Hey, Hypocrite Facebook Fools, Why Didn’t You Damn Liberals Care When Obama Pulled The Same Stunt In 2012?

So I’m reading my paper and seeing all the butthurt and anger over the fact that a researcher named Aleksandr Kogan gave a research company named Cambridge Analytica access Facebook users’ data. Which used that data to help Donald Trump win the presidential election. And Facebook is now claiming that Cambridge Analytica had “violated its rules” and suspended them. But now, the entire planet is alarmed that Facebook is armed with so much data on so many of its addicted users and that it might actually give such information to a Republican presidential campaign to help them win. I mean, its truly evil.

And so now Facebook’s stock has plummeted to the tune of a $40 billion loss and Mark Zuckerberg is out confessing how terribly wrong it is hoping to avoid regulation the way the makers of other highly addictive products are regulated and the way other monopolies are regulated. And authorities are climbing all over Cambridge Analytica for its worse-than-what-the-Nazis-did crime against humanity.

Personally, I would be thrilled if Facebook and Google were broken up. But that would require the political left being morally consistent for once in its roach-collective existence, and that will never happen.

But here’s the rub: Facebook did the exact same thing back in the 2012 campaign and helped Obama win.

Townhall – in an article titled, “Former Obama Staffer: Facebook Allowed Us To Break User Data Rules Because They Were On Our Side,” put it this way:

Well, one former data officer for the Obama campaign, Carol Davidsen, admitted that Facebook allowed them to break the rules because they were on their side.
First, she tweeted a Time magazine piece showing what the 2012 campaign did to gather information:

In the final weeks before Election Day, a scary statistic emerged from the databases at Barack Obama’s Chicago headquarters: half the campaign’s targeted swing-state voters under age 29 had no listed phone number. They lived in the cellular shadows, effectively immune to traditional get-out-the-vote efforts.
For a campaign dependent on a big youth turnout, this could have been a crisis. But the Obama team had a solution in place: a Facebook application that will transform the way campaigns are conducted in the future. For supporters, the app appeared to be just another way to digitally connect to the campaign. But to the Windy City number crunchers, it was a game changer. “I think this will wind up being the most groundbreaking piece of technology developed for this campaign,” says Teddy Goff, the Obama campaign’s digital director.

That’s because the more than 1 million Obama backers who signed up for the app gave the campaign permission to look at their Facebook friend lists. In an instant, the campaign had a way to see the hidden young voters. Roughly 85% of those without a listed phone number could be found in the uploaded friend lists. What’s more, Facebook offered an ideal way to reach them. “People don’t trust campaigns. They don’t even trust media organizations,” says Goff. “Who do they trust? Their friends.”

Davidsen then detailed on Twitter how representatives from the social media company were surprised how much data they mined, adding that they were “very candid that they allowed us to do things they wouldn’t have allowed someone else to do because they were on our side.”

And Townhall didn’t merely make up an “unnamed source” the way the leftist media gets their sources for their fake news hit pieces on Trump; they actually posted former Obama campaign director Carol Davidsen’s own words:

So Obama’s 2012 campaign director publicly stated that the Facebook crack dealers “were very candid that they allowed us to do things they wouldn’t have allowed someone else to do because they were on our side.” She said that Facebook was surprised that Obama roaches “were able to suck out the whole social graph, but they didn’t stop us once they realized that was what we were doing.”

FACT: The Obama campaign harvested user data from MILLIONS of Facebook users in the 2012 campaign. It literally gave Obama victory.

FACT: none oft he people who are so rabid and so angry and so bitter gave a flying damn that Obama did the very thing that is so terrible and so inexcusable and so evil now.

FACT: Facebook even benignly assisted Obama, as opposed to merely not realizing that one of its researchers had done for a pro-Trump organization what the entire organization had done for Obama.

FACT: to be a liberal is to be the very worst manner of hypocrite vermin there is; to be a liberal means to be a being incapable of virtue, or integrity, or honesty, or decency, or any kind of good thing whatsoever.

Obama Now Says Democracy Will Break Down Without Compromise. So The Question Is, Obama, Why Did YOU Want To ‘Break Down’ Democracy?

It’s getting almost fun to watch Obama speak these days.  We get to see how a passive aggressive tries to disguise his BUTTHURT behind a cool façade.

So Obama is with Chancellor Merkel and he’s taking questions and in one of his answers he happens to say (offered as a swipe at Trump masquerading as “advice”):

“If we are not serious about facts and what’s true and what’s not and particularly in the age of social media where so many people are getting their information in soundbites and snippets off their phones, if we can’t discriminate between serious arguments and propaganda, then we have problems. … [If we are] unable to compromise and engage in the democratic process and taking absolutism views … then democracy will break down.”

And I’ve got a face like this as he says it:

I mean, it’s not that Obama’s statement isn’t true, it’s just that the Obama who just said it just spent the last EIGHT YEARS daily living in denial of the wisdom he now espouses for his successor.

The particularly warped thing about Obama’s statement is that it came as a response to a question about “fake news” that emerged from Facebook.  There are a couple of really remarkable things about this story: the first is that Facebook is not only about as leftist as it gets, but actively suppressed conservative news sites and slanted “trending news stories” to favor liberals and liberal sights.  So it is frankly rather amazing on its ugly, pimply, Elephant-Man-FACE to make the ridiculous claim that Facebook’s “fake news” helped Trump win given the naked bias toward Democrats that the sight is now infamous for.  But it actually gets WORSE: because in his answer, Obama agreed with communist China which takes the identical same position and has its suppression of free speech on the basis of the identical same position that it shares with Obama: that we can’t allow anything other than “facts and what’s true,” and the State must therefore take an active role in suppressing anything other than “the true facts.”

So let me ask you: all those damn polls the mainstream media generated that showed Hillary winning the election that Donald Trump kept insisting were bogus push polls intended to suppress his voter turnout because why bother voting for a guy that is going to lose? – were those “facts and what’s true”???  Or how about the frantic coverage of Trump’s transition being in absolute shambles that is so rabid and so insane that even David Axelrod finally had to come out and point out the fact that the Obama transition team wasn’t ANY farther ahead of Trump’s and had made zero appointments at this point and that the media hadn’t criticized Obama.  Is that lie a “fact and what’s true,” is it???

