Of the sons of Issachar, men who understood the times, with knowledge of what Israel should do, their chiefs were two hundred; and all their kinsmen were at their command — 1 Chronicles 12:32
If you didn’t think that the global warming alarmist movement was out of control; you’re already an idiot in my estimation.
But what was bad is now worse.
First, there’s the frank admission that conservatives have been proclaiming from every rooftop all along; that global warming (relabeled ‘climate change’ when ‘global warming’ became another ‘inconvenient truth’ for them) is and always has been about the socialist redistribution of wealth, rather than any kind of legitimate science:
Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection, says the German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.
Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 14 November 2010
Interview: Bernard Potter
NZZ am Sonntag: Mr. Edenhofer, everybody concerned with climate protection demands emissions reductions. You now speak of “dangerous emissions reduction.” What do you mean?
Ottmar Edenhofer: So far economic growth has gone hand in hand with the growth of greenhouse gas emissions. One percent growth means one percent more emissions. The historic memory of mankind remembers: In order to get rich one has to burn coal, oil or gas. And therefore, the emerging economies fear CO2 emission limits.
[…]
That will change immediately if global emission rights are distributed. If this happens, on a per capita basis, then Africa will be the big winner, and huge amounts of money will flow there. This will have enormous implications for development policy. And it will raise the question if these countries can deal responsibly with so much money at all.
That does not sound anymore like the climate policy that we know.
Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves in the soil under our feet – and we must emit only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11 000 to 400 – there is no getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil.
De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.
First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.
And just who the heck is this Ottmar Edenhofer guy? He’s the man who was appointed as joint chair of Working Group 3 at the Twenty-Ninth Session of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in Geneva, Switzerland. He’s the the deputy director and chief economist of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) and the Professor of the Economics of Climate Change at the Berlin Institute of Technology.
In other words, he is hardly a global warming nobody. He’s a global warming alarmist bigwig who clearly understands the global warming alarmist agenda. If he made a mistake, it was that he was honest (something very few leftists can be accused of).
And he’s telling you – as the new generation of global warming alarmists who are now calling themselves “climate change” alarmists – want to do. It’s something that the OLD generation of global warming alarmists for the most part refused to tell you: that this whole “climate change” malarkey is ultimately merely a guise to take what little wealth Obama will leave your children with, and redistributing it to all the impoverished nations such as Africa.
If you’re living in a country blessed with natural resources – and formerly blessed with capitalist free market economies – your children be damned.
Because Africa has for the most part ALWAYS embraced socialism (or what Dinesh D’Souza accurately calls “anticolonialism“), they should finally get their reward for their faithful embrace of such socialism. Their bounty should be seized by international fiat from your children’s mouths and given to socialist Africa’s children. And socialist Latin America’s. And socialist Asia’s children.
It’s the same “social justice” crap that liberals have been talking about. And when they need to recruit scientists to help legitimize their propaganda – offering enormous government-funded research grants as carrots – their will be plenty of “scientists” willing to make their “science” say whatever they want it to say.
And what goes on in these people’s minds, these neo-global-warming alarmists who want to accomplish all this?
This movement isn’t just bizarre. And it isn’t just flagrantly anti-Christ. It’s a “let the facts be damned in the face of our agenda” approach to reality and to science.
With United Nations climate negotiators facing an uphill battle to advance their goal of reducing emissions linked to global warming, it’s no surprise that the woman steering the talks appealed to a Mayan goddess Monday.
Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, invoked the ancient jaguar goddess Ixchel in her opening statement to delegates gathered in Cancun, Mexico, noting that Ixchel was not only goddess of the moon, but also “the goddess of reason, creativity and weaving. May she inspire you — because today, you are gathered in Cancun to weave together the elements of a solid response to climate change, using both reason and creativity as your tools.”
She called for “a balanced outcome” which would marry financial and emissions commitments from industrialized countries aimed at combating climate change with “the understanding of fairness that will guide long-term mitigation efforts.”
“Excellencies, the goddess Ixchel would probably tell you that a tapestry is the result of the skillful interlacing of many threads,” said Figueres, who hails from Costa Rica and started her greetings in Spanish before switching to English. “I am convinced that 20 years from now, we will admire the policy tapestry that you have woven together and think back fondly to Cancun and the inspiration of Ixchel.”
Delegates from 193 countries are gathered in Cancun for the two-week meeting, which kicked off today at 10:20 a.m. local time, or 11:20 a.m. Eastern. Mexican President Felipe Calderon, a major proponent of action on climate change, attended the opening.
Two weeks from now, we’ll have a sense of whether Ixchel — and the delegates — were listening to Figueres’s appeal.
And, of course, these jet-setting “delegates ” hypocritically sent massive tonnages of carbon into the air as they met in the very kind of nice, warm climate that they want to tell us that we need to be so terrified of.
This isn’t the science of Bacon’s scientific method; it’s the “science” of pagan goddesses. It’s “socialism as science.” It’s the science of wealth redistributionism.
It’s a giant load of crap.
When I first heard about global warming and the potential destruction of the planet, I was open to the idea. There is nothing in my worldview that would be opposed to such a concept.
But, almost right from the start, I found out what it really was.
The infamous 1997 Kyoto Accord, embraced by Bill Clinton but roundly rejected by the US Senate on a unanimous and bi-partisan 99-0 vote, would have massively restricted developed Western countries from economic development, but would have given waivers to Russia, China, India and the entire developing world. That was when I knew that this wasn’t about “science,” but rather that it was all about socialism.
