Did Donald Trump Sacrifice? Let’s TALK About ‘Sacrifice’

So a Muslim father continues the proud line of politically correct slogans saying rhetorically to Donald Trump, “You have sacrificed nothing.”

You know, as if Hillary Clinton was actually Mrs. Lydia Bixby, who is famous in American history for having lost five sons in the Civil War as Republicans fought to free the slaves from the tyranny of the Democratic Party.

To my knowledge, the last time an American president lost a son to war was Theodore Roosevelt, Republican, whose son Quentin was killed in the fighting of World War I.

So, on the one hand, what Khizr Khan delivered was nothing more than a cheap shot.  How many sons did Barack Obama lose in his war which is now the longest in the history of America???  Just when the hell did it become fair game to vilify a candidate for president because none of his kids died in war as you endorse a candidate who didn’t lose any kids in war???

Furthermore, just to point out something that seriously needs to be pointed out: Donald Trump didn’t kill Khizr Khan’s son the way Hillary Clinton killed Patricia Smith’s son Sean in Benghazi with her careless stupidity and incompetence.  Patricia Smith says, “I blame Hillary Clinton PERSONALLY for the death of my son.”

In the same way, I doubt very much that Donald Trump looked Khizr Khan in the eye and LIED to him the way Hillary Clinton looked Charles Woods in the eye and lied to him about his son Tyrone whom her brutal indifference murdered.  Charles Woods has invited Hillary to take a lie detector test to see which of them is telling the truth.

I would like to see the notes that Khizr Khan wrote that indict Donald Trump when his son came back the way Charles Woods has notes indicting Hillary Clinton for covering her ass with lies when his son Tyrone came home in a flag-draped casket.

Hey, don’t go away, Democrat.  I’ve got more.  What about Kate Quigley, the sister of Benghazi murder victim Glen Doherty, who says that Hillary lied to her as well???

How many young men has Donald Trump commanded to their deaths, versus Obama with his horrifyingly awful rules of engagement???  Under Bush, we lost 1,049 Americans KIA in Afghanistan; under Obama that number is 2,469, which is close to three-quarters the total killed.  To the best of my knowledge, Trump isn’t responsible.  But hey, let’s blame Trump for those men Obama ordered into battle.  And let’s endorse the candidate who is going to follow those same policies.  After all, we’re all rabidly unfair ideologues here, right?

By the time Obama leaves office, terrorism will have skyrocketed 1,900 percent over what it had been when George Bush left office.  Do we really want that terrifying trend to continue to escalate???

The NATO commander says that ISIS is spreading like a CANCER among refugees.  What already has happened in Europe will assuredly happen here as ISIS terrorists will come to the USA by way of Europe.  Why on earth would we want that???

Capeesh???

I got a LOT more to say about this Khzir Khan crap.  Khan waved a Constitution around and suggested that Donald Trump had never read it.  Let’s lay aside the fact that Obama is supposedly an “expert” in constitutional law and yet has defiantly and intentionally done things that he himself said were unconstitutional and has had the Supreme Court give him more unanimous smackdowns for violating the Constitution than any other president in history.  And the Hillary Clinton whom Khan endorses has pledged to follow that same blatantly unconstitutional example and in fact she has said she would DOUBLE-DOWN on policies that she excoriates the Supreme Court for pointing out are blatantly unconstitutional.  Which then amounts to Khan saying that he’s ALL FOR violating the Constitution; he just wants it violated in a manner favorable to his ideology.  But let’s get back to Khan’s charge against Trump, if it even still matters: How does he know that Trump has never read the Constitution?  It’s nothing but a cheap rhetorical slander; unless I suppose, he’s been reading Hillary Clinton’s thirty thousand missing emails and one of those illegally purged emails somewhere mentions that Trump never read the Constitution.  But here’s the real deal on this: is Khizr Khan one of the MAJORITY of Muslim Americans who would RATHER be governed BY SHARIA LAW THAN BY THE U.S. CONSTITION???

According to the just-released survey of Muslims, a majority (51%) agreed that “Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to shariah.”

This isn’t just about Khan; this is also about the more than HALF of Muslims coming to America that hate everything we stand for and want to replace it with sharia law.  And why didn’t somebody stick a microphone in Khan’s face and ask him why we should bring in tens or even hundreds of thousands of Muslims who despise everything we stand for???

Or how about this one: why does Humayun Khan’s death matter but Sean Smith’s death and Tyron Woods’ death and Glen Doherty’s death DON’T matter???  PC-point-of-order turning around your own vile line of reasoning on you liberals: IS IT BECAUSE WHITE LIVES DON’T MATTER that the lives of sons personally planted in the grave by Hillary Clinton don’t matter???

Wouldn’t it be awesome if the media were actually honest enough to push fifty microphones in Hillary Clinton’s face and remind her of the white men her policies and incompetence murdered in Benghazi and force her to answer the question, “Do the white lives you terminated in Benghazi matter?”

Why is it, liberals, that NONE of these lives matter?  Why don’t THESE parents and family members who “sacrificed” get to have THEIR sacrifice matter to you???

Hey, Khizr Khan: WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THE SACRIFICE OF TYRONE WOODS AND GLEN DOHERTY AND SEAN SMITH???

Maybe you should have taken a cue from your wife and done a little less talking and a lot more shutting the hell up.

Political correctness can actually be a boomerang.  All it takes is the desire to throw it back at the liberal swine who keep throwing it at you.

As an example of that one, consider the rabid frenzy and fury directed at Trump for in any way, shape or form questioning “a Gold Star family member” who lost his son; but where is the righteous hate cast at the Democrat Party for chanting “Black Lives Matter!” during that moment of silence for the police officers murdered by assassins adhering to that very ideology???  What the HELL is wrong with you to mock the grief of the family members of those slain police while pretending you give a damn about soldiers???  That in addition to those Benghazi family members and the cricket-chirping you hear from the media rather than their stories of how Hillary Clinton killed their sons and then lied about how they died to their faces.  The media WILL NOT be fair or honest.

The media propaganda didn’t like that.  They don’t like any of it.  So they just ignore it or mock it.  You see, facts are rather horrible things for liberals.  So they spent years searching until they found a grieving parent they could finally side with.

Do you know what they did?  They FACT-CHECKED Patricia Smith, and by that I mean the two self-anointed liberal fact-checking machines Politifact and the Washington Post.  Do you think they dared to turn their evil glare on Khizr Khan???  No way in HELL.  Because they’re “fact checking” amounts to their finding just what they want to find.  And they DON’T want to fact-check Khan’s claims for the simple reason that they were nothing but unhinged ASSERTIONS rather than “facts” to begin with.

You get to what the mainstream media is really like in terms of blatant HYPOCRISY in the words of mainstream media mainstay Christ Matthews who had the balls to say THIS about a Gold Star family member:

“I don’t understand why the Republicans would choose to put this on prime-time television when they have such wonderful stories of American heroism to speak to the American people,” Mr. Matthews said, Mediaite reported. “I think it was wrong.

“I don’t care what that woman up there, the mother, has felt. Her emotions are her own. But for the country in choosing a leader, it’s wrong to have someone get up there and tell a lie about Hillary Clinton. It’s not true. It’s logically not true,” he added. “I think it’s wrong that they ruined their evening with this.”

There is absolutely NO factual question that the media is so completely in the tank for socialist communist fascist leftists that it is beyond unreal.  It is HATEFUL to criticize a Gold Star family member – unless that Gold Star family member is a Republican who got looked in the eye and lied to by Hillary Clinton.  It’s a terrible thing to put Gold Star family members on a Convention stage and have them tell their stories – unless they tell a story damning Donald Trump.  Then it’s okay.  Then it’s all well and good.

To put it in Chris Matthews’ words: “wrong” becomes “right.”

It sounds to me like Humayun Khan was a genuine stand-up guy who died for his men and I honor him and I mourn him every bit as much as every single other one of our warriors who sacrificed their lives fighting for the United States and for every nation allied against Islamic radical terrorism.  My point is as simple as it is true: if you’re going to carry the story of “sacrifice” over dead family members, dishonest propaganda mill masquerading as “journalism,” YOU PICK IT UP.  Don’t you cherry pick the victims you want to suit your leftist ideology and ignore all the others who sacrificed every scintilla as dearly.

