pretty much knew there were a number of candidates who were willing to [attack each other].” He added, “That’s not the case, so far as we’ve seen, on the Democratic side.”

“I’m always uncomfortable with that notion of setting people up in order to kind of promote some sort of a face off,” Cooper continued, contradicting the entire format of the Republican debate CNN hosted.

CNN’s Jake Tapper seemed very comfortable getting the GOP candidates to face off against each other.

“Look, these are all serious people,” explained Cooper. “This is a serious debate. They want to talk about the issues and I want to give them an opportunity to do that.”

This is a rabidly biased “journalist” from a rabidly biased “news network.”  He’s telling us that Republicans have zero-point-zero interests in talking about issues, that really all they wanted to do was personally attack each other, and for some reason he had no problem being “uncomfortable” when he did to Republicans what he said he absolutely was NOT going to do to the Democrats.  Because, after all, according to Anderson Cooper, Democrat candidates “are all serious people.”  Whereas the governors and senators and incredibly successful field of Republicans are all clowns by simple definition of liberal demagogic ideology.

So what I’m telling you is that from the very outset, this debate was a JOKE.

And the result was it was boring and changed NOTHING.  Hillary Clinton got sheltered when she should have been shellacked.  And that was the plan.  I suppose that’s what “no fireworks” meant; the purpose of this debate from the ideological plotters and schemers was to reinforce whatever preconceived script they wanted to.

So there weren’t any seriously tough questions asked of the Democrats that they didn’t want to answer the way Republicans are asked tough questions that they don’t want to answer.  There also aren’t anywhere near as many debates for fascist Democrats who at this time in their wretched, degenerate existence despise free speech as there are for Republicans.

The debates were rigged from the outset to benefit the presumed queen empress of the space-time universe.

“Four debates. Four debates. Four debates, and only four debates. We are told—not asked—before voters in our earliest states make their decision,” 2016 Democratic presidential candidate and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley said on Friday. “This sort of rigged process has never been attempted before.” […]

O’Malley says the DNC is only doing this to protect Clinton, and O’Malley isn’t alone in this theory. Sen. Bernie Sanders is unhappy as well.

“I believe at a time when so many people have given up on the political process, when 80 percent of people did not vote in the last election, 63 percent of the people did not vote, I believe that debates are a good thing,” Sanders said.

Democrats are by nature fascists and didn’t want to allow too many debates which would have allowed a challenger to rise and begin to threaten the selection by the Stalinist DNC – which is led by a fascist woman who implicitly acknowledged that there is ZERO difference between a “Democrat” and a “socialist” today.

“What is the difference,” between the platform of the Democratic Party and socialism Meet The Press host Chuck Todd asks Debbie Wasserman Schultz, leader of the Democrats. “Can you explain the difference?”

Again, she will not answer, following her non-answer to the same question on Thursday’s episode of Hardball with Chris Matthews.

Nobody had to answer much during the staged Democrat debate on CNN.  That’s for sure.

As an example, I don’t recall very many questions about Bernie Sanders’ rape fantasy article that is just beyond creepy.  The left and their media lackeys couldn’t care less; that kind of awfulness very clearly only matters if the candidate is a Republican.  I mean, I’m sorry; Joy Behar of the ABC program The View gushed that Bernie Sanders is sexy; but aside from the fact that socialists are pathologically creepily in love with their masters (whether it was Hitler or Stalin or Mao or Bill Clinton or Obama or Sanders), it’s rather obvious that to put it in Sanders’ words, “she fantasizes being raped by three men simultaneously.’’

The CNN debate had the premise, “Let’s not all reveal what pieces of garbage all we liberals are.”

I remember the last decent Democrat named John F. Kennedy.  I remember his saying, “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.”  Today to be a true Democrat means screaming, “NO!  SCREW this country.  TAKE from it!  FORCE it to give to you!  Do NOTHING for it but take and take and TAKE from it until it collapses so we can impose the communism that the American founding fathers would have rather died more deaths than Obama’s debt to stop.  Because to be a damned Democrat is to hate the United States of America so much it is beyond unreal.  Prominent Democrat Party members say the goal is socialismLiberal academia say the goal is communism.  The liberal ACLU says the goal is communism.  The powerful liberal labor union SEIU says the goal is communismThe entire Obama presidency has been one to use manufactured crisis after manufactured crisis to impose a Stalinist dictatorship of government-by-executive order.

There were no questions about the sixty million abortions every single Democrat will one day scream in hell for.  No questions about the fact that to be a Democrat today means to be a sodomy-worshiping pervert who sticks his or her middle finger up at the God of the Bible and shrieks, “F*ck YOU!  Bring your wrath that you tell us about in Romans chapter one ON, God!  Give us raging floods and storms in one place and burning drought in another according to Amos 4:7.  We’ll just blame Your wrath on Republicans!”

I wish there were some religious questions, such as, “How do you respond to Jesus’ narrow, exclusivist statement of John 14:6, “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life.  No one can come to the Father except through Me.”  I’d like to hear the candidates deal with the question, “Why has the Democrat Party so rabidly turned against Jesus Christ and the moral teachings of the Bible?”  But no.

There was one question that exposed the complete cowardice of the Democrat Party today.  Anderson Cooper asked each candidate to respond to the question, “Do black lives matter, or do all lives matter?”  And there was only ONE candidate on the stage – and no Democrat will vote for him because to be a Democrat is to be a toxically depraved human being – who answered that all lives matter.  That’s because to be a Democrat is to be an abject SLAVE to your party’s special interest, to your party’s rabid leftist base.

And so a good follow-up question would have been, “Why don’t you believe that white lives matter in America today?  Just why is it that you were such a damn, miserable COWARD to answer that last question the way you did, you despicable political weasels?”  But no.

No questions about how encouraging entire generations of Democrats to be welfare parasites for the incredibly cynical purpose of trying to force them to vote Democrat for life is “doing what you can for your country” rather than “not asking what your country can do for you.”

But that would be about actual reality.  And to be a Democrat is to be a snarling hater of reality.

So no real questions about how all the Democrats on the platform seem to be channeling the uber-leftist message that more Obamaesque policies will somehow lead to “social justice” and end income inequality when Obama’s damn policies have done more to make actual income inequality worse than any and all presidents before him.