It is ASTOUNDING how fascist and how dishonest the left and their media propagandist allies are.

But let me get back to Obama being a living, breathing embodiment of what it means to be an abject hypocrite.

You take global warming.  It’s a monolithic FACT that EVERY scientist accepts and anybody who doesn’t believe it is a Nazi idiot, says Obama and his left wing.  Except NO IT’S NOT A MONOLITHIC FACT and FORTY FREAKING PERCENT OF SCIENTISTS DOUBT IT.  But Obama and his wing gave their “information” in this manner: “Phony, contrived talking points, unscientific propositions, and a scorn for truth wrapped in false threats.”  And literally as we speak Obama’s Secretary of State is trying to shove through “international agreements” and claim they will be BINDING on the next president whether he likes it or not.

Meanwhile Obama went from supporting marriage – and doing so “as a Christian” – between one man and one woman – even though his own campaign manager later said Obama was intentionally and dishonestly misrepresenting his own views – and then proceeded to do a moral back flip to suddenly support gay marriage.  And then his gang of fascist thugs viciously targeted people who hold a faith whose Scriptures are 4,000 years old and financially ruined people like Christian bakers and Christian wedding photographers for trying to live their lives in accordance with their faith and with the 1st Amendment of our Constitution.

And I can go on and on and ON, with appalling examples such as ObamaCare where Obama decreed that, “Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won.”  Obama shoved his shockingly flawed socialist health care takeover without ONE Republican vote in either the House or in the Senate and even had to play fascist fast and loose with the Senate rules to do that.  The article I cite shows that liberal Robert Reich actually warned what would happen if Republicans came to power and played the same game, but wicked Democrats refused to listen even if the wisdom came from their very own side.   Real Clear Politics had an article describing Obama as a blatant hypocrite on this issue in August of 2012; whereas I was screaming about this ugly fact of Democrat Party FASCISM back in 2009 when it had already more than become obvious.

I was so right about Obama it’s unreal.  Because by the time Real Clear Politics finally got around to realizing Obama was a blatant hypocrite I was saying this about what was going to happen as a RESULT of Obama’s eight-year fascist pattern of tyrannous rulings by fiat:

Obama’s strategy is to set aside and flatly ignore the law for his own political benefit.  Every American who is not deeply troubled by that – troubled enough to not vote for this fascist – is Un-American.

What Obama has done is provide an example of out-and-out lawlessness on the part of the president of the United States.  And when we get a hard-core right wing president the way Obama has been a hard-core left wing president, Obama and the Democrat Party and all of those who voted for Obama and the Democrat Party will be entirely to blame for that president and his extremist actions.  You mark my words.  Because what goes around comes around, and if a Democrat can set aside the law the way Obama has now repeatedly done, well, guess who’s going to be stomping on your necks under your own president’s prior justification???  Conservatives are rising up in a spirit of righteous outrage.  You have repeatedly slapped us in the face through your messiah Obama, and the time is coming when we’re going to punch you hard in the nose and then keep on punching.  And when that day comes, liberals, look to yourselves for blame.

Obama made it an ART FORM to refuse to uphold laws he doesn’t like.  The Defense of Marriage Act, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, our federal border and immigration laws, our 2nd Amendment, you name it, if Obama didn’t like it, it wasn’t the law even though it WAS the damn law.

Just as Obama proved that he was nothing short of a KING by his OWN words, Obama by his own words just told us that he spent the last eight miserable years trying to break our democracy.

Then you look at a horrifyingly misnamed “Democratic Party” that has NOTHING to do with “democracy” proving that fact by trying to rig the primary election so they could drag the worst, most paranoid, most fascist candidate in Hillary Clinton over the victory line.

If you are a Democrat and you don’t like President Donald Trump, get up right now from wherever you are, go to your kitchen, grab the heaviest cast iron frying pan you’ve got, and begin bashing yourself in the head with it until your skull is cracked open and whatever you numb wits call your brains are on the floor. BECAUSE YOU ARE MORE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE RISE OF DONALD TRUMP THAN ANYBODY.

And if Donald Trump governs the way Obama did and if the House and Senate govern the way the Nancy Pelosi House and the Harry Reid Senate did, whatever the hell happens is entirely your fault, and I spent the last eight years trying to warn you.

If Barack Obama had any humility and any honesty and any love for this nation whatsoever, he would hold a press conference and acknowledge that he was a horrifyingly terrible president, that he governed like nothing short of a tyrant king by executive fiat, that his entire political party had succumbed to a fascist disease, and that as a result his party suffered disaster; and that he can only plead, mea culpa, as the head of a broken party, that Donald Trump and the Republican Party would not engage in the same sort of Nazi tactics that his Democratic Party had engaged in.  And then maybe we could have some chance of meaningful dialogue and debate and compromise.

Instead Obama is like the snooty, arrogant anthropology professor in a class that every student has either dropped or desperately wishes they COULD drop.  And all he does is drone on and on analyzing everything that is wrong with the world from his incredibly narrow and ideologically-warped perspective.  WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY DENYING HE HAS ONE.

Obama continues to prove he is nothing short of a naked fool who lives in a false reality presiding over a party of naked fools who live in a false reality.

Meanwhile the Democrat Party is proving by their own WORDS before the damn election that yes, THEY ARE THE PARTY OF FASCISM, as they VIOLENTLY AND DESTRUCTIVELY RIOT rather than accept the results of an election that went 306 to 232 electoral college votes and 31-19 states in favor of Trump.  And Democrat states and cities are declaring that just like their god Obama, they TOO will defy laws they don’t like as they continue to impose their “sanctuary cities” policies no matter how blatantly contradictory they are to longstanding federal laws.

Look at the election map by county and you see what the overwhelming majority of the COUNTRY thinks about Democrats:

Democrats rely on these giant get-out-the-vote operations where homeless people and welfare recipients can get bused in enormous masses from government housing to polling places in dense urban jungles in exchange for cigarettes as well as win by theft as illegal immigrants, dead people, criminals, etc. get to “vote.”  These hard-core Democrat cities have been under Democrat Party machine control for a century and Democrats have FAILED these miserable people for a century but they are kept ignorant and they are kept hostage by the promise of welfare-for-life for votes.  The overwhelming majority of Democrat voters aren’t “invested” in anything beyond sucking off of the American tax payers who are forced to subsidize their failed lifestyles.  That is the ONLY way they have any chance of winning.  And WE’RE the ones who are “uninformed”???