But let’s consider Donald Trump’s answer to Khizr Khan’s cheap shot: Donald Trump said he HAD sacrificed, by working ungodly hours and creating thousands of jobs.

That’s another cheap shot line I love that Hillary and her corrupt V.P. pick Caine are giving in their circus: that Trump likes to fire people.

In order to fire somebody, you first have to HIRE THEM.  Which means you give that worker a chance.  If you hire workers, you are ultimately going to have to fire some who refuse to work or are unable to do the job you hire them to do in a competent manner.  So let’s answer that question:

So how many jobs has Trump created as a businessman?

A CNNMoney analysis calculates at least 34,000 jobs attributable to the Donald.

So it’s a pretty sad and pathetic line for Hillary to attack Donald Trump for firing people.  BECAUSE AT LEAST HE HIRED SOMEBODY.

From now on I think I’ll walk around telling complete strangers, “You’re FIRED!”  Because the look on their face will be like, “Dude, you never HIRED me.”

And I’ll say, “Just like HILLARY CLINTON never hired you, I mean, right???”

But let me move on to Donald Trump’s response which itself is now the subject of attack in the media (because how dare you defend yourself when a liberal attacks you with PC gibberesh?”).

Interestingly, Khizr Khan and his silent wife were the only two people who were allowed to talk about war where the Democrats in the auditorium didn’t start booing and chanting, “No more war!”  I guess that means they like war just fine as long as they think they can politically benefit from the death.

So what did Trump say in response?

“I’ve made a lot of sacrifices.  I’ve worked very, very hard.  I’ve created thousands and thousands of jobs, tens of thousands of jobs, built great structures,” he said, in an interview with ABC’s “This Week.”

[George Stephanopolous here asks, “Those were sacrifices?”]

He added, “Sure those were sacrifices.”

And what would George Stephanopoulos know about “sacrifice”???  He got his job as a reward for sticking his nose up the Clinton’s butt for four years.

Frankly, it pisses me off to no end that liberals question whether work is sacrifice.  Maybe that’s because most of them don’t bother to actually work.

WORK IS SACRIFICE.  You work and you sacrifice and by that sacrifice you keep building more and more for the future.  And then one day you can retire and relax because you have sacrificed all your life.

And it’s just too damn bad that there isn’t a single liberal in America who comprehends that any more.

So let me just as you, politically-correct turd, a few questions: do the illegal immigrants working in the fields picking crops sacrifice?  Did the American women who entered the factories to replace the men who had gone to the front so they could build the arsenal we needed to win World War II sacrifice?

Yeah, they sacrificed.

And Donald Trump sacrificed the same damn way.

When you’re working, you can’t be sitting in your couch watching MSNBC all day and wearing your “I’m With Her” T-shirt.

So Donald Trump worked his butt off all his life.  He spent a lot of hours not playing golf like Obama does more than any president in history.  And as a result of all his hard work, all his sacrifice, he’s paid MILLIONS of dollars in taxes so you Democrats losers can live off the government handout dole.

Unfortunately, thanks to Obama and the worst labor participation rate in the history of modernity, and some 100 million working-age Americans AREN’T working.

It’s up to independent voters to get past the stupid cheap shots like “You’re fired!” and like “Donald Trump never sacrificed anything!”  Because we can safely know that Democrats are just way, WAY too stupid to be able to entertain rational thought.  So they’ll never understand that Donald Trump created a whole HELL of a lot more jobs than Hillary Clinton ever did, and that you’ve got to HIRE somebody and give that worker a chance in order to fire that worker, and that what the hell does Khizr Khan say that Hillary Clinton “sacrificed”???

 

 

 

Liberals Despise Independent Women, And Every Intelligent Woman Knows It

Show me the video of Rush Limbaugh calling Hillary Clinton a “dumb twat” and the National Organization for Women having nothing to say about it, and you might have a case.  Otherwise, if you are a liberal, and you aren’t hanging your head in abject shame, you are just too morally stupid and hypocritical to bother arguing with.

Bill Maher, George Lopez and the War on Women — Why Are Attacks on Conservative Women Given Just a Shrug?
By Penny Young Nance
Published March 25, 2011
| FoxNews.com

It takes a really weak, insecure, and spineless man to attack a woman on television. It takes an even weaker “feminist” movement to play down such attacks.

In a recent episode of “Somebody, Please Notice Me,” also known as “Real Time with Bill Maher” on HBO, the show’s host may have hit rock bottom with his latest rhetorical bomb by referring to Sarah Palin with a vulgarity exceedingly offensive to women. Far more noticeable, and certainly more noteworthy, was the backhanded “defense”of Palin from radical feminists and their clearly misnamed organizations.

National Organization for Women communications director Lisa Bennett, after days of silence, sounded more as if she didn’t want to be bothered: “Sorry, but we can’t defend Palin or even Hillary Clinton from every sexist insult hurled at them in the media.”

Several weeks ago, MSNBC’s Chris Matthews attacked Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) with another derogatory slur in reference to a harmless geographical gaffe she made about American history. Only crickets from the radical feminists. (A few weeks later Matthews found himself geographically-challenged when he said the Panama Canal was in Egypt.)

Lest this be confined only to conservative women, comedian George Lopez had no problem attacking actress Kirstie Alley and likening her to a squealing pig. At least Lopez apologized.

 So what gives with these attacks and the 800-pound double standard in the room?

Suppose Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity did drop a vulgarity on Hillary Clinton or Nancy Pelosi? Despite her protestations a rapid, robust response from Ms. Bennett, NOW and the feminist Left would’ve taken all of 30 seconds, give or take a few. Broadcast news shows would be leading with the story and the reaction, repeated calls for apologies, and firings would ensue. Left-wing groups would harass advertisers in an attempt to get them to pull their sponsorships.

All women, regardless of their political persuasions need to speak out against these kinds of attacks because they harm everyone who is female from age 2 – 92, but the prevailing view among radical feminists seems to be that conservative women either don’t exist or are merely female impersonators. They don’t deserve to be defended when attacked because, after all, real women don’t hold conservative views.

So if you’re a woman leader with conservative positions on the issues, and you’re active in your church and speak out about matters of faith, and you get demeaned, demonized, slurred, or smeared, the radical feminist attitude toward you is, “You get what you deserve, because we, frankly, have the same opinion of you.”

Already teetering on the precipice of irrelevance, radical feminists only further undercut their credibility and authority to speak out on behalf of women when they stay silent in the face of such unacceptable behavior. They have become as clueless and delusional as the men they challenged and mocked 40 years ago.

The collapse of radical feminism was first revealed in the movement’s turning a blind eye toward Bill Clinton’s philandering and clear objectification of women. A conservative president who behaved like Clinton would have been publicly filleted, but instead, the leaders of the “women’s movement” gave him a wink and a nod.

In one of radical feminism’s lowest moments (and there are many), former Time magazine White House correspondent Nina Burleigh appointed herself the official Clinton apologist when she infamously told Mirabella magazine: “I’d be happy to give him [oral sex] just to thank him for keeping abortion legal.”

From embracing Bill Clinton to ignoring Bill Maher, radical feminists have reduced themselves to pitiful insignificance. New women have emerged as leaders, and many more will follow, and they reject the radical feminist orthodoxy with its hypocrisies and double-standards.

The movement’s leaders will have only themselves to blame. Women achieved substantial, needed gains several generations ago. Unfortunately, too many radical feminists are stuck in 1971, where they are destined to remain.

Penny Young Nance is CEO of Concerned Women for America, the nation’s largest public policy women’s organization.

Liberalism has now officially become the ideology of dumb twats, while liberal women who hypocritically claim to stand up for women do nothing.

Barack Obama Should Be Impeached For His Libya War. Just Ask His Vice President

Here’s your vice president demonizng George Bush and threatening to impeach him:

This video is an amazing treasury for three reasons.  First of all, any Democrat who has so much as a scintilla of criticism for Republicans who go after Obama like pit bulls should listen to Joe Biden and shut the hell up.  It’s not enough to say Democrats were just as bad; they were worse, as this clip reveals.  Second, in light of the fact that George Bush turned out to be ENTIRELY and 100 PERCENT CORRECT about Iran developing nuclear weapons, it truly goes to show what an incompetent failure and what an utter disgrace to America Joe Biden and virtually every Democrat in office truly are.  And third, Barack Obama should be impeached.  Period.  And don’t believe me, believe the logic of Obama’s own rat bastard Vice President.

