Posts Tagged ‘criminal’

Not A Criminal, Just An Incompetent Fool: I Demand To Know Why ANYBODY Thinks That Hillary Clinton Is Fit To Be President

July 7, 2016

Right now, FBI Director Comey is appearing before the House of Representatives in an emergency meeting designed to basically find out just WHAT THE HELL.

It’s just remarkable to me to listen to the Democrats pretend that there’s actually nothing to see here, folks, so please kindly shuffle out of the way and vote for Hillary in November.

FBI Director Comey himself in his Tuesday statement blew up a number of false Hillary Clinton statements made to the American people (and if that link vanishes here’s another one).  Without any legitimate question, it is now established as a FACT that Hillary Clinton not only lied but repeatedly lied to the American people about literally every single facet of her secret server system and the fallout it’s discovery by Republicans entailed.

“When you mishandled classified information, did you know at the time that what you were doing was unlawful?”  That’s the standard that FBI Director Comey is claiming he took regarding whether or not to prosecute Hillary Clinton.  When you were bludgeoning your neighbor to death, did you know it was wrong at the time you were doing the bludgeoning?  He is reading a specific intent into a gross negligence statute that is NOT in that statute.  Which is to say that he is without any question rewriting the law.  We further discover the strange fact that “Washington Has Been Obsessed With Punishing Secrecy Violations — Until Hillary Clinton.”  It is unprecedented for an FBI Director that is not a prosecutor to take a public stand that “no reasonable prosecutor” would prosecute this case.  Particularly given how many prosecutors including (according to Comey’s testimony today before Congress) many of his own personal friends fundamentally disagree with that position, claiming HELL YES they would prosecute.  You add to that the chain of “coincidences” that led up to this refusal to prosecute: President Obama on March 10 that what Hillary did was “careless.”  Lo and behold it would be that EXACT same word that Comey would conclude from his “investigation.”  You have to comprehend the impropriety of Obama putting his finger on the scale.  Also, prior to FBI Director revealing his conclusion of his “investigation,” we have Obama publicly endorsing the subject of a criminal investigation on June 9.  How would that NOT influence the career government investigators who work for Obama’s regime?   Then we get the revelation of a secret, not-disclosed until a local reporter got a tip and forced its disclosure, of a highly inappropriate meeting between Bill Clinton and Attorney General Loretta Lynch.  It is quite possible that the purpose of that meeting was for Bill to inform Loretta that she would stay on as Attorney General in an unindicted Hillary Clinton Administration.  As a result of the widespread distrust of that meeting, Lynch said she would accept the recommendation of the FBI.  But the FBI itself had been impugned by that secret meeting: because FBI agents were participating in attempting to cover up that highly inappropriate secret meeting by not allowing any pictures and ordering people nearby to put away their cell phones.  And so you’ve got Comey’s boss having put her thumb on the scale as well.  There was simply no question whatsoever that every single superior of Comey up the chain had made their preferences crystal clear regarding what his “findings” ought to be.

We also know that it is now a matter of settled fact that Hillary Clinton “mishandled information” – specifically top secret, classified information included special compartmented intelligence.  Without any question, for instance, Hillary Clinton gave secured information to individuals who did NOT have the proper security clearances, which is a crime.  These individuals include some of her staff and even personal friends outside the State Department but also include her numerous lawyers who did not have security clearances to follow Clinton’s instructions.  The Clinton campaign has publicly maintained that Hillary’s “attorneys had individually read every email to determine if it was a government document or personal correspondence.” The Clinton campaign has publicly maintained that “Every one of the more than 60,000 emails were read. Period.”  There is absolutely no question whatsoever that her attorneys who did NOT have security clearances were at least handed the content and allowed to read and search for whatever they wanted; she gave them access to what they should by law not have been allowed access to.  But Comey in his testimony before Congress today stubbornly maintains that Hillary’s “intent” was to get good legal representation rather than to violate the law.  Which has been his reasoning process in quibbling over every single indicting detail.  When the better way to phrase it would be “her intent was to violate the law to help her get good legal representation.”  May I offer an analogy of robbing a bank in order to obtain the money to pay for my attorney in a different criminal case?  Would you seriously argue with FBI Director Comey that my “intent was to get good legal representation” rather than to break the law???  She was breaking the law for her own personal needs and her own personal convenience.  That has been her pattern all along.  And to argue that “it wasn’t her intent to break the law,” but rather it was merely her intent to get whatever the hell she wanted is maddening.

Try this trick on the freeway, kids: tell the officer who pulls you over for going 140mph, “But officer, my intent wasn’t to break the law; my intent was merely to get to my destination faster.”  Because in the bizarre universe of Hillary Clinton, that would actually WORK.

I personally think that there were ALL KINDS of shenanigans to obtain a foreordained conclusion regarding whether Hillary would ever be indicted by an administration with Obama at its head, but let’s just set that aside for the sake of argument.

There’s nothing we can do about it.  We have a legal system filled with double-standards where the privileged get treatment that others outside of that elite class will never receive.  And this case is a blatant example of it.  So let’s accept that double-standard and accept the total lack of justice in America today and move on.

Reps. Jason Chaffitz and Trey Gowdy today set the basis for the crime of lying to Congress.  Because Hillary Clinton was under oath when she testified before Congress and if she told the truth to the FBI behind closed doors, there is little question now that she told lie after lie after LIE to Congress with the American people watching.  But that is for another day.

I further said in conclusion in my last article that the thing I would MOST like to see is the transcript of the FBI interview.  Given that Hillary made factual lies in virtually every single statement she made throughout this investigation – including laughably that she even WAS under criminal investigation – I would like very much to see her answers to FBI questions compared to her previous statements made to the American people and made under oath to the people’s representatives in Congress.

Comey is basically saying that Hillary did ALL KINDS of egregious things, but he couldn’t prove she knew beyond a reasonable doubt that she KNEW that she was doing egregious things.  He said that she was “extremely careless” in his statement on Tuesday and exposed THE most classified information within the United States government to hackers and hostile foreign governments.  For the record, today Comey stated again that Hillary was “extremely careless” and added the phrase “that she was negligent” in his testimony before Congress.  In his statement on Tuesday, Comey acknowledged that it was entirely possible that “hostile actors” and “sophisticated agencies” gained access to our most vital secrets.  Comey pointedly admitted that there was no question whatsoever that hostile actors HAD been proven to have gained access to the people whom Hillary was using her secret server to communicate with:

With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account. — FBI Director Comey, July 5, 2016

Which takes it to the realm of DOCUMENTED FACT that classified material fell into the hands of hostile actors and/or sophisticated agencies as a result of Hillary’s secret server system.  And so anybody who wants to continue to maintain the façade that Hillary Clinton did not put our national security in jeopardy is simply a liar at this point.

