Posts Tagged ‘borders’

U.S. GUARANTEED Ukraine’s Borders: It Is Simply STUNNING How Obama Has Played The Part Of WWII Patsy Neville Chamberlain

March 5, 2014

You’ve got to love the symbolism.  Russian media frequently shows Vladimir Putin as a bare-chested martial artist who goes hunting.  And then they show Barack Obama as a scrawny wuss who wears mom pants while riding a bicycle with a geeky helmet on his dumbo-eared head.  Will the real man please stand up?  And Obama is either having a fundraising party or going on vacation.  But it certainly aint him.

Do you want to know what is happening right now?  We’re replaying World War II all over again – only in this new incarnation, it is Neville Chamberlain who is the hero by allowing Hitler to do whatever he wants under the belief that if you allow evil to rule, evil will eventually stop on its own (and as everyone who isn’t a fool knows, it won’t).

I have in numerous articles compared Barack Obama to Neville Chamberlain.  And Obama has now BECOME Neville Chamberlain: a petty tyrant domestically who proved himself to be a pathological coward in every way that counted.

Did you know that Ukraine had a TREATY that the United States under Bill Clinton signed swearing to PROTECT Ukraine and specifically Crimea FROM RUSSIA???  Do you have any idea what the CONSEQUENCES are of just letting Russia make the America that put its credibility and prestige on the line look like a bunch of weak and ineffectual cowards???

As weak, as pathetic, as godawful as I thought Obama has been, even I didn’t begin to grasp just how truly and stunningly demon-possessed-naively-incompetent Barack Obama and his administration is.

As we speak, Sarah Palin’s prediction is coming about with biblical accuracy:

“After the Russian Army invaded the nation of Georgia, Senator Obama’s reaction was one of indecision and moral equivalence, the kind of response that would only encourage Russia’s Putin to invade Ukraine next.”

Realize that Palin was saying this in the aftermath of Putin’s seizure of two republics from the sovereign nation of Georgia with less than three months remaining in George W. Bush’s presidency.  Putin took advantage of the fact that Democrats and Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and John Kerry had demonized Bush as some kind of vicious warmonger, such that Bush could do nothing.  It was the end of eight years in which Democrats had demonized Bush as a monster who had started two wars.  Had Bush confronted Putin strongly over Georgia, Obama and Democrats would have been saying, “You see?  There he goes again starting wars!”  It was going to be up to Democrats what kind of response America gave.  And they promised to be completely different from Bush’s aggression.

You tell ME what Democrats – and particularly Obama – would have said if Bush had sent troops to the Ukraine.  Anybody who tries to argue that Bush didn’t go into Ukraine so Obama shouldn’t have to is a dishonest idiot.  Because you shouldn’t blame Bush for not doing something you damn well know you would have demonized him for doing had he done it.

Bush started out strong and ended up weak in his foreign policy because Democrats had demonized him every single time he tried to stand up for America.  Obama started out weak and has just gotten weaker and weaker and weaker until America under his failed policies no longer matters in our enemies’ calculations.

Most Republicans would support Obama if he offered a strong response against Russia.  Democrats NEVER support a Republican president for ANY strong response ANYWHERE.  And that is a fact.

And the Democrat response, as history records, was pathetic.  Obama radiated weakness, as Sarah Palin pointed out.  Putin STILL has those republics in Georgia that he invaded and he has never given them back and never will.  And Obama literally said his policy was weakness and not to do a damn thing which told Putin WHAT about invading Ukraine???

Putin has been planning this seizure of Crimea.  Do you know what was holding him back?  It wasn’t fear of America under Obama’s gutless cowardly leadership.  Putin fears Obama the way a bear fears a cotton-tail bunny.  The only thing that made Putin hesitate to seize Crimea from Ukraine was the Olympic Games.  And with Sochi over with, Putin moved right in.  Rest assured, whatever “unrest” happened in Ukraine happened because of Russian agitation according to Putin’s plan.  And that unrest gave Putin all the pretext he felt he needed to do whatever he wanted while Obama sat there like a weak, skinny little punk who was too weak and too afraid to do anything and knew he was too weak and too afraid to do anything.

Sarah Palin understood the essence of Obama was an empty suit who could give speeches and sign executive orders but had no integrity and no leadership.