Fwiw, I had a similar reaction to something he said later that gave me the same face as depicted above:

“If you’re not serious about this job, then you probably won’t be here very long.”

And I was like, “Oh, I don’t know about that; you managed to play a round of golf about every other day of your damn presidency and YOU stuck around for eight years.”

But that’s another story and the long nightmare of Obama is nearly over, so why bother…

 

It Is Truly Amazing And Terrifying How The Political Left At EVERY LEVEL Distort, Deceive And Demonize Our Right To Hear The FACTS

I have documented multiple times how rank-and-file Democrats have done everything they could to use every means – including infiltration and outright acts of violence – to prevent Americans from participating in the political process according to their 1st Amendment rights to hear a major political figure offer his ideas at a political rally.  It has become so bad that at times, Donald Trump has been forced to climb walls and truck loading docks to enter venues through rear entrances to avoid violent Democrat “protesters.”  And the same media that was all over Donald Trump when ONE Trump supporter struck a Democrat fascist infiltrator who was trying to prevent Trump from speaking to his supporters have done exactly WHAT to confront Democrat candidates over their continuous violence as they go to Trump events and try to violently stop them???

I am so beyond SICK of the abject moral hypocrisy that IS the Democratic Party.  Recently, a bunch of thug Democrats turned violent in Las Vegas, Nevada because they have come to realize that the arbitrary way the Democrat Party picks its candidates is quintessentially fascist.  And while these people are perfectly fine with violent fascism, they want THEIR fascism and THEIR fascist candidate.  So they rioted and demonstrated that they “have a penchant for violence.”  So, being fascist thugs, they “shouted down the keynote speaker, Sen. Barbara Boxer, and others they thought were tilting the rules in Clinton’s favor.”  They “shouted obscenities and rushed the dais to protest rulings.”  And they created “a very dangerous atmosphere that ended in chaos and physical threats to fellow Democrats.”

Now, here’s the thing.  The same damn Democrat fascist thugs have been doing AND CONTINUE DOING the very same damn thing to virtually EVERY Donald Trump rally that they did to DNC crony-capitalist fascist mucky-mucks in Las Vegas.  And all of a sudden it’s “violent.”  But these Democrat Party Nazis already proved they are Nazis when they not only refused to call the violent Democrat thugs out but even praised them and turned them into victims when they were engaging in all the exact same tactics against Donald Trump and his supporters at Republican rallies.

By the same vile argument the Democrat Party and the propagandists masquerading as “journalists” offered, the Democratic Party is evil and violent.  Because after all, if Trump was responsible for the violence of these “protestors,” then surely the Democratic Party is just as responsible when these identical protestors “protest” the identical same way they “protested” Trump events.  Thrown chairs. Screaming speakers down.  Brute intimidation of people trying to exercise their 1st Amendment rights.  Leaked cellphone numbers. Substances intended to look exactly like anthrax people mailed to people.  Death threats spewed across the Internet.  You know, all the traditional Democrat Party Nazi thug tactics plus a couple of new ones.

You tell me how many times Hillary Clinton has been forced to low-crawl under a fence to attend a rally because violent rightwingers would attack her???

The answer to that question as well as the one I ended my opening paragraph with is ZERO to the ten thousandth decimal point.  Similarly, why is it that thousands of Democrats illegally blocking traffic at event after event, chaining themselves to cars at event after event, screaming to drown out speakers at event after event, resorting to frequent violence even against the police who are trying to keep the peace at event after event – and frequently doing ALL Of the above under a foreign country’s flag – is okay but when one Trump guy goes over the top trying to stop the fascist madness it’s an indictment of Trump???  Because we live in a society today that the left has shaped to be even more suppressing of truth and facts and objective process in media coverage and fairness in reporting than it was when Joseph Goebbels ran his Ministry of Propaganda for the Nazi Party.

The cat – which is actually a fascist ferret – is out of the bag now.  We can openly see the left’s intent to destroy the 1st Amendment even as they pursue the destruction of the 2nd Amendment and the clearly defined “right of the people to keep and bear arms” which “shall not be infringed.”  At least until fascists take over.  So we have a liberal writing for the liberal Harvard University saying this:

Harvard writer: Abolish free speech
Woman claims First Amendment threatens liberalism
Published: 1 day ago

A student writer at Harvard University is raising eyebrows after publishing her belief that free speech on campus should be abolished and professors with opposing views be fired.

Sandra Korn, a senior who writes a column for the Harvard Crimson newspaper, thinks radical leftism is the only permissible political philosophy, and the First Amendment only hinders colleges from brainwashing students with her viewpoint.

“Let’s give up on academic freedom in favor of justice,” states the subtitle of her Feb. 18 column, in which she insists Harvard stop guaranteeing students and professors the right to hold controversial views and conduct research putting liberalism in a negative light.

“If our university community opposes racism, sexism, and heterosexism, why should we put up with research that counters our goals?” Korn asks.

“It is tempting to decry frustrating restrictions on academic research as violations of academic freedom. Yet I would encourage student and worker organizers to instead use a framework of justice. After all, if we give up our obsessive reliance on the doctrine of academic freedom, we can consider more thoughtfully what is just.”

You don’t have the right to speak unless a liberal agrees with you.  They have the right to shut you down, to shout you down which includes destroying your career, to punch you down, and the ends justifies the means.  Whether it’s Donald Trump or gay marriage or LGBT bathrooms or anything else.

This is now the official attitude of every single Democrat in any position of influence whatsoever.  And bad, wicked people vote for these fascists.

So we just found out that Facebook – one of the largest sources of “news” for young stupid morons who frankly don’t know a damn thing about reality because liberalism is Satanism – is an outright leftist propaganda source:

Former Facebook Workers: We Routinely Suppressed Conservative News
Michael Nunez
Monday 9:10am
· Filed to: Facebook

Facebook workers routinely suppressed news stories of interest to conservative readers from the social network’s influential “trending” news section, according to a former journalist who worked on the project. This individual says that workers prevented stories about the right-wing CPAC gathering, Mitt Romney, Rand Paul, and other conservative topics from appearing in the highly-influential section, even though they were organically trending among the site’s users.