Here are Biden’s own words regarding George Bush after Chris Matthews asks him a question at 5:30 into the above video:

I want to stand by that comment I made. The reason I made that comment is a warning. The reason, I don’t say those things lightly, Chris, you’ve known me for a long time. I was chairman of the Judiciary committee for 17 years or its ranking member. I teach separation of powers and constitutional law. This is something I know. So I got together and brought a group of Constitutional scholars together and write a piece I’m going to deliver to the whole United States Senate in pointing out the president has no Constitutional authority to take this nation to war against a country of 70 million people unless we’re attacked, or unless there is proof that we are about to be attacked. If he does, I would move to impeach him. The House obviously has to do that – but I would lead an effort to impeach him. The reason for my doing that- I don’t say it lightly, I don’t say it lightly.

Let’s get a couple of things straight.  Democrats are ENTIRELY to blame for the fact that Iran is on the verge of being a nuclear armed terrorist regime.  I previously pointed that fact out in the following:

Liberals will naturally (being deceitful, dishonest, and demagogic) want to blame George Bush for not dealing with Iran.  But an article from the Los Angeles Times from December of 2007 underscores why Bush was not able to mobilize America against the building Iranian threat.  In a word, it was DEMOCRATS:

“DES MOINES — Democratic presidential candidates teamed up during a National Public Radio debate here Tuesday to blast the Bush administration over its policy toward Iran, arguing that a new intelligence assessment proves that the administration has needlessly ratcheted up military rhetoric.

While the candidates differed somewhat over the level of threat Iran poses in the Mideast, most of them sought to liken the administration’s approach to Iran with its buildup to the war in Iraq.”

George Bush believed Iran was a threat that needed to be confronted.  Democrats like Barack Obama shrilly screamed him down.  This is therefore genuinely Barry Hussein’s mess, and it has become increasingly obvious that doesn’t have the stones to handle it.

America’s failure to wisely choose its 44th president leaves us in the greatest crisis we have ever known, both domestically and internationally.

And when the fecal matter hits the rotary oscillator, there won’t be anybody to bail us out.

We haven’t felt the impact of Iran starting a nuclear arms race in the heart of the craziest regime in the history of the human race.  But we will.  We haven’t yet experienced an Iran that will feel that it can launch terrorist jihad against the U.S. or anywhere else or even shut down the Strait of Hormuz and send gas prices through the stratosphere yet.  But we will.  And when we do, I can assure you that you will desperately wish that George Bush had been allowed to take out Iran’s building nuclear threat when we had the chance to do so without Armageddon.

Iran has had the know-how to build a nuclear bomb.  They already have enough material to build fifty nuclear weapons.  Thanks to Israel, they suffered a temporary setback.  But one day very, very soon America will be dealing with a rogue terrorist state that has a radical end-times doomsday worldview.

Let’s also recognize that George Bush got Congressional authorization before he attacked Afghanistan and he got Congressional authorization before he attacked Iraq.

Barack Obama, by marked contrast, took this nation to war against a country when we had not been attacked, and when there was no evidence whatsoever that we were about to be attacked.  According to the second ranking official in the Obama administration, Barack Obama has violated the Constitution and should be impeached and convicted and thrown out of office in disgrace.

Oh, by the way, it isn’t just Biden’s own words that make the case that Obama should be impeached and thrown out of office on one of his jumbo-size ears.  Obama should be impeached according to Obama:

“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,” Obama responded.

That’s what Obama said when George Bush – Obama’s superior in every way, and most specially in class – was in the White House.

The Obama Administration’s Clueless Response To The Egypt Crisis

If you look at Obama’s frankly miserable polls, you find that Obama is doing better on the Egypt crisis than any other issue:

February 9, 2011
Obama’s Approval Rating on Deficit Sinks to New Low
Egypt ranks among issues on which Obama is best rated
by Lydia Saad

PRINCETON, NJ — President Barack Obama’s approval rating for handling the federal budget deficit has gone from bad to worse in recent months, even as his ratings on all other major national issues have generally held steady. Currently, 27% of Americans approve of Obama on the deficit, down from 32% in November, while 68% disapprove.

Overall, Obama is doing much better on international issues than domestic ones. Among eight issues on which Obama was rated in the new poll, Americans give the president the highest approval ratings on foreign affairs and the situations in Egypt and Afghanistan. The deficit, the economy, and taxes rank among his lowest ratings, alongside healthcare policy.

And you find that 47% of those surveyed approved of Obama’s handling of Egypt.  Versus the 27% who approve of his handling of the deficit and the 37% who approve of his handling of the economy.

What is amazing is just what a remarkably incompetent job Obama has done in even his best rated issue.

Obama’s foolish mishandling of Egypt began before most of the rest of the nation knew anything about it.  The CIA said, “We warned of instability.”  And they warned Obama that the Mubarak regime could fall last year.  And like the kid who didn’t bother to start his term paper until the day after it was due, Obama did nothing.

Obama wasn’t “ahead” of the crisis in Egypt; he was so woefully behind and so hostile to actual positive reform it is almost funny.

After the crisis erupted with hundreds of thousands of Egyptians protesting in the streets, the Obama administration offered this pearl of ethical insight:

When asked if Mubarak was a dictator, Biden responded … I would not refer to him as a dictator.”

Said Obama administration observation came out the same day that dictator Mubarak shut down the entire internet in Egypt.

Then there was this penetrating analysis of the stability of the Mubarak regime by Obama’s Secretary of State Hillary Clinton:

The language coming out of the Obama Administration has verged on the bizarre as Egypt lurched into another political showdown in the streets on Friday…

“Our assessment is that the Egyptian government is stable and is looking for ways to respond to the legitimate needs and interests of the Egyptian people,” Secretary Clinton said earlier this week…

And as Dr. Phil often asks delusional morons, “How’s that working out for you?”

Then you have Obama’s director of National Intelligence with this unbelievably stupid misrepresentation of reality:

“The term ‘Muslim Brotherhood’…is an umbrella term for a variety of movements, in the case of Egypt, a very heterogeneous group, largely secular, which has eschewed violence and has decried Al Qaeda as a perversion of Islam,” Clapper said. “They have pursued social ends, a betterment of the political order in Egypt, et cetera…..In other countries, there are also chapters or franchises of the Muslim Brotherhood, but there is no overarching agenda, particularly in pursuit of violence, at least internationally.”

The Brotherhood uses the slogan, “Islam is the answer,” and generally advocates for government in accordance with Islamic principles. The movement has as a broad goal unifying what it perceives as Muslim lands, from Spain to Indonesia, as a “caliphate.”

James Clapper has simply got to go.  Clearly someone “clapped” his little light bulf off, and no one thought to clap it back on again.

What was the motto of this “largely secular” organization again?

“Allah is our objective.
The Prophet is our leader.
Qur’an is our law.
Jihad is our way.
Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.”

I’m sure that sounds “largely secular” to any drooling imbecile you might happen to ask.

That said, if we put drooling imbecile’s in charge of our mainstream media, we’d probably see an improvement.  A lot of the media have depicted the Muslim Brotherhood as though it were the Salvation Army.

What does the FBI have to say about the Muslim Brotherhood?

Muslim Brotherhood, the banned opposition political outfit in Egypt, supports terrorism according to FBI Director Robert Muller. Muller made the statement during a Congressional hearing on Thursday where lawmakers said that the group is using peaceful protests in Egypt to grab power.

 “Elements of the Muslim Brotherhood here and overseas have supported terrorism,” Muller said in response to a question at a hearing on “Worldwide Threats” by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Muller, who refrained to give any further information in an open session, said that the United States has no relationship with Muslim Brotherhood.

What else can we know about the Muslim Brotherhood?

the Muslim Brotherhood or Ikhwan Al Muslimun in Arabic, is frequently mentioned in relation to groups such as Hamas and Al Qaeda. And, although today they may be best known as the largest independent bloc in the Egyptian parliament, they are nearly always invoked as the origins for extremist visions of Islam that root today’s jihadist movements.