Let’s take a trip down memory lane and see WHAT Ukraine gave up to HAVE that treaty and what America’s betrayal – specifically Barack Obama’s betrayal of America – will now cost Ukraine:

Ukraine to disarm, Clinton says CLINTON IN EUROPE
January 11, 1994|By Carl M. Cannon

BRUSSELS, Belgium — President Clinton, hailing “a hopeful and historic breakthrough,” announced yesterday an agreement that would finally remove all nuclear weapons from Ukraine — the world’s third largest nuclear arsenal.

The bulk of that arsenal is pointed at the United States from the time when Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union, but it is fear of Moscow that has lately made Ukrainians anxious about giving up the weapons as agreed to under earlier treaties.

The agreement announced yesterday contains guarantees that neither Russia or the United States would launch a nuclear attack against Ukraine. Ukraine will also get hundreds of millions of dollars to help dismantle the nuclear arsenal and considerable assistance in advancing its peaceful nuclear energy program.

Many details about the nuclear removal appeared to remain unsettled yesterday, but a clearly delighted Mr. Clinton said that he would stop off at the Ukrainian capital of Kiev tomorrow to thank Ukraine President Leonid Kravchuk personally before going to Moscow.

Details had to be worked out, and here was one of the big details finalized in 1997:

KIEV, Ukraine — Ending one of history’s oldest fraternal feuds, Russia and Ukraine signed away a millennium of rivalry and resentment Saturday with a friendship treaty destined to shape a new era of relations between Europe’s biggest states.

With his signature on the accord pledging respect for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, Russian President Boris N. Yeltsin gave up Moscow’s long-running claims on Crimea. An accompanying agreement resolved years of dispute over who will inherit the Soviet-era Black Sea Fleet.

The opening la-de-da words of that one reminds me of Hillary Clinton’s epically stupid “reset” (well, actually “overcharge”) button with Russia as she and Obama affirmed that absolute, historic GUTLESSNESS was the way to power, prestige and wealth.

Let’s revisit an event in 2008, when Russia was building a dam that called into question Ukraine’s sovereignty.  It mentions the specifics of the treaty that Clinton had committed the United States to:

On Wednesday, lawmaker Yuri Yekhanurov called into question the security guarantees under which Ukraine agreed to disarm and urged a revival to Ukraine’s nuclear status.

In 1994, the United States, Russia and Britain guaranteed they would not attack Ukraine, which in turn sent some 1,900 nuclear warheads to Russia and signed on to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as a non-nuclear state.

Under the deal, the U.S., Russia and Britain undertook to respect Ukraine’s existing borders, not to use economic coercion on Ukraine and not to attack the country except in self-defense or in accordance with the U.N. Charter.

The U.S. ambassador to Kiev, John E. Herbst, told journalists this week that the U.S. supported Ukraine’s territorial integrity.

And so yes, Russia didn’t just attack Ukraine.  Russia attacked the United States of America:

Ukraine’s territorial integrity guaranteed under 1994 deal
AFP
March 3, 2014 10:06 AM

Moscow (AFP) – Former Ukrainian prime minister Yulia Tymoshenko claimed on Monday that by “occupying” Crimea, Russia had not only declared war on Ukraine but also on Britain and the United States.

That is because on December 5, 1994, Ukraine, Russia along with Britain and the United States signed an agreement in which the three powers guaranteed the territorial integrity of the former Soviet republic in exchange for Kiev giving up nuclear weapons.

The Black Sea peninsula is currently under de-facto occupation by pro-Kremlin troops, a situation which has been embraced by the local Russian speaking population fearing Kiev’s new authorities.

However, under the terms of the 1994 so-called Budapest memorandum the three major powers affirmed their commitment to respect the independence, sovereignty and existing borders of Ukraine. It was signed three years after Ukraine became an independent state.

Russia, the US and Britain also agreed to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons would ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defence or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.

In the memorandum, they also agreed to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine if Kiev should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used.

In breaking America’s word to Ukraine, Barack Obama may just as well have issued an official decree in a speech from the Oval Office that he was abrogating all treaties and that the United States could and would break any and all treaty agreements and promises at any time if they inconvenienced Obama in any way, shape or form.

Think about it.  Because every single nation on earth that has ever depended on any agreement with the United States is sure thinking about it.

I remember the Democrats and Obama mocking the forty nation “coalition of the willing” that George W. Bush assembled when he went into Afghanistan and Iraq beginning in 2001.  Do you know how many nations Barack Obama – the arrogant Chump-in-Chief – has been able to muster lately?