There were no questions about why all the Democrat candidates vying for Obama’s ninth through twelfth years in office are making the horror of income inequality a primary issue in the seventh damn year of Obama.  What exactly did Democrats do to solve income inequality when Barack Obama was Democrat president, Harry Reid was Democrat Senate Majority Leader and Nancy Pelosi was Democrat Speaker of the House?  They made it worse than George W. Bush EVER made itEven the damn Obama White House’s own Economic Advisors’ Report acknowledges that Obama has exploded income inequality.  We just came out with a jobs report that features the lowest labor participation rate in the work force in 38 years.  I mean, “Yes, the unemployment rate remained unchanged at 5.1 percent, but only because the workforce shrank by 300,000 or so.”  Which is a direct quote from PBS about the last jobs report.  But that’s reality.

And Democrats hate reality more than they love life.

So Democrats can explode a problem into a crisis and then exploit the crisis they create to slander and lie and demonize everybody but themselves.  Nobody has a job because they have regulated jobs out of existence.  But now they can exploit the fact that they destroyed all the jobs to blame those greedy, rich people should go bankrupt being forced to pay wages and benefits they can’t possibly afford to pay while they’re being forced to spend exorbitantly to conform to regulations they can’t possibly conform to.

And stupid people who despise reality believe their lies.

The labor participation rate – the percentage of working-age Americans who actually have a damn JOB – has SHOCKINGLY PLUNGED under the wicked, depraved, foolish, idiotic policies of Democrat fascist socialist statism.  Even the New York Times is forced to call Obama’s last jobs report “grim.”  Because he has wildly FAILED.

No significant questions about Hillary Clinton’s private server or the pathologically fascist, paranoid and secretive shrew she had to have been and continues to remain in order to install one in the first place.  I would have loved to see Anderson Cooper treat the Democrat candidates like Republicans with questions such as, “Would you have installed a private email server and obliterated all legitimate transparency and accountability by purging your communications AFTER they had been lawfully subpoenaed?  Would YOU have risked national security by throwing out over 400 top-secret emails without adequate protections the way Hillary Clinton did?  Would you endorse right now every single Republican politician and appointee being able to install private servers in their homes to avoid accountability the way Hillary Clinton was able to do?  Do you believe there ought to be such a thing as transparency and accountability as Hillary Clinton very clearly does not?  Do you agree with Hillary Clinton that there ought to be one standard for her and a vastly different one for everyone else?  Or do you agree with Hillary Clinton as when Americans are being murdered under her watch, “What difference does it make?”

But no.  That would be dealing with reality.  And you’re not allowed to be a Democrat unless you have fang-dripping hatred for reality.

Bernie Sanders suggests that he was not being political when he said that his rival’s emails ought to be off-limits in the debate.  That has nothing to do with Bernie Sanders being decent or courageous; it’s because he recognizes that Democrats frankly are miserable, wicked, depraved moral scum who don’t CARE that Hillary Clinton is a criminal who broke the law and horrifyingly violated our national security and belongs in prison.  He said what he said because he knew that the same damn perverted cowards who would have booed him if he’d had the courage and the decency to say that all lives matter would also have booed him if he pointed out Hillary Clinton’s crimes.

Because to a Democrat, abject, despicable moral COWARDICE masquerades for courage.  Which is why Democrats stupidly believe that Barack Obama is actually brave to be the modern equivalent of Neville Chamberlain who freed Hitler to unleash hell by his abject failure to stand up and have any kind of a backbone when the world desperately needed one in the days leading up to World War II.

No questions about our national debt and how it has exploded under Barack Obama and what Democrat presidents would do to reduce it rather than explode it even more.  No question of how Barack Obama wasn’t the worst hypocrite in the history of the entire universe when he demonized George Bush with these words on July 3, 2008 because George Bush had disgustingly added $4 trillion to the national debt:

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

No questions about the fact that Barack Obama has now more than doubled Bush’s debt after hypocritically demonizing him for it and no questions about the fact that by the time Obama leaves office, he will personally have added more to the debt than every single U.S. president from George Washington to George W. Bush COMBINED.

Because to be a Democrat is to be so viciously hateful toward reality it is beyond unreal.

But wouldn’t that have been a good question: “How in the hell are you going to do all this leftist socialist crap and not bankrupt America?  Or are you going to be the same sort of rabid, demon-possessed LIAR the last Democrat president was and vomit out an ocean of lies?

No significant questions about the rise and spread of the threat of Islamic State or the caliphate Barack Obama’s foolish and depraved policies allowed them to carve out of a country where Obama once took credit for securing and a country where Obama once issued an infamous “red line” that he subsequently allowed his enemies to walk all over.

Because if you’re a Democrat you truly don’t give one flying DAMN about the actual state of the world.  You are a demon-possessed fool who lives in a web of lies spun by worse fools who are even more demon-possessed.

Meanwhile, the same ISIS that has owned Syria is now advancing on Baghdad.  And somehow Obama’s idiotic Democrat Party rhetoric is not stopping the screaming jihadists armed with heavy weapons.

Hey, I’ve got an idea: let’s just pretend that if we’re really, really nice to them and disarm our military capacity and bare our throats to their knives, they’ll see we’re no threat to them and leave us alone.  Because I’m a Democrat and I’ve never actually so much as touched actual reality in my entire useless life.

Listening to the Democrats on the stage, you got a vivid picture of why everything has melted down in the world: George W. Bush.  Seven years after he left office, he is STILL the ONLY actual leader who is to be held responsible for ANYTHING in America.  On their presentation, the world was idyllic and wonderful before Bush came along.  We were at peace and harmony with all living things.  And then the devil Bush came along and plunged America into war.  And even is spite of the fact that Barack Hussein Obama is the true Messiah, come to save us from not having a nanny-state government that will wipe our filthy bottoms for us, he has not been able to overcome the wicked work of the devil Bush.

Gosh, you’d have to seriously hate reality to not remember that Democrats very clearly agreed with George W. Bush that Saddam Hussein DID in FACT have weapons of mass destruction that needed to be dealt with. Democrats like then-president Bill Clinton and then-Secretary of State Madeline Albright issued crystal-clear statements that Saddam Hussein had WMD going back a full three years before George W. Bush assumed office:

“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
–President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
–President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

“Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”
–Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
–Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
— Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
— Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

“There is no doubt that … Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.”
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
— Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them.”
— Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
— Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
— Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
— Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…”
— Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”
— Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years … We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
— Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do”
— Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members … It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
— Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.”
— Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real…”
— Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Let’s just use our power of liberalism to whitewash reality and smear it with whatever fecal matter that has been crammed into our heads that Hillary Clinton was just ONE of the Democrats who acknowledged Bush’s legitimacy in going to war after the United States was massively attacked on 9/11/2001.  Let’s just forget that Hillary Clinton AFTER Bush had invaded Iraq in response to the 9/11 attack said:

I was one who supported giving President Bush the authority, if necessary, to use force against Saddam Hussein. I believe that that was the right vote. — Sen. Hillary Clinton

Just consider how completely full of lies the Democrat narrative as presented on that staged stage last night truly revealed themselves to be.  On their warped, wicked, presentation of “reality,” all the 9/11 terrorists DIDN’T come into America when Bill Clinton was president.  Even though in actual reality ALL the 9/11 terrorists came into America while the president of the United States’ initials were W.J.C.  rather than G.W.B.

