Posts Tagged ‘9/11’

‘Non-Stop’ Liberal Fascism And The Vileness Of Liberalism Which ALWAYS Twists Truth And Reality

April 15, 2014

What the hell – and I DO mean “hell” because hell is IN these people – is wrong with liberals?

Here’s the latest outrage in which liberals “twist” truth and reality by making the real-life villains the victims and the heroes while making the real-life victims and heroes the villains:

On Saturday, Breitbart.com reported that the villain in Liam Neeson’s new action thriller, “Non-Stop,” is a 9/11 family member who also served in the military.

“‘Non-Stop’ is a good movie,” John Nolte wrote. “Heck, it is darn near very good. But the left-wing sucker punch at the end is a new low, even for Hollywood.”

Nolte said the villain joined the military after losing a loved on in the terror attack on the World Trade Center, but became disillusioned by the ongoing wars.

So, the veteran decides to blow everyone up on a plane so the air marshal can get blamed, causing airport security to be tightened even further.

Worse yet, Nolte added, the villain’s sidekick turns out to be an American military member willing to murder 150 innocent people for money.

Moreover, Nolte said the “one passenger on the plane who is forever helpful, kind, reasonable, noble, and never under suspicion is a Muslim doctor dressed in traditional Muslim garb including a full beard.”

Glenn Beck also excoriated the movie, according to a post at The Blaze.

“It is really great, until you find out that the killer is U.S. military and a guy who believes in the Constitution,” he said sarcastically. “Oh, darn it. Did I just wreck that movie for everybody? Oh, I didn’t mean to…”

Beck said that even in liberal New York, the ending was met with groans.

“I’m not going to say anymore, except the killer is … a schoolteacher and so you completely dismiss him,” he added. “And there’s a little hole in the bathroom where they do a blow-dart, and they kill the pilot.”

The Blaze added:

Beck said the killer’s rationale was something “nonsensical” along the lines of: “It’s the government that has been putting people like you, you drunkard, on planes and allowing you to be our TSA. And that’s just wrong. So I’m going to blow everything up and take the money. I’ve got a parachute here, so I’m going to live. And I’m going to take all the money, and I’m going to get away with it. A-ha, ha-ha, ha-ha, ha-ha.”

He also said the movie shows that “no amount of research … can help these people in Hollywood,” because they simply do not understand what a “wildly, wildly insulting movie” they made.

Beck’s advise: “Don’t go see Non-Stop.”

Nolte had even harsher words: “Sc**w you, Hollywood.”

“Non-Stop” is rated PG-13 by the Motion Picture Association of America for “intense sequences of action and violence, some language, sensuality and drug references,” and was given two out of four stars by the Associated Press‘ Jake Coyle.

That’s right.  It doesn’t matter if in REALITY Muslims are responsible for 99.99999% of all terrorist attacks and 9/11 victims’ families and the heroes who served are responsible for 0.0000001%.  Because to be “liberal” means to think just the opposite of reality and piss on the truth.

Liberals are the people who constantly assure us that Nazis are “right-wing” because everybody apparently just knows that if there was a “National Socialist American Workers Party” the way Nazi stood for “National Socialist German Workers Party,” it would be a conservative Republican Party.  Because you know how we conservatives adore “socialism” and “workers parties” and how much the left despises them.

Oh, wait.  It’s the other way around.  Not that lying liberals give a damn.

Liberals have managed to assure us that women who want to murder their own babies are heroes and victims and the babies they kill are worthless things that have no right to life.  Babies, liberals assure us, have the duty to die for the convenience of their mommies much the same way that Jews had the duty to die for the convenience of Adolf.

Liberals have managed to assure us that homosexual men who lust after being bending over and being sodomized by another man after sucking him to orgasm are “normal” and the people who recognize that these people are depraved, unnatural perverts are the weirdos.

LIberals have managed to assure us that snarling black men who join the Black Panthers with the following message -

We didn’t come out here to play. There is to much serious business going on in your black community to be sliding through south street with white, dirty cracker whores on your arms. What’s a matter with you black man, you got a doomsday with a white woman on your arm.
……
“We keep begging white people for freedom. No wonder we’re not free. Your enemy can not make you free fool. You want freedom you’re going to have to kill some crackers. You’re going to have to kill some of their babies.

Let us get our act together. It’s time to wake up, clean up, and stand up.”

I can’t wait for the day that they’re all dead. I won’t be completely happy until I see our people free and Whitey dead.”

“When you have 10 brothers in uniform, suited and booted and ready for war, white folks know these niggas ain’t their niggas. We kick white folks asses. We take it right to the cracker.”

We’re going to keep putting our foot up the white man’s ass until they understand completely. We want freedom, justice and mutha[expletive]‘ equality. Period. If you ain’t gonna give it to us, mutha[expletive], we’re gonna take it, in the name of freedom.”

- aren’t racist at all.  They aren’t racist – morally depraved jackass liberal pseudo-intellectuals tell us – because black people are people who hold both the presidency and the attorney generalship and are therefore victims forever and thus incapable of “racism.”  Do you know who IS racist?  Republicans.  Not ALL Republicans, they tell us out of their fairness and decency.  Just ALMOST all of them:

WASHINGTON — “Not all” Republicans are racist, said Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.) on Sunday, but “to a significant extent, the Republican base has elements that are animated by racism, and that’s unfortunate.”

Israel’s comment was in response to a question from CNN’s Candy Crowley, who asked the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee about remarks by Attorney General Eric Holder this week. In a speech to a civil rights group, Holder questioned his treatment by Republican lawmakers at a House Judiciary Committee hearing, and implied that race may have played a role.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) also suggested this past week that racism was a factor in the Republican party’s opposition to immigration reform. “I think race has something to do with the fact that they’re not bringing up an immigration bill,” Pelosi told reporters, adding, “I’ve heard them say to the Irish, if it were just you, this would be easy.”

Which of course means that the same “almost” all of the 54% of Americans who voted to have that Republican majority are clearly “racist,” too.

And of course, liberals have assured us that it is “racist” to try to limit or reduce illegal voting in any way, shape or form.  But that it is most definitely NOT “racist” to stand outside a voting place with clubs threatening and mocking voters of the other political party (and see here and here).

Liberals have assured us that Jesus was a socialist who demanded that King Herod and Pontius Pilate be empowered to radically expand big government to “help” the poor with institutionalized welfare rather than saying to His disciples, “YOU feed them.”  In the same vein, liberals have assured us that Barack Obama and Joe Biden – who gave poor people VIRTUALLY NOTHING from their own wealth are “generous” and that men like Mitt Romney and Dick Cheney – who gave 28% and 78% of their respective incomes to charity – are “selfish.”

Democrats and liberals are people who pathologically pervert the truth and slander reality.

I am so sick to my soul of twisted and perverted liberal “morality” that makes a mockery of everything the Word of God declares it is beyond unreal.

 

 

Atheists Acknowledge God Because There REALLY IS Power In The Cross (It Sickens The Forces Of Satan)

March 8, 2014

Hold up a cross and watch a vampire shrink back in pain and fear.

Vampires are evil, parasitic leeches – just like liberals – and as the unholy spawn of the devil they cannot abide the holiness of God as demonstrated in His cross.

Turns out – and this according to atheists themselves - that the power of the cross works on them, too.  And apparently just as well.

You see, if there were any actual reality to atheism, what would the cross be?  Just two sticks held together at a perpendicular angle.  No pain there.  It’s just a simple geometric figure.  Do isosceles triangles cause you so much agony and emotional devastation?  Parallelograms?

But you see, the cross DOES mean an awful lot more than what atheists claim it does.

The cross represents the reality that God entered the world, assumed a human nature, and conquered sin and death by taking sinful man’s place and dying (as a man) and being raised from the dead (because God can’t die).