In today’s testimony before Congress, FBI Director Comey referred to Hillary Clinton’s private server as “an unauthorized server.”  Hillary Clinton had lied to the American people claiming it “was allowed” but no, it is now a matter of settled fact that it was NOT allowed and it was unauthorized and Hillary lied when claiming that what was in fact NOT allowed and which was unauthorized was allowed and authorized.  Further, in answering the specific question, “What was protecting that unauthorized server?” Comey’s answer was “Not much.”  She didn’t have even the most rudimentary security.  Comey stated categorically that it would have been far better had she used a GMail account – which can be hacked for $129.  And Comey stated that Hillary didn’t even have anywhere near THAT security on her unauthorized secret server!!!  His precise words: “None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.”

Let’s get past Hillary Clinton’s oft-repeated lie to the American people and let’s get past Comey’s bizarre reasoning in sparing her from indictment and just ask some questions that every American ought to be asking.

You need to understand that Hillary Clinton was a lawyer herself.  She worked at a top law firm in Arkansas.  Her husband served as the Attorney General for that state.  She later spent eight years in the White House.  Then she spent eight years as a United States Senator, serving on subcommittees including the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities and the Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support.  For the record, she also served between 2001 and 2009 as a commissioner on the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe.  All that before serving as the Secretary of State.

Democrats – including Obama and Hilary Clinton herself – proudly maintain that she is THE most experienced and THE most qualified candidate for president in the entire history of planet earth.

And the obvious question ought to be: then how in the hell did she NOT realize what she was doing, such that she did not have “intent,” as FBI Director Comey maintains in refusing to indict her???

But now get to the basic heart of her argument before the FBI when she answered their questions that clearly fixated on Hillary Clinton’s “intent.”  There is absolutely ZERO question that she broke laws, violated rules, ignored procedures, was “extremely careless,” and yes, “negligent.”  In today’s statement he told Congress that he believed Hillary lacked “sophistication” to know what she was doing was criminal.  Hillary Clinton isn’t merely grossly negligent; now and forever she will be the living, breathing poster  hag for gross negligence.  You will look up “gross negiligence” in a dictionary and see her name in the definition.  In his July 5 presentation, FBI Director Comey stated that “There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation.”  So we have it as a factual statement of public record that Hillary Clinton is NOT a “reasonable person” and pointedly did NOT act as a “reasonable person” would act in her position.  So what did Hillary, a lawyer prepped by a battalion of lawyers, do?  They basically steadfastly maintained that Hillary Clinton did not understand what she was doing; could not comprehend the ramifications or effects of her actions; was not competent to form the “intent” that Comey was determined had to be found.

In other words, to put it bluntly, Hillary Clinton maintained that she was simply not competent to understand or comprehend what she was doing.  So no matter how many violations of law, she shouldn’t be charged.  “Not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect,” essentially.  Hillary Clinton and her battalion of lawyers are claiming that her stupidity exonerates her.  And FBI Director Comey agrees.

If she had so much as had a clue that no, you shouldn’t install a secret, unauthorized, unclassified server in a bathroom closet somewhere in Denver; no you shouldn’t totally fail to have even the most rudimentary security for such a secret, unauthorized, unclassified server in that bathroom closet in Denver.  Yes, as a matter of fact, I DID know that I was sending and receiving not merely hundreds but actually thousands of classified emails, including emails at the very highest level of classification the government has.  If she had acknowledged ANY of that or similar admissions, she would have been nailed to the wall like a bug in an entymologist’s collection.  Which isn’t a bad analogy for what a prosecutor ought to be: a BUG hunter.

Hillary Clinton before the FBI says, “You can’t charge me; I had absolutely zero clue what I was doing was actually wrong.”

Hillary Clinton before the American people says something about 20 trillion percent different: “I am THE most experienced, most qualified, most competent technocrat who ever lived.”

Here’s the essence of my point, boiled down: the two above claims are mutually and inherently self-refuting.  They cannot possibly both be true in any universe.  At least one of them must be patently false.

If Hillary Clinton is in fact competent, then she is a criminal who happened to successfully game the system and a pathetically naïve FBI Director.  She is like the child who murders her entire family and then successfully sobs for the judge that he should have leniency and mercy on the grounds that she’s an orphan who has no one to turn to and no one to care for her.  She belongs in prison if she is in fact in any way, shape or form competent.  And it was nothing short of a fundamental miscarriage of justice that she was not prosecuted for her many crimes and her many lies as she tried to cover up her crimes in the court of public opinion.

If on the other hand Hillary is what she maintained to the FBI, then she has absolutely no business EVER being allowed anywhere NEAR the presidency of the United States of America.  She had the briefings and the training but she simply lacks the capacity to comprehend that training any better than an orangutan.  You can’t actually ever hold her accountable because she isn’t smart enough to be accountable.  And she’ll be THE most fascist president we’ve ever had because she has already demonstrated a pathological need for HER secrecy even as she cavalierly dismisses the need for the NATION’S secrecy.  I wouldn’t even wish her ilk on a nasty, third world banana republic, let alone the most important nation in the world.

And one of the two paragraphs above – and quite possibly BOTH of them – is true.

That’s what we need to point out and keep pointing out.  Get past the Comey crapball.  Get past the Loretta lynching of the justice process.  Fixate on the fact that what she did makes her absolutely unqualified on THE most fundamental level of national security to even be allowed to ever work in government again, let alone be president.

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

Once Again, We Find That Hillary Clinton Belongs In PRISON For Treason And Corruption – As Does Much Of The Obama Administration

December 2, 2015

Hillary Clinton’s emails once again show how truly treasonous and corrupt this woman is and how beyond dishonest and corrupt Democrats have become.