The revelation is certain to upset some on the religious right who make up a good part of the Tea Party’s support and who helped to propel O’Donnell to prominence last week with her shock defeat of the Republican leadership’s favoured candidate to contest the Senate seat in Delaware.
In the video, O’Donnell says: “I dabbled into witchcraft. I never joined a coven … I hung around people who were doing these things. I’m not making this stuff up.
“One of my first dates with a witch was on a satanic altar, and I didn’t know it. I mean, there’s a little blood there and stuff like that … We went to a movie and then had a little midnight picnic on a satanic altar.”
O’Donnell declined to appear on Fox News, which is regarded as more than sympathetic to the Tea Party, after the video of her appearing on the Politically Incorrect show in 1999 was released by its host, Bill Maher, who now has a semi-satirical chat show on HBO.
He said he has more such embarrassing material and that he is going to show a fresh revelation every week until O’Donnell agrees to appear on his show.
“I’m just saying, Christine, it’s like a hostage crisis – every week you don’t show up, I’m going to throw another body out,” he said.
O’Donnell had already drawn widespread scorn for earlier comments in which she condemns masturbation.
So Bill Maher is even MORE loathsome than I thought he was? Hard to believe, but it’s true.
Meanwhile, the left used to endlessly harp on “The Salem Witch Trials” to pontificate upon the horrors of the intolerant Christian religion. And now they’re out leading the charge to burn Christine O’Donnell. File that under the “strange but true” file.
And how about if we make masturbation legal so it’s, you know, like chewing gum. That way liberals can do it in public, since it’s such a wonderful thing to them.
On second that, I take it back; a whole lot of them would very probably do it in public. Which would at least create jobs for the barf bag industry.
In any event, it seems to be the witchcraft thing that has Democrats aghast.
It wasn’t such a problem when Obama’s current Secretary of State and former Democrat front-runner for president was “dabbling” in the most hard-core form of witchcraft of all – necromancy.
When she was first lady, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., worked with spiritual adviser Jean Houston to access an “Eleanor Roosevelt-like consciousness” from within her own psyche. Clinton wrote in a column that Roosevelt “usually responds by telling me to buck up, or at least to grow skin as thick as a rhinoceros.”
[And I thought HRC already had skin as thick as a rhinoceros…]
And:
Though she has dismissed it as an intellectual exercise, Hillary can expect to again be derided for what journalist Bob Woodward first reported as a “seance” with Eleanor Roosevelt. At the prompting of New Age guru Jean Houston, Hillary engaged in fantasy chats with Roosevelt and Mahatma Gandhi, two of the First Lady’s heroes.
And what does the Bible say about Hillary’s “intellectual exercise” i.e. “seance” i.e. necromancy?
“Do not turn to mediums or necromancers; do not seek them out, and so make yourselves unclean by them: I am the Lord your God.” — Leviticus 19:31
“A man or a woman who is a medium or a necromancer shall surely be put to death. They shall be stoned with stones; their blood shall be upon them.” — Leviticus 20:27
But let us not take up stones for the woman who is currently serving in the 2nd most important office in the government, who practiced necromancy in the White House as a fully adult (though not particularly grown-up) woman; let’s use them on little Christine O’Donnell who “dabbled in witchcraft” as a giggly high school girl instead.
Then again, which is the greater sin to you right now: someone who “dabbled in witchcraft” in high school, or someone who dived into Marxism in college?
“To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist Professors and the structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets. We smoked cigarettes and wore leather jackets. At night,in the dorms, we discussed neocolonialism, Franz Fanon, Eurocentrism, and patriarchy. When we ground out our cigarettes in the hallway carpet or set our stereos so loud that the walls began to shake, we were resisting bourgeois society’s stifling constraints. We weren’t indifferent or careless or insecure. We were alienated.”
Anticolonialism is the doctrine that rich countries of the West got rich by invading, occupying and looting poor countries of Asia, Africa and South America. As one of Obama’s acknowledged intellectual influences, Frantz Fanon, wrote in The Wretched of the Earth, “The well-being and progress of Europe have been built up with the sweat and the dead bodies of Negroes, Arabs, Indians and the yellow races.”
Which is a pretty damn scary philosophy to have in the White House, brooms and cackles aside. It is a terrifying thing to have a guy in the White House who believes we should “resist and overthrow the oppressors.” Especially given the fact that the United States of America is foremost on the list of “the oppressors.”
Dr. John C. Drew had occasion to spend some time with Obama at Occidental College. As he described Obama:
“He was arguing a straightforward Marxist-Leninist class-struggle point of view, which anticipated that there would be a revolution of the working class, led by revolutionaries, who would overthrow the capitalist system and institute a new socialist government that would redistribute the wealth,” says Drew, who says he himself was then a Marxist.
“The idea was basically that wealthy people were exploiting others,” Drew says. “That this was the secret of their wealth, that they weren’t paying others enough for their work, and they were using and taking advantage of other people. He was convinced that a revolution would take place, and it would be a good thing.”
Drew concluded that Obama thought of himself as “part of an intelligent, radical vanguard that was leading the way towards this revolution and towards this new society.”
And he still does see himself that way. He certainly still sees himself as redistributing (i.e. “spreading”) the wealth.