And the power of the cross makes the demons that haunt atheists’ shriveled souls start crawling and howling and causing all kinds of freaky symptoms:

Atheists Continue to Push for 9/11 Cross Ban, Claiming It Has Caused Them ‘Physical and Emotional’ Pain
Sep. 11, 2012 4:39pm   Billy Hallowell

American Atheists Claims 9/11 Cross Has Caused Physical, Emotional Pain

The World Trade Center cross was pulled from the rubble of the 9/11 attacks. The cross is part of the planned 9/11 Museum. (Photo Credit: AP)

Atheist activists have a knack for picking riveting, infuriating and seemingly never-ending battles. During the Christmas season, they aim for nativities on public property and at the end of every school year, their targets set on commencement prayers.

While these battles have become all-too-familiar, there’s one showdown brewing that distinguishes itself from the rest — atheists’ demands that a cross found in the rubble following the September 11, 2001 attacks not be included in a museum that is being planned to commemorate the lives lost during the tragedy.

American Atheists (AA), a group working to advance the secular cause, has been leading the charge against the Ground Zero cross since July 2011, when the organization first filed suit against it. TheBlaze’s Meredith Jessup has explored this issue, in detail, on TheBlaze Blog, where she explained AA’s main arguments against the cross’ inclusion.

“The atheists’ suit claims that by including the cross in a museum on public property, the government is unconstitutionally endorsing a religion,” Jessup writes. “It also asserts that the mere presence of the cross would result in emotional — and possibly even physical — injuries among atheists who will feel anxious and excluded.”

Jessup isn’t exaggerating. The organization’s complaint reads, in part:

The plaintiffs, and each of them, have suffered, are suffering, and will continue to suffer damages, both physical and emotional, from the existence of the challenged cross. Named plaintiffs have suffered, inter alia, dyspepsia, symptoms of depression, headaches, anxiety, and mental pain and anguish from the knowledge that they are made to feel officially excluded from the ranks of citizens who were directly injured by the 9/11 attack and the lack of acknowledgement of the more than 1,000 non- Christian individuals who were killed at the World Trade Center.

There is nothing “unconstitutional” about that 9/11 cross no matter HOW warped your reading of the Constitution is.

Because nobody made it.  The first responders simply found it in the ruins, just like it was.  They literally found a piece of wreckage that gave them comfort and so they preserved it.

Atheists are welcome to find a symbol in the 9/11 ruins demonstrating that atheism was there on 9/11.  But oh, that’s right: atheism HAS no symbol because atheism is mindless idiocy and doesn’t stand for ANYTHING beyond hatred for reality and contempt for the God who created it.

And so atheists blame their symptoms of demon-possession on the cross when they ought to recognize that it’s just God demonstrating Himself to them according to Romans chapter One:

16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile. 17 For in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed—a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith.”

18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

And being confronted with that reality makes them just plain psycho.

The REAL Political Legacy Of Bill Clinton Is NOT What The Left Wants You To Know

November 12, 2012

I responded to a typical weasel comment with enough facts and frankly enough words to turn the truth about the Clinton presidency into an article.  Here’s the typical weasel comment:

This post is a bunch of lies.. Clinton left a surplus

And my response:

Just can’t get away from stupid people, can I?

U.S. National Debt

09/30/1993    –    $4,411,488,883,139.38

09/30/1994    –    $4,692,749,910,013.32

09/29/1995    –    $4,973,982,900,709.39

09/30/1996    –    $5,224,810,939,135.73

09/30/1997    –    $5,413,146,011,397.34

09/30/1998    –    $5,526,193,008,897.62

09/30/1999    –    $5,656,270,901,615.43

09/30/2000    –    $5,674,178,209,886.86

09/30/2001    –    $5,807,463,412,200.06

These are official Treasury Dept taken from the Treasury’s site.  The numbers between 1993 and 1999 are here and the numbers from 2000 to 2001 are here.

I want you to notice, you deluded dumbass, that every single year of the Clinton presidency the national debt went UPTHAT IS A FACT.  In the very real world, Bill Clinton never left us with so much as a penny of “surplus.”  Every single year of Slick Willie’s presidency, we got more debt and then more debt.

Bill Clinton assumed office in 1993.  Two years later, in 1994, the people were so angry at the fact that “Clinton gold” turned out to be Iron Pyrite that they voted overwhelmingly for Republicans in the greatest historic asskicking of all time.  Clinton lost both the House and the Senate to Republicans, and in fact never got either back for his entire presidency.

Bill Clinton said “the era of big government is over” in January 1996, which put the kibosh on liberal ideas for the rest of the Clinton presidency as Clinton governed as a moderate Republican from that point on.

In 1997, the Taxpayer Relief Act was passed by the Republican House and the Republican Senate before being signed into law by Bill Clinton.  As a result of those REPUBLICAN TAX REFORMS, federal income tax revenues surged just as they ALWAYS surge when the American people are allowed to keep more of their own money and invest that money far better than bureaucratic government EVER has or ever WILL.  And as a result, we actually briefly got to a federal budget surplus.  Because of Republicans and because “the era of big government was over” and because Democrats had had their asses kicked and ONLY because of those things.

It’s interesting.  Republicans controlled both the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate when we actually got our “balanced budget.”  And yet historically somehow the mainstream media gave Bill Clinton and the Democrat Party ALL the credit and the Republican majorities that had actually passed all the legislation that created that balanced budget zero credit.  It’s particularly amazing given the fact that Barack Obama controlled the White House, held a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, AND controlled the House of Representatives his first two years in office, but the failure of the Obama economic policy is blamed on the fact that for two of Obama’s first four years Republicans held the House.  Basically, Democrats can never be blamed and must be given all the credit; whereas Republicans cannot receive any credit and must be given all the blame.

The same people who constantly lecture the Republicans about “obstructionism” somehow never recall the years when George Bush was confronted with massive Democrat obstructionism.  Obstructionism, was, of course, good and noble when Democrats were blocking virtually every single thing Bush tried to accomplish.  It is only evil if Republicans try to block anything their messiah Obama wants to do.

Now, sadly, 9/11 happened because Bill Clinton left America weak and blind.  Why did America get attacked on 9/11?  Because Bill Clinton showed so much weakness in 1993 in Somalia that a man we would one day know very well said:

“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

Osama bin Laden began to prepare for a massive attack on America.  Oh, yes, he and his fellow terrorists hit America again and again: they hit the World Trade Center for the first time in 1993.  In 1996 they hit the Khobar Towers where hundreds of American servicemen were living.  In 1998 two embassies in Africa (Kenya and Tanzania) were bombed and destroyed by terrorists.  And in 2000, terrorists hit and severely damaged the U.S.S. Cole.  And Bill Clinton proved bin Laden’s thesis correct by doing exactly NOTHING.

Meanwhile, all throughout the Clinton presidency, al Qaeda was preparing to strike us.  They brought in all the terrorists who would devastate us with their second attack on the World Trade Center on 9/11 2001 during Bill Clinton’s watch.

America was both weak and blind due to Bill Clinton’s gutting both the military and our intelligence capability.  And of course, being blind and unable to see what was coming would hurt us deeply:

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.”

And so we were hit on 9/11 and were completely blindsided by the attack because Bill Clinton gutted the military and the intelligence budget leaving us weak and blind.  And of course our spending skyrocketed because of the DotCom economic collapse that Bill Clinton left for George Bush that happened on Clinton’s watch but gutted $7.1 trillion in American wealth (almost as much as the Great Recession, btw) and which collapsed the value of the Nasdaq Valuation by fully 78% of its value as Bush was still trying to clean all the porn that the Clinton White House had left on the White House computers.  And so Bill Clinton handed George Bush a massive recession and like whip cream on top of his economic disaster he handed George Bush an even more massive terrorist attack.

But, hey, don’t worry.  Barack Obama is making all the same mistakes that Clinton made and then a whole bunch of even dumber mistakes that Clinton didn’t make.

Anyway, as you keep hearing that Obama will pave the streets with gold because Bill Clinton paved the streets with gold, please realize #1 that Clinton hardly ever paved the streets with gold and #2 realize that Barack Obama has not and will not govern the way Bill Clinton governed.