Try a big fat ZERO.

When Obama issued his infamous “red line” warning to Syria, how many allies were willing to go with him?  ZERO.

As Obama announced his policy of sanctions against Russia in the aftermath of this new Hitler annexing Poland issue, how many allies could Obama muster just for a miserable sanction???  ZERO.  Not even Britain will go along with the Sissy-in-Chief.  And it is DEMOCRATS who are resisting Obama’s pathetically weak response.

Think of it, because it is astonishing: the man who mocked Bush’s coalition has pissed away every friend we have and all the clout we had such that he doesn’t have even ONE ally on earth.

This is because Barack Obama has spent the past five years abandoning every single friend and emboldening every single foe.

Obama has weakened America on every imaginable level: we are weaker economically under his failed leadership, with the all-important measure of labor participation (the number of working-age adults who have a damn JOB) at a 37-year low.  Obama has weakened America militarily, having after spending YEARS undermining our military just called to make it weaker than at any time since before World War II just when America should have been showing STRENGTH instead.  And Obama has weakened us diplomatically by betraying our friends and emboldening our enemies across the world.

Do you know who also refused to take our side against Russia?  China.  Do you know why?  Because China has hunger for territorial seizure, too.  And they want to get some of what Russia just got.  You can count on China doing what Russia just did.

We’re going to learn the answer to the question, “What if Hitler and Stalin ruled the world and America was too weak and too isolated to do anything about it.”  Because that’s what’s happening now thanks to false messiah Obama.

The United States will literally have to fight a World War III at unimaginable cost to get back the credibility and prestige that Barack Obama foolishly and frankly insanely pissed away.  And if we don’t demonstrate a powerful willingness to fight World War III, we will instead decline and decline and decline some more as the American standard of life that DEPENDED upon U.S. power dwindles into poverty.

THAT is your future because you were stupid enough and depraved enough to elect and then incredibly RE-elect Barack Hussein Obama.  And one day you’ll burn in hell for it along with all your other sins against God.

This is the thing about liberals.  Liberals are people who are utterly without genuine principle.  Which means they will make a deal, promise that if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor, and so on, but the moment it is politically expedient for them to abandon their promise, you can count on them to make themselves liars and hypocrites.  It is simply who they are.  Period.  End of story.

Advertisements

Barack Obama And Israel: The Coming Antichrist’s Useful Idiot

May 19, 2011

God damn America just entered a radical and aggressive new phase.  But that should come as absolutely no surprise to those who a) understand the Bible and b) understand that Barack Obama is a truly evil man.

It’s almost as if Obama killed Osama and then decided to balance the scales by killing the entire nation of Israel.

Is Barack Obama the Antichrist?  No.  He is merely the coming Antichrist’s useful idiot.

Ultimately, this coming global dictator known as the Antichrist, the beast (Revelation 13), the man of lawlessness and the son of destruction (2 Thessalonians 2:3) and the little horn (Daniel 7:20-24), will come riding in on his white horse (Revelation 6:1) to “save the world” from impending catastrophe.  There will be total economic implosion, food shortages and famine, and wars – especially in the sense of “race” (ethnos) rising against race (Luke 21:10).

And, of course, the biggest and most dangerous “race against race” of all is the incredibly better war between the Arabs and the Jews.

Antichrist will seem to have an answer for all these problems and more.  This coming dictator will appear to be so effective that the world will literally worship him.

Obama is not the man who will have all the answers; he is merely the fool who leads the world into this state of total chaos and collapse.  He is merely the fool who will usher in the beast and welcome him.

The coming seven-year tribulation – which will be the most terrifying and most dangerous period in the history of the entire human race – will be initiated with the antichrist’s signing of a seven-year treaty “guaranteeing” the peace of Israel (see Daniel 9:27).  And Obama has brought us to the point where we are very nearly at that point.

Here is the story:

Obama Orders Israel to ‘End the Occupation’
by Maayana Miskin

United States President Barack Obama issued a stinging condemnation of the Jewish presence in Judea and Samaria on Wednesday in a speech to the United Nations General Assembly. The U.S. “does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements,” Obama announced.

Using unusually harsh terminology, Obama called to “end the occupation that began in 1967” – referring to Israel’s control of Judea and Samaria.