Several former Facebook “news curators,” as they were known internally, also told Gizmodo that they were instructed to artificially “inject” selected stories into the trending news module, even if they weren’t popular enough to warrant inclusion—or in some cases weren’t trending at all. The former curators, all of whom worked as contractors, also said they were directed not to include news about Facebook itself in the trending module.

In other words, Facebook’s news section operates like a traditional newsroom, reflecting the biases of its workers and the institutional imperatives of the corporation. Imposing human editorial values onto the lists of topics an algorithm spits out is by no means a bad thing—but it is in stark contrast to the company’s claims that the trending module simply lists “topics that have recently become popular on Facebook.”

These new allegations emerged after Gizmodo last week revealed details about the inner workings of Facebook’s trending news team—a small group of young journalists, primarily educated at Ivy League or private East Coast universities, who curate the “trending” module on the upper-right-hand corner of the site. As we reported last week, curators have access to a ranked list of trending topics surfaced by Facebook’s algorithm, which prioritizes the stories that should be shown to Facebook users in the trending section. The curators write headlines and summaries of each topic, and include links to news sites. The section, which launched in 2014, constitutes some of the most powerful real estate on the internet and helps dictate what news Facebook’s users—167 million in the US alone—are reading at any given moment.

“Depending on who was on shift, things would be blacklisted or trending,” said the former curator. This individual asked to remain anonymous, citing fear of retribution from the company. The former curator is politically conservative, one of a very small handful of curators with such views on the trending team. “I’d come on shift and I’d discover that CPAC or Mitt Romney or Glenn Beck or popular conservative topics wouldn’t be trending because either the curator didn’t recognize the news topic or it was like they had a bias against Ted Cruz.”

The former curator was so troubled by the omissions that they kept a running log of them at the time; this individual provided the notes to Gizmodo. Among the deep-sixed or suppressed topics on the list: former IRS official Lois Lerner, who was accused by Republicans of inappropriately scrutinizing conservative groups; Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker; popular conservative news aggregator the Drudge Report; Chris Kyle, the former Navy SEAL who was murdered in 2013; and former Fox News contributor Steven Crowder. “I believe it had a chilling effect on conservative news,” the former curator said.

Another former curator agreed that the operation had an aversion to right-wing news sources. “It was absolutely bias. We were doing it subjectively. It just depends on who the curator is and what time of day it is,” said the former curator. “Every once in awhile a Red State or conservative news source would have a story. But we would have to go and find the same story from a more neutral outlet that wasn’t as biased.”

Stories covered by conservative outlets (like Breitbart, Washington Examiner, and Newsmax) that were trending enough to be picked up by Facebook’s algorithm were excluded unless mainstream sites like the New York Times, the BBC, and CNN covered the same stories.

And fat chance of that because the New York Slimes, BBC and Clinton News Network are every bit as biased as Facebook with the same sort of arrogant, self-righteous Ivy League liberals running them that are running Facebook.

Oh, the fascist leftist propagandists deny this ideological and outright dishonest suppression of truth has been going on.  But we have Zuckerberg himself on the record demonizing Trump every bit as much as the most rabid Clinton staffer, and we have Facebook’s own internal communications in which they ask, “What responsibility does Facebook have to help prevent President Trump in 2017?”

Yeah.  It’s not like the site that 140 million Americans get their “news” is rabidly BIASED or anything.

To answer the Facebook question above, how about NONE?  Because if you’re reporting as a NEWS SOURCE, you have a moral and ethical DUTY to merely REPORT the facts according to your own established objective criteria rather than play shenanigans and distort the record with your bias???

Easily proven leftist ideologue Mark Zuckerberg hired leftist ideologues as his “journalists” who then put their thumbs on the scales of every story they weighed to see if it was “trending.”  That’s what happened.

Then there’s the Washington Post, one of the two leading flagships of quote-unquote “journalism.”  We just learned that the leftist WaPo assigned a literal ARMY in journalistic terms of TWENTY REPORTERS to dig up dirt in every phase of Trump’s life:

Woodward: Washington Post Assigns 20 Reporters to Dig Into Trump’s Past
By Greg Richter   |    Wednesday, 11 May 2016 06:56 PM

The Washington Post has assigned 20 reporters to look into every aspect of Donald Trump’s past as the presumptive GOP nominee seeks to become the next president of the United States, famed Post associate editor, Bob Woodward, said Wednesday.

“There’s a lot we don’t know,” Woodward told the National Association of Realtors convention, according to The Washington Examiner. “We have 20 people working on Trump, we’re going to do a book, we’re doing articles about every phase of his life.”

Woodward himself is looking into Trump’s real estate deals, he said, saying that “The New York real estate world is more complex than the CIA.”

Woodward said Jeff Bezos, the Post’s publisher and a Democratic Party donor, has urged the paper to cover all of the candidates thoroughly.

“He said, ‘Look, the job at The Washington Post has to be tell us everything about who the eventual nominee will be in both parties, 15-part, 16-part series, 20-part series, we want to look at every part of their lives and we’re never going get the whole story of course but we can get the best attainable,'” Woodward said.

Woodward, who first exposed the Watergate break-in with fellow Post reporter Carl Bernstein, told the group that the Post also is working to get the “essence” of Hillary Clinton, the expected Democratic nominee. But he said he doesn’t believe Clinton purposely tried to use her private email server to send classified information when she was secretary of state.

“I don’t think anyone feels that there was intent on her part to distribute classified information in a way that was illegal or jeopardized security,” he said.

It’s amazing how subjective bias plays into their “objective” thinking.  And how these self-professing geniuses are too morally stupid to realize what they are doing.  Objectively, Hillary Clinton not only broke but SHATTERED every damn law on the books in her paranoid and fascist determination to establish a secret personal server so she could bypass all public transparency and reporting laws and bypass all security national laws.  And for the damn record, “intent” is totally irrelevant according to the law here, just as “gross negligence” is not a defense.  The question is merely, did Hillary Clinton put classified information on a nonsecure nongovernment device?  And if the answer is “yes,” she committed a federal crime.  Even the leftist Daily Kos – which albeit obviously is rooting for her opponent Bernie Sanders – acknowledges this objective fact.  But what do liberals do?  Let’s put aside the objective facts and focus on the most subjective element of all.  I mean, did they ever give Mitt Romney the benefit of the doubt in terms of his “intent” on ANYTHING they blasted him for???