The Muslim Brotherhood were the prototypical terrorist organization, in the same way that the Italian Mafia was the prototypical criminal gang organization.  I would submit that it has become rather like the Sinn Féin to the Irish Republican Army.  It is the political and propaganda wing of the armed terrorist movement.

Many of today’s top terrorist leaders, such as #2 overall al Qaeda leader Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri, came out of the Muslim Brotherhood.  But that’s nothing, because the #1 overall leader of al Qaeda – Osama bin Laden – came out of it too.

And then there are the words of the current Muslim Brotherhood leader, Mohammed Badie:

“Arab and Muslim regimes are betraying their people by failing to confront the Muslim’s real enemies, not only Israel but also the United States. Waging jihad against both of these infidels is a commandment of Allah that cannot be disregarded. Governments have no right to stop their people from fighting the United States. “They are disregarding Allah’s commandment to wage jihad for His sake with [their] money and [their] lives, so that Allah’s word will reign supreme” over all non-Muslims.”

DNI James Clapper came by his genuine moral idiocy honestly; he caught it from his commander-in-chief.

For the record, one of Obama’s invited guests for his 2009 Cairo speech was the Muslim Brotherhood.  Apparently, Obama wanted them to pursue “democracy” and take over the country.

Since the violence erupted and the Egyptian government began to melt down, Obama has made public statements that the Egyptian foreign ministry said “inflame the internal situation in Egypt.”  Which of course means more riots and more violence.  But that shouldn’t be too surprising, given the fact that we find from the Wikileaks documents that the Obama administration has been backing rebels in Egypt practially since George Bush started moving his furniture out of the White House.

Obama has – incredibly – welcomed a role for the Muslim Brotherhood and that organization’s seventy-year-long push for sharia law as the law of the land in Egypt.

That’s the craziest, most clueless and most incompetent thing of all about this story.

Mind you, Obama hasn’t given a damn that the Coptic Christians are excluded from participating in their government while he pushes for a role for the terrorist Muslim Brotherhood.  All that matters is that the beloved Muslim Brotherhood be included.  This is similar to Obama calling for a brand new mosque to be built near Ground Zero, while doing nothing to help rebuild an existing Greek Orthodox Christian church that got destroyed.  Why doesn’t Obama’s inclusiveness always have a way of excluding Christianity and including Islam?

There’s talk of democracy in Egypt.  It certainly could happen; but it’s totally theoretical at this point.  Right now the only democracy in the Middle East is Israel.  And this is how Israel feels about the situation on their western border:

(Reuters) – If Egypt’s President Hosni Mubarak is toppled, Israel will lose one of its very few friends in a hostile neighborhood and President Barack Obama will bear a large share of the blame, Israeli pundits said on Monday.

Political commentators expressed shock at how the United States as well as its major European allies appeared to be ready to dump a staunch strategic ally of three decades, simply to conform to the current ideology of political correctness.

Obama can either pat himself on the back or walk away from Egypt.  As things go well, Obama was absolutely central to everything (e.g., Chris Matthews having another tingle go up his leg: “it took Obama to have this happen“); as things go poorly, Obama had absolutely nothing to do with it.  Meanwhile, Israel has to live next door to whatever happens.  And they’re bitter over Obama’s betrayal of both a historic ally (and just what is the point of being a U.S. ally when Backstabber Hussein Obama will throw you under the bus the nanosecond it’s convenient for him to do so???) and of Israel itself.

The funniest thing of all – after listening to Obama’s speech on the situation in Egypt, in which he inserted himself by using his “this is the moment, this is the time” refrain – was this from ABC’s Jake Tapper:

“Also worth keeping in mind: cant find anyone in O admin who thinks whatever comes next will be better for U.S. interests than Mubarak was”

While I believe that Egypt will not ultimately fall into the terrorist faction of the growing list of rogue Islamist regimes, I can assure you my belief has nothing to do with Barack Obama.

Rather, I would argue that if this is what Obama has done best, then it truly testifies to just how incredibly incompetent and contemptible Barack Obama truly is.

Obama Continues To Sell Out Our Allies In Order To Appease Our Enemies

The following is simplyyet another layer of icing on the “I-told-you-so-cake” I baked a long time ago.

Obama simply can’t stop selling out and undermining America’s closest allies in order to appease America’s enemies.  It is in his DNA.  It is what he is.

First, let’s start with our closest ally of all:

WikiLeaks cables: US agrees to tell Russia Britain’s nuclear secrets
The US secretly agreed to give the Russians sensitive information on Britain’s nuclear deterrent to persuade them to sign a key treaty, The Daily Telegraph can disclose.
By Matthew Moore, Gordon Rayner and Christopher Hope 9:25PM GMT 04 Feb 2011

Information about every Trident missile the US supplies to Britain will be given to Russia as part of an arms control deal signed by President Barack Obama next week.

Defence analysts claim the agreement risks undermining Britain’s policy of refusing to confirm the exact size of its nuclear arsenal.

The fact that the Americans used British nuclear secrets as a bargaining chip also sheds new light on the so-called “special relationship”, which is shown often to be a one-sided affair by US diplomatic communications obtained by the WikiLeaks website.

[…]

A series of classified messages sent to Washington by US negotiators show how information on Britain’s nuclear capability was crucial to securing Russia’s support for the “New START” deal.

Although the treaty was not supposed to have any impact on Britain, the leaked cables show that Russia used the talks to demand more information about the UK’s Trident missiles, which are manufactured and maintained in the US.

Washington lobbied London in 2009 for permission to supply Moscow with detailed data about the performance of UK missiles. The UK refused, but the US agreed to hand over the serial numbers of Trident missiles it transfers to Britain.

Professor Malcolm Chalmers said: “This appears to be significant because while the UK has announced how many missiles it possesses, there has been no way for the Russians to verify this. Over time, the unique identifiers will provide them with another data point to gauge the size of the British arsenal.”

Duncan Lennox, editor of Jane’s Strategic Weapons Systems, said: “They want to find out whether Britain has more missiles than we say we have, and having the unique identifiers might help them.”

While the US and Russia have long permitted inspections of each other’s nuclear weapons, Britain has sought to maintain some secrecy to compensate for the relatively small size of its arsenal.

William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, last year disclosed that “up to 160” warheads are operational at any one time, but did not confirm the number of missiles.

This from the quivering pile of slime who sent back the bust of Winston Churchill that England gave America after 9/11 like it was junk.  I guess Obama felt like Churchill – a great man – was mocking the naive turd who was putting his feet up on the desk of the Oval Office.

Obama promised to restore American prestige that was somehow lost – according to the liberal narrative – by George Bush.  He has been an abject disgrace.

Also in the news that is going on before our very eyes, Barack Obama has turned his back on the Egyptian leader who has been a key American ally for presidents of both parties for thirty years.  And even uber liberals such as Chris Matthews are disgusted by Obama’s treatment:

“And Barack Obama, as much I support him in many ways, there is a transitional quality to the guy that is chilling.” He added, “I believe in relationships…You treat your friends a certain way. You’re loyal to them.”

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2011/02/04/chris-matthews-obamas-response-egypt-crisis-makes-me-ashamed-america#ixzz1DFDId2MT

The problem is that Obama is as loyal to his allies as a rattlesnake.  And his fangs are just as poisonous.

The special envoy that Obama himself picked to go to Egypt – and the former ambassador to Egypt – Frank Wisner said this:

“We need to get a national consensus around the pre-conditions for the next step forward. The president must stay in office to steer those changes,” he told the Munich Security Conference on Saturday.

“I believe that President Mubarak’s continued leadership is critical – it’s his chance to write his own legacy.

“He has given 60 years of his life to the service of his country, this is an ideal moment for him to show the way forward.”

Wisner’s own many years of service to his country didn’t much matter in a fascinating turn of events in which Obama distanced himself from and recalled his very own special envoy.

But Obama doesn’t just undermine and backstab American allies; he appeases American enemies, too.  Obama went from specially inviting the pro-terrorist Muslim Brotherhood to his Cairo speech in 2009 to specifically embracing a role for the pro-terrorist Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt’s new government.  Which has got to be salt in Hosni Mubarak’s wounds given the fact that he spent his entire life trying to prevent terrorist organizations from establishing a foothold in Egypt.