Leviticus DEFINITELY would have commanded Marxists to be stoned to death. I’m just sure of it.
An article Democrat Chris Coons wrote for his college newspaper may not go over so well in corporation-friendly Delaware, where he already faces an uphill battle for Vice President Joe Biden’s old Senate seat.
The title? “Chris Coons: The Making of a Bearded Marxist.”
“My friends now joke that something about Kenya, maybe the strange diet, or the tropical sun, changed my personality; Africa to them seems a catalytic converter that takes in clean-shaven, clear-thinking Americans and sends back bearded Marxists,” Coons wrote, noting that at one time he had been a “proud founding member of the Amherst College Republicans.” […]
Hoffman said the trip to Kenya helped lead to Coons’s decision to become a Democrat.
Which is, of course, basically the same thing as a Marxist these days.
I’ll tell you what: dabbling in economic destruction is going to hurt a whole bunch more people than Christine O’Donnell’s giggly schoolgirl past.
“I’m going to be very honest with you — Chris Coons, everybody knows him in the Democratic caucus. He’s my pet. He’s my favorite candidate,” Reid said.
Which is to say, Coons has a very pure Marxist “petigree.”
And being Harry Reid’s Marxist “pet” is a far more serious thing in September 2010 than being a giggly little high school witch back in 1997.
If Chris Coons is elected as U.S. Senator, he will continue to faithfully serve as Harry Reid’s “pet” and vote for his fellow Marxist neocolonialist pal Barack Hussein.
Hopefully, the residents of Delaware will be of the mind to usher in Christine O’Donnell to come in with her broom and help sweep the Marxists who have been destroying our economy the past two years (really since 2006, when Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid first ruined the Congress, truth be told).
If we’re fortunate, the Democrats will be so dead in Congress that Hillary Clinton will actually start channeling them.
Are you sick of Obama and the left unrelentingly blaming Bush for everything that is happening going on two years after he left office? Do you think that Obama will ever man-up and actually become responsible for his presidency?
Me too, and me neither, respectively.
I went more than a little off on a liberal who dredged up this demagogic rhetorical garbage:
In Europe people laugh at us leaving in false dreams, wall streets spending false money, Bush starting a false war etc.
America is the land of dreams, how come? Idiots like George Bush can get elected to president. If he can Become president, then what can the smart people do? Jump to pluto?.
Do you really expect Obama to fix the worst recession in 80 years in a bit more than 18 months? Which was created by 8 years of Reagan, 4 years by bush, Clinton’s last period and 8 years by Bush? What is he some kind of god?
I didn’t vote for Obama but I expect him to put us in the right direction in this 6 years (he most likely) has left. in 2007-2008 they estimated that the recession will peak in 2012, so there is still a lot left. Just imagine how it would be with Palin/McCain. McCain who wanted to keep Bush’s politics moving and Palin who thought Africa was a country.
Here was my response:
First of all, I must pause to mock you for making Europe the gold standard of measurement. I guess if you like Nazism, fascism, Marxism, socialism, and genocide up the wazoo, Europe must be the coolest place on earth. I can see why you lefties love it so much.
What was it that Jefferson said? “The comparison of our governments with those of Europe, is like a comparison of heaven and hell.” Not that you give a damn what Jefferson said about anything.
Let me assure you that the Iraq War – which 60% of Democrat Senators voted to authorize (just for the record) – was a REAL war indeed.
Here’s a record of how Democrats were for that war before they were against it:
Now, you want to see a REAL idiot in action? How about a guy running for president who thinks there are 58 states? This is a man who is so fundamentally ignorant he doesn’t even know jack squat about his own country.
“It is wonderful to be back in Oregon,” Obama said. “Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go. Alaska and Hawaii, I was not allowed to go to even though I really wanted to visit, but my staff would not justify it.”
So let’s talk about what a total and absolute ideologue you are to condemn Sarah Palin for a bogus fabricated quote that she didn’t even say, and to then defend a guy who is on video saying something about 20 times as stupid. Because that’s how the Democrat Party operates, in a nutshell.
For the factual record, Obama actually called Europe a country. How is that not just as stupid as calling Africa a country?
“One of the things that is a huge advantage for America compared to countries like Europe is, actually, we’re constantly replenishing ourselves with hungry, driven people who are coming here, and they want to work, and they start a business, and our population is younger and more dynamic, and that’s a good thing!”
Which is to say that Obama is unfit to be president by your own deceitful example.
And as for Bush being an idiot, at least he didn’t need a pair of damn teleprompters to say his name right. Maybe Bush would have sounded more “intelligent” to you if he read absolutely everything he said at every venue he went to off his teleprompters.
Which is why he needs to bring one everywhere – even to sixth grade classrooms – to not sound like the gibbering idiot he truly is.
So, oh, yeah, the country is much better off with its “Genius-in-chief,” isn’t it?
You don’t give one damn about the truth; you live in your own self-created reality in which Sarah Palin is stupid for something that she never said, while Barack Obama who said something stupider than Sarah Palin ever said in her life is still brilliant.
You would be completely ashamed of yourself, if you were capable of that attribute of moral character.
I write an article that shows how BY THE DEMOCRATS VERY OWN STANDARD OF MEASUREMENT Obama is the worst president in American history. And you’ve got nothing to say about that. Nothing but more “blame Bush.”