Here is the new story out on how the State Department is doing damn near everything it can to cover-up for Hillary Clinton’s CRIMINAL behavior:

Sources: Clinton email markings changed to hide classified info
By  Catherine Herridge
·Published September 01, 2015
· FoxNews.com

At least four classified Hillary Clinton emails had their markings changed to a category that shields the content from Congress and the public, Fox News has learned, in what State Department whistleblowers believed to be an effort to hide the true extent of classified information on the former secretary of state’s server.

The changes, which came to light after the first tranche of 296 Benghazi emails was released in May, was confirmed by two sources — one congressional, the other intelligence. The four emails originally were marked classified after a review by career officials at the State Department. But after a second review by the department’s legal office, the designation was switched to “B5” — also known as “deliberative process,” which refers to internal deliberations by the Executive Branch. Such discussions are exempt from public release.

The B5 coding has the effect, according to a congressional source, of dropping the email content “down a deep black hole.”

The four mails are separate and distinct from another group of emails identified by the Intelligence Community Inspector General as containing two messages with “Top Secret”  information.

A congressional source told Fox that a July 23rd letter to Congress from the Inspector General for the Intelligence Community made passing reference to the incident in the recommendations “…that State FOIA officials implement a dispute resolution process in regard to differences of opinion about classification levels and exemptions. State has not yet provided sufficient information for us to close this recommendations.”

According to recent congressional testimony, at least one of the lawyers in the office where the changes were made is Catherine “Kate” Duval, who was at the IRS during the Lois Lerner e-mail scandal and now handles the release of documents to the Benghazi select committee. Duval once worked for the same firm as Clinton’s private attorney David Kendall.

Fox News is told there were internal department complaints that Duval, and a second lawyer also linked to Kendall, gave at the very least the appearance of a conflict of interest during the email review. A State Department spokesman did not dispute the basic facts of the incident, confirming to Fox News the disagreement over the four classified emails as well as the internal complaints. But the spokesman said the concerns were unfounded.

The whistleblowers told intelligence community officials that they did not agree with the B5 changes, and the changes had the effect of shielding the full extent of classified content on the server. The incident was referenced in a Washington Times report mid-August, but this is the first time fuller details have been available. Because the emails are now marked B5, or deliberative, it is impossible to know the content and relevance to the congressional and FBI investigations.

The internal State Department disagreement was so significant that it rose to the level of Under Secretary for Management Patrick Kennedy, who is deeply involved in the email controversy, as Clinton’s server arrangement required his formal signoff or tacit approval. Asked who signed off on the private server on Tuesday, State Department spokesman Mark Toner said, “I personally don’t know.”

Conservative group Judicial Watch, which has more than a dozen civil suits in federal courts, is now seeking a deposition of Kennedy in a case scrutinizing Clinton aide Huma Abedin’s controversial status as a special government employee (SGE). “All these issues fall under his responsibility,” Judicial Watch investigator Chris Farrell said.

Asked to respond to the allegations, State Department spokesman John Kirby said, “the Department has complete confidence that its attorneys — who are almost exclusively career Department lawyers — perform to the highest professional and ethical standards, including in connection with the review and release of Secretary Clinton’s emails.” A State Department official added that the lawyers do not have the final say on the codes, emphasizing it is a “multi-step review.”

On the appearance of a conflict of interest, Kirby defended Duval as “an exceptional professional and has the Department’s utmost confidence … No one at the Department should, in addition to this burden, have her integrity or her excellent work ethic impugned.”  And on the connection to Clinton attorney Kendall, “the mere fact of working at a firm does not itself constitute a conflict of interest.  This is a large firm, and we are not aware that any counsel working on Clinton-related matters at the Department did so prior to joining the Department.”

A search of this week’s 7,000-page release found 694 emails with the B5 coding, about 10 percent of the total.

Fox News’ Pamela Browne contributed to this report.

Catherine Herridge is an award-winning Chief Intelligence correspondent for FOX News Channel (FNC) based in Washington, D.C. She covers intelligence, the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security. Herridge joined FNC in 1996 as a London-based correspondent.

What’s funny, to begin with, is how the State Department is refusing to deal with the media and saying they’re only going to cooperate or talk with Congress WHILE AT THE SAME TIME DOING EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO PREVENT CONGRESS FROM SEEING ANYTHING.

Now “the most transparent administration in history” is actively and openly trying to dump as much evidence of their wrongdoing as possible down a bureaucratic “black hole” to prevent ANY transparency or accountability whatsoever.  Obama is actually in point of fact WORSE THAN NIXON.  And it is simply a DOCUMENTED FACT THAT OBAMA IS THE WORST IN HISTORY AT PREVENTING ANY TRANSPARENCY WHATSOEVER.

It has already been DOCUMENTED that Hillary Clinton had someone on her staff ILLEGALLY wipe out the classification markers so she could have the “talking point” that there was no classification on the classified email she was bandying around for the Russians and the Chinese and the North Koreans to read at will.  The Los Angeles Times reported:

he Department of Justice said it is weighing whether to launch its own investigation after the inspector general for intelligence agencies notified the agency that classified information that went through the account appeared to have been mishandled. Administration officials and investigators declined to share details about the emails. But in a separate memo to lawmakers, the inspector general said that a review of just 40 of the 30,000 emails from the Clinton server found that four had information that should have been marked and handled as classified.

Clinton has made many assurances in recent months that she did not send or receive classified information on her personal server. Her campaign says the material in question had not been specifically marked as classified and, thus, Clinton broke no rules. The inspector general disputed that characterization in a statement late Friday, saying that the information in the emails was classified at the time, even if it wasn’t marked as such, and shouldn’t have been transmitted on a personal email system.

Even so, the revelation was an uncomfortable one for the candidate. And national security experts said the disclosure that that material that should have been marked classified made its way to Clinton’s personal email account at the very least fuels legitimate speculation about how the server was used.

“It tells us why this was such a bad idea,” said Stewart A. Baker, a former general counsel to the National Security Agency now in private practice. “It raises questions.”

Among them, Baker said, was whether staffers deliberately avoided marking sensitive emails to Clinton as classified so they could sidestep the bureaucrats who handle transmission of such material.

“She skipped the government circles and nobody was overseeing this and nobody was saying, ‘This info should not be on this system,’” Baker said. “If anything, there was an incentive for people to cross the line without making clear they were doing so.”