Do you know what bothers me the most about Obama’s reelection?  It’s that we have entered a profoundly different reality as a nation.  Barack Obama did NOT get reelected because he gave us a strong economy.  And both the polls before and AFTER the election document that many of the people who actually voted for Barack Obama believed that Mitt Romney would have given us a better economy.

Obama’s economic policy was a complete unmitigated disaster.  But what you need to understand is that a terrible economy makes for good politics for Democrats.  Because the worse the economy gets the more that increasingly amoral Americans will demand a stronger government safety net and welfare state.  Such that the worse Obama does economically the better he and Democrats will actually fair politically.

The beast is coming.

No, Obama DIDN’T Call The Benghazi, Libya Terrorist Act Even An ‘Act of Terror,’ Let Alone A Terrorist Attack. But If You Say He Did HE’S STILL A LIAR!!!

October 18, 2012

Did Obama call the September 11 attack on the US Consulate In Libya a terrorist act or not?

The answer is “NOT,” since this is the speech he claims he did:

Remarks by the President on the Deaths of U.S. Embassy Staff in Libya
Rose Garden
10:43 A.M. EDT
For Immediate Release September 12, 2012

THE PRESIDENT:  Good morning.  Every day, all across the world, American diplomats and civilians work tirelessly to advance the interests and values of our nation.  Often, they are away from their families.  Sometimes, they brave great danger.

Yesterday, four of these extraordinary Americans were killed in an attack [Me: what KIND of attack?  A coordinated terrorist attack or a spontaneous unplanned attack by an angry mob as the Obama administration kept claiming for DAYS after the attack?] on our diplomatic post in Benghazi.  Among those killed was our Ambassador, Chris Stevens, as well as Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith.  We are still notifying the families of the others who were killed.  And today, the American people stand united in holding the families of the four Americans in our thoughts and in our prayers.

The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack.  We’re working with the government of Libya to secure our diplomats.  I’ve also directed my administration to increase our security at diplomatic posts around the world.  And make no mistake, we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people.

Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths.  We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.  But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence.  None.  The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.

Already, many Libyans have joined us in doing so, and this attack will not break the bonds between the United States and Libya.  Libyan security personnel fought back against the attackers alongside Americans.  Libyans helped some of our diplomats find safety, and they carried Ambassador Stevens’s body to the hospital, where we tragically learned that he had died.

It’s especially tragic that Chris Stevens died in Benghazi because it is a city that he helped to save.  At the height of the Libyan revolution, Chris led our diplomatic post in Benghazi.  With characteristic skill, courage, and resolve, he built partnerships with Libyan revolutionaries, and helped them as they planned to build a new Libya.  When the Qaddafi regime came to an end, Chris was there to serve as our ambassador to the new Libya, and he worked tirelessly to support this young democracy, and I think both Secretary Clinton and I relied deeply on his knowledge of the situation on the ground there.  He was a role model to all who worked with him and to the young diplomats who aspire to walk in his footsteps.

Along with his colleagues, Chris died in a country that is still striving to emerge from the recent experience of war. Today, the loss of these four Americans is fresh, but our memories of them linger on.  I have no doubt that their legacy will live on through the work that they did far from our shores and in the hearts of those who love them back home.

Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks [Me: ah, yes, the 9/11 attack which even Barack Hussein Obama would agree would be "an act of terror."].  We mourned with the families who were lost on that day.  I visited the graves of troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery, and had the opportunity to say thank you and visit some of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed.  And then last night, we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi.

As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it.  Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe.

No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation [Me: is Obama claiming that the Libya attack he mentioned nine paragraphs earlier was the "act of terror," or was he referring to the 9/11 attack  that he had just referred to 2 paragraphs previously], alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.  Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America.  We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act.  And make no mistake, justice will be done.

But we also know that the lives these Americans led stand in stark contrast to those of their attackers.  These four Americans stood up for freedom and human dignity.  They should give every American great pride in the country that they served, and the hope that our flag represents to people around the globe who also yearn to live in freedom and with dignity.

We grieve with their families, but let us carry on their memory, and let us continue their work of seeking a stronger America and a better world for all of our children.

Thank you.  May God bless the memory of those we lost and may God bless the United States of America.

So you can see that there is NO logical reason to believe Obama was calling the attack on the US Consulate in Libya a “terrorist attack.”  He had just been talking about the 9/11 attack which even OBAMA thinks is a terrorist attack.  And in what universe is referring to “acts of terror” the same as calling something “a terrorist attack”?  Let’s say, just for the sake of argument, that Barack Obama, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and most particularly US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice were correct, and the attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi WAS a “spontaneous act” by a protest mob enraged by a stupid Youtube video: would that NOT be “an act of terror”???  What else would you call it if a bunch of religious fanatics who hated you and broadcasted that hatred because of their warped religion had gone nuts and murdered your whole family?  “An act of happiness”?

And keep in mind, for more than two weeks after what intelligence was calling “a terrorist attack” within hours, this is the VERY STRONGEST STATEMENT Obama can now point to to claim he promptly damned as at least “terror” (but not “terrorist”).

Here’s the other thing: let’s say for the sake of argument that Barack Obama was actually calling what everyone now knows (no thanks to Obama or his administration) was a terrorist attack a terrorist attack.  Then WHY did Obama order his army of cockroach demon minions to repeatedly lie and say the exact opposite thing:

See the problem?  Obama now says that he officially declared that the attack on the US Consulate was in fact a terrorist attack, but then he sent out high-ranking administration official after high-ranking administration official to lie for the next two weeks.

And what about Obama himself lying after his own incredibly brief moment of “truth-telling” when he supposedly said that the attack on the US Consulate in Libya was in fact a terrorist attack.

On September 20 - more than a week after Obama now says he referred to the attack as a terrorist attack – Obama said this to Univision:

OBAMA: “What we’ve seen over the last week, week and a half, is something that actually we’ve seen in the past, where there is an offensive video or cartoon directed at the prophet Muhammad. And this is obviously something that then is used as an excuse by some to carry out inexcusable violent acts directed at Westerners or Americans. “And my number-one priority is always to keep our diplomats safe and to keep our embassies safe. And so when the initial events happened in Cairo and all across the region, we worked with Secretary Clinton to redouble our security and to send a message to the leaders of these countries, essentially saying, although we had nothing to do with the video, we find it offensive, it’s not representative of America’s views, how we treat each other with respect when it comes to their religious beliefs, but we will not tolerate violence.”

QUESTION: “We have reports that the White House said today that the attacks in Libya were a terrorist attack. Do you have information indicating that it was Iran, or al-Qaeda was behind organizing the protests?” OBAMA:  “Well, we’re still doing an investigation, and there are going to be different circumstances in different countries. And so I don’t want to speak to something until we have all the information. What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests.”

— President Obama, Univision Town Hall, Sept. 20

On September 25 - and this is now two weeks after the attack that Obama now says he called a terrorist attack in that Rose Garden speech – Obama responded to a direct question with the following answer:

QUESTION: “I heard Hillary Clinton say it was an act of terrorism. Is it? What do you say?”

OBAMA: “We are still doing an investigation. There is no doubt that the kind of weapons that were used, the ongoing assault, that it wasn’t just a mob action. Now, we don’t have all the information yet so we are still gathering.”

So if you want to believe Barack Obama and that disgrace-to-journalism Candy Crowley, Obama told the American people the truth concealed in a weak statement on September 12 and then proceeded to personally repeatedly lie after that brief moment of weakly telling the truth.

And this after a parade of lies that included Obama appointee UN Ambassador Susan Rice going on all five major Sunday morning political programs and repeatedly specifically denying that it was a terrorist attack and repeatedly asserting something which we now know to have been a complete fabrication.  Which was it?

Either way you want to slice it, Barack Obama is a documented liar (again!) and he is the president of an administration of liars who have been doing everything they could to cover-up a terrorist attack that occurred on sovereign United States territory which resulted in the deaths of four Americans including a United States Ambassador.