Obama also stated that the U.S. must put more pressure on Israel to accept Arab demands. “The United States does Israel no favors when we fail to couple an unwavering commitment to its security with an insistence that Israel respect the legitimate claims and rights of the Palestinians,” he said.

The U.S. president had demands for Israel’s opponents as well, and called on UN member states to avoid “vitriolic” attacks on Israel and recognize Israel’s legitimacy. In addition, he called on the Palestinian Authority to “end incitement against Israel.”

In his speech, Obama reported that progress had been made in a meeting the day before with  Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas.

Obama has pressured Israel to completely freeze building for Jews in Judea and Samaria, a plan Netanyahu has rejected. Israeli leaders have stated that many Judea and Samaria communities are within the “national consensus” regarding towns that are expected to remain in Israeli hands permanently, and that building should continue in those areas. The Obama administration’s most recent statements on the subject made clear, however, that a freeze on settlements could not be a precondition for peace talks between Israel and the PA.

Regarding Iran, Obama expressed support for both diplomacy and consequences. Iran and North Korea should be offered “greater prosperity and a more secure peace” if they agree to abide by international guidelines, but “must be held accountable” if they insist on pursuing nuclear weapons, he said.

Bolton: Israel on the Chopping Block
Former United States ambassador to the UN John Bolton said the president’s message had strong significance, particularly given the venue. Obama has put Israel “on the chopping block,” Bolton warned.

‘World Must Work Together’
Obama called for the nations of the world to work together, saying, “Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility.”

“Those who used to chastise America for acting alone in the world cannot now stand by and wait for America to solve the world’s problems alone,” he added pointedly.

Obama said UN member states had fallen short in addressing the world’s problems. Among the issues he called to address were genocide, “protracted conflicts,” nuclear proliferation, and global warming.
(IsraelNationalNews.com

With “friends” like Obama, Israel really doesn’t need any enemies.  But of course it has them anyway – numbering in the scores.  Obama has proven that he is the most anti-Israel and anti-Jewish president in American history.  We can now readily see why the United States of America is not mentioned in Bible prophecy.  Our fate is very nearly sealed.  The writing on the wall is nearly complete: America has been weighed on the scales and found wanting.  Our way is the way of Obama, the way of the Dodo bird and the way of hell.

Obama has every intention of exposing the underbelly of Israel, leaving her with completely indefensible borders, including an 8 mile-wide country that cannot possibly resist the next invasion.  Obama is literally seeking to give the Arabs the high ground so that they can murder every single Jew in Israel with near impunity.  Obama’s new borders would come at the price of Israel’s existence.  Israel will resist this, of course, but with the United States – formerly Israel’s greatest political ally – now becoming her chief political enemy, she will become increasingly isolated and desperate.

At the very moment that the Syrians have shown how truly evil they are, we have a president who actually wants to give them the strategically vital Golan Heights.  That is beyond the limit of lunacy.  It doesn’t matter how desperately wrong the Obama administration is or how many times that proof is documented for all to see.  We continue to blithely march like the proverbial lemmings to our fools’ end.

And not only is Obama demanding this of Israel, but it is demanding that the Arabs give no concessions whatsoever.  Barack Obama – whether stupidly or wickedly – has dedicated himself to the destruction of the state of Israel.  Obama has literally torn-up Bush-era agreements that were overwhelmingly ratified by both Republicans and Democrats in both the House and the Senate.  Israel now knows for certain that the United States is no trustworthy partner, and that America’s word means exactly nothing.

At one particularly asinine moment in Obama’s speech we had this:

“How can one negotiate with a party that has shown unwillingness to recognize your right to exist?” Obama asked.

And – bizarrely – Obama didn’t even bother to try to answer it as he essentially demand that Israel trust said “party” anyway.  It was as though merely raising the intractable issue was good enough.

When the Antichrist comes offering an apparent way out of this fools’ dilemma Obama has imposed, Israel will take it.  And the death sentence of the present world will be inaugurated.

Liberals in America and around the world have been dreaming of a one-world Utopia for decades.  The Bible told us 2,000 years ago that such a global dictatorship that the left is seeking would come to pass – in the last days.  What the left passionately believes will be the salvation of the human race will actually be the guarantee of the destruction of the human race (Revelation 13:1-18).  One of the greatest ironies in human history is that the left – which openly mocks the Bible – have become the primary instruments of its fulfillment.  To their certain doom.