Another demonstration of your rabid leftist ideology that will NOT be fair: the economy goes into an absolute TOILET under Obama, but he’s not responsible for any of his policies.
Why is it that you refuse to hold Obama to any kind of standard at all – even the standard he set for himself? The Obama administration said this was a terrible economy, but he had the solution, that his stimulus would keep unemployment from going over 8%. And by his own administration’s standard did he not utterly fail? Wasn’t he elected to make the economy better, instead of far worse?
And what do we say about the fact that unemployment is going up, rather than down? Wasn’t Obama supposed to make things better rather than worse?
WASHINGTON – Employers appear to be laying off workers again as the economic recovery weakens. The number of people applying for unemployment benefits reached the half-million mark last week for the first time since November.
It was the third straight week that first-time jobless claims rose. The upward trend suggests the private sector may report a net loss of jobs in August for the first time this year.
Initial claims rose by 12,000 last week to 500,000, the Labor Department said Thursday.
Construction firms are letting go of more workers as the housing sector slumps and federal stimulus spending on public works projects winds down. State and local governments are also cutting jobs to close large budget gaps.
The layoffs add to growing fears that the economic recovery is slowing and the country could slip back into a recession.
Isn’t Obama kind of going the wrong way, Mr. “Blame Bush”???
We’ve got all kinds of measures showing that things are far worse than they ever were under Bush. But you, total rabid fundamentalist leftist ideologue that you are – can only shout “blame Bush!” all the louder.
With consumers and businesses keeping a lid on expenses, more and more small and mid-size restaurants are throwing in their dish towels and closing up shop. […]
Nationwide, the number of restaurants dropped in 2010 for the first time in more than a decade, according to NPD, falling 5,202 to 579,416.
So, wow. That means that things haven’t been this bad since Bill Clinton was president and the Dot-com bubble he created blew up. That means that things were NEVER this bad under George Bush.
Bush inherited a terrible economic situation, too. First of all, the Dot-com bubble that Clinton passed to Bush created huge economic upheaval – to the tune of Nasdaq losing 78% of its value. Trillions of dollars of Clinton economic growth were just blown away like a fart in a hurricane. The mainstream media didn’t report the facts of Clinton’s recession because they are shockingly biased liberal propagandists. Which is why so few Americans trust them anymore. Clinton took all the credit for the Dot-com build-up; Bush got all the pain when it blew up, suffering a huge recession that was all on Clinton’s tab. Then you add to that the 9/11 attack, which crippled the airline and tourism industry for months, and you should understand how bad Bush had it. But he didn’t blame Clinton a gazillion times; he manned up and solved the problem. He took an economic lemon and made 52 consecutive months of job growth. In contrast, Obama hasn’t solved anything. All he’s done is blame and demonize.
In the wake of news about a spike in new applications for unemployment benefits comes another potentially troubling sign: A record number of workers made hardship withdrawals from their retirement accounts in the second quarter.
What’s more, the number of workers borrowing from their accounts reached a 10-year high, according to a report issued Friday by Fidelity Investments.
Wow. Again, things haven’t been so bad since the last time a Democrat was president. Again, it was NEVER this bad under George Bush’s presidency.
WASHINGTON: The US trade deficit widened in September by an unexpectedly large 18.2 per cent, the most in more than 10 years, as oil prices rose for the seventh straight month and imports from China bounded higher, a US government report showed on Friday.
Hey, again, things weren’t so bad since a Democrat president last ran things. And it was never so bad under George Bush.
How about all the foreclosures? Surely Obama has made that better? Oops. Again, things were NEVER this bad under Bush’s presidency:
Foreclosure crisis doesn’t seem to be loosening its hold on the housing sector. After declining for the last three consecutive months, foreclosure activity is back up in the United States.
As per the ‘Foreclosure Market Report’ released by RealtyTrac, an online marketplace, giving insights into foreclosures, 325,229 houses received foreclosure filings in the nation, 4 percent up from June.
Not only there has been a jump in the number of houses receiving filings, the foreclosures have exceeded 300000 for the 17th straight month. One in every 397 houses received foreclosure notice from the lenders in July.
Hmmm. Obama’s been president for all of those 17 months. And Bush was president for none of them. But it’s all Bush’s fault, anyway, isn’t it? At least if you’re a hypocrite liberal, it is.
Under Obama, and ONLY under Obama, foreclosures are up 75% in the major metropolitan areas:
NEW YORK (Reuters) – Foreclosures rose in 3 of every four large U.S. metro areas in this year’s first half, likely ruling out sustained home price gains until 2013, real estate data company RealtyTrac said on Thursday [in its midyear 2010 metropolitan foreclosure report].
Unemployment was the main culprit driving foreclosure actions on more than 1.6 million properties, the company said.
“We’re not going to see meaningful, sustainable home price appreciation while we’re seeing 75 percent of the markets have increases in foreclosures,” RealtyTrac senior vice president Rick Sharga said in an interview.
Has Obama done anything to solve this problem – which was why our economy blew up in the first place? Absolutely not.
Obama failed – because he is a failure, and failing is what he does:
WASHINGTON – Nearly half of the 1.3 million homeowners who enrolled in the Obama administration’s flagship mortgage-relief program have fallen out.
The program is intended to help those at risk of foreclosure by lowering their monthly mortgage payments. Friday’s report from the Treasury Department suggests the $75 billion government effort is failing to slow the tide of foreclosures in the United States, economists say.