Consider the Washington Post is trying to tell us that Donald Trump is somehow a new figure and they need to vet him.  Did they assign 20 reporters to dig up every shred of dirt on the totally unknown Barack Hussein Obama in 2008???  Nope.  Have they ever assigned 2o reporters to investigate ANY of Hillary Clinton’s vast conspiracies?  Benghazi?  The secret server?  The hundred million dollars the Clintons siphoned off from the world’s worst human rights abusers?  The fact that Bill Clinton just got caught giving $2 million dollars described for the IRS as “charitable contributions” to a “friend” he is in all likelihood having sex with?  The fact that the Clinton’s have a rather longstanding pattern of giving the VERY SCANT “charitable contributons” from their corrupt Clinton Foundation to political allies?  Keep in mind it is a documented FACT that the Clinton Foundation – officially for tax purposes a charity organization – gives only TEN PERCENT of the billions it is raising for “charity.”  And now we’re finding it goes to whore friends and crony friends.

These are just the very most RECENT facts that we’re learning.

We’re now learning that Hillary Clinton had a longstanding, regular and documented pattern that “show Hillary Clinton could not care less about the security of her communications.”  We’ve got her on the record saying send what by definition was secure information “nonsecure.”  strip the identifying headers saying “classified” all over the top of the page out first, mind out.  To the damn extent that “intent” even matters, how the hell does that not show her INTENT to break the law???  Especially when she was briefed and told and signed her acknowledgement that she was briefed and told what the damn law was.  And broke it over and over and over again anyway???

Now we’ve got Hillary Clinton caught red-handed in the damn act of lying to the American people yet again for like the fifty-trillionth time.  She has steadfastly maintained that she is NOT under FBI investigation but that this is all just a “security inquiry.”

Hillary Clinton for months has downplayed the FBI investigation into her private email server and practices as a mere “security inquiry.”

But when asked Wednesday by Fox News about Clinton’s characterization of the bureau’s probe, FBI Director James Comey said he doesn’t know what “security inquiry” means — adding, “We’re conducting an investigation. … That’s what we do.”

It’s in their damn NAME.  The last I heard it was the “Federal Bureau of INVESTIGATION.”  Hillary Clinton is under criminal investigation by the FBI and both she and the damn media are so pathologically dishonest we can’t even be told the damn truth about THAT.

But where the hell are your twenty damn reporters covering the past of Hillary Clinton when there are so many rotting and fresh bodies, so much toxic waste, so many crimes, it is beyond UNREAL???

The same place they’d be if the Washington Post was part of Goebbels’ Ministry of Propaganda during Hitler’s day.  Nowhere.

This exchange reveals the essence of modern “journalism” and the despicable bias that masquerades as “reporting”.  And how they will go after Republicans tooth and nail and then fascistically back-flip on what they had just sworn was their divine duty the moment a Democrat gets elected in favor of a different objective:

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Yeah, well, you know what? I want to do everything I can to make this thing work, this new presidency work, and I think that —

JOE SCARBOROUGH: Is that your job? You just talked about being a journalist!

MATTHEWS: Yeah, it is my job. My job is to help this country.

Matthews wasn’t done with his odd new job description . . . An incredulous Scarborough kept pressing, astonished at such a complete 180 from Matthews’s repeated insistence during the Bush presidency that he had to hold the government accountable.

SCARBOROUGH: Your job is the make this presidency work?

MATTHEWS: To make this work successfully. This country needs a successful presidency.

Matthews will hardly be alone in that sentiment. Once Obama assumes office, the “speaking truth to power” line we’ve heard so often during the past eight years will be a thing of the past.

It’s so damn dishonest and hypocritical, but to be a liberal, to be a Democrat, means having a soul that SWIMS in dishonesty and hypocrisy.

The thing that makes me so viscerally angry about this is that liberals spent – from the very outset when they tried to delegitimize Bush’s very election as president – eight vicious years savagely undermining every aspect of the Bush presidency, and now react in horror that a conservative would even think of doing the same thing to an Obama presidency.

You go back to the pioneers that liberal journalists built their field upon, such as Edward Bernays:

In describing the origin of the term Public Relations, Bernays commented, “When I came back to the United States [from the war], I decided that if you could use propaganda for war, you could certainly use it for peace. And propaganda got to be a bad word because of the Germans … using it. So what I did was to try to find some other words, so we found the words Counsel on Public Relations”.

Bernays explained his project this way:

“the very essence of the democratic process” is “the freedom to persuade and suggest,” what he calls “the engineering of consent.” If the freedom to persuade happens to be concentrated in a few hands, we must recognize that such is the nature of a free society.

UNLESS of course a conservative gets to say anything.  THEN he should be shouted down.  Because to be a liberal is to be a fascist hypocrite who lied and said it was a level-playing field when they were so slanting the field that it was beyond unreal.

Bernay’s daughter described her father this way:

“Democracy to my father was a wonderful concept, but I don’t think he felt that all those publics out there had reliable judgment.. that they very easily might vote for the wrong man, or want the wrong thing. So that they had to be guided from above. It’s enlightened despotism in a sense. You appeal to their desires and their unrecognized longings that sort of thing. That you can tap into their deepest desires or deepest fears and use that to your own purposes.”  Ann Bernays said, ““Anyone who disagreed with him, he used the word dope and stupid over and over.  And the masses, they were stupid.”

That’s what we get today from the elite media who call Republicans and especially Trump voters as ignorant and uneducated and stupid and worse.