You Democrats will one day be forced to account for the horror that you will have unleashed in voting for and supporting Barack Hussein Obama.

Take a look at a map of the Middle East:

Try to find Israel on that map.  It is so small it is hard to see.  And then look around at the Arab/Muslim states that surround her.

With all this land, it isn’t enough.  The Arabs want it all.  They want Israel destroyed.  They want her driven into the sea and annihilated.  They want to finish what Hitler started.

I can’t make it any more plain than this.  It is past time for you to choose your side.  If you side with Barack Obama and the Muslims who yearn – and rabidly froth at the mouth – for holocaust, you will pay for your wickedness with eternity in hell.  These policies are the result of a depraved moral stupidity that will find no place in God’s heaven.

At the same time, if you seek to stand with Israel, then STAND with them.  Call your congressman.  Write your congressman.  Attend meetings and publicly demand that Barack Obama be forced to abandon his policies that will result in the certain death of America as God truly does damn a nation that has become great by standing with Israel more than any other nation in history.

The Bible says that all these things will inevitably come to pass.  But woe be to you if you let the consequences fall upon your head and the heads of your children.

The beast is coming; his fool is already here to prepare his path to domination for him.  Will he take you to hell with him?

Rush Limbaugh Discusses Ronald Reagan And Demonstrates Why Liberals Must Be Defeated Rather Than Reasoned With

February 8, 2011

I thought this was a very interesting discussion.  Here’s the transcript of it, with the response that I found most significant in bold font:

CALLER:  Hi, Rush.  I, um… I’m calling because… Well, first of all, I’m a liberal, and I seriously don’t understand this, uh, Reagan idolatry on behalf of conservatives.  I’ll get… I’ll give you my reasons.  Instead of privatizing Social Security, he raised taxes. We’re all paying higher taxes today out of our paychecks every single week because he decided to save Social Security.  He —

RUSH:  Wait, wait.  Hold it.  I need to go…

CALLER: (speaking rapidly)
 
 
RUSH: Wait. Jeez.

CALLER:  The Greenspan Commission.  He signed it into law, and it raised taxes on Social Security.

RUSH:  What…? Wait, you’re talking about Reagan or Clinton?

CALLER:  I’m talking about Reagan.  Reagan did that.  He raised taxes on Social Security.  He negotiated with terrorists, sending — over and over again — arms to Iran in exchange for hostages; by contrast Jimmy Carter didn’t give an inch to the Iranians.

RUSH:  What in the world…?

CALLER:  Not an inch.  Instead Reagan (crosstalk)

RUSH:  Testing the true depth of my politeness here on this call, folks.

CALLER:  Say that again?

RUSH:  Let me ask you a question.  What do you think, given all this that you believe, when you hear Obama and the Democrats cite Reagan as they have been doing since about a week before the State of the Union?

CALLER:  It’s funny you ask that.  Because as a liberal I think Obama owes his presidency to Reagan.  They’re both kinda stuffed suits that say one thing and then do another.  Obama hasn’t been anywhere near liberal enough for me.  He said he’d close Guantamano (sic), he hasn’t done that.

RUSH: Yeah.

CALLER: He said he’d help people out with foreclosures, he hasn’t done that.

RUSH:  I feel for you on that.

CALLER:  But Reagan, I mean, amnesty to people who are breaking the law and living in the country illegally. He said, “Forget about it. Stay here forever.” He cut and ran from Lebanon. How many hundreds of Marines were killed —

RUSH: Yeah.

CALLER: — and he just decided, “Well, you know, instead of the fighting the bad guys I’m gonna run away”?

RUSH:  Yeah.

CALLER:  Why is Reagan a hero to conservatives?

RUSH:  “Why is Reagan a hero to conservatives?”  I don’t think you… Given what you’ve said, and I’m not trying to avoid the question, I don’t think you’d ever understand it.

CALLER:  Well, he’s a tax raiser, an amnesty giver, a cut-and-runner, and he negotiated with terrorists.  Why is he a hero to conservatives?  I don’t think you understand it.

RUSH:  No, I do. Most assuredly I do.  I just don’t think that you would understand it.  Where did you get this silly notion that Reagan raised taxes on Social Security?  What websites do you read?  Where did you pick that up?

CALLER:  Look up the Greenspan Commission.  It’s not too hard to find.  I mean, it’s a matter of history.