There’s the fact that eight months after you perjured your way out of office with your sperm on Monica Lewinsky’s dress, ALL of the nineteen terrorists who attacked us on 9/11/2001 were already in America.  They ALL had their marching orders, following a plan and tactics that had been formulated during YOUR presidency.

It was because of Bill Clinton’s utterly weak and failed response to Islamist aggression in Somalia, the U.S.S. Cole and other debacles that led a man named Osama bin Laden to believe that America was a “paper tiger” and ripe for a massive attack:

“Our boys no longer viewed America as a superpower. So, when they left Afghanistan, they went to Somalia and prepared themselves carefully for a long war. They had thought that the Americans were like the Russians, so they trained and prepared. They were stunned when they discovered how low was the morale of the American soldier. America had entered with 30,000 soldiers in addition to thousands of soldiers from different countries in the world. … As I said, our boys were shocked by the low morale of the American soldier and they realized that the American soldier was just a paper tiger. He was unable to endure the strikes that were dealt to his army, so he fled, and America had to stop all its bragging and all that noise it was making in the press…” — Osama bin Laden

Bill Clinton was forced to acknowledge that he could have easily killed Osama bin Laden.  But bin Laden was just one more Clinton mess to leave for the hated Republican administration.  So to hell with it.

Bill Clinton left was the president who left America weak and blind by gutting our military and by gutting our intelligence capability:

Author James Risen won the Pulitzer Prize on Tuesday for his much ballyhooed New York Times report last December that revealed President Bush’s previously secret terrorist surveillance program – a revelation he uncovered while researching his book “State of War.”

In the same book, however, Risen makes an equally explosive claim about President Clinton’s relationship with the CIA – which his editors at the Times have so far declined to cover.

Upon taking power in 1993, Risen reports, the Clinton administration “began slashing the intelligence budget in search of a peace dividend, and Bill Clinton showed almost no interest in intelligence matters.” The agency cutbacks combined with presidential disinterest took their toll almost immediately.

“Over a three-or-four-year period in the early-to-mid 1990s,” reports Risen, “virtually an entire generation of CIA officers – the people who had won the Cold War – quit or retired. One CIA veteran compared the agency to an airline that had lost all of is senior pilots . . . “

After Clinton CIA Director John Deutch cashiered several senior officers over a scandal in Guatamala, the situation got even worse.

“Morale [at the CIA] plunged to new lows, and the agency became paralyzed by an aversion to high-risk espionage operations for fear they would lead to political flaps. Less willing to take big risks, the CIA was less able to recruit spies in dangerous places such as Iraq.”

Then there’s the DotCom Bubble collapse and a recession that was very nearly every bit as bad as the one in 2008 that Democrats used to pervert their way to power.  Did you know that thanks to Bill Clinton, $7.1 TRILLION in American wealth was vaporized and a whopping 78% of the major Nasdaq valuation was destroyed, in ADDITION to the 9/11 attack that he left George Bush with???

Bill Clinton – shortly before leaving office (almost as if he knew it would be a disaster) greatly expanded the Community Reinvestment Act which was the primary cause of the 2008 economic crash.  But hey, that crash that Bill Clinton’s policies directly fed gave Democrats an excuse to say, “Never let a crisis go to waste.”  So it was all good to the DNC.

Bill Clinton left George Bush not with answers to the terrorists he had allowed  first to become emboldened and next to actually enter America and plan their massive attack and not with answers to the RECESSION he passed to George W. Bush, but instead left George Bush with the disgusting task of trying to clean all of Bill Clinton’s PORN out of the White House computers.

So that was the world before George W. Bush attacked Iraq.  And Democrats are truly demon-possessed to demonize him the way they do.

But let’s now cut to after the war.  Let’s point out for the damn factual record the REALITY that George W. Bush left office as a VICTOR in that war in Iraq.

Joe Biden admitted it:

“I am very optimistic about Iraq. I think it’s gonna be one of the great achievements of this administration. You’re gonna see 90,000 American troops come marchin’ home by the end of the summer. You’re gonna see a stable government in Iraq that is actually movin’ toward a representative government. I’ve been there 17 times now. I go about every two months, three months. I know every one of the major players in all the segments of that society. It’s impressed me. I’ve been impressed, how they have been deciding to use the political process, rather than guns, to settle their differences.” — Vice President Joe Biden

Barack Obama admitted it and even celebrated it:

“Today, I can announce that our review is complete, and that the United States will pursue a new strategy to end the war in Iraq through a transition to full Iraqi responsibility,” said Obama. “This strategy is grounded in a clear and achievable goal shared by the Iraqi people and the American people: an Iraq that is sovereign, stable, and self-reliant. To achieve that goal, we will work to promote an Iraqi government that is just, representative, and accountable, and that provides neither support nor safe-haven to terrorists.” — President Barack Obama, February 27, 2009

Even al Qaeda in Iraq itself acknowledged that George W. Bush had won the war in Iraq:

By the end of 2008, in the beginning of 2009, President Bush’s surge strategy led by General Petraeus and General Odierno, now the chief of staff of the Army, defeated the al Qaeda in Iraq.  I saw the transmission because I was advising Petraeus on the ground in Iraq. They showed me the transmissions from al Qaeda that they were intercepting. They said we are defeated, don’t send any more foreign fighters. — General Jack Keane

There is ZERO question that the war in Iraq – a war Democrats supported before treasonously turning against it because the Democrat Party is the PARTY of treason- was WON by the time Obama metastasized his way into the presidency.

Let’s go back to 2009 and see what Barack Obama did treasonously undermined EVERYTHING our generals and military commanders deeply believed we needed to do:

US-IRAQ: Generals Seek to Reverse Obama Withdrawal Decision
By Gareth Porter

WASHINGTON, Feb 2 2009 (IPS) – CENTCOM commander Gen. David Petraeus, supported by Defence Secretary Robert Gates, tried to convince President Barack Obama that he had to back down from his campaign pledge to withdraw all U.S. combat troops from Iraq within 16 months at an Oval Office meeting Jan. 21.