More than 2.3 million homes have been repossessed by lenders since the recession began in December 2007, according to foreclosure listing service RealtyTrac Inc. Economists expect the number of foreclosures to grow well into next year.
“The government program as currently structured is petering out. It is taking in fewer homeowners, more are dropping out and fewer people are ending up in permanent modifications,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics.
There’s “hope and change” for you. A failed president with failed policies.
As an update (August 24), I add the following headline:
NEW YORK (Reuters) – Sales of previously owned U.S. homes dropped in July to their lowest pace in 15 years, implying further loss of momentum in the economic recovery.
Existing home sales dropped by a massive 27% in July. And, again, omigosh. We haven’t seen terrible numbers like this since the last time a Democrat was president. We NEVER saw anything like this during the Bush era.
How about budget deficits? Bush never had a trillion dollar deficit in his entire presidency, and the Democrats still blamed him for his spending; but the CBO now says that Obama will run a trillion-plus dollar defict next year, making it three years in a row. And we will have massive trillion-plus dollar deficits for as long as the eye can see because of Obama’s reckless unsustainable spending programs and the debt they will create. How about this? Obama’s deficit for July alone was more than Bush’s entire 2007-year deficit! And how about this one? Obama outspent Bush’s entire eight-year presidency’s deficit in just 20 months – after demonizing Bush for his spending!!!
From The Wall Street Journal, which, unlike the New York Slimes, the LA Slimes, the Chicago Tribune, and other major liberal papers, ISN’T actually financially and morally bankrupt:
Mr. Obama cannot dismiss critics by pointing to President George W. Bush’s decision to run $2.9 trillion in deficits while fighting two wars and dealing with 9/11 and Katrina. Mr. Obama will surpass Mr. Bush’s eight-year total in his first 20 months and 11 days in office, adding $3.2 trillion to the national debt. If America “cannot and will not sustain” deficits like Mr. Bush’s, as Mr. Obama said during the campaign, how can Mr. Obama sustain the geometrically larger ones he’s flogging?
Bush’s deficits were 2-3% of GDP. Obama’s are at 12.8% of GDP – which is five to six times higher and bringing us closer and closer every day to the point of collapse.
Are the people better off under Obama than they were under Bush? I don’t think so:
How about bank failures? We kind of need banks for a healthy economy unless we want to go back to the barter system, you know:
Banks are failing at double the rate of last year. During 2009, which the government claims was the peak of the recession, the total number of bank failures at this point in the year was 40. It is already 83 for this year.
For the record, only 25 banks failed under Bush in 2008. That number soared to 140 banks under Obama’s watch in 2009. And now we’re already past 118 bank failures this year in 2010 with four more months to go.
Do I want to go back to Bush’s “failed policies” when unemployment never got above 7.6% and averaged 5.2% for his presidency? As opposed to “moving forward” with Obama and his 10%-and-rising level? Pardon me, but I’ll take Bush.
Democrats are currently saying, “Do you want to go back to the way things were when Republicans were in control?”
So, yeah. I WOULD like to go back to the way things were when Bush and Republicans were in control. And I frankly want to know what idiot wouldn’t?
As for your question as to whether Obama is some kind of a god, I can’t help but point out that it wasn’t conservatives who kept putting the halo on Obama’s head:
A funny video provides a giant montage of Obama halos.
On Friday May 27, at the White House Jewish Heritage Celebration, Helen Thomas, the “Dean” of the White House Press Corps, answered a journalist’s request for an opinion on Israel:
“Tell them to get the hell out of Palestine. Remember, these people are occupied and it’s their land…not German and not Poland.”
“So, where should they go?”
“Go home. Poland, Germany.”
“So, you think the Jews should go back to Poland and Germany?”
“And America and everywhere else.”
How is saying, “Tell all the Mexicans (whether legal or illegal) to get the hell out of America and go back to Mexico,” or, “Tell all the blacks to get the hell out of America and go back to Africa”???
And go back to Germany? Doesn’t Helen Thomas realize what she’s saying? “Go back to the country that only recently tried to exterminate your entire race as though they were vermin”? That event occurred within your lifetime, Helen. I mean, how dare you???
Helen Thomas: I’m a liberal, I was born a liberal, I’ll be one ’til I die, what else should a reporter be when you see so much and when we have such great privilege and access to the truth?
I don’t know. Maybe “objective” would have been nice.
Being a liberal journalist basically means being a propagandist and an ideologue for the left, unfortunately. It also means thinking oneself an “intellectual” – the “privileged” intelligentsia class which alone has “access to the truth.”
Thomas Sowell described the destruction their kind has done:
“George Orwell said that some ideas are so foolish that only an intellectual could believe them, for no ordinary man could be such a fool. The record of twentieth century intellectuals was especially appalling in this regard. Scarcely a mass-murdering dictator of the twentieth century was without his intellectual supporters, not simply in his own country, but also in foreign democracies, where people were free to say whatever they wished. Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Hitler all had their admirers, defenders, and apologists among the intelligentsia in Western democratic nations, despite the fact that these dictators ended up killing people of their own country on a scale unprecedented even by despotic regimes that preceded them” – Thomas Sowell, Intellectuals and Society, p. 2.