RUSH:  Where did you get it?  I mean, you’re asking me questions.  I’m just reversing one on you here.

CALLER:  I’m sorry.  It’s just general knowledge.  It’s something I’ve known for a long time. I can’t remember where I got it from.

RUSH: You can’t remember? You’ve never heard of a website called Media Matters which highlighted it yesterday?

CALLER: (static) Oh, no. I know Media Matters very well but that’s not where I got it.

RUSH: Oh, not where you got it. It’s an amazing coincidence.

CALLER: (static) I mean, I’m a liberal.  Of course I know Media Matters.

RUSH:  Amazing coincidence out there.

CALLER: (static blaring) They’re a fantastic website.  But why are you dodging the question?  I want to know why a tax-raising, amnesty-giving, cut-and-running, negotiating-with-terrorists guy is a hero to the conservative movement.

RUSH:  Well, because you understand Reagan in a way that is flawed. You —

CALLER: (static)

RUSH: Your call is actually kinda interesting because you represent the impossibility of “bridging the gap.”  Somebody like you just has to be defeated.  There’s no crossing the aisle and finding common ground with you.  You’re free to be who you are, don’t misunderstand.  I’m not trying to be insulting. I’m just saying, you are unreachable. You don’t want to be reached.  This picture of Reagan, you’ve just described somebody you should love, and you hate him! You just described somebody you should absolutely love, all these things. He’s an anti-conservative, as you say, but you don’t love him. You’re having trouble understanding why he’s viewed as heroic to a lot of people. 

I could talk to you about anti-communism. I could. You want to talk about amnesty? Yeah, that was Simpson-Mazzoli, and that was one-and-a-half, two million illegals; and he was told, “Okay, if we’re gonna do this, this is it, then. We’re gonna secure the borders and that’s it.”  It’s the same thing with every tax increase he signed. It was also accompanied by promises to cut spending, and it never happened.  Reagan’s not perfect.  Nobody is.  But I think the proof of Reagan is the fact that when your guys get in trouble, who do they seek to associate themselves with?  Remember, Obama and these people are all about getting votes. 

The fact that he’s trying to surround himself with Reagan, the fact that he’s trying to position himself with Reagan is the best indication anybody could have of what this country really thinks of Ronaldus Magnus.  I think if you want to focus in on hypocrisy, you’ve got far more of it on your side of the aisle to explain and dig through than we do.  Reagan was forced to raise payroll taxes by a crisis in Social Security in 1983. He endorsed that rescue plan that was written by Alan Greenspan. It was reluctant.  He was not a big supporter of that.  Remember, Reagan did not have a congressional majority with him.

Everything he got, the tax cuts, he had Democrats outnumbering him in the House and Senate everywhere.  There were certain realities that he faced.  But the biggest tax increase on Social Security was authored by none other than Bill Clinton.  But did you understand the notion? Ronald Reagan fought for America.  He loved America.  He feared where the left, based on history, wanted to take the country.  Ronald Reagan set the stage for the end of the Cold War.  Ronald Reagan defeated Soviet communism without firing a shot.  I don’t know… But none of that would matter.  So you, sir, a nice individual, I’m sure you’re a fine guy (probably not too much fun at a ball game, unlike Bill Clinton), but still, you illustrate that people like you just have to be defeated, not met halfway and gotten along with.  I mean politically.

Rush is entirely correct here.  You can’t have a rational or meaningful discussion with people like this liberal caller.  You can only defeat them and render them powerless politically.

You can’t have an honest conversation with a dishonest person. There is simply no point.  They won’t tell you what’s really on their heart and mind; they merely constantly employ rhetorical games that mean nothing and go nowhere.  In the case of Rush’s caller, you had a man who simply spoke lies about Ronald Reagan.  If he had actually believed any of his own crap, he would have LOVED Reagan, as Rush pointed out.

I remember a discussion I had with a liberal on an article I wrote about the tax cuts.  An individual who called himself “michael” wrote and said:

I am at work right now but i just read this article and it is the funniest thing i have ever read. no hate intended but it looks like it was written by someone who read someone elses work and is trying to claim their opinion as his or her own

Well, this individual dismisses my work as having been plagerized.  That certainly wasn’t true.  I wrote every word that I didn’t directly cite as a quote and legitimately sourced every citation as having been quoted.  But after a little dicussion this same liberal writes another comment that supposedly puts me in m place.  Among other huge problems with this comment was the fact that my former professor’s nose smelled a rat.  Basically, the tone of the two writers didn’t match one another.  I googled part of the diatribe, and sure enough, discovered that the selfsame liberal who falsely accused me of plagerizing had actually completely plagerized his rebuttal to me.