But Obama informed Gates, Petraeus and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen that he wasn’t convinced and that he wanted Gates and the military leaders to come back quickly with a detailed 16-month plan, according to two sources who have talked with participants in the meeting.

Obama’s decision to override Petraeus’s recommendation has not ended the conflict between the president and senior military officers over troop withdrawal, however. There are indications that Petraeus and his allies in the military and the Pentagon, including Gen. Ray Odierno, now the top commander in Iraq, have already begun to try to pressure Obama to change his withdrawal policy.

A network of senior military officers is also reported to be preparing to support Petraeus and Odierno by mobilising public opinion against Obama’s decision.

Petraeus was visibly unhappy when he left the Oval Office, according to one of the sources. A White House staffer present at the meeting was quoted by the source as saying, “Petraeus made the mistake of thinking he was still dealing with George Bush instead of with Barack Obama.”

Petraeus, Gates and Odierno had hoped to sell Obama on a plan that they formulated in the final months of the Bush administration that aimed at getting around a key provision of the U.S.-Iraqi withdrawal agreement signed envisioned re-categorising large numbers of combat troops as support troops. That subterfuge was by the United States last November while ostensibly allowing Obama to deliver on his campaign promise.

Barack Obama didn’t have to leave Iraq.  HE WANTED TO IN SPITE OF ANY AND ALL WISDOM WHATSOEVER.

And a bloodbath has happened as a direct result of a pathologically wicked Democrat president of a pathologically wicked Democrat Party.

Let’s consider what President George W. Bush PREDICTED if a wicked fool like Barack Obama pursued his wicked foolishness:

“I know some in Washington would like us to start leaving Iraq now. To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we are ready would be dangerous for Iraq, for the region and for the United States. It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al Qaeda. It would mean that we’d be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It would mean we’d allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan. It would mean increasing the probability that American troops would have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous.” — President George W. Bush

Bush was right.  Reality is a witness.  And Democrats need to be hunted down with dogs and burned alive if we are to have any chance of survival as a nation.

You listen to the morally diseased Democrat cockroaches who were spreading their filth on that stage last night and it was George W. Bush who somehow created the absolute meltdown in Syria.

First of all, it wasn’t George W. Bush who created the instability in Syria.  It was Barack Obama’s evil Federal Reserve policies that essentially created food riots.  Because the United States is – but won’t be for much longer, thanks to Obama’s fiscal insanity – the world’s Reserve Currency, all commodities such as oil are bought and sold in U.S. dollars.  And Obama’s fiscal policies ended up poisoning the currencies in poorer Middle Eastern countries as food prices skyrocketed relative to purchasing power.  Which the leftist mainstream media due to their own failure to comprehend reality had the moral idiocy to call “the Arab Spring” like it was somehow a good thing.  They were riots because people were starving because Barack Obama has failed the entire planet so abysmally.

Then there was Obama’s “red line” fiasco after the food riots dissolved Syria into brutal civil war that has now claimed about a quarter of a million lives while Obama dithered.  It was such a fiasco that Obama being the pathological liar and coward that he is claimed he didn’t say it.  Without any question to any rational mind capable of waking up and smelling the real world emboldened our worst enemies.

Conservative columnist Marc Thiessen more than a year and a half ago prophetically wrote an article with this title:

Obama’s weakness emboldens Putin

That article – written not yesterday but more than a year and a half ago – ends with these words:

Today, America is projecting weakness. Obama’s failure to enforce his red line in Syria projected weakness. His constant talk of withdrawal and ending wars so we can focus on “nation-building here at home” projects weakness. His decision to gut the U.S. defense budget and reduce the Army to pre-World War II levels projects weakness.

When your adversaries believe you are weak, they are emboldened to act — and prone to miscalculate. Putin believes there will be no real costs for his intervention in Ukraine because there were no costs in Syria. He knows the Obama Doctrine is to do just enough “not to get mocked.” If he is proved right, it will have consequences far beyond the Crimean Peninsula. A failure to impose costs on Russia will further embolden adversaries from Beijng to Pyongyang to Tehran — all of whom are measuring Obama’s resolve in Ukraine, just as Putin measured Obama’s resolve in Syria and found it lacking.

You tell me how Thiessen wasn’t right now that Putin just swarmed into Syria, ordered the United States it had better stay the hell clear from them unless Obama wanted to get punched right in the mouth, and proceeded to start killing all of the few remaining U.S. allies in the region that we had left.  As Russia just snarled, “The Middle East is OURS now, America.  Get out, you pathetic little weasel coward Obama turds!”  And that is exactly what we’ve done.  Just as we’ve gotten out of the largest trading route in the world as China built an island and then militarized that island in the South China Sea while Obama did NOTHING because he has no credible threat whatsoever.

And we did it because Russia with Putin has demonstrated that he has the spine to fight and Barack Obama has demonstrated to the world that he is a pathetic coward who will NOT risk losing the support of his rabid leftist base that yearns for America to suffer terrible defeat so they can exploit the next crisis.  Nobody believes that weak little coward pussy will do anything no matter how much our worse enemies humiliate us or walk all over us.

And Democrats have the Lucifer in them to say that was Bush’s fault.

Everything about this debate was nothing but a sick joke.

But there is no possibility of any kind of actual “debate” when you have liars debating liars about whose lies sell to the membership of the most stupid and most depraved and most demonic party in the history of the world.

 

 

 

Obama, You Turd, You Are Such A Lying WEASEL

October 13, 2015

This has got to be the most cynical, two-faced, dishonest, cowardly LYING HYPOCRITE in the entire history of the world.  He’s telling us he was always skeptical from the getgo about training and using rebels to fight Islamic State:

“I’ve been skeptical from the get-go about the notion that we were going to effectively create this proxy army inside of Syria,” Obama said in the interview. “My goal has been to try to test the proposition, can we be able to train and equip a moderate opposition that’s willing to fight ISIL?”

SERIOUSLY, YOU PATHOLOGICALLY DISHONEST LYING TURD?

THAT WAS OBAMA’S STRATEGY.  THAT WAS HIS ONLY STRATEGY.

In Obama’s State of the Union speech in January 2014, Obama boasted:

“We’re also supporting a moderate opposition in Syria that can help us in this effort, and assisting people everywhere who stand up to the bankrupt ideology of violent extremism. This effort will take time. It will require focus. But we will succeed.”

We go back to September of last year and Obama was still strongly arguing to train rebel fighters in Syria who would fight our war that he didn’t have the courage to fight for us.