And the fact that Obama would falsely assert that he called something “terror” that not only that very speech he referenced but the following two weeks AFTER that speech rather conclusively proves he didn’t is just another of a massive series of proofs just how willing Obama is to deceive.

Why Wasn’t Bill Clinton Responsible For The DotCom Collapse And 9/11 When Bush Is Still Responsible For Obama’s Economy FOUR YEARS LATER???

October 1, 2012

As we near the end of Obama’s FOURTH YEAR IN OFFICE, we had an amazing claim from our blamer-in-chief:

KROFT: The national debt has gone up sixty percent in — in the four years that you’ve been in office.

OBAMA: Well, first — first of all, Steve, I think it’s important to understand the context here. When I came into office, I inherited the biggest deficit in our history. And over the last four years, the deficit has gone up, but ninety percent of that is as a consequence of two wars that weren’t paid for, as a consequence of tax cuts that weren’t paid for, a prescription drug plan that was not paid for, and then the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.  Now we took some emergency actions, but that accounts for about 10 percent of this increase in the deficit, and we have actually seen the federal government grow at a slower pace than at any time since Dwight Eisenhower, in fact, substantially lower than the federal government grew under either Ronald Reagan or George Bush.

In his devastating Washington Post fact check that gave Obama 100% of the pinnochios for the worst possible example of lying, “Kessler says it’s the other way around — that Bush policies account for about 10% of the current annual structural budget deficit, and the rest is evenly split between bad projections from the CBO and Obama’s spending and economic policies.”

Four years.  It took the media four freaking years to say, “ENOUGH WITH YOUR DAMNED LYING EXCUSES!!!”  FOUR YEARS.

George Bush gave us $4 trillion in debt over eight years and Obama said that was “irresponsible” and even “unpatriotic.”  Obama has given America $6 trillion in debt in just four years.  And a hell of a lot more than that, if you look at our actual debt which is now well over $222 trillion.

I point out in a comment to a liberal demagogue how Obama tries to blame Bush for the massive spending.  Bush left office having produced a budget containing a $400 billion deficit that Democrats decried for the cuts.  What Obama then does is spend the first nine months of his presidency spending like a lunatic: he spends $79 billion of taxpayer money on his GM bailout – and of course has taken complete credit as the president who saved GM – while blaming Bush for its entire cost.  Obama spends $862 billion – which according to the CBO will ultimately cost American taxpayers $3.27 trillion – on his stimulus.  Then in March 2009 Obama spends another $410 billion in his Omnibus bill.  Meanwhile, Obama is spending the second half of the $350 billion in TARP funds that he voted for and which funds he demanded.  So what Obama dishonestly does is add all that spending up – HIS OWN spending – and attributes it to Bush so that he can claim this horrendous deficit that he “inherited.”  And so Obama artificially and deceitfully manufactures this enormous Bush deficit that he’s somehow a victim of – even though ninety percent of the spending in that deficit is HIS.

But that’s just the beginning of Obama’s dishonesty.  Look what he does to “the two wars.”

First the Iraq War.  Bush WON the Iraq War before Obama took office and signed the status of forces agreement before Obama took office.  We had won the war such that Bush was beginning to withdraw surge forces as early as 2007.  And yet somehow when US troops finalize their withdrawal according to Bush’s victory and according to Bush’s status of forces agreement, it is Obama who takes full credit.  Joe Biden actually had the chutzpah to claim that the Iraq War victory that he and his boss Obama had done everything they could to prevent was going to be “one of Obama’s great achievements.”  What Obama then does is equally despicable: he assumes in his numbers that the Iraq War that was already won when he came into office would have gone on forever if Messiah Obama had not won it, looks at the high-point of Bush’s spending during the war and creates another “baseline,” and then announces that in winning the war he has saved America more than $700 billion.  That Obama can spend on his policies while simultaneously blaming that spending on Bush.

Now the Afghanistan War.  Rather than look up the spending in dollars, I’ll produce the cost of the war under Bush and under Obama in American lives (as of September 28, 2012):

Whether you look at it in dollars or in lives, you’ll find that Obama is responsible for over 70 percent of the cost of the Afghanistan War.  Because you see, what Obama did was perform an incredibly cynical political calculation.  Obama demonized Iraq as “the bad war” and made Afghanistan – in which Bush was merely performing a holding action – into “the good war” as a way to attack Bush in Iraq.  Obama in effect said we shouldn’t be fighting in Iraq where the flat terrain allowed full movement and maneuver of our air, artillery and armored power and an educated population made victory possible; we should be fighting in a mountainous hellhole where we couldn’t utilize our military advantages and where the people were so ignorant they would believe every lie they were told and go on fighting forever instead.  That is literally what Obama effectively said.  And Obama is saying, “It’s not MY fault that I massively increased the war in Afghanistan; it’s Bush’s fault I did that.”  And Obama is claiming credit for the Iraq War that Bush won and blaming Bush for the Afghanistan War that he has virtually lost.

Let me move on to the economy.

You have to ask the question, why was George Bush responsible for ninety percent of Obama’s entire presidency as far as the mainstream media was concerned, but Bill Clinton wasn’t responsible for the DotCom bubble collapse that happened on his watch and that Bush inherited???  Why did we never hear 900,000 stories from the media on how Clinton was to blame and in conclusion nobody could reasonably blame Bush for it???

Clinton’s DotCom crash resulted in $7.1 trillion in American wealth being vaporized:

The Market Capitalization of the Dow Jones Wilshire 5000 Full Cap was $16.7 Trillion as of April 30, 2008. Comparatively, the market cap at the end of Q1 in 2000 was approximately $16 trillion (only slightly smaller). However, between 2000 Q1 and Q1 2003 the index lost a stunning 43% of its valuation. In other words, $7.1 Trillion of wealth was lost. This stunning number includes the completeness of the crash.

Who was still president in the first quarter of the fiscal year 2000 when this disaster began to blow up?  It was the guy who was still president on January 20, 2001 when George Bush assumed – and dare I say “inherited” - the office of the president.

Here’s another number to think about: 78%.  Because “The Nasdaq Composite lost  78% of its value as it fell from 5046.86 to 1114.11” as it collapsed between March 11, 2000 to October 9, 2002.

Obviously, there was a problem. The first shots through this bubble came from  the companies themselves: many reported huge losses and some folded outright  within months of their offering. Siliconaires were moving out of $4 million  estates and back to the room above their parents’ garage. In the year 1999,  there were 457 IPOs, most of which were internet and technology related. Of  those 457 IPOs, 117 doubled in price on the first day of trading. In  2001 the number of IPOs dwindled to 76, and none of them doubled on the first  day of trading.

I want to know why Bush is still responsible for Obama’s entire economic mess four years later when Bill Clinton was never held responsible for so much as one second of Bush’s mess.  I want to understand why Democrats are lying, dishonest, hypocrite slime whose only talent is bankrupting America and then demagoguing Republicans for what they did.

You find out that the Dotcom bubble began to grow huge in 1995 and virtually all of Clinton’s economic “success” that didn’t have to do with the policies of the Republican House and the Republican Senate that swept into power in 1995 as a result of the historic 1994 asskicking as a result of Clinton’s and the Democrat Party’s abject failure had to do with the inflation of that damn bubble.  Clinton fanned the flames of that Dotcom bubble because he knew that it would explode on the next president’s watch and that Democrats were far too personally and pathologically dishonest to ever blame HIM for it.

And yet Bill Clinton saunters before the 2012 Democrat National Convention and gives a speech saying “You can’t blame Obama for this disaster of an economy.  Why, even I couldn’t have fixed it.”  And the liberal media listen to their former messiah absolve their current messiah and ignore the fact that Bill Clinton is a serial liar who was DISBARRED by the Supreme Court for LYING as well as a serial womanizing sexual predator who sexually abused five women and they said, “Well, that settles it.  NO one can blame ‘the One’ now; the former ‘One’ has spoken.”  And the “War on Women” party cheers.

