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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let’s look at the timeline:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As icon of leftwing journalists Walter Lippmann put it:

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

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

As Walter Lippmann believed:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Liberals Are The Racists And Misogynists. They’re Also Hypocritical Demagogues Who Project Their Own ‘Values’ On Their Opponents.

I’m watching a Democrat strategist give his post-mortem on the November 4 elections in which Democrats got their heads handed to them (not that Obama has a clue as he plans his next fascist executive order power-grab between golf rounds.  All we know is that Obama doesn’t feel “repudiated” no matter how much of a toxic pariah he’s become even to his own party).  Why do Democrats tend to fare so badly in midterms, the strategist is asked.  And he says, “We’ve got to do a better job reaching out to white voters.”

This is PRECISELY what Democrat strategists are saying.

You are not a human being to Democrats.  Human beings are created in the image of God and Democrats piss on both God and His image.  No, you are a black voter, or a Hispanic voter, or an Asian voter.  Or you are an enemy who has to be tricked into voting for the party that wants to give the good races all the stuff your family worked so hard to earn because you belong to the wrong race.

Of course, that is racial politics from the PARTY of race politics.  If you want to divide people up by race and play the game of divide and conquer – and to hell with the increasingly incredibly polarizing results you are guaranteed to get as a result – you are a Democrat, pure and simple.

All you have to do is blame your racism and the climate of anger and polarization your racist engineering engenders on the other side.  And your media propaganda will duly report that “fact.”

Republicans are the party of ideas and the party of Americans.  Democrats are the party of racism and the party of bitterness against America.

It’s just the way it is.  And it’s just the way it has been since Democrats realized that if you can’t beat them, join them and then subvert them to the same plantation agenda they’ve always had.  Before you were useful as slave labor; now you’re useful as slave voters.  To wit: if you want your welfare check, you vote for the master party.

All the other party will offer you is the opportunity to get a job because they’re trying to make it easier for employers to build businesses and to learn because they’re trying to provide poor children of ALL races with vouchers for private schools to end the blue line union monopoly over “edyookashun.”

But of course it’s easier to sit at home and blame whitey – or blame whoever the convenient target to be blamed is – than it is to work.  And that’s just human nature.

Which party is the party of racism?  The party that hates Clarence Thomas, the party that hates Allen West, the party that hates Condoleezza Rice, the party that hates Dr. Benjamin Carson, that’s who.

I still remember the racist hate that Clarence Thomas received from the party that presents itself as oh-so-uber-un-racist.

In this election cycle, racist politicking was out full force as Democrats pulled out every trick to fearmonger the black community into getting out and voting against Republicans.  And no lie was too outrageous.

And of course there was the War on Women that Democrats just never got tired of playing.

Misogynists are Republican and Republicans are misogynists.  That’s what we’ve been told for the last how many years now from Democrats?

So I run across this story in the Los Angeles Times.  And it’s written by an uber-liberal named Meghan Daum:

The other thing the catcalling video shows: Our detachment issues
Meghan Daum
Los Angeles Times
November 5, 2014, 5:23 PM

If for some unfathomable reason you’re not among the more than 30 million people who’ve already seen the “catcalling video” that started ricocheting through the zeitgeist last week, I’ll give you a brief rundown.

10 Hours of Walking in NYC as a Woman

An actress named Shoshana Roberts, unremarkably dressed, is videotaped with a hidden camera as she walks around a variety of New York City neighborhoods. Over 10 hours, men vied for her attention, asking, “What’s up, beautiful?” and demanding to know why she won’t talk to them. Some seem pretty innocuous. Others, like the one who walks next to Roberts silently for five minutes straight, are downright creepy.

What began as feminist activism from an anti-street harassment organization called Hollaback expanded into a referendum on race, because Roberts is white and the vast majority of the men on the video are black or Latino. For all the video tells us about race, men and the discomfort women can experience on the street, it also tells us something about a different — and relatively new — kind of cultural discomfort: our awkwardness in negotiating public spaces.