I pointed that article out and its obvious ramifications back in an article I wrote in September of this year.  Somebody clearly stripped the classification markers – an act of TREASON – to give Hillary Clinton “plausible deniability.”  Period.  We’ve known for MONTHS that criminal acts were committed by Hillary Clinton and by her staff of witches and warlocks.

The second thing – and frankly Herridge should have brought this little factoid up in her above article – is that THE STATE DEPARTMENT DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO UNILATERALLY ALTER THE CLASSIFICATION OF A DOCUMENT FROM ANOTHER AGENCY, SUCH AS THE CIA.

It is NOT the State Department’s information; it is the CIA’s information that the CIA shared with the State Department.

I’ll get to how incredibly DANGEROUS to our nation’s security this Democrat trick is later.  But for now, let me continue on Hillary Clinton’s criminality and now the entire Obama State Department’s criminal cover-up of the clear future Democrat nominee’s criminality.

An article from the Daily Beast back in July put it this way:

Classified emails stored on Hillary Clinton’s private computer server contained information from five U.S. intelligence agencies, including the CIA and NSA, McClatchy reported Thursday. One of the emails about the 2012 Benghazi consulate attack was even released to the public by the State Department in May despite it being classified. That email contained information from the NSA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, which uses spy satellites. Four other emails contained info from the CIA and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which oversees all intelligence agencies. The inspector general for the intelligence community found the five classified emails out of a sample of 40 from the 30,000 emails Clinton gave to the State Department.

But perhaps the most troubling element in the McClatchy story is the assertion that “the State Department so far has refused to grant the intelligence-community inspector general access to the entire batch of emails on jurisdictional grounds.”

As Herridge reports, that number of “five” emails has now exploded into nearly 700.

Similarly, the Washington Times back in August of this year reported:

State is also refusing to accept the intelligence IG’s finding that some emails in a limited sample of Mrs. Clinton’s 30,000 delivered to State contained top secret material. The IG said it was specially compartmentalized to signify it pertained to communications intercepts and to military satellite imagery and, or, intercepts.

Said Mr. Toner on Wednesday “We have not seen anything at the TS [top secret] level yet.”

This directly contradicts a memo sent on Tuesday by I. Charles McCullough III, the IG for the intelligence community, which includes 17 agencies.

The memo to House and Senate Intelligence committee leaders said an unspecified number of Clinton emails contained top secret information.

Mr. Toner told reporters, “We’re working with the director of national intelligence to resolve whether in fact this material is actually classified.”

Mr. McCullough, and his counter part at State, Steven Linick, took the extraordinary step on July 24 of issuing a joint statement that questioned that defense.

“These emails contained classified information when they were generated and, according to IC classification officials, that information remains classified today,” they said.

They directly rebutted previous State Department statements that the material is classified today, but not when in sat in her server, while she was secretary of State. She left State in 2013 and is now the Democratic Party frontrunner for the presidential nomination.

Mr. McCullough sent a referral to the FBI. Agents are now investigating the security breach and took possession of Mrs. Clinton’s server, which she had wiped clean after selecting the 30,000 emails.

What we are seeing is the entire Obama State Department machine directly and criminally covering up A CRIME for a PARTISAN POLITICAL REASON to the detriment of our national security.

This is the SAME Obama who very clearly ORDERED his appointees to alter intelligence that didn’t agree with the Obama political narrative.

You start to see the vile, cockroach bureaucrat tactics that Obama is routinely employing to cover up his crimes and the criminality of his thug-underlings:

One of the lawyers present during the review by State’s legal office was government attorney Catherine Duval, who was a key player in the controversy surrounding ex-IRS official Lois Lerner’s missing emails related to the investigation of the agency’s targeting of conservative groups.

Duval, who is now spearheading the release of materials related to the 2012 attack in Benghazi, formerly worked for the same law firm as the Clintons’ private attorney David Kendall.

So we’ve got a DIRECT TIE-IN between the Obama use of the IRS as his own personal “Internal Revenge Service” to target conservatives during an election, along with a direct tie-in between that IRS crime and the Benghazi cover-up.  And now a direct tie-in between Obama’s IRS crimes and the Benghazi cover-up and Hillary Clinton’s email scandal.  And that tie-in directly ties-in to Hillary Clinton PERSONALLY.

Good luck getting to the bottom of anything when the President of the United States is a traitor and a criminal who is aided-and-abetted by traitors and criminals at high levels whom he personally put in their positions.

Now let me point out why this is so incredibly dangerous to national security.  During the Clinton years – and isn’t it funny how history starts to repeat itself – there were walls and barriers and interservice rivalries that prevented information from being exchanged by the various agencies that dealt with intelligence.   That was THE NUMBER ONE THING that came out of the 9/11 Commission Report.

And right now, as we speak, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are doing absolutely everything they possibly can to guarantee that those same walls, barriers and rivalries are created anew so our enemies can attack us while we are totally blind again.  Because right now, under Obama, and under Hillary Clinton, intelligence agencies such as the CIA and NSA absolutely CANNOT AND SHOULD NOT trust other agencies with their intelligence.  So the only alternative is not to share it.

Hillary Clinton all but said to the CIA, the NSA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency and the Director of National Intelligence, “I frankly don’t give one flying DAMN about you or your intelligence or your sources or your security, and I’m going to use and abuse your product any damn partisan political way I want to.”  With the obvious result being they quit sharing their product as a climate of mistrust dominates.

The Clinton Administration – deliberately and intentionally (and yes, incredibly foolishly) – created a wall that prevented intelligence agencies from sharing what they knew with one another.   Clinton “intentionally erected to prevent intelligence agents from pooling information with their law-enforcement counterparts.”

Now we’ve got a NEW wall built on the very worst kind of mistrust based on Obama’s and Hillary Clinton’s partisan political politicking.

And the next massive terrorist attack is inevitable.

And allow me to quote Obama’s “reverend” for 23 years who said “God DAMN America!”

Obama Administration Trying To Intimidate ISIS Beheaders: If We Catch You, We’ll Put You On Trial, Convict You, And Trade You 5-1 For Our Traitors

August 21, 2014

I had to laugh my ass off – and I don’t doubt that this is the ISIS/ISIL reaction as well – to Obama’s and Eric Holder’s gutless threats.