Let’s see: Juanita Broaddrick credibly accused Bill Clinton of raping her. There’s no question Bill Clinton had a sexual affair with Gennifer Flowers – and lied about it. Bill Clinton paid Paula Jones $850,000 to settle her sexual harassment case against him. Kathleen Willey was a loyal Democrat and supporter of Bill Clinton until he grabbed her hand and placed it on his genitalia. And then we all know about how he lied about his sexual affair with Monica Lewinsky, even calling her a “stalker,” until it was revealed that she had a dress with his semen on it.

Yeah, I’d trust Bill Clinton.  Every bit as much as Monica Lewinsky’s father would trust Bill Clinton with Monica’s younger sister.

As a result of his “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky” bullcrap, Bill Clinton was DISBARRED FROM PRACTICING LAW.

Lawyers constitute the fourth most distrusted profession in America.  And Bill Clinton was too dishonest to remain part of it.  That should only add to the weight that the slickest politician of all time – he was nicknamed “Slick Willie” as governor of Arkansas for damn good reason – is the king of the second most distrusted profession in America as a politician.

And so, yeah, if I were in the market for a used car, and Bill Clinton came out as the salesman, I would go find myself another used car salesman.

And I actually failed to mention Paula Jones, who successfully SUED Bill Clinton for his sexual harassment.

Yeah, let’s trust Slick Willy.  Because we are as evil as we are stupid on the days that we aren’t as stupid as we are evil.

But I’m just getting started.

Why is it that George Bush is still held responsible for the Obama’s presidency four years later when the same people who hold George Bush responsible wouldn’t hold Bill Clinton responsible for a disaster that happened seven months and 22 days into Bush’s presidency (still during Clinton’s fiscal year, for what it’s worth).  Because we had a terrible terrorist attack on September 11, 2001, just seven months into Bush’s presidency, and it was a) Bush’s fault and b) we shouldn’t be wasting time passing blame, anyway, if you began asking too many questions about just why the hell it was Bush’s fault.

It wasn’t George Bush who decimated the CIA; it was Bill Clinton:

Thursday, April 20, 2006 1:13 a.m. EDT
Pulitzer Winner: Bill Clinton Decimated the CIA

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.”

The Clinton era of risk aversion also hobbled CIA efforts to get Osama bin Laden. In early 1998, Risen says, the agency was prepared to launch a special operation to kidnap the al Qaeda chief in Afghanistan.

“To be sure the operation was high risk, and there was a strong possibility that it would be so messy that bin Laden would be killed rather than captured. [CIA Director George] Tenet and the CIA’s lawyers worried deeply about that issue; they believed the covert action finding on al Qaeda that President Clinton had signed authorized only bin Laden’s capture, not his death.”

Frustrated by restrictions that made dealing with the big challenges too difficult, the agency turned its energy to lesser problems.

Reports Risen: “Thanks to Vice President Al Gore, for example, the CIA briefly made the global environment one of is priorities.”

What Clinton did to the CIA he did to the Pentagon and the military.  He gave them less and less and less money while simultaneously tasking them with more and more and more costly missions.

Add to that the infamous Blackhawk Down fiasco in which Clinton expanded the humanitarian mission to Somalia began under George H.W. Bush into a military action without bothering to provide the US forces the heavy armor they needed.

It was after that disaster that an emboldened Osama bin Laden said:

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 after the Gulf War in which it destroyed the infrastructure and the milk and dairy industry that was vital for the infants and the children and the civilians and blew up dams which were necessary for the crops people grew to feed their families. Proud of this destruction, America assumed the titles of world leader and master of the new world order. After a few blows, it forgot all about those titles and rushed out of Somalia in shame and disgrace, dragging the bodies of its soldiers. America stopped calling itself world leader and master of the new world order, and its politicians realized that those titles were too big for them and that they were unworthy of them. I was in Sudan when this happened. I was very happy to learn of that great defeat that America suffered, so was every Muslim. …

And bin Laden said that America was a weak paper tiger and we’d crawl out dragging our dead because that’s exactly what Bill Clinton had done in Somalia in 1993.

On 9/11/2001, the United States was both weak and blind.  And to quote Obama’s “reverend,” “our chickens came home to roost” for our weakness and blindness as we were hit with the worst attack on American soil in our history.

Just why the hell is it that the same damn hypocrite left that says, “One year of failure, two years of failure, three years of failure, four years of failure, hell, EIGHT years of failure, it doesn’t matter – IT’S BUSH’S FAULT!” never ONCE blame Bill Clinton for either the Dotcom implosion that vaporized $7.1 trillion and sank America into recession?  Why didn’t these liberals say, “What happened during the Bush presidency was ENTIRELY Bill Clinton’s fault and Bush was forced to clean up Clinton’s mess and America is paying the price for Clinton’s sins.”???  Nobody in the media said that, in spite of the facts.  And now, very nearly everybody in the media is saying exactly that regarding George Bush being entirely to blame for Obama’s mess even after Obama has presided over his mess for four miserable years.

Why?!?!?  Other than the fact that if you are a liberal, you are therefore ipso facto and ergo sum a pathologically dishonest human being whose soul swims in lies?

You have to go back to the 1930s and the propaganda of Goebbels in Germany and TASS in Russia to find this level of media manipulation and deceit.  And we’re heading in the same direction: because we are being railroaded into making increasingly stupid and immoral decisions based on the constant stream of fabrications and dishonest narratives we’re being told.

Muslims Overrun US Embassy In Cairo, Replace US Flag With Al Qaeda Flag. Also Overrun US Consulate In Libya. Obama Apologizes As American Is Murdered

September 12, 2012

God damn America is starting to fall apart.  And all this on the anniversary of 9/11 in the world that Obama “fundamentally transformed” after that evil Bush:

Egyptian Protesters Climb Walls Of U.S. Embassy, American Flags Taken Down And Replaced With Black Al-Qaeda Flags – Update: Obama Admin Condemns Individuals Who “Hurt The Religious Feelings Of Muslims”…

Keep in mind these are the same protesters Obama backed during the Arab Spring uprising against Mubarak.

Via CNN:

Angry protesters climbed the walls of the U.S. Embassy in Cairo on Tuesday and hauled down its American flags, replacing them with black flags with Islamic emblems.

The incident prompted U.S. security guards to fire off a volley of warning shots as a large crowd gathered outside, apparently upset about the production of a Dutch film thought to insult the Prophet Mohammed, said CNN producer Mohammed Fahmy, who was on the scene.

An embassy operator told CNN that the facility had been cleared of diplomatic personnel earlier Tuesday, ahead of the apparent threat, while Egyptian riot police were called to help secure the embassy walls.

Update: More pictures.

Update: Insanity rules the day. From the State Department’s Egyptian embassy website:

Here’s one more of Old Glory going down in humiliation with the al Qaeda flag being raised:

But don’t worry, anybody.  Obama raced out to immediately apologize for our embassy being an offensive symbol of a hated Great Satan State:

Let’s look at that statement again:

The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others

BEFORE Obama’s sincere apology to the Muslims that just stormed our embassy and burned our flag, here is what had occurred:

The statement comes after a mob of Egyptians climbed the walls of the embassy and tore down the American flag. Reuters reports:

Egyptian protesters scaled the walls of the U.S. embassy in Cairo on Tuesday and pulled down the American flag during a protest over what they said was a film being produced in the United States that insulted Prophet Mohammad, witnesses said.

In place of the U.S. flag, the protesters tried to raise a black flag with the words “There is no God but Allah and Mohammad is his messenger”, a Reuters reporter said.

Once the U.S. flag was hauled down, protesters tore it up, with some showing off small pieces to television cameras. Then others burned remains.

This movie must be banned immediately and an apology should be made … This is a disgrace,” said 19-year-old, Ismail Mahmoud, a member of the so-called “ultras” soccer supporters who played a big role in the uprising that brought down Hosni Mubarak last year

Don’t worry.  Nobody apologizes for America’s sins better than Obama.  Primarily because he agrees with the people who say we are so damn evil.  It’s important that terrorists have more rights to attack our embassies than that American citizens in the US should have free speech.