Israel – America’s second closest ally after only England which Obama has repeatedly screwed and spurned – also feels betrayed by Obama and shocked at Obama’s betrayal of Mubarak:

(Reuters) – If Egypt’s President Hosni Mubarak is toppled, Israel will lose one of its very few friends in a hostile neighborhood and President Barack Obama will bear a large share of the blame, Israeli pundits said on Monday.

Political commentators expressed shock at how the United States as well as its major European allies appeared to be ready to dump a staunch strategic ally of three decades, simply to conform to the current ideology of political correctness.

Is Hosni Mubarak a dicator?  Of course he is.  And Joe Biden once again proved he is a fool for saying otherwise.  But the problem is that we’re going to end up with a dictator one way or another in Egypt because Muslims are ungovernable as a people by any other type of leadership.  The only question is whether it will end up with a pro-American dictator like it has had for thirty years or a viciously ANTI-American dictator like Iran that resulted from the last time a liberal president decided to naively prove what a fool he was in Jimmy Cater and the Ayatollah who replaced the Shah.

Obama is determined to dump Mubarak and is seemingly doing everything he can to make sure that the pro-terrorist Muslim Brotherhood take his place.

One day America will recognize that Barack Obama destroyed our most vital relationships to appease our worst enemies.  And got absolutely nothing for it.

This betrayal of American allies is nothing new to Barry Hussein.  He’s done it to many other former American allies, such as Poland, Czeckoslovakia and Georgia.  Like I said, it’s who he is.

But what else would one expect from the president of “God damn America“?

On the Malicious Connection Between Conservatives And Hate

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

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

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

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

1) The hatred of conservatives by the left:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I believe by now I’ve made my point.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obama Total Failure As Leader: Even Uber Liberals Throwing Obama Overboard In Gulf Disaster

If you see Obama covered in oil, it’s because a gang of liberals shoved him overboard into the sticky muck.

It appears that things are really getting desperate for the left.  Leftwing journalists, who have always been such reliable propagandists for Democrats, might finally be at that point where they realize if they don’t report the truth, their viewers will go to those that will.

From the gang of liberals at MSNBC:

MSNBC Trashes Obama’s Address: Compared To Carter, “I Don’t Sense Executive Command” Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann and Howard Fineman react to President Obama’s Oval Office Address on the oil spill. Here are the highlights of what the trio said:

Olbermann: “It was a great speech if you were on another planet for the last 57 days.”

Matthews compared Obama to Carter.

Olbermann: “Nothing specific at all was said.”

Matthews: “No direction.”

Howard Fineman: “He wasn’t specific enough.”

Olbermann: “I don’t think he aimed low, I don’t think he aimed at all. It’s startling.”

Howard Fineman: Obama should be acting like a “commander-in-chief.”

Matthews: Ludicrous that he keeps saying [Secretary of Energy] Chu has a Nobel prize. “I’ll barf if he does it one more time.”

Matthews: “A lot of meritocracy, a lot of blue ribbon talk.”

Matthews: “I don’t sense executive command.”

VIDEO: Obama: Oil Disaster “Most Painful And Powerful Reminder” That We Need Clean Energy

VIDEO: Krauthammer: Obama Gave It A Shot, But The Story Will Not Be His Speech

VIDEO: Frank Luntz Focus Group On Obama’s Address: “Negative”

Here’s the Youtube video in which the above comments were made:

From the New York Times:

From the beginning, the effort has been bedeviled by a lack of preparation, organization, urgency and clear lines of authority among federal, state and local officials, as well as BP. As a result, officials and experts say, the damage to the coastline and wildlife has been worse than it might have been if the response had been faster and orchestrated more effectively.

“The present system is not working,” Senator Bill Nelson of Florida said Thursday at a hearing in Washington devoted to assessing the spill and the response. Oil had just entered Florida waters, Senator Nelson said, adding that no one was notified at either the state or local level, a failure of communication that echoed Mr. Bonano’s story and countless others along the Gulf Coast.

“The information is not flowing,” Senator Nelson said. “The decisions are not timely. The resources are not produced. And as a result, you have a big mess, with no command and control.”

They were supposed to be better prepared. When the Exxon Valdez ran aground in Alaska in 1989, skimmers, booms and dispersants were in short supply for the response, which was led by a consortium of oil companies in which BP was the majority stakeholder.

A year later, lawmakers passed the federal Oil Pollution Act to ensure that plans were in place for oil spills, so the response effort would be quick, with clear responsibilities for everyone involved.

No skimmers were available when the Exxon Valdes ran aground.  And – thanks to our fool-in-chief Barry Hussein – when we had a chance to get some much needed assistance to supply much-needed skimmers, Barry apparently thought they said, “We’d like to send you winners” and turned them down fearing they would make him look bad.

U.S. and BP slow to accept Dutch expertiseBy LOREN STEFFY –  Houston Chronicle – 06/08/2010

Three days after the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon in the Gulf of Mexico, the Dutch government offered to help.

It was willing to provide ships outfitted with oil-skimming booms, and it proposed a plan for building sand barriers to protect sensitive marshlands.

The response from the Obama administration and BP, which are coordinating the cleanup: “The embassy got a nice letter from the administration that said, ‘Thanks, but no thanks,’” said Geert Visser, consul general for the Netherlands in Houston.

Now, almost seven weeks later, as the oil spewing from the battered well spreads across the Gulf and soils pristine beaches and coastline, BP and our government have reconsidered.

So we’ve got this complete, unmitigated, and inexcusable disaster:

Had Obama accepted the offer back then and not allowed BP to use illegal dispersants, the oil would have never made landfall 48 miles away.

Today, (a month and half to late) there are US tankers that are steaming to the site with four pairs of modern skimming booms that were airlifted from the Netherlands and should be sucking up oil at the flow site within days.

Each pair can process 5 million gallons of water a day, removing 20,000 tons of oil and sludge.

If those skimmers were in place when they were offered a month ago, each pair could presumably recover 4.4 million barrels of oil. Four pairs of the state of the art skimmers would be able to suck up 17.6 million barrels in a month, although they will not be able to reach the depths of the plumes that are floating away with the illegal dispersants.

Thirteen nations offered to give us help to mitigate this massive disaster.  And Obama basically wrote, “To whom it may concern, please to get the hell out of my business” letters to all of them.

And, of course, this failure is too big for just one inexcusable and stupid and unforgivable abandonment of leadership, judgment, and basic common sense.  In addition to the “Thanks, but up yours” response to other nations’ offers to supply skimmers, Obama also allowed MILES of boom that would have been hugely important in protecting the coasts to sit useless in warehouses:

UNBELIEVABLE! How’s this for HOPE AND CHANGE?

Tar blobs began washing up on Florida’s white sand beaches near Pensacola this past weekend. Crude oil has already been reported along barrier islands in Alabama and Mississippi, and has impacted about 125 miles of Louisiana coastline.

It didn’t have to be this way.

(Reuters)
There are miles of floating oil containment boom in warehouse right now and the manufacturer Packgen says it can make lots more on short notice.
There’s just one problem… No one will come get it.

It’s unfair to compare Bush’s failure at the 500-year hurricane striking the worst possible location with Obama’s failure in this oil leak disaster – Obama’s failure is incommensurately worse.

And the American people know it.  A new poll–by a left leaning public opinion firm–finds that:

Our new Louisiana poll has a lot of data points to show how unhappy voters in the state are with Barack Obama’s handling of the oil spill but one perhaps sums it up better than anything else- a majority of voters there think George W. Bush did a better job with Katrina than Obama’s done dealing with the spill.

50% of voters in the state, even including 31% of Democrats, give Bush higher marks on that question compared to 35% who pick Obama.

Since Obama was elected, I’ve been saying that a third of American voters would continue to support Obama even if he led us into the stone-age-like conditions that Kim Il Jong has led his people into.  We could be living in the dark and freezing at night, and scratching our own fecal matter from the ground in order to have something to burn, and this group of people would still adore their Dear Leader.

And what is Obama’s response to this terrible crisis?  Well, his golf game certainly hasn’t suffered in any way.  He’s been very busy doing fundraisers so his fellow liberal buddies can have a chance to stay in office.  He got a nice vacation in.