Obama said he’d be “relentless” on these man-caused disaster facilitators in this overseas contingency operation of his.  I mean, this turd is too scared to even call this WAR what it is and he’s going to be “relentless”???  He couldn’t even be “relentless” enough to wear a damn TIE for his announcement that, sorry, American people, but I just let the first one of many of you to come get beheaded.  And then our “relentless” president was RIGHT BACK TO THE GOLF COURSE.

Obama is saying that if he shows ISIS how “relentless” he is in pursuing his vacation, they’ll be scared, scared, scared.

I mean, ISIS BEHEADS people.  And the girlboy metrosexuals who run our country now start to puke at the thought of us waterboarding one of these monsters.

To hear our national leaders blathering, “We’re gonna put a warrant out for your arrest.  That’s right.  And one maybe one day in about ninety years we’ll catch you and we’ll put you on trial and allow you to spread your views to the whole world.  Don’t worry, we’ll make sure you get your Miranda rights and everything.  And if we get a conviction, we’ll put you in prison – but don’t worry, NOT Gitmo, because that would be mean and we’re never mean – until the day we trade you for our next Bergdahl traitor punk.  And so you’d better be scared.”

The only people who truly ought to be frightened and intimidated is the American people who are staring at our own humiliating weakness right in Obama’s eye.  Because we all ought to be realizing that we’re next.  And our leaders are pathetic, babbling cowards and fools.

We WON the war in Iraq.  All we had to do was keep some troops there and we could make that country as safe and secure and peaceful as Barack Obama and Joe Biden boasted it was after George Bush won the damn war over their whining.  But then Obama took office and cut-and-ran and called the people who would kick his scrawny little weasel ass and show him up for the fool disgrace that he is “JV.”

It is now beyond obvious to anyone who isn’t stupid who the “JV” fool is.

I used to be so proud that I was an American.  Now I’m so embarrassed it’s just unreal.

I still hang my head in abject shame that my country elected this contemptible, pathetic little turd.  TWICE.

But don’t you worry.  He’s “relentless” at Martha’s Vineyard, he is.  Nobody but NOBODY can tie up traffic with a procession of limousines like he can.

Scott Brown Files Lawsuits Against Two Coakley Criminal Tactics

January 17, 2010

Is it okay for a political candidate to use state resources to promote their election?  No?  Is it okay to transparently lie about a candidate with provably untrue demagogic propaganda?  No?

Well, then Martha Coakley deserves to be behind bars more than she deserves to be a United States Senator.  And the fact that too many of the United States Senators we now HAVE deserve to be behind bars is because too many people tend to overlook blatant garbage like this:

From the Gateway Pundit:

This email was sent out earlier from the Scott Brown Campaign:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: CONTACT: Felix Browne
January 16, 2010

MEDIA ADVISORY FOR TODAY

Dan Winslow, counsel for the Scott Brown for U.S. Senate campaign, will hold a media availability to announce the filing of a criminal complaint against the Massachusetts Democratic Party regarding a recent mailing paid for and sent by the Massachusetts Democratic Party. Winslow will make a statement and take reporters’ questions at MassGOP Headquarters in Boston TODAY at 4:00 PM.

Massachusetts GOP Headquarters
85 Merrimac Street, 4th Floor
Boston.

Scott Brown filed this complaint against the SEIU in December.
FOX News Boston reported:

BOSTON – Republican Senate hopeful Scott Brown has filed a complaint with the State Ethics Commission after a report that a union backing rival Martha Coakley used state resources to urge workers to volunteer for Coakley’s campaign.

The report by FOX25 said the Service Employees International Union used state computers and e-mail addresses to direct state employees to volunteer for Coakley, the Democratic state attorney general.

UPDATE: Today’s complaint was in response to this horrible Democrat Party mailer:

— Brown filed a complaint against the democratic party for this outrageous attack.
The Washington Post reported:

Republican Scott Brown charged Saturday that a Democratic mailing against his U.S. Senate campaign violates a Massachusetts law prohibiting false statements against a political candidate.

The cover of a four-page mailer sent by the Massachusetts Democratic Party says, “1,736 women were raped in Massachusetts in 2008. Scott Brown wants hospitals to turn them all away.”

Brown is a state senator, and in 2005 he filed an amendment that would have allowed workers at religious hospitals or with firmly held religious beliefs to avoid giving emergency contraception to rape victims. The amendment failed, and Brown voted in favor of a bill allowing the contraception. He also voted to override a veto issued by his fellow Republican, then-Gov. Mitt Romney.

UPDATE: Even some hardcore liberals are upset with the Coakley rape ad.

UPDATE: The penalty is $1,000 or up to 6 months in jail.

A section of the Massachusetts General Laws prohibits false statements against political candidates that are designed or tend “to aid or to injure or defeat such candidate,” with a penalty of to $1,000 fine and up to six months in prison.

Brown campaign legal counsel Daniel Winslow said, “People can shade things and spin things, but it has to have some kernel of truth.”

Brown is locked in a dead heat with Democrat Martha Coakley, the state’s attorney general, in the race to succeed the late Sen. Edward Kennedy. Independent Joseph L. Kennedy, who is not related to the famed Kennedy family, is also on Tuesday’s ballot.

Winslow called on the Democratic Party and the Coakley campaign to disavow the mailer’s claim. The Brown campaign plans to wait until Tuesday, the next business day, before seeking a legal remedy, he said.

UPDATE: Here’s the video from the press conference this afternoon.

We’ve seen plenty of Democrat cheating through labor unions.  That happens all the time, and while despicable, is not beyond the pale.  But that ad Martha Coakley ran IS beyond the pale.  Way, WAY beyond.

It’s not enough to say that Martha Coakley is dishonest after seeing that ad stating that Scott Brown wanted every single woman who was raped in Massachusetts in 2008 to be “turned away.”  It is rabidly dishonest.  And for that matter, it is ideological kook nutjob dishonest.

It is the dishonesty of a pathologically immoral and mentally unstable person who will stop at absolutely nothing to win.

I’ve written an article on Martha Coakley’s bizarre and frankly dangerous dismissal of the Civil Rights Act in her dismissal of Catholics’ and other Christians’ civil rights.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act reads:

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 USC 2000e, makes it unlawful for an employer to hire or discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his/her compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment, because of an individual’s race, color, religion, sex or national origin. This covers hiring, firing, promotions and all workplace conduct.