Sep 10, 2014 4:03PM ET
Obama Urgently Wants Congress to Vote on Arming Syrian Rebels
Russell Berman

Congress may have to vote on President Obama’s ISIS strategy after all – or at least a part of it.

The president told congressional leaders in a meeting on Tuesday that, according to the White House, “he has the authority he needs” to take on the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. That means he won’t a seek a formal authorization of force from Congress when he addresses the nation on his strategy to defeat ISIS on Wednesday night.

But Obama is now personally lobbying lawmakers to include language in a government funding bill that would allow the military to train and equip Syrian rebels who are fighting ISIS.

A senior administration official confirmed to The Wire on Wednesday that the president was calling members of Congress to secure their support and had dispatched his chief counter-terrorism adviser, Lisa Monaco, to Capitol Hill to brief them in person.

We can document for the official record:

“Over the past few months, world events remind us some things are bigger than politics,” Mr. Obama said. “America is leading the fight to contain Ebola… leading the effort to contain and destroy ISIL.”

Mr. Obama has said repeatedly he does not want to deploy combat troops to fight ISIS, and on Friday, White House National Security Adviser Susan Rice clarified that this principle applies to the administration’s new authorities to assist the Syrian rebels.

“To be clear, as we’ve said repeatedly, our strategy does not involve U.S. troops on the ground in a combat role in either Iraq or Syria, and no U.S. troops will be in Syria as part of the train-and- equip program,” she told reporters. “This program will be hosted outside of Syria in partnership with neighboring countries.”

At the time in his January 2014 State of the Union speech that Obama told us how he was going to win the hellhole that he had allowed to happen in Syria by training and equipping a Syrian resistance, U.S. News and World Report gave Obama a ‘C’ grade for that policy.  Wonder what that grade is now given this epic embarrassing disastrous fail:

Four or five fighters.  That’s our result for a damn $500 MILLION program that WAS Obama’s strategy for Syria.

I recently pointed out what an abject joke and a total disgrace Obama and his foreign policy in Syria (and everywhere ELSE) truly is:

You want to see what Obama has done to “win” the war in Syria?  Some headlines:

Column In Syria: $36 million to train 60 opposition fighters?
Doyle McManus•Contact Reporter
July 12, 2015, 5:00 AM

A little more than a year ago, President Obama asked Congress for $500 million to train and equip some 15,000 opposition fighters in Syria, arguing that the best way to defeat Islamic State terrorists was to arm local forces.

The war against Islamic State “will not involve American combat troops fighting on foreign soil,” Obama promised. “Instead, we must strengthen the opposition as the best counterweight to extremists.”

Last week, Defense Secretary Ashton Carter gave Congress a progress report. The training program is up and running, he said, and almost 7,000 Syrians have applied to join — but the total number of fighters trained comes to exactly 60.

Sixty? UCLA has more men on its football roster. That’s “not an impressive number,” Carter acknowledged.

Skeptics instantly did the arithmetic: If that’s all we get for $500 million, it comes to almost $9 million per fighter — and the trainees haven’t even made it onto the battlefield yet.

But if you think THAT’S pathetic, it actually was even WORSE.  ‘Cause, I mean, don’t knock sixty fighters.  Sixty actual fighters would be an impressive achievement for an idiotic, disgraceful pile of human waste like Barack Hussein Obama.  So when the actual facts came out…

Only handful of U.S.-trained Syrian rebels still fighting: general
WASHINGTON  |  By Phil Stewart
Wed Sep 16, 2015 5:48pm EDT

Only four or five U.S.-trained Syrian rebels are still fighting in Syria, a top U.S. general told Congress on Wednesday, a stark admission of setbacks to a fledgling military program that critics have already pronounced a failure.

The U.S. military began training in May for up to 5,400 fighters a year, in what was seen as a test of President Barack Obama’s strategy of having local partners combat Islamic State militants and keep U.S. troops off the front lines.

But the program was troubled from the start, with some of the first class of less than 60 fighters coming under attack from al Qaeda’s Syria wing, Nusra Front, in their battlefield debut. Some were captured and killed while others scattered.

This is kind of like Obama’s inane oft-repeated boast that he has a coalition of sixty nations.  Because he has a coalition of sixty nations the way he had 15,000 opposition fighters.  Or even SIXTY fighters, for that matter.  Obama’s “coalition” is as much of a sick joke as his shambles of a foreign policy is.

Obama boasts that his “coalition” has flown nearly 7,000 sorties since the start of Obama’s red line warning fiasco three years ago.  Do you know what a joke that is???  Let me put it into perspective: we flew more than 8,000 sorties IN THE FIRST FIVE DAYS of Operation Desert Storm.

When you compare Obama’s war with actual wars that our leaders wanted to truly make any real difference in, Obama becomes a joke.  We averaged 1,100 sorties a day against Iraq in 1991; under Obama it’s a laughable SEVEN sorties a day.

Then factor in that 75% of Obama’s sorties return with all of their weapons, having dropped no bombs and not having fired a damn SHOT.

Which puts Obama’s airstrikes and his worthless sixty nation coalition that have done NOTHING into the laugh-riot of his 4 or 5 fighters.  Who are undoubtedly dead now that Putin is bombing them.

We know that this THE most dishonest and cynical administration in the history of the republic has engaged in a disinformation campaign and has altered the intelligence provided to them by our professional analysts in order to make it appear Obama isn’t wildly failing.

Obama’s mission against Islamic State is designed to FAIL.  It is designed to appear like he’s doing something when he really is doing NOTHING.

One of Putin’s generals recently ORDERED the United States out of Syria, telling US diplomats, “We launch Syria air strikes in one hour. Stay out of the way.” And Obama meekly complied.

And anybody who wants to think that Obama didn’t obey his ORDERS from Putin eat this: U.S. aircraft are diverting away to avoid Russian aircraft. Russian aircraft are doing what they want.  Obama is bowing down before Putin the way he’s bowed down to every other dictator who didn’t happen to represent the Republican Party in America.

Now we’ve got Obama on the record telling us that he never really believed what he told us on the record nearly two years ago.  Obama did it.  Obama urged the Congress to back his doing it.  Obama said, “It will require focus.  But we WILL succeed” if we did it.  But now the lying, weasel, hypocrite piece of fecal matter is demonically telling his demon-possessed supporters that all those truthful facts that Fox News will report are all lies.

Now we get these weasel-words from our Weasel-in-Chief:

The failed $500 million program to set up a proxy army in Syria was a test, US President Barack Obama told ’60 Minutes’, adding that he had doubts about the project from the start. He also ruled out sending US troops to Syria.