When I watch the video, I see not just a woman being objectified by men but also a woman who, presumably at the behest of her director, is totally unwilling to engage in the world around her. She makes no eye contact, responds to no greeting, registers no interest in the people in her midst. I also see in it a filmmaker who hasn’t bothered to parse the difference between a “good morning” and a “hey, baby.” And in reading women’s reactions, I sense a perception that any of these guys could have pulled Roberts into an alley and assaulted her at any time.

Hollaback, which is committed to the message that a “hello” can easily and quickly escalate into violence, certainly seems to share that perception. But in the context of this video at least, it’s a little tone deaf. As she walked, Roberts was surrounded by hundreds of people, many of whom would surely have intervened if she’d needed help. As odd as the creepy companion walker was, does it fit Hollaback founder Emily May’s description of “a terrifying, terrifying experience”?

Obviously only Roberts can say how she felt about any given interaction. Nonetheless, here’s the thing about life in the big city, especially cities whose identities are rooted in the energy of the street: You can’t live in a vacuum. In fact, most residents don’t want to live in a vacuum. They have boundaries, but they still want to share a nod or knowing glance with a stranger on the bus or subway. They want to weave their individual, day-to-day experiences into the larger tapestry. And nothing about Robert’s disconnected, almost zombie-like comportment in the video reflects that spirit.

We all have our zombie-like days, of course. But I suspect that in real life Roberts handles men who talk to her on the street the same way most women eventually learn to: by saying “thank you” or saying something The Times won’t print, or waving a hand in a way that could be taken as either friendly or dismissive. Hollaback might consider these concessions are themselves symptoms of patriarchal oppression — and that is a fair, if not exactly new, point. I would say what’s missing from the video is that making concessions to strangers, sometimes acknowledging their existence, is part of what it means to share the world with other people — at least the real-life, three-dimensional world.

Of course, that world increasingly takes a back seat to the digital sphere, where ignoring unwanted communications is standard protocol, where many, if not most, conversations take place via text or email. Dating and sexual conquest belong largely to the realm of online dating sites and Tinder feeds. Moreover, most people when they do find themselves in public spaces, spend more time looking at their phones than looking at what’s around them. Little by little, we’re losing our instinct for joining the larger tapestry.

And maybe that’s the ultimate lesson of the catcalling video. It’s not just that men can be boorish or that race and class issues can be thorny but that walking down the street can be more complicated than hanging out online. Not to mention a lot more interesting.

And I couldn’t help but wonder: is this the tone this leftie would have decided to take if the woman victim had been a racial minority and the creepy catcallers had been white men???

Daum makes this point early on:

What began as feminist activism from an anti-street harassment organization called Hollaback expanded into a referendum on race, because Roberts is white and the vast majority of the men on the video are black or Latino.

And then proceeds to drop that point entirely as if it were a radioactively hot potato.  You never see the racial angle mentioned again.  It’s almost like she waved her hand at it, and that’s more than enough.  From that moment on, her article actually became a DEFENSE of the black and Latino men – i.e. the core members of the Democrat Party racial constituency – who sexually harassed the white woman for ten hours.

Now, I must confess that there have been a couple of times that Meghan Daum – who in the past was just so over-the-top lefty-moonbeam that she maxed out the measurement apparatus – has surprised me of late.  It’s possible that she actually is able to realize that the identity politics game the left keeps playing is as dangerous as it is toxic.

You know, the way Bill Clinton just did:

“I believe that in ways large and small, peaceful and sometimes violent, that the biggest threat to the future of our children and grandchildren is the poison of identity politics that preaches that our differences are far more important than our common humanity,” he told the crowd of activists, celebrities, and lawmakers.

But no matter: the REST of the Democrat universe plays it as their first card, their second card, their third card, their fourth card and their fifth card in every political game of five-card poker.

And it was, as usual, the central card played in this election.

We had the FIRST female elected to the United States Senate from blue state Iowa in American history.  And not only did this Republican woman have to suffer getting sexually trivialized over how attractive she was (you know, for a bimbo) by a career sexist Democrat male senator, but she had to suffer the booooooring whine of three-term Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu as she complained that she won’t get re-elected to a fourth term because she’s a woman and Louisianans are conservatives who hate women and hate blacks:

“And number two: I’ll be very, very honest with you. The south has not always been the friendliest place for African-Americans. It’s been a difficult time for the president to present himself in a very positive light as a leader,” she said.