Martha Coakley had this exchange with a radio talk show host:

Ken Pittman: Right, if you are a Catholic, and believe what the Pope teaches that any form of birth control is a sin. ah you don’t want to do that.

Martha Coakley: No we have a separation of church and state Ken, lets be clear.

Ken Pittman: In the emergency room you still have your religious freedom.

Martha Coakley: (……uh, eh…um..) The law says that people are allowed to have that. You can have religious freedom but you probably shouldn’t work in the emergency room.

It has long been realized that many Americans oppose abortion on moral grounds.  But that in no way matters to Martha Coakley, who in hard-core totalitarian-liberal ideology demands that all Americans offer dead babies as sacrifice to the bloody gods of abortion.

This goes beyond the legality or illegality of abortion.  This goes to Martha Coakley wanting to force people to do something they morally oppose, or else forfeit their careers which required years of costly training.

Thomas Jefferson said:

“To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.” –Thomas Jefferson

If it is “sinful and tyrannical” just to compel someone to subsidize ideas which he disbelieves and abhors with taxes, how much more sinful and tyrannical is it to compel a person to actively perform those “ideas” or lose his or her very livelihood?

It is evil of Martha Coakley to have such fundamentally intolerant views (and that’s not me speaking; that’s Thomas Jefferson); but Coakley then goes way beyond that extreme viewpoint.  She proceeds to accuse anyone who harbors pro-life views as being a kind of monster who would “turn away” rape victims.

Pro-life people do not care about the life of an innocent unborn child; they merely hate rape victims.  And so their careers should be destroyed.

If medical professionals who oppose abortion are so few and therefore protecting their civil rights so irrelevant, then why not merely have one of the OTHER medical professionals who support abortion administer the drugs?

No, Coakley says.  You must ALL offer sacrifice to the gods of abortion or be destroyed.  There can be no exceptions.  Everyone must directly take part in abortion or suffer the consequences.  We can tolerate NO demonstration of individual morality, lest people start to question and the entire religion collapse.

And it is within this dangerous, intolerant, civil-rights-abandoning, hateful view that Martha Coakley proceeds to viciously and hatefully lie about Scott Brown’s record.

Scott Brown did not vote to “turn away” 1,736 rape victims from Massachusetts hospitals.  He did not vote to turn away a single rape victim from a single hospital.  All he did was offer a measure to allow those who personally opposed abortion on moral grounds not to be forced to administer abortion.

To go even further, Brown went ahead and voted for the bill in question after his measure was defeated.

And to go even further yet, Brown even voted to override a veto from Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.

Now, I oppose Brown’s voting for the bill without the measure on abortion, and I oppose Brown’s voting to override his governor’s veto.  But that just goes even farther to prove that Martha Coakley is a vicious and hateful liar who fundamentally believes in crushing the rights of anyone who opposes her.

The Heinous Failure Of The Obama Administration Against Terrorism

December 29, 2009

This essentially is the first time that Democrats have been in charge of the war on terror.  And – contrary to Obama’s “good solid B+” that he gave himself – Democrats have flunked hideously.

According to Rasmussen, 79% of Americans believe another terrorist attack is likely within the next year.  Which is a thirty point jump from the end of August.  That’s a profound lack of confidence in Barack Obama.

“The war on terror.”  The very phrase demonstrates the unforgivable incompetence of Barrack Hussein.  Because his people refused to use the word “terrorism” and tried to replace it with “overseas contingency operation” and “man-caused disaster” to deny the reality of terrorism through politically correct re-labelling.  But with terrorist attacks occurring on US soil, what’s the deal with the word “overseas”?  It’s right here.

After days of White House officials saying they did a smashing job, even Obama is now finally calling his own administration’s handling of this terror attack “totally unacceptable.”

“There was a mix of human and systemic failures that contributed to this potential catastrophic breach of security,” Obama [FINALLY] said today.

There have been over a dozen attempted terrorist attacks against the United States on American soil in 2009, and two of them have been successful.

“Brian Jenkins, who studies terrorism for the Rand Corporation, says there were more terror incidents (12), including thwarted plots, on U.S. soil in 2009 than in any year since 2001. The jihadists don’t seem to like Americans any better because we’re closing down Guantanamo.”

And they don’t like us any better because of Barack Hussein’s naivete, incompetence, and constant apologies denouncing his own country, either.

We have only to look at the last two attacks to see the casual disregard and the blatant incompetence the Obama administration has demonstrated in the war against terrorism.

During the November Fort Hood terrorist attack that killed thirteen soldiers and wounded dozens more, the Obama administration first denied any link to terrorism, then basically suppressed the investigation after scores of details began to emerge revealing what a shocking failure of the system had taken place under Obama’s watch.  Obama himself gave an incredibly weird speech just after the attack, in which he offered a “shout out” to a man whom he incorrectly identified as having received the Medal of Honor before spending mere moments acknowledging that more than a dozen US soldiers on a secure American base inside the United States had just been murdered by a jihadist.

And we’re now beginning to see a rather frightening disconnected pattern emerging as to how Obama deals with terrorism.

In any event, we just had a situation in which a terrorist very nearly detonated a device that probably would have brought the plane down – killing 290 – and possibly would have killed many more as it crashed into Detroit’s airport.  The words “Christmas miracle” are being used to describe the luck we had in so narrowly avoiding this disaster.

And what was the Obama response?  Well, at first, nothing.  The same fawning sycophants that Obama surrounded himself with – who awakened him immediately to notify him that he “won” the Nobel price – didn’t bother to tell him that the United States had just experienced a terrorist attack for three full hours.

Obama didn’t bother to respond (and interrupt his glorious Hawaiian vacation) even after he heard about it.  But his minions began running around.  Their initial blathering was that “the system has worked very, very smoothly.”

Apparently, Obama believed that the media would give him the same adoring propaganda that they gave him during the campaign (which Bernard Goldberg dubbed “A Slobbering Love Affair“).  The narrative was that since the attack didn’t succeed, Barack Obama must be a brilliant commander-in-chief.  But fortunately, that lie was almost immediately revealed as a lie and angrily refuted even by the mainstream media.

I mean, even the New York Times is saying Obama screwed this up terribly.

The same incompetent Obama official – Department of Homeland Security administrator Janet Napolitano – who claimed how well the system worked proceeded to acknowledge that the system was a failure the very next day.  “The system did not work in this instance,” she said by way of massive understatement.