Oh, and he gave a speech.  A speech in which Obama sought to seize advantage of the disaster in order to impose his monstrous and disastrous cap-and-trade system that would cause energy prices to “necessarily skyrocket.”  Obama is no leader who can possibly solve this crisis; he is rather a demagogic community organizer who can only seek to ideologically benefit from the crisis.

And MSNBC and the New York Times aren’t the only liberals who realize the disastrous and disgraceful failure that Obama has been.  Longtime liberal Democrat political strategist James Carville realized it.  Liberal journalist and former Clinton administration public affairs hack Kirsten Powers realized it.  I’m sure a lot of other liberal media pukes are realizing that we’re coming to the place where they either throw Obama overboard for his incompetence, or demonstrate that they themselves are clearly incompetent in their analysis.

I like the way the American Thinker concludes on Obama’s performance:

The utter lack of leadership and hands-on management in responding to the Gulf oil crisis is an embarrassment to the President, as well as a hideous disaster for the Gulf and those who live near it. Can Obama’s first-ever Oval Office address make the damage to his standing go away? I seriously doubt it. Obama has failed in his duty to protect the homeland through sheer inexperience, incompetence, and indolence. The man who has planty of time for golf, hoops, parties, and fund-raisers is asleep at the switch when it comes to making the system respond effectively to an emergency. There is no papering over the spectacle with rhetoric.

.

Rabid, Frothing, Anti-Conservative Mainstream Media Once Again Shows How Full Of Hypocrisy They Are

As usual the most recent flare-up began with Obama, the most polarizing President in history.  He says jump, and his rabid reporter rodents ask, “How high?”

(CBS) President Obama has noticed the “vitriol” in the nation’s political atmosphere these days and says it’s time both sides cooled it.

In a brief interview with “The Early Show” co-anchor Harry Smith Thursday before they shot some hoops on the White House basketball court, Mr. Obama called the extreme nature of some of the barbs directed his way on conservative talk shows “troublesome.” He also said he’s “concerned about a political climate in which the other side is demonized” – an observation meant for both Republicans and Democrats.

The remarks came in response to Smith telling him he’s been listening to talk radio and “the kindest of terms you’re sometimes referred to out in America is ‘a Socialist.’ The worst of which I’ve heard is — called ‘a Nazi.”‘

Asked by Smith whether he’s “aware of the level of enmity that crosses the airwaves and that people have made part of their daily conversation” about him, Mr. Obama replied, “Well — I mean, I think that — when you’ve listened to Rush Limbaugh or Glen Beck it’s …”

“It’s beyond that,” Smith interjected.

“It’s pretty – apparent,” the president continued, “and — it’s troublesome. But — you know, keep in mind that there have been periods in American history where this kind of — this kind of vitriol comes out. It happens often when — you’ve got an economy that is making people more anxious and people are feeling that there’s a lot of change that needs to take place. But that’s not the vast majority of Americans.”

We don’t know what Harry Smith was going to say after, “It’s beyond that.”  It would seem he was going to point out the obvious fact that a LOT more people than just Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck listeners are white hot angry with Obama, based on all the polls.  I would further point out that as someone who routinely listens to both programs I am fairly certain that neither Limbaugh or Beck have EVER called Obama a “Nazi,” and that in point of fact Obama is quite actually demonizing Limbaugh and Beck in making that implication.

Obama says we should cool the “vitriol,” and then immediately starts vitriolically demagoguery conservatives.  I would tell Obama that if he doesn’t like vitriol, maybe he should stop using it so damn much.  And if he doesn’t like demonization, why won’t he quit demonizing?

You want to know who DID specifically label the president a Nazi?

You want to hear another one?  How about MSNBC anchor Keith Olbermann, who, in a rant specifically directed at George Bush said:

“There is a dictionary definition, one word that describes that toxic blend.  You‘re a fascist—get them to print you a T-shirt with “fascist” on it.”

Then there was Sheldon Drobny, the financial power behind the ultimately failed liberal radio station Air America.  He writes that “Very few Americans know that Prescott Bush, our president’s grandfather, supplied Nazi Germany with such assistance.”  Based on what historical source?  Lyndon LaRouche, socialist meathead.  In the same article, Air America’s founder says:

The corporate masters and their current spokesman, George W. Bush, promote a dangerous policy of pre-emptive warfare.  They use exactly the same excuses Hitler used to sell to the public his maniacal desire to conquer Europe.  The real power for Hitler came from his corporate backers, who willingly supplied him the tools to execute his plan, their reward being profit.

You want to know which major political power player really was a Nazi in every single sense of the word?  Try George Soros.  The guy who has funded The Center for American Progress, MoveOn.org, Democracy Alliance, America Coming Together, and Media Matters.  There are other liberal organizations such as the Fund for America and the Tides Foundation.

Anyway, Chris Matthews apparently heard Obama talk about conservative “vitriol” and the name “Rush Limbaugh” and took it as a command from his messiah who makes his leg tingle to demonize Rush Limbaugh for whatever Matthews could twist as being “vitriolic.”  And the evil-monger word of the day became “regime.”

Rush Limbaugh, Chris Matthews and the ‘regime’ question
By: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent
04/03/10 8:08 PM EDT

On Friday, I asked Rush Limbaugh for his response to President Obama’s description of him as “troublesome” and of his program as “vitriol.” Limbaugh told me he does not believe Obama is trying to do what is best for the country and added, “Never in my life have I seen a regime like this, governing against the will of the people, purposely.”

By using the word “regime,” Limbaugh was doing something he does all the time: throwing the language of the opposition back in their faces. In the Bush years, we often heard the phrase “Bush regime” from some quarters of the left. So Limbaugh applied it to Obama.

Apparently some people didn’t get it. On MSNBC, Chris Matthews appeared deeply troubled by the word. “I’ve never seen language like this in the American press,” he said, “referring to an elected representative government, elected in a totally fair, democratic, American election — we will have another one in November, we’ll have another one for president in a couple years — fair, free, and wonderful democracy we have in this country…. We know that word, ‘regime.’ It was used by George Bush, ‘regime change.’ You go to war with regimes. Regimes are tyrannies. They’re juntas. They’re military coups. The use of the word ‘regime’ in American political parlance is unacceptable, and someone should tell the walrus [Limbaugh] to stop using it.”

Matthews didn’t stop there. “I never heard the word ‘regime,’ before, have you?” he said to NBC’s Chuck Todd. “I don’t even think Joe McCarthy ever called this government a ‘regime.'”

It appears that Matthews has suffered a major memory loss. I don’t have the facilities to search for every utterance of Joe McCarthy, but a look at more recent times reveals many, many, many examples of the phrase “Bush regime.” In fact, a search of the Nexis database for “Bush regime” yields 6,769 examples from January 20, 2001 to the present.

It was used 16 times in the New York Times, beginning with an April 4, 2001 column by Maureen Dowd — who wrote, “Seventy-five days into the Bush regime and I’m a wreck” — and ending with a March 6, 2009 editorial denouncing the “frightening legal claim advanced by the Bush regime to justify holding [accused terrorist Ali al-Marri].”

“Bush regime” was used 24 times in the Washington Post, beginning with a January 22, 2001 profile of Marshall Wittmann by Howard Kurtz — who noted that Wittmann served as “a Health and Human Services deputy assistant secretary in the first Bush regime” — and ending with an October 6, 2009 column by Dana Milbank which quoted far-left antiwar protester Medea Benjamin questioning whether the Obama administration “looks very different from the Bush regime.”

Perhaps Matthews missed all of those references. If he did, he still might have heard the phrase the many times it was uttered on his own network, MSNBC. For example, on January 8 of this year, Democratic Rep. Joe Sestak said that, “In George Bush’s regime, only one million jobs had been created…” On August 21, 2009, MSNBC’s Ed Schultz referred to something that happened in 2006, when “the Bush regime was still in power.” On October 8, 2007, Democratic strategist Steve McMahon said that “the middle class has not fared quite as well under Bush regime as…” On August 10, 2007, MSNBC played a clip of anti-war protester Cindy Sheehan referring to “the people of Iraq and Afghanistan that have been tragically harmed by the Bush regime.” On September 21, 2006, a guest referred to liberals “expressing their dissatisfaction with the Bush regime.” On July 7, 2004, Ralph Nader — appearing with Matthews on “Hardball” — discussed how he would “take apart the Bush regime.” On May 26, 2003, Joe Scarborough noted a left-wing website that “has published a deck of Bush regime playing cards.” A September 26, 2002 program featured a viewer email that said, “The Bush regime rhetoric gets goofier and more desperate every day.”