You don’t think Obama is going to apologize to me if I’m offended by what the Egyptians did and storm their embassy and piss on their flag before burning it, do you?  Oh, it only works in one direction, and Obama’s apologies are only for those who hate America.

I’m trying to remember if anything like this ever happened before: our embassy being attacked and overran, our economy in the toilet, and a pathetic failed Democrat president doing nothing.  Does that bring back any memories?  Hmmm:

At least Jimmy’s a happy man right now:

There are reports that an American has been killed at the US Consulate in Libya.

I sure hope Obama has a good apology for the Libyans.  How dare Americans think they should have the right to breathe on what international law defines as U.S. soil?  I mean, dang, we should thank them for not murdering more of us. 

Wasn’t the world a dark and evil place when Bush was president?  And didn’t Obama heal the planet?  That was the damn rhetoric we kept hearing from Democrats.

I was mocking that lie almost immediately after Obama took office.  Another guy beat me to the punch by mocking Obama’s asinine rhetoric even before the future abject disgrace took office.  And the sheer idiocy of the “Obama as world transformer” has become a more and more ridiculous lie ever since.

Everything – and I mean ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING – Obama promised was a lie from the devil.

Now Official: Arizona Shooter Jared Loughner A Bush-Hating Liberal

January 18, 2011

One can only look at the moral and psychological insanity of the left and whistle in amazement.

The demonic left heard that a Democrat U.S. Representative had been shot (never mind that she was one of the more conservative Democrats in the House) and immediately concluded that a Republican conservative tea party member – well, make that ALL Republicans, ALL conservatives and ALL tea party members – were guilty of the crime.

Democrats IMMEDIATELY resorted to the worst kind of demonizing, hatred and lies:

Arizona State Rep. Linda Lopez – a leftwing Democrat – stated:

”the shooter is likely, from what I’ve heard, an Afghan vet..”

Why would this vile woman falsely demonize our war veterans?

All you have to do is contemplate the title of an article I wrote on April 14, 2009: “Obama Administration Says Americans Should Fear Their Combat Veterans.” The article referred to an Obama DHS memo that warned that war veterans were to be considered dangerous rightwing extremists.

But that was a lie.  Jared Loughner never served a day in the military, let alone pull a combat tour.  In fact, the Army threw him out of one of their recruiting stations when they found out he was a pothead.

But let’s see.  According to the Gallup polling:

“Support for legalizing marijuana is much lower among Republicans than it is among Democrats…”

Rep. Lopez also immediately blamed the tea party for the assassination.

Paul Krugman demonstrated that all you have to do these days to get a Nobel Prize is be a far-left liberal ideologue.  His column demonizing conservatives for the Arizona shooting was published all of 2 hours after the event.  And like everything else the man has ever said, not a single word of it was anything short of propaganda (not to forget to mention the fact that Krugman has his own documented “gale of anger” problems).

For all the vicious hate and lies from the left, what we found when we actually looked at the facts is that Jared Loughner had a grudge against Rep. Gabrielle Giffords dating back to 2007.  That grudge predated Sarah Palin; it predated the Tea Party movement; it predated the so-called “rightwing rhetoric” against Barack Obama.  And to go further, we find that, in fact, Loughner’s hatred of Rep. Giffords actually occurred during the LEFTWING hatred targeting George W. Bush and Republicans.  And we find that while Loughner nowhere in any of his writings or videos mentioned Sarah Palin, the tea party movement, ObamaCare, conservatives, or anything “right wing,” he DID repeatedly mention his über-leftwing belief that George Bush was responsible for engineering the 9/11 attacks.

So let’s set aside the circumstantial evidence that Jared Loughner was far more leftwing than he was rightwing.  Let’s set aside the fact that he was a devotee of The Communist Manifesto.  Let’s put aside the fact that “A classmate of the man accused of shooting Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords this morning describes him as ‘left wing’ and a pot head.’” Let’s put aside the fact that Loughner never listened to conservative talk radio, surfed conservative sights, or read conservative writers like Mark Levin.  Let’s even put aside the fact that Jared Loughner loved far-left conspiracy theory documentaries such as “Zeitgeist” and “Loose Change”.  In the words of a friend:

“There was a lot of talk about lucid dreaming and understanding reality. . . . And there were a lot of books and movies . . . things that I never would have heard about or watched — things like Loose Change about the 9/11 conspiracy.”

According to reviews, Zeitgeist is anti-Christian, anti-George Bush and anti-capitalism.  And I just scratch my head bleeding wondering which of the two parties would be those three things.  The plot of Loose Change can be summed up in three words” Bush did it.

Let’s put aside that Jared Loughner never bothered with rightwing stuff.  Let’s put aside that Jared Loughner filled his sick mind with leftwing stuff.

Let’s just put aside the facts which all line up to say that if Jared Loughner was anything, he was a far-left liberal loon.

And let’s just put the icing on the cake.  Was Jared Loughner a conservative or was he a liberal?  Let’s ask the liberal “newspaper of record,” a.k.a. The New York Times:

He became intrigued by antigovernment conspiracy theories, including that the Sept. 11 attacks were perpetrated by the government and that the country’s central banking system was enslaving its citizens. His anger would well up at the sight of President George W. Bush, or in discussing what he considered to be the nefarious designs of government.”

Bingo.  If The New York Slimes says it, it clearly must be true.

Jared Loughner was a liberal.

If you listen to or watch or read any source that ever once mentioned that right wing rhetoric or conservative anger or any such thing contributed to the Tucson, Arizona shooting, you are tuning in to a demonstrated source of propaganda and lies.

Every Democrat politician (and like the demons who called themselves “Legion, for we are many” in Luke 8:30, they are legion) and mainstream media figure who alluded to conservative anger in this tragedy should be forced to resign in disgrace for their disgrace of the truth.

On the Malicious Connection Between Conservatives And Hate

January 15, 2011

The following article will consist in two parts: 1) A detailing of just a few of the profoundly hateful rhetoric that comes out of the left on a routine basis, which clearly refutes the idea that some sort of “climate of hate” is being generated by the right wing; and 2) my argument why “political rhetoric” – which is free speech that should be protected by anyone who values American society – should have nothing to do with acts of violence.

Allow me to state at the outset that, when we look at Jared Loughner, what we find is that he had a grudge against Rep. Gabrielle Giffords dating back to 2007.  That grudge predates Sarah Palin; it predates the Tea Party movement; it predates the so-called “rightwing rhetoric” against Barack Obama.  In fact, Loughner’s hatred of Rep. Giffords actually occurred during the LEFTWING hatred targeting George W. Bush and Republicans.  And we find that while Loughner nowhere mentioned Sarah Palin, the tea party movement, ObamaCare, conservatives, or anything “right wing,” he DID repeatedly mention his belief that George Bush was responsible for engineering the 9/11 attacks.

And yet it took Paul Krugman and The New York Slimes 2 hours after the terrible tragedy in Tucson to publish a vile and frankly immoral piece of propaganda demonizing conservatives.  Which is to say that this Nobel Prize-winning propagandist of the left started manufacturing facts before the echoes of the gunfire had died down.  And this from a man who had himself burned effigies of Republicans at his party celebrating the Democrat victories in 2008; and who had called for Joe Lieberman to be hung by the neck in effigy.

Let’s take a moment and look at the hatred of the left, and realize just how amazingly laughable it is for the left to claim the moral high ground regarding any “climate of hate,” and recognize that they did nothing more than despicably try to seize political advantage from a terrible tragedy:

1) The hatred of conservatives by the left:

■ “I’m waiting for the day when I pick it up, pick up a newspaper or click on the Internet and find out he’s choked to death on his own throat fat or a great big wad of saliva or something, you know, whatever. Go away, Rush, you make me sick!” — Left-wing radio host Mike Malloy on the January 4, 2010 Mike Malloy Show, talking about Rush Limbaugh going to the hospital after suffering chest pains.