So the system that worked very, very smoothly actually didn’t work.

Mind you, this was also the same Obama official who had previously refused to call terrorists “terrorists,” but had no problem calling our very own returning veterans who had fought such terrorists “rightwing extremists” while hiring a man who turned out to be an actual terrorist to explain how our soldiers were potential terrorists.

Then the Obama administration went back to their tried and true formula, and the only thing they are actually good at: they decided to blame Bush.

From the Washington Post:

“White House officials struggled to explain the complicated system of centralized terrorist data and watch lists, stressing that they were put in place years ago by the Bush administration.”

The problem with that thesis is that the Bush system actually worked.  Here was a kid (I say “kid” because he looks like he’s about 15 years old) whose name showed up on a terrorist watch list.  It’s not George Bush’s fault that the Obama administration ignored the list.  Or that they ignored the fact that the UK had refused to issue the kid a visa a few months back after catching the kid in a lie regarding his purpose for visiting the country.  Or that the kid had spent the last couple of months in terrorist-dreamland Yemen.  Or that the kid’s father had personally gone to the UN embassy and said his son had been radicalized.  Or that the kid had no passport to go to the United States.  Or that the kid suspiciously didn’t bother to check any luggage on an international flight.  Those things were Goerge Bush’s fault exactly HOW?

Like every other time Obama has pointed a demagoguing finger of blame at Bush, there were at least three fingers pointing right at him.

Now we’re finding out that the father of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab actually met with the Central Intelligence Agency at the US embassy in Nigeria on November 19 and told them that his son was radicalized.   Basically, he couldn’t have done more without hiring a skywriter to scrawl, “Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab is a terrorist!” over the White House.

We’re now finding out that the CIA had been tracking this kid since August.

And it’s George Bush’s fault that this terrorist got through?

Realize that whenever Obama blames Bush, what he is really admitting is that he is a pathetically incompetent non-leader who will not take responsibility for his failures.

George Bush wouldn’t have said that his system was perfect.  He would have argued that it needed to be constantly updated.  But Barack Obama not only has failed to improve on the security protections put into place by George Bush; he has worked hard to tear those protections apart and leave this nation and its citizens dangerously exposed.

Stop and think about it: Shoe Bomber Richard Reid (aka Abdul Raheem and as Tariq Raja) attempted to blow up a plane with PETN back in December, 2oo1 – only a couple of months after 9/11.  Bush systematically implemented policies to keep us safe.  Obama tore those policies apart, and look what is happening.

We can blame George Bush for not recognizing that Barrack Hussein was a dangerous man, and sticking him in Gitmo before he had a chance to do more damage.  But other than that, no honest person would blame George Bush for Obama’s failure.

When Obama finally bothered to make his initial comment on the attack (in a short statement, taking no questions), he said that the attack had been committed by an “isolated extremist” (and please note the inherent contradiction within even his own statement!).  But by the time he said that, it was already obvious that the only thing “isolated” about this attack was the Obama White House.  The kid said he had been trained and sent by al Qaeda, and that there were some 25 more terrorists just like him ready to unleash hells of their own.  And it turned out that the PETN explosive had come from al Qaeda-base Yemen.  And al Qaeda acknowledged that this kid was one of theirs.

Steve Hayes called Obama’s “isolated extremist” remark “stunningly foolish.”  And even the liberal Washington Post pointed out “the disturbingly defensive reaction of the Obama administration.”

Obama also said that his administration was doing “everything in it’s power to keep you safe.”  And then he treats the terrorist who had just tried to murder hundreds and possibly thousands of Americans like a common criminal and allows him to lawyer up while doctors attend to the wounds he incurred trying to murder said Americans.  For what its worth, the Bush administration would have recognized that this terrorist wasn’t a “criminal” at all, but a perpetrator of an act of war against the United States of America, and an enemy of the state.  And the Bush administrator – rather than focusing on the kid’s “rights” – would have instead focused on the country’s right to find out who had sent this punk to murder its citizens and every detail of every aspect of leading up to the attack so that we could stomp out another nest of terrorists.

Allow me to quote Joe Wilson to respond to Barack Hussein: “You lie!”

This was a cascading leadership failure from top to bottom.  A lousy disgrace of a president picked a lousy disgrace of a Homeland Security Secretary.

Now for the idiotic and frankly immoral liberal devices to defend America in a war they won’t even acknowledge is a damn war.

The word “profiling” immediately comes to mind.

Mind you, it’s not that the Obama administration isn’t profiling, just that they are focusing on the wrong profile.  I mean, the terrorist in question wasn’t a returning combat veteran who’d recently come back from protecting this country from terrorists; he didn’t have any “tea bags” on him; he wasn’t an evangelical Christian; he wasn’t pro-life.  They just had the wrong profile, and need to adjust it to include actual terrorists.

Let us not forget that the terrorists are profiling us.

The Christmas terrorist attack was a naked attempt to murder as many Christians as possible during Christmas.  Obama Democrats shriek at the thought that we might profile a terrorist.  But the terrorists are sure as hell profiling us.

Then you add the fact that for the last eight years millions and millions of innocent and harmless Americans have been subjected to invasive and embarrassing procedures to make sure we’re not jihadist murderers, but this young Muslim male who attended madrases and came from Yemen and paid for his ticket in cash and didn’t have a passport gets aboard with his damned bomb?

That American grandma in the walker isn’t your terrorist, dumbasses.  And it is an affront to common sense and even sanity that you treat that Grandma the same as the 23 year old Muslim whose just come from Yemen.

A lot of liberals are now STILL saying that we don’t dare violate the civil liberties of Muslims, regardless of the fact that 99.9999999999998% of all the hundreds of thousands of terrorist attacks over the past 20 years have been committed by Muslims. They want us to use invasive and expensive scanning equipment that literally strips us naked and shows our boobies, our bottoms, and our hoo hoos, and tramples on everybody’s basic rights, rather than focus on the group that is perpetrating the terror attacks.  We need to violate the civil rights of 300 million Americans, rather than acknowledge that Muslim terrorists are all actually Muslims.

The craziest thing of all about the body scanners that liberals want might be this: Muslims apparently wouldn’t stand for submitting to such scans, and Obama liberals are such moral idiots that they would probably exempt Muslims from the scans used to detect explosives brought on planes by Muslims.