Finally — you knew this was coming — on June 14, 2002, Chris Matthews himself introduced a panel discussion about a letter signed by many prominent leftists condemning the Bush administration’s conduct of the war on terror. “Let’s go to the Reverend Al Sharpton,” Matthews said. “Reverend Sharpton, what do you make of this letter and this panoply of the left condemning the Bush regime?”

Oops. Perhaps Joe McCarthy never called the U.S. government a regime, but Chris Matthews did. And a lot of other people did, too. So now we are supposed to believe him when he expresses disgust at Rush Limbaugh doing the same?

In other words, at the very, very worst, the left can really only accuse the right of doing the very things that the left themselves have repeatedly done.  They are in effect saying, “How DARE you be loathsome vile cockroaches like us!  WE’RE the loathsome vile cockroaches in this country.  That’s OUR THING!!!”

If the mainstream media were in any way honest, they would be reporting, “Left accuses right of being nearly as vile as left.”  But they AREN’T honest.  So they report Bart Stupak’s receiving hateful phone calls from the right after voting for ObamaCare, but ignore the fact that Stupak received hateful phone calls from the left when he said he would vote against ObamaCare.

The media is largely comprised of fundamentally dishonest people distorting the actual picture due to very-left-of-center political ideology and worldview.

The mainline media does this crap so often it’s beyond amazing.  They report mere contrived allegations of “right wing” violence even as they ignored documented facts of left wing violence.  As one example, it was widely presented in the media that Rep. Emanuel Cleaver was spat upon at a tea party rally.  It was assumed as a fact even though there was no actual evidence of spitting, and even Rep. Cleaver refused to claim that he had been spat at.  No matter: the demagogic allegation was enough.

Then there was the Sarah Palin “crosshairs” charge.  Sarah Palin used “targets” to “threaten” Democrats in vulnerable districts.  Oh, how the media frothed over THAT.  Of course, the same media that reported again and again that Sarah Palin was a dangerous extremist refused to report on the fact that both the Democrat Leadership Committee and the Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) had used crosshair symbols on THEIR maps.  As opposed to Sarah Palin, who had actually merely used surveyor’s symbols.

And Sarah Palin’s “reload” comment was every bit as “hateful” or “inciting” as Barack Obama’s “Fired up!”  His statement was properly understood in context, while Sarah Palin’s statement was stripped of context and demonized, but a fundamentally dishonest media.

Most of the mainstream media are not journalists.  They are propagandists.

And the double-standard they constantly fall back upon is demonic.

Dan Rather: ‘Obama Couldn’t Sell Watermelons’

We can only wonder what would have happened if Fox News anchor emeritus Brit Hume had said the following:

“Part of the undertow in the coming election is going to be President Obama’s leadership. And the Republicans will make a case and a lot of independents will buy this argument. “Listen he just hasn’t been, look at the health care bill. It was his number one priority. It took him forever to get it through and he had to compromise it to death.” And a version of, “Listen he’s a nice person, he’s very articulate” this is what’s been used against him, “but he couldn’t sell watermelons if it, you gave him the state troopers to flag down the traffic.”

[Youtube]

If Brit Hume had said that, the left would have ripped their robes in self-righteous outrage and shouted, “BLASPHEMY!”

But it wasn’t Brit Hume who said that our first black president couldn’t sell watermelons.  It was liberal legend Dan Rather who said it.

And so instead of pulling out every stop to label the statement as a rant of typical racist conservative hate, the same media talking heads who would have been all over this story are either omitting it completely or else giving it the “he didn’t really mean it” spin job.

Chris Matthews jumped in with a frenzy to prevent liberal icon Dan Rather from saying something even more stupid or more racist.

Chris Matthews – who once managed to forget Barack Obama was black for a whole entire hour – apparently had his memory jogged when Dan Rather started spouting off about Obama and watermelons.

If Rather had been given a chance to fully explain himself, maybe he would have said something like, “Obama couldn’t sell watermelons.  What he needs to do is sell something he CAN sell.  Maybe he can’t sell watermelons, so he should sell fried chicken instead.”

And it’s such a shame that Obama couldn’t even manage to sell watermelons if the (presumably white) state troopers were out helping him.  I mean, after all – as Harry Reid can vouch – Obama is a ‘light-skinned’ African American ‘with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one,’ and you’d think he could have a fine career in roadside watermelon sales.

And Bill Clinton would hastily point out that if Obama didn’t have the knack for selling watermelons (or fried chickens), he could fulfill his true calling of serving his betters their coffee.

All of that is just the very recent stuff.

And these are the very sort of slime who have repeatedly characterized conservatives and Republicans as being “racists” when they’ve got more racism in their pinky fingers.

George Allen was a Senator and a leading hopeful for president when he said one word which so outraged Democrats that they ended his career.  He didn’t talk about black people selling watermelons; he didn’t try to lecture on the advantages of ‘light skinned’ African Americans vis-a-vie the “darkies” who were more likely to suffer from “Negro dialect”; he didn’t suggest that a man who is now president of the United States would have or should have been serving coffee instead.  He used a single word – macaca – that required a study in etymology to suggest that it might just possibly be racist.

There was no suggestion that Allen wasn’t a racist, or that he probably meant something else, or that there should be forgiveness, or even that we need to get past the ‘gotcha’ moments.  They simply screamed that he was a racist and destroyed him.

And there’s your selective tolerance of liberals.

Which is why we always seem to have a cult of pardon for liberals, to counterbalance the cult of demonization that the very same people who pardon the liberals apply to conservatives.

I’m not inclined to assume that Dan Rather is a racist.  That seems to be the prerogative of liberals.

But I am more than inclined to point out that these people are a bunch of  self-righteous hypocritical slimeballs.

Obama Calls For Tolerance And Civility While His Rabid Rodents Throw Hate Bombs

I hate Obama’s Marxist policies, certainly enough.  But the thing I despise most about Barack Obama is his galling personal hypocrisy.

He is a man who makes a false promise that he never keeps, and then continually congratulates himself about those very same promises.  He promised transparency that he never delivered, but keeps talking it up as though he really DIDN’T have  his meetings on “transparency” closed to the public and the media; and as though he really DID put the health care negotiations on C-SPAN like he promised at least 8 times on video; as though his ObamaCare WEREN’T so secretive that even senior Democrats admitted they were completely in the dark; and as though Obama really WEREN’T denying the media of access far worse than his predecessors had ever done.  He patted himself on the back for getting lobbyists out of Washington as if his administration DIDN’T have at least30 of them on the payroll; and attacked lobbyists at his state of the union as if he DIDN’T have a schmoochy meeting scheduled with them for the very next day.  He promised to end earmarks, then signed a bill that had nearly 9,000 of them – and just instructed Democrats to submit their earmark requests for the upcoming budget even as he told the country that he was “calling on Congress to continue down the path of earmark reform.”  And all I can say when Obama talks about reforming earmarks now is that it is too damn bad we didn’t elect John McCain.

The left is angry at Obama’s failed promises (a failed promise = a lie, by the way) as well.  Obama promised to close Gitmo.  He lied.  Obama promised to have had the troops home from Iraq by now.  He lied.  Obama promised to resolve the conflict in Afghanistan with his own personal magnificence.  And more than TWICE as many American soldiers gave their lives under Obama in Afghanistan in 2009 than during Bush’s last year in office.

Is it any wonder that he is the most polarizing president we have ever seen?

But Obama’s signature lie was his cynical promise from the most radically leftist Senator in Congress to transcend the political divide and bring the parties together.  Democrats, of course, blame Republicans; but it wasn’t the Republicans who promised to do it, was it?  The president who mockingly told Republicans “I won” when they tried to talk to him, and who repeatedly demonized Republicans for their “failed policies of the past,” is now actually upset that Republicans would take anything approaching the same attitude with him that he took with them.