■ MSNBC’s Chris Matthews in 2009 fantasized about the death of Rush Limbaugh: “Somebody’s going to jam a CO2 pellet into his head and he’s going to explode like a giant blimp”

■ Author/humorist P.J. O’Rourke: “It’s the twilight of the radio loud-mouth, you know? I knew it from the moment the fat guy-”
Host Bill Maher: “You mean Rush Limbaugh and Sean-”
O’Rourke: “-from the moment the fat guy refused to share his drugs….”
Maher: “You mean the OxyContin that he was on?…Why couldn’t he have croaked from it instead of Heath Ledger?” — HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher, February 8, 2008.

MSNBC’s Amy Robach in 2006 mildly wondered if “Death of a President” movie depicting the imagined assassination of President Bush was “poor taste or, as some say, thought-provoking?”

■ On his radio show in 2009, Ed Schultz wished for Dick Cheney’s death: “He is an enemy of the country, in my opinion, Dick Cheney is, he is an enemy of the country … Lord, take him to the Promised Land, will you?”

■ Also on his radio show, in 2010, Schultz shouted: “Dick Cheney’s heart’s a political football. We ought to rip it out and kick it around and stuff it back in him!

■ Then-Air America host Montel Williams in 2009 urged Congresswoman Michele Bachmann to kill herself: “Slit your wrist! Go ahead! I mean, you know, why not? I mean, if you want to – or, you know, do us all a better thing. Move that knife up about two feet. I mean, start right at the collarbone.”

■ Writing on the Huffington Post in 2007, radio host Charles Karel Bouley mocked: “I hear about Tony Snow and I say to myself, well, stand up every day, lie to the American people at the behest of your dictator-esque boss and well, how could a cancer NOT grow in you? Work for Fox News, spinning the truth in to a billion knots and how can your gut not rot?”

“I’m just saying if he did die, other people, more people would live. That’s a fact.” — Host Bill Maher on his HBO show Real Time, March 2, 2007, discussing how a few commenters at a left-wing blog were upset that an attempt to kill Vice President Cheney in Afghanistan had failed.

■ “Earlier today, a rental truck carried a half a million ballots from Palm Beach to the Florida Supreme Court there in Tallahassee. CNN had live helicopter coverage from the truck making its way up the Florida highway, and for a few brief moments, America held the hope that O.J. Simpson had murdered Katherine Harris.”Bill Maher on ABC’s Politically Incorrect, November 30, 2000.

■ Host Tina Gulland: “I don’t think I have any Jesse Helms defenders here. Nina?”
NPR’s Nina Totenberg: “Not me. I think he ought to be worried about what’s going on in the Good Lord’s mind, because if there is retributive justice, he’ll get AIDS from a transfusion, or one of his grandchildren will get it.” — Exchange on the July 8, 1995 Inside Washington, after Helms said the government spends too much on AIDS.

“I hope his wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early like many black men do, of heart disease….He is an absolutely reprehensible person.” — USA Today columnist and Pacifica Radio talk show host Julianne Malveaux on Justice Clarence Thomas, November 4, 1994 PBS To the Contrary.

For more examples and additional information, see MRC’s recent report: “While Media Indict Conservative Speech, Left’s Lunacy Is Ignored”

See also Michelle Malkin’s documentation, “The Progressive Climate of Hate: an Illustrated Primer 2000-2010.”

I have further documented numerous concrete acts of violence by the left in two articles here and here which I wrote during the debates that occurred last year when Democrats falsely demonized the right.

Furthermore, you should do a review of history.  Go back to the 1960s and consider movements and organizations such as the Weathermen, Students for a Democratic Society, the Black Panthers, the anti-war movement, the radical environmentalist movement, and the violence that has been all-too typical of the left.

I believe by now I’ve made my point.

Before moving on, allow me to demonstrate how top Democrats have deliberately manufactured blame and guilt at conservatives for crimes that liberals and Democrats in fact committed.

First, there is Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. reflecting on how his Uncle Jack (JFK) was essentially killed by right wing conservative hatred as a device to “me to” the liberal movement to demonize conservatives as being responsible for the Tuscon, Arizona shooting by a deranged psychopath.  There was only one problem: JFK was murdered by a communist named Lee Harvey Oswald, who somehow is never mentioned a single time in Kennedy Jr.’s fabricated account.

The second episode was Nancy Pelosi, speaking out against the Tea Party movement, reflecting on the murder of Harvy Milk in her district of San Francisco:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi: “I have concerns about some of the language that is being used because I saw … I saw this myself in the late ’70s in San Francisco,” Pelosi said, choking up and with tears forming in her eyes. “This kind of rhetoric is just, is really frightening and it created a climate in which we, violence took place and … I wish that we would all, again, curb our enthusiasm in some of the statements that are made.”

What’s wrong with Pelosi’s words and tears?  Well, in demagoguing conservatives for their climate of violence-generating hate, she nowhere reflects upon the fact that Harvey Milk and George Moscone were murdered by a Democrat who was angry because his fellow Democrats had not reappointed him to his government job.  And her equating these murders with right wing violence is not just absurd, but evil.

Both of these accounts are readily historically verifiable.  The Democrats in question literally fabricate history in order to blame the party and ideology that had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with these murders.  What we see are people who are clearly close enough to the events in question to know that what they are saying is not true.  They are either liars without shame, or they have literally so committed themselves to false ideology that they have used every possible device of rationalization to believe obvious lies.  You can take your pick.

So you take an event like the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (along with the murder of conservative Republican-appointed federal judge John Roll, btw), and demonize conservatives for it, and it is merely one more documented case of obvious demonization that merely serves to demonstrates that if you want to see hate, just look at liberals.

And, yes, if deranged monster Jared Loughner was anything, he was a liberal.  One thing is certain; he certainly was not a conservative, and he certainly was not influenced by any “rightwing climate of hate.”

Clearly, I did not attempt to prove that conservatives have not said anything hateful.  First of all it would be impossible to prove a negative; and second whether conservatives have said hateful things about liberals really isn’t the point here.  The point is that when Democrats denounce the right for “hate,” they merely demonstrate that they are hypocrites without any shame whatsoever.

This baseless and hateful charge about rightwing hate being responsible for the Tucson shooting that was recently repeated by dozens of Democrat elected officials, hundreds of mainstream media journalists, and thousands upon thousands of liberal bloggers, literally becomes a tacit acknowledgment that it is in fact the left that practices hate.

Tomorrow: Part 2, on how free speech political rhetoric should be and is unrelated to acts of violence: “On The So-Called Link Between Political Rhetoric And Violence.”

If Sheriff Dupnik Knew There Was A ‘Climate Of Hate,’ WHY Didn’t He Guard Gabrielle Giffords???

January 15, 2011

This was a question that Bill O’Reilly asked on his Friday night program.  And it seems rather impossible for a liberal to answer.

Sheriff Clarence Dupnik (and if that doesn’t sound like the name of an abject idiot, I don’t know what does) has been so busy being a liberal ideologue Democrat he really hasn’t had time to be an actual law enforcement officer.

If he were acting like a sheriff, he would be trying to calm and reassure the people, and limit himself to describing the facts.

Instead, he’s doing the precise opposite of what any legitimate sheriff would do: he’s doing everything he can to stir up paranoia and invent fact-free theories.

In a way, Clarence Dupnik and Jared Loughner deserve each other.  Both believe that someone else controls other people’s minds; Loughner believes it’s the government doing it (the same government that pulled off the 9/11 attack on its own citizens), and Dupnik believes its Rush Limbaugh:

“The kind of rhetoric that flows from people like Rush Limbaugh, in my judgment he is irresponsible, uses partial information, sometimes wrong information,” Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik said today. “[Limbaugh] attacks people, angers them against government, angers them against elected officials and that kind of behavior in my opinion is not without consequences.”

Frankly, I think as absolutely nuts as Loughner is, his theory is actually far more sane than Dupnik’s.  After all, not only is Obama constantly lecturing the nation, but he has access to our water supply.  Rush can talk to people for three hours a day, but he can’t insinuate mind-controlling chemicals into our porridge like Obama can.