And Walter Lippmann who defined “journalism” this way:

Walter Lippmann described a “revolution” in “the practice of democracy” as “the manufacture of consent”

Lippmann – the “journalist” par excellance, has a terrifying definition of his profession which could come right out of Lenin:

It follows that two political roles must be clearly distinguished, Lippmann goes on to explain. First, there is the role assigned to the specialized class, the “insiders,” the “responsible men,” who have access to information and understanding. Ideally, they should have a special education for public office, and should master the criteria for solving the problems of society: “In the degree to which these criteria can be made exact and objective, political decision,” which is their domain, “is actually brought into relation with the interests of men.” The “public men” are, furthermore, to “lead opinion” and take the responsibility for “the formation of a sound public opinion.” “They initiate, they administer, they settle,” and should be protected from “ignorant and meddlesome outsiders,” the general public, who are incapable of dealing “with the substance of the problem.” The criteria we apply to government are success in satisfying material and cultural wants, not whether “it vibrates to the self-centered opinions that happen to be floating in men’s minds.” Having mastered the criteria for political decision, the specialized class, protected from public meddling, will serve the public interest — what is called “the national interest” in the webs of mystification spun by the academic social sciences and political commentary.

The second role is “the task of the public,” which is much more limited. It is not for the public, Lippmann observes, to “pass judgment on the intrinsic merits” of an issue or to offer analysis or solutions, but merely, on occasion, to place “its force at the disposal” of one or another group of “responsible men.” The public “does not reason, investigate, invent, persuade, bargain, or settle.” Rather, “the public acts only by aligning itself as the partisan of someone in a position to act executively,” once he has given the matter at hand sober and disinterested thought. It is for this reason that “the public must be put in its place.” The bewildered herd, trampling and roaring, “has its function”: to be “the interested spectators of action,” not participants. Participation is the duty of “the responsible man.”

Which is to say that you have the right to shut up and stand aside if you are not hysterically screaming the same vileness that our elite, godless masters are spouting.  This has – as Noam Chomsky put it – “an unmistakeable resemblance to the Leninist concept of a vanguard party that leads the masses to a better life that they cannot conceive or construct on their own.”

Elsewhere Chomsky has this brilliant observation about the nature of the intellectual left:

Hume was an astute observer, and his paradox of government is much to the point. His insight explains why elites are so dedicated to indoctrination and thought control, a major and largely neglected theme of modern history. “The public must be put in its place,” Walter Lippmann wrote, so that we may “live free of the trampling and the roar of a bewildered herd,” whose “function” is to be “interested spectators of action,” not participants. And if the state lacks the force to coerce and the voice of the people can be heard, it is necessary to ensure that that voice says the right thing, as respected intellectuals have been advising for many years.

The end game of the left, of its’ “journalism,” of its’ twisted definition of “tolerance,” is this as I have defined it:

Political correctness is not just a leftist way to make overly-sensitive people feel better. It was designed by early Marxists in Russia and the left continues to execute the Orwellian tactic today: if you can control words, you can control thought; if you can control thought, you can control actions.  “PC” is an enormous, sophisticated and highly-coordinated effort by elitist intellectuals to “fundamentally transform” Western culture as we know it by  redefining it – by shaping the “acceptable” language people are allowed to use – and thereby dictating the parameters of cultural arguments.  And people with incredibly radical agendas have been exploiting this tactic for decades and it has succeeded.

Ultimately what these “respected intellectual” will advise will lead to this:

It also forced all people, great and small, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hands or on their foreheads, so that they could not buy or sell unless they had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of its name. — Revelation 13:16-17

The unwashed masses are being betrayed by these elites who profess themselves to be wise, but are fools (Romans 1:22).  We were warned by the Word of God, “Don’t let anyone capture you with empty philosophies and high-sounding nonsense that come from human thinking and from the spiritual powers of this world, rather than from Christ (Colossians 2:8).  But these deluded fools hate the Word of God with a rabid passion.  And that is why they impose abortion when Psalm 139 among other passages clearly teach that the unborn babies that are being murdered are innocent human beings created in the image of God and literally formed by God in that womb.  That is why they impose homosexuality when Romans chapter one could not be more clear that any society that does this is demanding that the wrath of a holy God be poured out upon it.

We are now learning that THOUSANDS of emails that were just hanging fruit on Clinton’s unsecured server are now in the possession of Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR).  They are hoping that the American people are stupid enough and wicked enough to elect Hillary so they can blackmail her into betraying the United States.

We are on the verge of actually electing a president who will be blackmailed into selling the soul of the United States of America to Vladimir Putin and Russia.  And NO ONE is talking about how Hillary Clinton betrayed America.

But don’t worry.  If Donald Trump every so much as tied his shoes improperly, you’ll know all about it on every television program, every newspaper and every magazine.

 

 

Truth Among Murder Victims As Left Tries To Make Jared Loughner A Republican

Pilate therefore said to Him, “So You are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say correctly that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.”  Pilate said to Him, “What is truth?” – John 18:37-38

Well, one thing’s for sure: the truth sure isn’t what the Democrat rhetoric is spouting in the aftermath of the Tucson, AZ shooting that resulted in the wounding of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords among 19 shooting victims, with six killed.

I was amazed to see the thousands of hits an old article I wrote had recently generated.  The reason?  Democrats who had demonized Sarah Palin for her “targeting strategy” – which Democrats themselves routinely do – are now demonizing her again because one of the vulnerable districts Palin identified well over a year ago was Rep. Gabrielle Giffords’ District 8.

As Democrats galore shrilly and viciously attack Sarah Palin for her “targeting,” what is conveniently ignored is that liberals not only targeted Gabrielle Giffords for defeat, but literally said “she’s dead.”

But “what is truth?” for these people?  An inconvenient obstacle to be overcome, at most.

I was also amazed that the White House literally used Fox News to pass off clear and demonstrable lies associating a conservative organization with Jared Loughner.

Incredibly, the Pima Country sheriff – elected as a Democrat – without a single shred of supporting evidence, has repeatedly denounced conservatives as being somehow to blame for the shootings in blatantly partisan and irresponsible manner.

“What is truth?”  Don’t ask Democrat Sheriff Clarence Dupnik.

And then there are the “Jared Loughner Facebook accounts” which “have all right wing books, websites, and people that he points to.”  Just more false flag operations by Democrats to falsely associate conservatives with the psycho assassin.

This crap just never ends. It doesn’t matter to these lying propagandists one iota that if anything, Jared Loughner was a liberal, rather than any kind of conservative.