“I’ve been skeptical from the get-go about the notion that we were going to effectively create this proxy army inside of Syria,” Obama said in the interview. “My goal has been to try to test the proposition, can we be able to train and equip a moderate opposition that’s willing to fight ISIL?”

Broadcast Sunday night, Obama’s interview with CBS correspondent Steve Kroft was recorded last Tuesday, days before the administration announced it would stop attempting to train a force of ‘moderate’ militants in Syria.

After spending hundreds of millions of dollars, Washington had only “four or five” fighters to show for the effort. Most of the equipment ended up in jihadist hands as US-trained rebels were captured or deserted without ever facing Islamic State (IS, also known as ISIS or ISIL) in battle.

Obama says it’s all Republicans’ fault. Hell, this is such an epic disaster that he’ll even blame Hillary Clinton:

WASHINGTON — By any measure, President Obama’s effort to train a Syrian opposition army to fight the Islamic State on the ground has been an abysmal failure. The military acknowledged this week that just four or five American-trained fighters are actually fighting.

But the White House says it is not to blame. The finger, it says, should be pointed not at Mr. Obama but at those who pressed him to attempt training Syrian rebels in the first place — a group that, in addition to congressional Republicans, happened to include former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.

This is like Obama telling America not to be worried about Islamic State because they were just “JayVee” and then denying he’d said what he said.

I wrote prophetically back in September of 2014 when I described Obama’s strategy and guaranteed the universe it would fail.  Listen to what my title was:

‘They’ Underestimated The Threat Of ISIS: Our Liar-in-Chief’s Avoidance Of Personal Responsibility Is Pathological. And Demonic.

I had previously that same September in 2014 wrote another article with this title:

Why Arming The Rebels In Syria Now Is Way Too Little And Way, WAY Too Late

Iran, in a vicious double-slap humiliation of our Coward-in-Chief, just fired ballistic missiles to show the world how they will deliver the nuclear weapons Obama assured them they will soon have and convicted a US journalist the same day.  And they’re doing this before Obama even gives them the $150 billion that they’re going to use to fund terrorism against the United States, her interests and her allies.

This man is an ontological, pathological coward and weakling.  He is a national embarrassment and a disgrace to every single person who ever pledged allegiance to the United States and actually MEANT it.

I keep saying it: every single Democrat who voted for baby-murderer and sodomy-pervert worshiper Barack Hussein Obama will soon be screaming in hell for all eternity.  A trillion trillion years from now you will be screaming the same, visceral, agonized scream of horrifying suffering.  When you voted for Obama you voted for hell.  And you are going to GET the hell you voted for.  You voted for the wrath of God according to Psalm 139 and according to Romans chapter one.  You voted to give Iran nuclear weapons.  You voted to invite Russia and Iran into Syria to assure the world of the Gog-Magog war described in Ezekiel 38-39.  And you’re going to get all of the hell you voted for.  And eternity itself won’t be long enough for you to suffer for what you did in inflicting this national sin on us that will culminate in the coming of the Antichrist and the mark of the beast.

The God Of Liberalism And Ben Carson’s Unpardonable Sin In His Response, ‘I Would Not Just Stand There And Let Him Shoot Me.’

October 9, 2015

The most hateful words ever uttered, based on the mainstream media’s outright hate poured over Dr. Ben Carson when he said the following in answer to a question:

Question from reporter: “But Dr. Carson, if a gunman walks up and puts a gun at you and says, ‘What religion are you?’  That is the ultimate test of your faith.”

Dr. Cason: “I’m glad you asked that question, because, not only would I probably not cooperate with him, I would not just stand there and let him shoot me.  I would say, ‘Hey, guys, everybody attack him. He may shoot me, but he can’t get us all.'”

I want you to notice that I took these words from the video in which Huffington Post says in bold typeface, “Skip to 0:25 in the video above to hear Carson describe what he would have done if he’d been present at the shooting.”  In other words, skip PAST the part where the reporter asks, “What would you do?”  And Dr. Carson responds with what he would do.

It’s frankly amazing on one level.  I mean, what in the hell is controversial about that?  The argument to this side is literally, I WILL stand there and let him shoot me.”  And of course, “I will stand there and let him shoot me until my Savior and Lord, the State, kicks down every single door in America and goes over every square inch of land with metal detectors and confiscates until it can account for every single one of the more than 300 million guns in this country.  And PISS on the Constitution in the process.

Remember those three American heroes who were so honored in France for saving that trainload of passive French people from that terrorist?  WHAT BEN CARSON SAID HE ASPIRED TO DO WAS EXACTLY WHAT THEY DID.

Let me tell you why what Ben Carson said is such a horrifying sin in the religion of liberalism: because liberalism is a religion of radical submission and radical helplessness.  You are to be helpless and submissive in your role as a member of “the State.”  And liberalism is a MISSIONARY religion in that every liberal must force the rest of us to be as helpless and as submissive in the face of “the State” as they seek to be.

If you so much as BELIEVE or FEEL that you ought to have a right to protect or defend yourself, you are a blasphemer and a heretic.

I guess that’s quite possibly why Spencer Stone – one of those heroes on that train in France who did not “cooperate” with the terrorist because they ddn’t want to “just stand there and let him shoot” them, was stabled – and fittingly stabled in the back by some coward – in the liberal bastion of Sacramento, California.

Somebody got this point in their title parodying the leftist piece of truly lousy toilet paper known as GQ: “F*CK Ben Carson For Preaching Self-Defense.”  Because we’re getting to the very core essence of what truly separates a liberal from a conservative.

The Bible frequently uses the metaphor of “sheep” to describe believers before their God.  And yes, apart from the wisdom of God, which we should therefore seek, humans are described as helpless and stupid, like sheep.

If you are a liberal, don’t sneeringly tell me you don’t have a religious faith.  Because YES YOU DO.  Liberalism is a religion following secular humanism that replaces “God” with “Government,” with human government.  And the priests of this religion are bureaucrats, and to them the words of Isaiah 53 – “all we like sheep have gone astray” – ring like music.  We are poor, stupid, helpless sheep under liberalism.  And Government is our God, our Savior, to whom we ought to helplessly submit.

And when it comes to weapons, the biblical metaphor couldn’t be more apt in describing what liberals’ want: the SHEEP don’t get to carry weapons.  They are far too stupid and they would clearly only hurt themselves or one another.  No, only the shepherd, only the bureaucrat’s designated force-bearer, can carry weapons.