But let’s put the fact that Dupnik’s ideas are absolutely warped to go along with being absolutely irresponsible.  Let’s take Dupnik’s garbage at face value for just a moment.  Let’s suppose that Dupnik genuinely believed that right wing hate had truly created a hostile climate.

Dupnik has told any reporter who would put him on television that, in spite of not having a single solitary shred of evidence (something which non-Democrat sheriff’s actually care about), he knows that right wing rhetoric has heated up the environment and created a hateful climate.

So here’s the question: knowing this, knowing that there was a conservative-caused poisonous environment creating a clear and present danger, why didn’t this incompetent disgrace put a protective detail on Gabrielle Giffords? By his own acknowledgment, this incompetent moron (and did I mention he’s a Democrat?) knew that she was in danger, and refused to lift a finger to protect her.

If Dupnik had a deputy at Giffords’ event – as he should have, given what he “knew” – most or even ALL of the carnage would have been stopped.  And yet this buffoon who had it in his power to prevent this terrible tragedy has been doing nothing but blaming conservatives who had absolutely nothing to do with what happened.

He should be sharing Jared Loughner’s cell, comparing notes with his companion as to how Rush, or the government, or space aliens, or whatever is controlling people’s minds.

Don’t be a Dupnik.

Obama DNI Shockingly Clueless About Major Global Terrorism Incident

December 23, 2010

Liberals might have excoriated George Bush as failing to recognize the terrorist threat to America prior to the 9/11 attack.  For the record, Bush had only been in office for 8 months prior to the attack.  All of the terrorists who hit us were already in the country prior to Bush taking office.  And Bush’s lackluster pursuit of terrorism merely continued Bill Clinton’s basically nonexistent pursuit of terrorism (eg., Clinton refusing to take Osama bin Laden when the Somalis offered his head on a golden platter).

Still, Bush was caught flat-footed.  And in that sense, he deserved criticism.

Now, compare Bush to Barack Obama.  Unlike George Bush, whose predecessor had done nothing to deal with terrorism, George Bush did so much the left howled in outrage over all of his steps.  Unlike George Bush, who had to build Homeland Security out of nothing, Barack Obama had a giant and successful apparatus which he proceeded to successively dismantle.  And unlike George Bush, who was criticized by the left for not being ready after only eight months in office, Barack Obama clearly isn’t ready even after two full years of office.  And, to further give just blame to Obama, Bush’s 8 months of unpreparedness occurred prior to 9/11, when America wasn’t expecting an attack; Obama’s 2 full years of unpreparedness have occurred in the aftermath of 9/11, when only a genuine moron wouldn’t understand the massive threat of terrorism.

Here’s the latest reason to not think, but KNOW, that the Obama administration is criminally clueless when it comes to terrorism (or should I say, to “man-caused disasters”):

Shocking. Top Obama Intelligence Official Clueless on London Bomb Plot
by Tammy Bruce on December 21, 2010

ABC News:”First of all, London,” Sawyer said. “How serious is it? Any implication that it was coming here? … Director [of National Intelligence] Clapper?”

“London?” James Clapper said, before Brennan entered the conversation explaining the arrests.

Later in the interview, Sawyer returned to the subject.

“I was a little surprised you didn’t know about London,” Sawyer told Clapper.

“Oh, I’m sorry, I didn’t,” he replied.

Another indication of how disconnected and chaotic the Obama administration really is when it comes to the security of this nation (and all else for that matter). There is no reason in any scenario for our US Director of National Intelligence to not know of major terrorist arrests in London. After all, everyone else knew–reports had been everywhere starting in the morning. Everyone else at the table knew as well, including Diane Sawyer. Why didn’t Clapper?

Watch the video here.

This reveals a degree of chaos that we could not have imagined, and moves us into the bizarre. There is no logical or reasoned way to explain this. Obama has created an environment where even those who were presumably competent have been swallowed by the self-declared Theatre of the Absurd inside the White House.

Everyone claims Obama is the Come-Back Kid because Republicans have once again, inexplicably, grabbed their ankles during this illegitimate lame duck session. The ridiculousness of Obama ‘coming back’ is made apparent when the most important aspect of the Federal government’s responsibility–national security–is arguably non-existent.

Clapper was confirmed unanimously by the Senate just this past August. He succeeded Dennis Blair. But make no mistake, while this is awful for Clapper, this speaks more about Obama than anyone else. To say this is shocking is an understatement.

DNI Clapper Looks Stumped by ABC’s Sawyer

Gen. James R. Clapper Jr., the director of national intelligence, is the person charged with coordinating what the nation knows about terrorism and national security.

But Mr. Clapper appeared to know less than even the casual television viewer during an interview with ABC’s Diane Sawyer, the anchor of World News Tonight.

Hours earlier, reports flooded cable news shows about arrests of 12 people in London suspected of being part of a potential terrorist plot. In the interview, Ms. Sawyer turned to Mr. Clapper and made an indirect reference to the still-developing incident.

“First of all, London,” she said. “How serious is it? Any implication that it was coming here? Director Clapper?”

The look on Mr. Clapper’s face, and his temporary silence, suggested that he had no idea what she was talking about. He hesitated before saying, “London?”

After a moment or two, he was saved by John Brennan, the White House homeland security adviser, who was also part of the interview, along with Janet Napolitano, the secretary of the department of homeland security. Mr. Brennan explained that Ms. Sawyer was referring to the London arrests.

A few minutes later, Ms. Sawyer returned to Mr. Clapper. “I was a little surprised you didn’t know about London,” she said.

“Oh, I’m sorry, I didn’t,” he said, shaking his head.

A spokesperson for Mr. Clapper said in a statement Tuesday night that, “the question about this specific news development was ambiguous. The DNI’s knowledge of the threat streams in Europe is profound and multi-dimensional, and any suggestion otherwise is inaccurate.”

DNI Claper’s knowledge is “profound and multi-dimensional,” just like the idiot who is responsible for putting that moron there, Barry Hussein.

If that’s not enough, let’s examine what Barry Hussein has given us:

In an interview with ABC’s “Good Morning America,” U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder spoke of the ongoing fight to protect American national security and expressed his growing concern with the threat of homegrown terror – a danger which he said  “keeps me up at night.”

“What I am trying to do in this interview is to make people aware of the fact that the threat is real, the threat is different, the threat is constant,” Holder told ABC’s Pierre Thomas, in an interview that aired Tuesday morning.

“The threat has changed from simply worrying about foreigners coming here, to worrying about people in the United States, American citizens — raised here, born here, and who for whatever reason, have decided that they are going to become radicalized and take up arms against the nation in which they were born,” Holder added.

The attorney general said that of 126 people who have been charged with allegations related to terrorism in the past 24 months, 50 had been American citizens.

“It is one of the things that keeps me up at night,” Holder said. “You didn’t worry about this even two years ago — about individuals, about Americans, to the extent that we now do. And — that is of — of great concern.”

Holder noted that while he was confident in the United States’ counter-terrorism efforts, Americans “have to be prepared for potentially bad news.”

Two things:

Thing one, even Eric Holder is openly acknowledging that the primary terrorist threat facing America is brand new under Barry Hussein.

Do you remember all the demagoguery and demonization Obama aimed at George Bush about making America less safe?  And now we’re finding that our Liar-in-Chief has made America less safe than it has EVER BEEN.

By the clear statement of Obama’s own attorney general, Barry Hussein hasn’t made America more safe, but less safe.

Thanks for putting the nation at risk, Barry H.

Thing two, out of those “126 people who have been charged with allegations related to terrorism,” every single one of them – that’s 100% – were MUSLIMS.

And yet the most reckless and immoral administration to ever contaminate the White House are enacting a policy which views 99 year-old nuns as being as much of a threat as the people who have attacked or tried to attack us over and over again.

The Democrat Party’s “fix” is to impose homosexuality on our military by fiat of politically correctness, so that thousands more Bradley Mannings can implode our national security from within.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 493 other followers