“It’s not always been a good place for women to present ourselves,” Ms. Landrieu continued. “It’s more of a conservative place. So we’ve had to work a little harder on that. But the people trust me, I believe — really they do … trust me to do the right thing for the state.”

Ms. Landrieu’s comments come as some Democrats are making direct, often visceral appeals to black voters, notably in southern states like Georgia, in hopes of energizing the party base ahead of Tuesday’s election.

A woman who has been elected to the Senate by her state three times blames her state’s hostility to her on her gender and on racism.

You see, there’s one way to play this game: the Democrat way.  If you try to play it in a way that doesn’t politically help the political exigencies of the Democrat Party, it’s because you’re a racist, or you’re a misogynist, or you’re a racist misogynist.

It’s NEVER fascists when Democrats do it.  It’s ALWAYS fascist when Republicans do it.  Every time.  No matter how much of a pretzel you’ve got to twist your brain into to believe the liberal line.

War veteran Joni Ernst is tired of the “war on women” meme the Democrats constantly play (her male Democrat challenger actually had the complete lack of balls to play it on her):

She didn’t want to hear opponent Bruce Braley’s campaign claims anymore that she wages war on women with her positions because, the war veteran said, “I’ve been to war; this is not a war.”

Of course, it IS a war, because it is a vicious attack strategy from the party of hate and division, from the party that pits race against race, income-level against income level, gender against gender, etc.

It’s a war for the soul of America.  And even Bill Clinton admits that the Democrat Party machine is on the side of Satan in the war.

Abortion isn’t a “woman’s issue.”  It’s a CHILDREN’S issue.  If abortion is only a woman’s issue, then men are to be excluded from having anything to do with children and whether they should live or die.  If abortion is a “woman’s issue” as Democrats believe, and if a man and a woman don’t produce a child at the moment of conception, as Democrats believe, then ANY responsibility men have ought to end the nanosecond they roll off of that woman and go to sleep.  Because he DID NOT FATHER A CHILD according to the left and according to the left he has nothing whatsoever to do with the most critical choice involving the “woman’s choice” involving this non-child.

What Democrats want and what they have largely already achieved is the end of fatherhood.  Fathers are not “fathers” any more; they do NOT procreate a child and they are therefore not to be allowed ANY choice or ANY responsibility whatsoever in the MOST important decision involving a child that somehow mysteriously develops at some later time.

And of course homosexual sodomy marriage is nothing more than an extension of liberal thought: marriage is an institution for families; but the party of militant hatred for fatherhood necessarily becomes the party of militant hatred for the family of which fathers are a necessary component.

So Democrats have this twisted, perverted, hateful view toward any woman who loves her family and loves her children and values families and children.

And so your Sarah Palins and any woman who is pro-marriage and pro-family have to be rabidly attacked in the most hateful way.  It’s FINE for Democrats to call Republican women “whores.”  Just try being a Republican white male who calls a minority female governor a whore and see what happens to your career as the media feeding frenzy goes into beyond-rabid mode.

But like what we see somehow happen in Meghan Daum’s piece with black men and Latino men – in other words with Democrats – the left just strips the narrative of the elements they don’t like and then retells the story according to their ideology.  Just as in Daum’s piece what could have – and WOULD have had the sleazeballs been white men howling over a minority woman – been a piece about the racist and misogynistic attitudes about minorities toward women becomes a piece about the snooty way a woman carries herself which of course apparently invites abuse with aforementioned abuse being no big deal.  In any and every story involving the nastiest and most despicable racist and misogynistic behavior of liberals gets explained away by some “narrative” had the political party or the race or the gender of the person or people engaging in the despicable conduct been the politically incorrect sort (i.e. white men).

I’ll grant Meghan Daum credit for taking on the perennially offended feminist left over what they perceive as such a hostile climate that a man who says “good morning!” is tantamount to a rapist.  Believe it or not, she has courage to take on that group of rabid harpies given the instant media access that band of vermin has.  But we’ll know Meghan is truly courageous when it is WHITE REPUBLICAN MEN who act the way these black and Hispanic men acted that she defends.

Doubt very much that it will ever happen.