Here’s yet another depraved Democrat attempt to deceive:

Loughner “Republican” Voter Registration faked. Three points that demonstrate that.
Posted on 01/10/2011 6:14:13 AM PST by Lazamataz

This document is circulating, purportedly showing Jared Loughner is a registered Republican.

There are two reasons why the document is faked, and one official proclamation that undermines it:

• TUCSON is spelled TUSCON. People who live in a city do not mispell it’s name.

• If you go to the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission website and put in the address listed on this “registration” it comes up in Senator District 26. This fraud voter reg says District 27. (Hat tip, Brytani)

• Chris Roads, Pima County Registrar of Voters, declares that Jared Loughner is registered as an independent. First registered in 2006. http://azstarnet.com/news/local/crime/article_78272a23-fe75-5bee-ba38-f8171cda3fb7.html

A blatantly partisan ideologue Newsweek “journalist” isn’t one bit disappointed in the sea of lies that characterize the Democrat response to this tragedy.  Far from it:

“You never want a serious crisis to go to waste,” Rahm Emanuel famously said in 2008. The same goes for a shooting spree that gravely wounds a beloved congresswoman. Congress won’t enact gun control, as it did in the wake of the assassinations of Martin Luther King and Robert F. Kennedy in 1968, but perhaps something positive can come from this.

This little Joseph Goebbels minion basically wants Barack Obama to deliver a “State of the Reich” Address and demagogue this tragic shooting into a demand to round up all the conservatives and put them in camps.

The strategy that the little Newsweek rodent recommends has been successfully tried in the past – by one Adolf Hitler.  Let us hope that the “new bipartisan Obama” (although there is this caveat) is now getting his advice from more humans and fewer rodents.

Democrats and their media lackeys are decrying the “angry” or “hateful” rhetoric which caused this shooting en masse.  And, of course, they mean “conservative” and “Republican” “angry” or “hateful” rhetoric.

But why would anyone think that?  Apart from the fact that they are ideologues and propagandists, I mean?  There’s no evidence whatsoever that Jared Loughner EVER listened to “right wing talk radio,” or supported Sarah Palin, or was a member of the tea party, or even cared about charged political issues such as health care.  The evidence is, rather, that he was severely mentally sick and living in his own twisted world.

They make the prima facia claim (with little or no supporting argument) that the angry partisan political climate can set off the mentally unbalanced.  Which is itself a mentally unbalanced claim to make.

A few things, there.  First, if this is so, and they really believe that, then how do they justify the eight incredibly angry years of “Bush derangement syndrome”?  Why was it not true when Republicans were in power, but not true now that Democrats are in power?  The mainstream media is far too pathologically biased and dishonest to show you that the WORST “climate of hate” comes from the left.

Second, why do Democrats, if they really believe their own crap, continue to make such bitter and polarizing comments if such comments can push the already unhinged over the edge?  Take our liberal propagandist “sheriff, for instance:

“When you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government — the anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country, is getting to be outrageous,” Dupnik said Sunday.

It’s clear who the sheriff has in mind. As he told Fox News’ Megyn Kelly: “We see one party trying to block the attempts of another party to make this a better country. … We as a country need to look into our souls and into our hearts and say is what we’re doing really in the best interest of this country, or is there something better we can do.”

Got that? The shooting was motivated by the rhetoric of “one party” — the Republicans — trying to stop the Democrats from making this “a better country.” Talk about “hate speech.”

Let me ask you, just for the sake of argument.  Suppose that there is some crazed liberal out there in the wings.  And said crazed liberal hears his law enforcement say, “We see [the Republican] Party trying to block the attempts of [the Democrat] Party to make this a better country.”  And, of course, he’s aghast.  What can be done to stop this evil Republican Party from keeping the Democrats from finally making this “a better country”???

Something must be done.  Someone must act.  By any means necessary.  Including – maybe even embracing – violence.

How does this not follow on their own rhetoric???

Didn’t Obama command, “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun”?

The president beamed his command into my brain to bring a gun to the Republican congressman’s meet-and-greet.

Didn’t Obama command, “I want you to argue with them and get in their face.”?

“Yes!  YES!  Get in their face.  With a gun!  And then pull the trigger!”

Didn’t Obama tell his followers to “punish our enemies”?  With said “enemies” being Republicans?

“My client says he had to punish those Republican congressmen.  He says the president commanded him to kill those congressmen.”

Now, to set the record straight, having pointed out just a few of Obama’s comments, I don’t think Obama was calling for violence.  Because, apparently unlike Democrats, I possess the moral intelligence to understand that he was using the same sort of common metaphors as Sarah Palin has when she has said, “Don’t retreat, reload.”  And, on the flip side, I realize that if Sarah Palin is a disgrace, then the president of the United States is far more so, given the very office from which he has said these things.

A reasonable person can’t help but be confused at the constant double-standard that comes from Democrats.  If this kind of rhetoric is wrong, if it leads to violence, then why do they keep doing it themselves???  And why do they denounce Republicans even while they themselves are doing the very thing they say is evil to do???  And how do their skulls not explode from containing all the contradictions???

Let me offer something that happened to me a couple of years ago to show how political rhetoric – whether “angry” or “hateful” or not – has little if anything to do with setting off an unhinged mind.

A very sweet lady in my church asked several of her friends to help her with a big garage sale she wanted to have.  Being a sweet lady, she asked the police if it was okay to put out signs around town notifying drivers of her yard sale.  Which most people just do.  And, being a sweet lady, when the police told her people weren’t supposed to put out such signage, she didn’t do it.  Which meant that her yard sale – with all the effort that went into it – was twisting in the wind.

So I made a nice, big sign that said “Yard Sale” along with the address, drove to the main drag in town, and waved that darned thing around to first the northbound traffic, then the southbound traffic, and so on and so forth.  And when I came back a couple hours later, I was assured that my incredibly soul-numbing boredom had not been in vain: a lot of people suddenly started showing up.

I love sweet little old ladies.  And don’t you dare mess with one while I’m anywhere nearby, if you like your teeth.

Well, all that was to bring up something that happened while I was holding that sign that merely said “YARD SALE” with a house address.  A woman walking on the sidewalk came up to me, took a look at the sign, and screamed, “Yard Sale!  YARD SALE!”  And just went off on me in an uncontrollable rant for two or three minutes.