Probably the most famous passage in the Bible, Psalm 23, the Shepherd’s Psalm, sums it up: “Thy rod and Thy staff, they comfort me.”  God is the One who carries the rod and the staff, not the sheep.  And liberalism is a rabid religion that keeps shrieking, “There is no God but Government, and Obama is His Prophet!”

AND THEY MUST STRIP YOU OF YOUR GUNS AND LEAVE YOU UTTERLY HELPLESS, BECAUSE YOU ARE A SHEEP AND IT IS BLASPHEMY AGAINST THE ONE TRUE GOD THE STATE TO THINK ANYTHING ELSE ABOUT YOURSELF.

You have the right to religious freedom if and ONLY If you are a liberal.  But every other religion is blasphemy before liberalism and its One True God, the human State.  And every other religion must ultimately be forced to SUBMIT and be HELPLESS.  Like a good sheep.

This doesn’t just apply to guns; it is all encompassing.  Allow me to give you another example of God vs. Government and the side liberalism takes:

The silver is mine and the gold is mine,’ declares the LORD Almighty.  — Haggai 2:8

WHO does all the wealth belong to?  Well, I think we all understand those words very easily: the LORD Almighty.  GOVERNMENT.  OBAMA.

Liberals are the faithful demanding that all wealth go to the One True God, the State.  It’s not that liberals disagree with the Bible as much as they disagree on who “God” is.

I’ve written about this stuff before, of course.  I wrote about 1 Samuel 8:10-22 and how a wicked people refused God as their king and wanted giant, powerful human government instead.  I wrote about Daniel 2:31-35 and how Democrats have picked the absolutely WRONG side of history to be on as they side with the human government that will utterly perish before the coming Christ who as the Rock will destroy it.

These people worship human Government in place of God, and human government will ultimately burn in hell right along with them.

Sheep are helpless.  Just as liberals want those whom they dole out welfare to for literally generation after generation after generation to be helpless sheep who cannot take care of themselves.  And all you have to do to guarantee that you will be poor for life, that your children will be poor for all of their lives, that their children will be trapped in poverty all of their lives, and so on, ad nauseam, is to vote Democrat.  Because they seek to trap you in a vicious cycle that you will never get out of and you will therefore always need to keep voting for them to keep you in.

Liberals take money from one group and dole it out to keep another group dependent and helpless.  Like sheep.

Liberalism is the confiscation of wealth and the offering of that wealth to the One True God, the State.  And the priests of this religion, the bureaucrats, distribute it according to their theology.

There’s more, of course: who says what life is and who gets to live?  God, of course, and ONLY God:

13You made all the delicate, inner parts of my body
    and knit me together in my mother’s womb.
14 Thank you for making me so wonderfully complex!
    Your workmanship is marvelous—how well I know it.
15 You watched me as I was being formed in utter seclusion,
    as I was woven together in the dark of the womb.
16 You saw me before I was born.
    Every day of my life was recorded in your book.
Every moment was laid out
    before a single day had passed. — Psalm 139:13-16

And who gets to decide these weighty questions of what is life, what is sacred, who gets to live and who should die?  God, of course.  The State.  The Black-Robed High Priests of Liberalism.

Which is why the doctrine of abortion and the support for that doctrine is tantamount to an act of religious devotion.  It is an act of religious faith, for I the LORD your God gave you Roe v. Wade.  And let all other gods be forced to bow down before Me, and let all who oppose my rule be torn limb-from-limb or burned with acid in the very womb in which I, Obama, formed him.

What is marriage?  Who decides?  Only God, of course.  That’s obvious.  We all agree with that.  Jesus, the divine Messiah of the God of the Bible, summed up God’s way according to Genesis 2:22-24 when He described biblical marriage:

“Haven’t you read,” [Jesus] replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?  So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.” — Matthew 19:4-6

Well, liberals rabidly and utterly reject that God.  They have their own God, the State.  And so we now have Obama, the divine Messiah of the God of the State, providing a radically different view of “marriage.”

Atheism is a religion. It has been ruled so by the same Supreme Court that gave us Roe v. Wade and gay marriage.  Just as secular humanism has been defined as a religion.  It is now an amply documented scientific FACT that the human brain is hard-WIRED for religion and religious experience.  It is literally now ANTI-SCIENCE to claim that humans aren’t intrinsically religious beings.  You can put it in the most atheistic, physicalist, materialistic terms you want: but the human brain is hard-wired for religious experience and it’s only a question of what you worship, not whether you worship.  Let me take a moment to deal with this part about our religious instincts being genetically or evolutionarily “hard-wired” into our brains: atheists have kind of GOT to say something like that to explain the fact that atheists are an incredibly tiny minority of the world’s population; “Adherents.com, estimates that the proportion of the world’s people who are “secular, non-religious, agnostics and atheists” at about 14%.”  With about one-fifth of that 14% – or 2.8% – categorically stating themselves as “atheist” rather than some form of agnostic or secular.  2.8% of the world’s population is atheist.  So here’s the question: since religion is hard-wired into our brains, who the hell do these people think they are telling us that we don’t need something that their very own precious evolution very clearly put in us because we need it?  Their claim is tantamount to saying, “I evolved to no longer need evolution.”  There’s an awful lot of problems with consistent atheism, but this is one of those contradictions that needs to be exposed.

Atheists can play their rhetorical word games and say, “If atheism is a religion, then off is a TV channel.”  Here’s the problem with it: the very word “atheism” means, “no god.”  Let’s acknowledge and then move beyond the problem with atheism as expressed by G.K. Chesterton: “When a man stops believing in God he doesn’t then believe in nothing, he believes anything.”  Which corresponds with the admonition in Colossians 2:8 which says, “Don’t let anyone capture you with empty philosophies and high-sounding nonsense that come from human thinking and from the spiritual powers of this world, rather than from Christ.”  I am making a different point here that strictly relates to the TV channel analogy; namely that atheism is espoused as a belief in the denial of something, but the very thing they are denying is such a quintessential part of who they are that the very word “theist” is the most prominent part of their own self-description.  To wit: in the analogy that the atheist provides, “GOD is the TV. Religions are the channels. If it is off, maybe he’s dead or disengaged, but at least you admit there’s a TV.”  .  Just for the record, I can cite you MILLION of Christians who can easily use the same “logic” to rationalize that Christianity is NOT a religion.  I googled the phrase, Christianity is not a religion, and got 86,000,000 hits.  Their point is that “Religion is man’s way to reach God.  Christianity is God’s way to reach man.”  That many atheists don’t consider themselves “religious” is no more an accurate part of their perspective than that many Christians don’t consider themselves “religious.”  The simple fact boils down to this: whether you are talking about atheism not being a religion, or Christianity not being a religion, the only way the proponents of either view are correct is if their belief (i.e., atheism or Christianity) is correct.  If there is in fact a God, atheism is merely one of many false religious systems.  And belief in God is NOT an essential part of a religious system, for the record, given that many Buddhists are actually atheists.  Finally,  the author of this actually quite-good article I cite above points out that the rabidness of the atheist and the tendency of the atheist to hate theists is every bit as fervent as it is the other way around.  She points out, “Let me tell you: The angriest ones can be as malicious as a coven of Westboro Baptists at a veteran’s funeral.”  In case anybody actually has the foolishness to doubt that, let me just point out that the very shooting that Ben Carson is the target of so much hate for describing how he would react was an ATHEIST who TARGETED CHRISTIANS.