Nazism was always a creature and creation of the left. They didn’t call themselves the “National Socialist German Workers Party” for nothing. Nazism and Darwinian theory went hand in hand as the Nazis delved deep into American Progressive-born eugenics. Margaret Sanger – founder of Planned Parenthood and Nazi-sympathizer – strategically used abortion and birth control to weed out “racially inferior” peoples such as blacks and Jews.
Of this effort, liberal Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said:
“Frankly I had thought that at that time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of” — 7/2/09 Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
It was Woodrow Wilson, “the father of the Progressive movement,” who RE-segregated the military, and who purged every single black from the federal government save a single “token negro.”
And now we’ve got Helen Thomas “on the record” being the useful idiot for the side of murder and totalitarian evil yet again – this time siding with the Islamic jihadist murderers who want to exterminate Israel and kill all the Jews just for being Jews.
Liberal progressives have done incredible damage throughout 20th century history; but they never seem to pay for it, because they’re the ones who get to “write the history.”
Came across this. What do you think are the odds the mainstream media will actually bother to be fair or consistent???
Maybe this is why Obama’s nickname is “Zero.” Because there’s a “zero” chance that the mainstream media will ever actually hold him accountable for his failures?
Hold on to your inhalators, kids! Did President Hope&Change really say, “countries like Europe”?
Now, of course I believe it’s a misstatement; I don’t honestly believe Obama thinks Europe is a country. But this embarrassing gaffe begs the question: What’s the difference between this and when Sarah Palin thought Africa was a country instead of a continent?
Answer: There’s actually proof of Obama’s misstatement. Read on:
To be honest, even though I did hear about Sarah Palin’s Africa gaffe, I dismissed the story as a vicious rumor. My hunch was correct. First of all, while doing this evening’s research I was shocked to learn that the story originated on Fox News; it was broken by the liberal reporter Carl Cameron to liberal anchor Shep Smith.
But then I learned something else: There is neither a defined source nor recorded footage of Palin’s gaffe! Note Cameron simply said “sources within the McCain campaign.” When CNN, MSNBC, the networks, and the lefty websites picked it up, they all cite unspecified “sources” as well. No one was ever cited by name and no one ever stepped forth to corroborate the story. For all we know, Carl Cameron made the whole damn thing up. We’ll never know.
Moreover, there is evidently no audio or video footage of Palin’s supposed ignorance, otherwise it would’ve gone viral on the internet the second it was recorded. (If anyone out there knows differently, please let me know.)
In other words, that Sarah Palin didn’t know that Africa was a continent is hearsay which was reported and spread as hard news, ostensibly because it paints a conservative woman in a negative light and because it fits the liberal template that conservatives/Republicans are stupid. And the rumor is considered cold hard fact to this day.
By stark contrast, you have President Hope&Change, with his fancy Harvard and Columbia degrees, on camera claiming the U.S. has 57 states, calling an inhaler an “inhalator,” pronouncing corps as “corpse,” and other faux pas that his ubiquitous TelePrompter couldn’t rescue him from.
And now, here is video proof of Barack Hussein Obama, the most intelligent man ever to occupy the Oval Office according to the leftocracy, calling Europe a country!
I’m sure Carl Cameron will jump on this story right away. And he won’t even need to get the juicy scoop from unnamed “sources within the administration.”
For the record, I have heard Sarah Palin deny that she ever said that Africa was a country. And since no one has ever produced the source/occasion that she did, Palin should be believed. In a fair world, anyway.
So Sarah Palin is mocked and demonized as dumber than Rahm Emanuel’s “retard” for something she never even actually ever said, whereas Barack “57 States” Obama actually says the equivalent of the same exact thing on video for all to see and still gets treated as “he who must be called ‘brilliant’?
There’s your mainstream media propaganda machine, in a nutshell.
I remember exactly what I was doing the morning of September 11, 2001. I was a grad student at the time, getting ready for my first class with the television running in the background. Just before the first large passenger plane crashed into one of the towers of the World Trade Center something caught my attention just in time to see it happen live. [Note: please see the update at the conclusion for a correction].
And the day froze into shock, numbness, dismay, terror, and a rising anger.
The broadcasters were talking to themselves about whether this was an accident, or an intentional attack. I didn’t need them to tell me what it was: like many other Americans, I knew exactly what had just happened.
And then the second plane struck the second tower. And shortly afterward the cameras began to catch specks falling out of the towers that turned out to be Americans throwing themselves out of top story windows to their deaths in order to avoid the even more agonizing death by burning.
President George Bush had been President for just over six months. But I would have felt EXACTLY the same sense of horror and outrage whether Bill Clinton, or Al Gore, or George Bush was President.
It wasn’t about being a member of a political party, or who was President or what party he was from; it was about being an American whose country had just been attacked.
That’s just no longer the case, though. I no longer feel that way.
Barack Obama’s constant unrelenting blaming of the Bush administration for virtually every problem under the sun was bad enough; Obama’s description of Bush “torture” and his releasing of CIA memos intended to politically hurt the Bush administration at the expense of informing our enemies exactly how we would and would not interrogate them was bad enough; House Speaker Nancy Peolosi’s demagoguery of the Bush administration over its “torture” and her subsequent lies that she herself had been informed about such “torture” and done nothing was bad enough; but it just never seems to end.