After exposing his dishonesty, I said:

You are not an honest person, Michael. And there is no point having a discussion with a liar. Because the truth and the facts don’t matter to a liar. And someone like you can and will say anything and claim lies as fact.

And I’m not going to waste my time with you.

And that’s where we’re at.  There’s no “bridging the gap” with liberals.  There’s no rational dialogue.  They have a warped and depraved worldview, which means they cannot even possibly understand the world as it really is (i.e., from the “God’s-eye view”), and then, to make it even worse, far too few of them are personally honest enough to have a meaningful discussion involving facts and truth because dishonest people will simply invent “facts” and surround themselves in lies.

Rush ultimately informs the audience that Reagan basically NEVER had Republican control of Congress throughout his entire presidency.  The House of Representatives, which controls spending, was under complete Democrat control for every single year of Ronald Reagan’s presidency (with first Tip O’Neil and then Jim Wright serving as Democrat Speakers of the House).  As for the Senate, it was also under Democrat control for part of Reagan’s presidency; and Reagan NEVER had a strong majority there.  So the caller was not depicting events honestly: it wasn’t like Reagan realized his policies were failing and raised taxes.  Rather, Reagan had to constantly negotiate and compromise with Democrats in control of the Congress – particularly the House – and was forced to make concessions to get other things he wanted.

Furthermore, this caller who plagued Rush was little different from the blogger who plagued me.  He passed off liberal talking points as his own thoughts.  It turns out that this caller was merely regurgitating crap that was flying out of the mouths of the vomitous left.  You can see a conservative response to these slime attacks on Reagan here.

So let me quote that article’s response to the liberal’s charge that Reagan gave illegal’s amnesty:

The Democrat leadership in Congress promised to enact strict enforcement measures as a trade for a one-time amnesty deal. In an effort to control the border, Reagan went along with the deal.  At the time (1986), the measures were marketed by Democrats as as being able to stop illegal immigration. Ted Kennedy himself sold the enforcement clauses of the law as strong enough to ensure that only a one-time amnesty would be needed. But, as is their standard practice, Democrats lied about sealing the border.

Which not only shows that Reagan most certainly did NOT say, “Forget about it. Stay here forever,” as the caller deceitfully claims, but in fact goes back to the now documented proof that liberals are liars who cannot be trusted and cannot be bargained with or reasoned with.

The caller describes Reagan as running from Lebanon with his tail between his legs.  Which is actually funny, given the fact that Democrats at the time demanded that Reagan immediately pull out of Lebanon after the Beirut bombing that killed 241 Marines.  Nobody on the left was demanding we attack Lebanon.

I have my own perspective on that.

Reagan’s pullout from Lebanon bothered me greatly at the time.  But I realize the Reagan’s wisdom now.  He was already in the process of fighting and defeating the Soviet Union – the largest military power on earth – and he saw the folly of getting America into another war against a different ideology and another limitless enemy at the same time.  If you were in the infantry in the 1980s, you knew that we were preparing for some potentially imminent conflagration; and we would be pouring in to Western Europe to fight a defensive war against a Soviet invasion.  Ronald Reagan wisely chose to stay the course in facing and defeating the Soviet Union, and allow the Islamic threat to remain for another day when the Russian threat was gone.  Just imagine how much the Russians would have loved it to be able to supply millions of death-happy Muslims and watch us bleed from the sidelines in an endless proxy war?  Which is to say that the caller not only misrepresents what in actual fact happened – making him a liar – but also argues that Reagan should have fought two civilizational wars simultaneously, making him a complete fool.

When Democrats routinely pursue such deceit, it becomes pointless to argue with them.  It boils down to the Mark Twain wisdom of, “Never argue with a fool.  People won’t be able to tell the difference.”  Try to reason with those independents who are capable of “bridging the gap,” as Rush Limbaugh put it.  Argue with people who might change their minds.  Argue with people who won’t play a neverending tune of rhetorical garbage.  Argue with people who won’t constantly rely on lies.

And just defeat liberals.  Because defeat is the only reality that they are capable of understanding.