I say this because of the incredibly dishonest, deceitful, disingenuous way that liberals and their counterparts who dominate the mainstream media constantly frame any and basically all religious debate in America.  Religious people are constantly told that we have no right to impose our religion on others.  From the very same people who even as they are saying that are exploiting it as an incredibly cynical device to impose their damn religion on me.  As an example, an atheist decided to get offended over students being allowed to pray and rabidly determined to impose HIS religion of refusing to pray on every student whose religion encouraged them to pray.  Every single court or every single bureaucracy that seeks to remove prayer from school is NOT removing religion; they are DICTATING which religion that students will be forced to practice, namely the religion of atheism/secular humanism.

My point is that liberals ARE worshipers.  They are RABID worshipers.  They merely choose to worship a very different God from the God of Christianity.  And to the extent that they don’t worship the State, they worship themselves and their religion is about selfishly and self-centeredly obtaining their lusts and their desires through the power of the State and forcing others to provide these things for them.

I am beyond sick of liberals imposing their religion on me while they smarmily tell me that I don’t have a right to impose my religion on them.  I’m sick of liberals perverting the Word of God and constantly seeking to turn me a sheep, as the Bible says I am, but a sheep of their God the State.  I’m sick and tired of liberals telling me that I should be helpless, and that as a stupid, helpless sheep the only thing I’d do if I were allowed to have a weapon is hurt myself or some other innocent.  So only the Shepherd of the religion of the State ought to be allowed to have weapons.  I’m sick and tired of being told that I don’t have a right to impose my view of marriage on people as the people who tell me that impose their view of marriage on me with in-your-face-hypocrisy.  I’m sick of liberals telling me that I’m crazy to believe that human life begins in the womb when they can’t produce a single example of a single human who didn’t begin in the womb.  If their mothers had aborted those liberals, those liberals would have been killed.  A child in the womb is human by virtue of the taxonomy of her parents, she is a being by virtue of the fact that she is a living thing: she is a HUMAN BEING.  Let’s go through the taxonomic system that classifies every single living thing with our unborn baby: That “fetus” (which is Latin for “unborn child” by the way) is classified from the moment of conception as Kingdom-Animal; Phylum-chordata; Class-Mammalia; Order-Primate; Family-Hominid; Genus-Homo; and Species-Sapiens.  Just like every human being whose life is precious unless you are describing human value in the hateful religious system of liberalism.  These things are simply facts, but the religion of liberalism doesn’t give a damn about facts; it is a rabid religious faith.  It is in fact a totalitarian religious faith that is missionary in its determined intent to impose itself on heretic unbelievers in Government.

We’re watching the Middle East and the world melt down due to President Barack Obama’s morally idiotic foreign policy.  Right now we’ve got five million refugees fleeing Obama’s collapse, and millions more are going to come behind them.  And where the hell are they going to go?  And we’re ultimately going to see why Obama’s epic fail in the Middle East will result in America’s epic fail.  We’re watching the complete vacuum of any kind of moral or military leadership being filled not by the United States but by Russia and now Iran.  But there’s something in the strategy of the only man who actually HAS a strategy – Vladimir Putin – that I want to close this piece on the religion of liberalism with.  Marco Rubio – the man WHO PREDICTED the invasion of Syria by Russia which so stunned and caught Obama off guard – NAILED Putin’s strategy:

“Vladimir Putin is deliberately targeting the non-ISIS rebels,” Rubio explains. “And here’s why: If he’s going to wipe out all the non-ISIS elements on the ground in Syria, then they can say: ISIS or Assad, there are no other options. We killed all the non-ISIS people.”

“And at that point, he’ll be able to force the world to support Assad, and that is what he is doing.”

Vladimir Putin is crushing all the non-Islamic State rebels, leaving only Assad’s regime and Islamic State.  And his plan is then to force America to support Assad’s regime as the only viable alternative.

That is precisely what is happening with Christianity.  We know damn well what it feels like to be a “non-ISIS rebel” in America right now.  Whether it’s the Little Sisters of the Poor, whether it’s the Christian baker, or the Christian florist – whom a judge demanded the “personal ruin” of – or Kim Davis, the millions of Christians around the world who are being exterminated under the Obama presidency in numbers that have NEVER BEFORE IN ALL OF HUMAN HISTORY BEEN WITNESSED, Christians are being systematically wiped out more than any other group of people on earthThere’s a new Holocaust going on right now.  And Obama and liberals are participating as much as the bystander of any vile event who does NOTHING participates in the horror they are standing by and allowing to happen.

By commission and by omission, Barack Obama is the world’s leading persecutor of Christians in the history of the world in terms of the sheer, mass numbers of Christians whom have suffered under him and as a result of his colossal failure.

Obama has said he is a Christian.  He also said that “as a Christian” he was opposed to gay marriage.  The latter statement turned out to be an outright lie, and the first one about Obama being a Christian is a lie as well.  I have pointed out and documented how Obama’s theology has NOTHING whatsoever to do with biblical Christianity.  He can go into a church and call himself a “Christian.”  Just like I can lay down in my garage and call myself a “car.”  But both statements are equally false.

You shall have no other gods before me, says liberalism.  And every Christian who says or believes otherwise shall be devoted to destruction.  Because liberalism is a rabid, religious faith.  And all we like sheep have gone astray and need to be brought under the Stalinist boot heel for our own good and for the good, for the praise and for the glory, of the State.

That’s Ben Carson’s real sin.  He’s “the Coon of the Year” to them.  At least that’s what a liberal professor in a liberal Ivy League university with the liberal system of tenure protecting her says.  She helps us get back to the God of the Bible – whom she calls “a white racist” – versus the liberal God also known as the State.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 632 other followers