But the following example of Bush Derangement Syndrome finally sent me over the top:
The delusional claims he has made this day could be proved by documentation and firsthand testimony to be the literal and absolute truth, and he still, himself, would be wrong because the America he sought to impose upon the world and upon its own citizens, the dark, hateful place of Dick Cheney`s own soul, the place he to this hour defends, and to this day prefers, is a repudiation of all that our ancestors, all that for which our brave troops of two years ago and two minutes ago, have sacrificed and fought.
Olbermann acknowledges that EVEN if Dick Cheney is telling the truth and his own liberal allies are lying, it doesn’t matter. Because he thinks Cheney and his vision for America are evil. So truth be damned. That is the warped mind of the true ideologue.
And he then uses a rhetorical flourish to indicate that our troops have suffered for Cheney’s hateful vision.
What Olbermann, evil liar that he truly is, fails to mention is that our “brave troops” who “have sacrificed and fought” actually think JUST LIKE Cheney and DON’T THINK like Olbermann.
If Keith Olbermann had even a shred of personal honesty, integrity, character, or virtue, he would not have dragged American soldiers into his hateful polemic given that they themselves are on the very side that Olbermann so utterly despises. But Olbermann doesn’t have any honesty, integrity, character, or virtue.
So he warps the men and women who supported George Bush and Dick Cheney so overwhelmingly into victims.
Olbermann says:
Gee, thanks for being motivated by the deaths of nearly 3,000 Americans to go so far as to take a serious second look. And thank you, sir, for admitting, obviously inadvertently, that you did not take a serious first look in the seven months and 23 days between your inauguration and 9/11. For that attack, sir, you are culpable, morally, ethically. At best, you are guilty of malfeasance and eternally lasting stupidity. At worst, sir,in the deaths of 9/11, you are negligent.
Again, if Keith Olbermann had so much as a shred of personal or professional honesty, he wouldn’t say something like this.
Let’s review the list: 1) In 1993 Bill Clinton ran from Somalia after a battle with Islamic insurgents that left 18 American servicemen dead; 2) Also in 1993 the US suffered a terrorist attack in the form of the first World Trade Center bombing that killed 6 and wounded more than 1000 Americans; 3) In 1995 the US suffered its first domestic terrorist attack at the Oklahoma Federal Building that left 168 Americans dead; 4) In 1996 19 American servicemen were killed in a Saudi Arabian terrorist bombing of the US military Khobar Towers barracks; 5) In 1998 there was a simultaneous terrorist bombing of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania that killed more than 200 people; 6) In 2000 the USS Cole was attacked by terrorists, leaving 17 American servicemen dead.
There may well have been more, but that is all I can remember.
How can Keith Olberman in good conscience so blame Bush and Cheney for 9/11 when the Clinton administration had never taken terrorism seriously themselves? But Olbermann doesn’t have a good conscience. He is a truly depraved human being.
Bill Clinton failed to take 9/11 seriously for the same reason George Bush failed to take it seriously in the six months of his administration preceding the 9/11 attack: because we hadn’t been hit hard enough yet. Clinton should have learned from the attacks America suffered throughout his entire presidency; and Bush should have paid attention to Clinton’s disastrous track record.
Olbermann said:
You saved no one, sir. If the classified documents you seek released really did detail plots other than those manufactured by drowning men in order to get it to stop, or if they truly did know plans beyond the laughable ones you and President Bush have already revealed, hijackers without passports, targeting a building whose name Mr. Bush could not remember, clowns who thought they could destroy airports by dropping matches in fuel pipelines 30 miles away, men who planned to attack a military base dressed as pizza delivery boys, forgetting that every man there was armed, and today, the four would-be synagogue bombers, one of whom turns out to keep bottles of urine in his apartment, and is on schizophrenia medicine.
So the man popping schizophrenia medicine and washing it down with his own bottled urine is none other than Keith Olbermann and everyone at MSNBC and everyone who watches the network. It certainly isn’t Dick Cheney.
Olbermann saves his ugliest and most hateful remarks for last:
You saved no one, Mr. Cheney. All you did was help kill Americans. You were negligent before 9/11. Your response to your complicity by omission on 9/11 was panic and shame and insanity, and lying this country into a war that did nothing but kill 4,299 more of us. We will take no further instructions from you, sir. And let me again quote Oliver Cromwell to you, Mr. Cheney. “You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of god, go.”
I’ve written about other things that Keith Olbermann and his “guests” have said. Only very recently Janeane Garofalo said:
This is about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up. That is nothing but a bunch of teabagging rednecks. And there is no way around that. And you know, you can tell these type of right wingers anything and they’ll believe it, except the truth. You tell them the truth and they become — it’s like showing Frankenstein’s monster fire. They become confused, and angry and highly volatile. That guy, causing them feelings they don’t know, because their limbic brain, we’ve discussed this before, the limbic brain inside a right-winger or Republican or conservative or your average white power activist, the limbic brain is much larger in their head space than in a reasonable person, and it’s pushing against the frontal lobe. So their synapses are misfiring. Is Bernie Goldberg listening?
And there was Keith Olbermann and Michael Musto engaging in about as hateful of an attack as one can possibly imagine against Miss California Carrie Prejean for the simple reason that they despise her right to express her own views about an issue that most Californians and most Americans agree with her over.
Keith Olbermann is a vain, petty, vindictive, vicious, hateful, and truly ugly human being. And MSNBC would do far better broadcasting in place of pro-terrorist al Jazeera than it is doing here. Both networks run basically the same message.