We’re not supposed to be able to talk about HIS failed policies after he attacked us about a hundred million times with the very same claim?

Is it any wonder that his polls are now even LOWER than they were before he gave that deceitful state of the union?

Obama wants conservatives to lay down their arms even as his cockroach minions continue to shrilly attack them.  Apparently he truly thinks people are that stupid.

Here were Obama’s words at the national prayer breakfast (which he ultimately politicized, because the man just can’t help himself):

Obama at “national prayer breakfast”: The President calls for tolerance and civility

At the event of the “national prayer breakfast” in Washington on Thursday, U.S. President Barack Obama has urged his fellow countrymen to adhere to the ‘spirit of civility’, affirming that “civility is not a sign of weakness”.

The event which attracts leading political, religious and business leaders was witness to the famous oratorical power of the US president.

“Too often that spirit (of civility) is missing without the spectacular tragedy,” Mr. Obama said. “We become numb to the day-to-day crises. We become absorbed with our abstract arguments, our ideological disputes, and our contests for power. And in this tower of babble, we lose the sound of God’s voice.”

He remarked that we should be open to differing views and make a concerted effort to abandon the cynicism and skepticism that have done enough harm to American politics already.

Obama has repeatedly dishonestly demonized Republicans as obstructionists and hatemongers – which, for the record, is a very obstructionistic and hatemongering thing for him to do.

In his Q and A session with House Republicans, Obama said:

I mean, the fact of the matter is is that many of you, if you voted with the administration on something, are politically vulnerable in your own base, in your own party. You’ve given yourselves very little room to work in a bipartisan fashion because what you’ve been telling your constituents is, “This guy’s doing all kinds of crazy stuff that’s going to destroy America.”

And how are Democrats supposed to embrace Republican ideas in a bipartisan fashion when Democrats just like YOU repeatedly demonize George Bush and demagogue Republicans for “the failed ideas of the past,” Mr. Hussein?

There’s a joke that Obama finally honored George Bush by naming the tectonic region beneath Haiti as “Bush’s Fault.”  It’s not far from the truth.

Does Barry Husein seriously not realize that every single Democrat in the Senate voted for ObamaCare (not withstanding the outright bribes such as the Louisiana Purchase and the Nebraska Purchase)?  Since when is it that every single Democrat voting for a Democrat bill is good, but every single Republican voting against a Democrat bill is bad?  Wouldn’t both Republicans AND Democrats be voting both for and against a bipartisan bill?

Since Democrats love to claim about how “bipartisan” they have been, I would love to see a Democrat offer me a list reciting 100 specific instances in which Obama or Democrats have said, “We’ll do this your way” on significant elements of any and all legislation.

It would be nice if Obama and Democrats paid attention to the giant log in their own eyes.  Just for once in their lives.

Meanwhile, Obama’s supporters are like frothing-mouth rabid vermin:

New York Slimes I mean Times columnist Frank Rich:

New York Times columnist Frank Rich would have rebelled against the notion that opposing President Bush’s policies was unpatriotic. But he can shamelessly declare that opposing Obama’s agenda is unpatriotic – even if you’re John McCain. Rich wrote on Sunday:

If [Harry] Reid can serve as the face of Democratic fecklessness in the Senate, then John McCain epitomizes the unpatriotic opposition. On Wednesday night he could be seen sneering when Obama pointed out that most of the debt vilified by Republicans happened on the watch of a Republican president and Congress that never paid for “two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program.”

Rich wasn’t going to find it ridiculous that Obama was blaming Bush for an “expensive” Medicare entitlement that Democrats voted for and/or felt wasn’t expensive enough – just as Obama blames Bush for the deficit effects of TARP, which he voted for.

It should be remembered that John McCain spent something like six years in the hellhole of the Hanoi Hilton in Vietnam and suffered terribly physically as a result.  To accuse him of being “unpatriotic” after what he went through for his country is a disgrace from a disgrace of a newspaper.

Not to be outdone as a moral disgrace, Chris Matthews basically compared the Republican Party to the leftist communist regime that murdered well over a million people:

Chris Matthews: Far Right Republicans Like Cambodian Regime (VIDEO)

Huffington Post   |  Danny Shea First Posted: 02- 1-10 05:36 PM   |   Updated: 02- 1-10 05:59 PM

Chris Matthews compared the far right wing of the Republican Party to the Khmer Rouge, the genocidal Cambodian communist party led by Pol Pot, in MSNBC’s coverage of President Obama’s Q&A with House Republicans Friday night.

“The Republican Party is under assault from its far right,” Matthews said. “I don’t think I can remember either party being under assault by its extremes. I mean, there seems to be a new sort of purity test that unless you’re far right, you’re not a Republican, and this sort of tea party testing they’re doing now.”

Matthews called the party’s pull from the far right “frightening” in comparing it to the Cambodian regime.

“So what’s going on out there in the Republican Party is kind of frightening,” he said, “almost Cambodia reeducation camp going on in that party, where they’re going around to people, sort of switching their minds around saying, ‘If you’re not far right, you’re not right enough.’ And I think that it’s really – there’s going to be a lot of extreme language on the Republican side. And maybe, it will be a circular firing squad when this is all over.”

Just two days prior, Matthews came under fire for saying that he forgot President Obama was black for an hour while watching his State of the Union, a post-racial comment he would later clarify.

So let’s understand, this closet bigoted turd who is continuously aware of Obama’s blackness (light-skinned blackness with no Negro dialect only, mind you!) says that there’s a lot of extreme language coming from the Republican side — but only AFTER comparing those same Republicans to a communist regime that systematically murdered 1.7 million of their own people.

And speaking of bigoted turds….

Rachel Maddog I mean Maddow:

Maddow: Tea Party Conventioneers Are Racists In White Hoods
By Noel Sheppard
Sat, 02/06/2010

Rachel Maddow on Friday referred to attendees of the National Tea Party convention in Nashville, Tennessee, as white-hooded racists.

Continuing MSNBC’s sad tradition, Maddow first attacked one of the convention’s speakers: “The opening speech last night was given by failed presidential candidate, ex-congressman and professional anti-immigrant, Tom Tancredo who started the event off with a bang, a big loud racist bang.”

From there, she went after the audience (video embedded below the fold with transcript).

What a bigoted, vicious, racist thing of you to say, Rachel.  But according to Obama, who only attacks Fox News for being biased, Barry Hussein tacitly approves of every single word.

And we can get back to Barack Obama and pretty much the entire Democrat Party as repeatedly demagoguing the Republican Party as “the party of no” when it is now an openly acknowledged fact that they were never any such thing.

Cited from a recently written article:

For another thing, it isn’t true that Republicans have ever been “the party of no” and offered no ideas:

Despite the “lecture” by the commander-in-chief, as one member described it, Republicans had the opportunity to articulate the proposals they’ve sent to the president over the past year.

And for the first time, Obama acknowledged that House Republicans had crafted measures to stimulate the economy, reduce the budget deficit and reduce health insurance costs.

At a number of times during the rare, televised, question and answer session with members, the president said that he had read many of their proposals.

“I’ve actually read your bills,” the president said to a packed banquet room at Baltimore’s Marriott Renaissance hotel.

In other words, it is now a matter of public record that Democrats have been intentionally lying, misrepresenting, slandering, and demagoguing Republicans all along.  Why on earth should Republicans have cooperated with these vile people?

So Democrats can just shut the hell up with their accusations of Republicans saying or doing ANYTHING until they clean up the thousands of cockroach nests that constitute their political wing, and start being HONEST for once in their lives.

Personally, I am quite willing to cease fire on the rhetoric wars; all I need to see is for Barack Obama to denounce the mainline media for their lies rather than continually attacking Fox News; all I need to see is the Maddows and the Olbermanns and the Mathews of the news to be fired; all I need to see is for the left to quit demonizing and demagoguing.  And I will happily practice all the “tolerance” and “civility” Obama wants.

The problem is that that will never happen, because the left is demagogic and hypocritical to their very cores of their dried-out, shriveled little souls.

And the fact that Barack Obama is out in front of the cameras beseeching for “tolerance” and “civility” while his minions are viciously and hatefully attacking day after day without any rebuke from the president just proves my point.