George Bush was like Winston Churchill in the war on terror; and Barack Obama is like Neville Chamberlain.  Chamberlain tried to compromise with terror, negotiate with it.  Winston Churchill, nearly alone among leaders (FDR included), realized that Nazism was so evil that it literally had to be fought to the death.

Obama Democrats believed George Bush viewed terrorism through an ideological prism, and saw nonexistent enemies everywhere.  The thing is that Obama Democrats ALSO view terrorism through an ideological prism, but see enemies NOWHERE.  And Obama’s ideology keeps biting him in the balls because both his ideology and his policies simply fail to correspond to reality.

Grand Theft Auto IV: the Consequences of Gamer Culture (1)

April 29, 2008

The computer game Grand Theft Auto IV was released today to the standard irrational hype surrounding these game introductions, with buyers lining up around the store for their chance to be the first ones to own the game.  Drive-by-shootings, acts of prostitution, and car thefts make up just some of the activities players participate in during the game.  I have not played the game, but I understand that players receive the sexual services of prostitutes, and then beat them up to get their money back.  Advancing means continually committing criminal acts while trying to stay alive.

One of the issues that constantly arises with the release of one of these violent games is the outcry against the reality that many of these games end up in the hands of children and young adolescents.  So let’s start with that.

What happens physically and emotionally when children and adolescents spend a great deal of time exposed to these activities?

Children are concrete thinkers, and generally aren’t yet capable of understanding the consequences of their actions. In real life, children have shot other children without realizing that the act results in actual death. Games such as Grand Theft Auto IV reinforce this mode of concrete thinking by means of a series of behaviors that have no consequences. It’s the prescription for creating a moral monster.

There is also a very real, and very damaging impact on adolescents. Psychologists use the term “vicarious traumatization” to describe the measurable physical reactions a person can have after simply viewing a traumatic event on television or on a video game. What researches have documented is that habitual exposure to vicarious violent events can cause a person to experience the identical physical effects – such as heightened blood pressure, racing heart beat, etc. – as if that person were actually experiencing the event in real life.

Craig A. Anderson, the author of the book, Violent Video Game Effects on Children and Adolescents, detailed in a peer-reviewed article written for the American Psychological Association the effects of violent games on children. He noted that repeated exposure to media violence generates and legitimizes more aggressive behavior even as it “decreases the normal negative emotional reactions to conflict, aggression, and violence.”

The younger one is, the more intense the effect. When children play these games for hour after hour, it seriously distorts their worldviews.

I think that any responsible adult will acknowledge these facts, and act accordingly by limiting children’s exposure to such games. The problem is there are way too many irresponsible adults who either don’t know or simply don’t care about the psychological damage that is being inflicted by children under their care or supervision.

I do not propose a solution for this growing problem. Banning the games is decried as an act of censorship, and regulating or restricting the games is decried in almost the same tones as a form of censorship. Frankly, by the time a culture is determined to bring this kind of junk into their lives, it is probably too late to do anything about it. And at this point in the life of American culture, we are determined to have all kinds of crap in our society and in our homes.

My real objective in writing about games such as Grand Theft Auto IV is to address the effects of these games on adults, because there IS an effect on adults.

The typical response of the above reasoning with an adult “gamer” is, “I’ve played these games for years, and I’ve never killed anybody.”

Most of the time, that’s true, of course. Adults experience many of the same symptoms that children and adolescents experience playing games over time; however, their superior impulse control, sense of identity, and grasp on reality enables them to resist effects that can tear younger minds apart.

while I would argue that playing violent video games is the psychological equivalent to using drugs or alcohol (i.e. it messes up the mind, but most adults can handle the effects unless they really go overboard), I want to focus on a whole other impact of these video games.

I want to address a pattern of thinking that very often comes to characterize the minds of adults who spend a significant period of time “gaming.” It is also increasingly consuming postmodern culture. It boils down to three key characteristics: Cynicism, Skepticism, and a Dislike for reality.

Cynicism is the intelligent but lazy mind’s shortcut to genuine philosophy. When the world seems to make no sense, the simplest thing to do is to say the world makes no sense, and to give up on searching for sense, purpose, or meaning in the world. For an increasing number of people, this cynicism seems superior to the “simple” belief that the world does make sense, when one cannot explain why it does. Frankly, it is easier to stand on the sidelines and ridicule what is going on around you than it is to get in the trenches and work toward a better reality. Cynicism sneers at such hope.

Skepticism is – in modern secular society – a replacement for faith. But skepticism cannot serve for long as a replacement for faith, because if you teach people to believe in a thing, you have to adopt a specific position. And in a secular and pluralistic society, we can’t adopt a position (as that would disfavor other competing positions!). So we present a smorgasborg of worldview positions. This is not a Socratic education, but rather Socrates gone insane. Skepticism is a useful epistemological tool but it cannot be foundational. Why? Because if turned on itself it collapses by its own standards: what if we become skeptical about skepticism? Do we then have to become skeptical about being skeptical about skepticism? Frankly, the world would have been a much better place had Descartes realized this and abandoned his project.

Ultimately skepticism and cynicism are self-consuming. They can’t produce even a vacuous culture; they can simply mock and parody it. So ultimately, culture runs out of ideas, and from that point on, it simply relies on marketing to sell. Take the fact that we are talking about Grand Theft Auto IV as a case in point.

A Dislike of reality, or a rejection of reality for virtual reality. In video games you are a hero, the savior of the world, desired by women and loved or feared by everyone. People are relying on virtual reality to give them a feeling of joy. We are frankly seeing too many young people who are too intelligent to fall for the trap of incoherence, and yet our incredibly incoherent education system has made them immune to normal apologetics against their worldview. Having grown up with no genuine or coherent worldview, there is simply no worldview to attack or correct.

But they also unconsciously recognize the real effects of the fall and sin in the real world. In the real world, people get hurt, people suffer, people have meaningless dead-end lives. And then they die. They recognize instinctively at the very core there is something that should be in the world but is not. And yet the cynicism and skepticism of our age (the one thing that they have picked up) have left them completely unable to embrace the notion that change can matter. And so they replace physical reality with virtual reality. It very quickly becomes a form of addiction.

(Part 2 will address the spiritual components of this worldview, and offer a Christian perspective and response).