But Keith Olbermann’s rant against Dick Cheney and every conservative who agrees with him rose to such a level of hatred, such a level of vicious, bitter, ugly, deceitful, and frankly evil rhetoric, that it transcends anything I have ever heard.
Right now, liberals like Keith Olbermann are teeing off on conservatives for waterboarding when we now learn that liberals like Nancy Pelosi and many other Democrats were fully briefed on “enhanced interrogation techniques that had been employed,” and neither said or did anything to prevent such techniques. And even the very liberal new CIA Director under Obam0, Leon Panetta, essentially says Pelosi is lying. How are their attacks now anything but partisan demagoguery?
And right now, liberals including Barack Obama himself are deceitfully claiming the moral high ground even as the new liberal administration takes many of the same positions that it hypocritically and demagogically found so hateful on the campaign trail. As many policies as Obama has undone that will make this country less safe, there have been almost as many that he once demonized, only to follow himself once in office.
And Obama has indicated that he likewise reserves the right to continue to hold some prisoners without trial indefinitely – a position he demonized during the campaign. How can such a man who so hypocritically employed such demagoguery only to come to the same position as the man he demagogued claim any semblance of moral high ground? Obama is lower than Bush in his character, not higher. Bush and Cheney didn’t self-righteously demagogue; only Obama did.
Obama decided against the release of the remainder of the infamous Abu Ghraib photos. But only because he had to bow to the reality of the massive resitance against his decision to release them and the consequences such a stupid and depraved act would have had both for our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan and for Democrats at home. In electing not to release them, Obama took the SAME position that Bush/Cheney had taken. Obama is not better than Bush or Cheney; he’s worse. They didn’t waiver and pander before going back on their decision out of the selfish interests of political survival. They were consistent in their determination to do the right thing.
Obama has idiotically promised he would close Gitmo, but even his own party now realizes how foolish that would be and has twice denied him funding to do so until he come up with a plan that makes some kind of sense. Obama wrapped himself up in puffed-up, posturing self-righteousness, but the reality is that Bush was forced to confront the same unsolvable dilemmas. The only difference was that Bush was wiser than Barack Obama in recognizing the problems that made a closure of Gitmo nearly impossible; and that Bush – unlike Obama – was never a pandering demagogue.
Again, Obama isn’t one iota better than Bush or Cheney. He’s worse.
Not that any of these FACTS matter to liberals. Because far too many of them are exactly like Keith Olbermann: even if the facts support conservatives, it doesn’t matter. Such liberals are completely false, vile people who routinely treat the truth with as much contempt as Olbermann does.
I said earlier that I no longer feel the same way about my country that I did following 9/11. I wish it were not true, but the constant unrelenting barrage of lies, hypocristy, demonization, and demagoguery from the left – particularly on national security issues – have left me with an increasingly bitter taste in my mouth. And following so many years of such hateful tactics, I fear that if we are attacked again, that I will react politically, rather than patriotically. I wish it weren’t true, but there it is.
Update: I have since realized that the first attack was not covered live, and film footage of the first airplane was not made available until later. What I would have seen was video footage of smoke billowing out of the World Trade Center shortly following the first attack, finally followed by live footage of the 2nd plane strike. I attempted to describe from memory what I had seen 8 years ago, and it turns out that my memory was not perfect.
The Associated Press probably thought that this was the scoop of the century: an African bishop from Kenya once visited Sarah Palin’s church and prayed that she would be protected from witchcraft and from Satan, and that God would use her to turn the United States around:
ANCHORAGE, Alaska – A grainy YouTube video surfaced Wednesday showing Sarah Palin being blessed in her hometown church three years ago by a Kenyan pastor who prayed for protection from “witchcraft” as she prepared to seek higher office.
The video shows Palin standing before Bishop Thomas Muthee in the pulpit of the Wasilla Assembly of God church, holding her hands open as he asked Jesus Christ to keep her safe from “every form of witchcraft.”
“Come on, talk to God about this woman. We declare, save her from Satan,” Muthee said as two attendants placed their hands on Palin’s shoulders. “Make her way my God. Bring finances her way even for the campaign in the name of Jesus. … Use her to turn this nation the other way around.”
Palin – who stopped attending the church in 2002 – kept her head bowed throughout the blessing, and did not say anything.
You need to understand the perspective from which this is coming: a liberal, profoundly anti-religious secular humanist worldview, which wants you to think that there is something wrong and even scary about Sarah Palin, because she’s a Christian who believes in God and even believes that there is a Satan. What kind of country would give power to a dangerous person like this? We have to warn you about her! Do you know what she believes? How can you trust someone like her?
This Kenyan bishop knows more about the reality of evil and human suffering than all of these sneering liberal journalists put together. He knows there is a Satan, because he has seen his evil firsthand. And this African spiritual leader prays in the spirit of one who has confronted monsterous evil in his own land.
We frankly don’t know what Sarah Palin believes in common with this Kenyan bishop; she may have been displaying true religious tolerance by allowing a Christian from another culture – and yes, another race – to pray as he saw fit. But liberals won’t be having any of that while they’re on the job!
I am sick to death of liberals who claim to be so “tolerant”, but who are in reality so completely and fundamentally intolerant of anyone who so much as even thinks differently than them. Please keep in mind that “re-education camps” come from the political left, and that the more officially “atheist” a nation is, the more likely they have been to have large numbers of their populations being “re-educated” against their wills.
Start Thinking Right 