I never said a single word to her.  There was no point.  She was clearly not in her right mind, and there’s no point trying to argue with or reason with deranged people.

And the point is, anything can set these people off.  Absolutely anything.  Even the words “Yard Sale” on a cardboard sign, accompanied by the probably wide-eyes of a helpless man staring into the bulging eyeballs of the insane.

It’s not a matter of “avoid the anger.”  Avoid everything.  Shut down the economy.  Close the stores.  Stay in your homes.  Shut off all the television and radio stations.  Make tinfoil hats.  Because even your very thoughtwaves can set these people off.

So this notion that Republicans and conservatives must “tone down the hate” – while of course Democrats may continue to feel free to unleash hell – is so paranoid and so unhinged that I can’t help but watch these Democrats and these reporters and see the face of that whacked-out woman going off on me about my yard sale sign.

Sheriff Dupnik saying that what people hear on the radio and on television makes them do the things they do could well come right out of the brain of Jared Loughner, who merely replaces “radio and television” with “government.”  It’s equally insane.

I can easily picture the “sheriff,” and liberals like Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow cringing in lead-lined bunkers hoping that their tinfoil hats are thick enough to prevent Sarah Palin – who already lives rent-free in their heads – from taking over that final molecule and forcing them to do her evil bidding.

That’s basically the message of the left right now: “Put on your tinfoil hats, people!  Because your all in danger of having your minds commandeered by rightwing hate!”

And, at risk of boring you, that was precisely what Jared Loughner’s disturbed and paranoid brain feared: mind control.

This Jared Loughner guy wasn’t livid over ObamaCare or the stimulus or anything based in reality; he was frothing at the mouth over the government being behind the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center, he was furious over the government taking over our brains by controlling grammar, he was enthralled with his bizarre dreams, that sort of thing.  He was as disconnected from politics as he was from the rest of reality.  Loughner once confronted Rep. Giffords with a question that made no sense.  And when she basically ignored it, his warped mind apparently fixated on her.

To make the Democrats’ despicable argument all the more so, based on their view, you could reasonably blame Gabrielle Giffords for the shooting.  Jared Loughner was listening to her, and she clearly didn’t say the right thing – which incited him to violence.

Every single journalist and every single politician who demands that people – and particularly conservative people – tone down their political views should be immediately discredited as nothing more than despicable ideological hacks.

What we are seeing is the murder of seven victims.  Not just six.  The seventh is truth, which is now being contorted and ripped beyond the breaking point for the sake of partisan political ideology.

And I’ll end by saying this: the record of history could not be more clear: the worse monsters in political history have without fail been those who have demanded that their opponents be silent.  The last thing we should ever want to follow is the political rationale that says, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.”

New Jersey Teachers’ Unions Show They Like Communism More Than Common Sense

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie is showing he is even more fearless and determined to fulfill his promises than he is rotund.

Liberals – the demagogues and haters in this country – are relying on a vicious ad hominem campaign of hate over Christie’s weight because mean-spirited hate and ad hominem demagogic rhetoric is all they’ve got.

Big blunder cost New Jersey teachers years of goodwill
By Kevin Manahan
May 27, 2010, 5:05AM

My father spent nearly his entire career in public relations at AT&T, so he was always dispensing advice on how to handle personal crises, big and small. And when I would come home from my high school job of stocking shelves at King’s Supermarket, complaining about some ungracious customer, he would remind me:

“AT&T spends millions of dollars trying to shape the public’s opinion of us, but it takes only one rude telephone operator to flush all that money and ruin all of my hard work. The same thing could happen at King’s.”

His lesson was clear: One bad decision, one stupid miscalculation, can wreck years of good will.

Which brings us to the New Jersey Education Association.

In an astonishing fall from grace that has taken only months, teachers have gone from respected and beloved members of the community to some of the most reviled. In a blink, they have trashed years of good will.

Once the patient darlings who nurtured our kids, teachers now look like insensitive, out-of-touch, can’t-think-for-themselves union robots who, when forced to face economic realities, clung to an insulting sense of entitlement, heartlessly sacrificed the jobs of colleagues, called the governor naughty names and used students as political pawns.

All while blaming everyone else.

At Saturday’s rally in Trenton, teachers wondered when the Earth started spinning in the other direction.

“It’s like we woke up one morning and the world had changed,” said Linda Mirabelli, a music teacher in Livingston. “We were liked and respected, and now, overnight, people have turned against us.”

How did it happen? That’s easy: One bad decision, one stupid miscalculation: An overwhelming majority of teachers refused to accept a pay freeze. They could have won taxpayers’ eternal gratitude, but instead demanded their negotiated raises and fought against contributing a dime toward budget-breaking health insurance benefits. Teachers could have pitched in, but they dug in.

They thumbed their noses at taxpayers, who have lost their jobs, had their pay cut, gone bankrupt and fallen into foreclosure. As taxpayers made less, teachers demanded more. You do that, you become a villain. Fast. It doesn’t matter how many stars Junior gets on his book report.

Teachers listened to their overpaid brain trust, the architects of this disastrous public relations strategy. Together, NJEA president Barbara Keshishian, executive director Vincent Giordano and spokesman Steve Wollmer earn more than a million dollars. Keshishian, who has been outmaneuvered by the governor at every turn, earns $256,450 annually. Giordano, with salary and deferred compensation, earned $550,203 in 2009, and Wollmer makes $300,000.

Who says you get what you pay for? Union members are shelling out a lot of money for lousy representation. They should stage a coup. Instead they joined hands at Saturday’s You-And-Me-Against-The-World rally and tried to convince each other they’re doing the right thing.

To compound the troubles, the NJEA does something stupid almost every day. They insult the governor; teachers (and administrators) let kids walk out of class to protest cuts in aid; union members refuse to give up their seats to private-school students at a hearing in Trenton.

And now the NJEA is now running TV commercials, attacking Christie (again), this time using cops and firemen for cover, hoping the public still likes those guys. The firefighters union, realizing the teachers union is now toxic, says it never would have approved the commercial, but the NJEA never asked.

NJEA leadership should have seen the backlash coming. Tenure, raises, pensions, health care benefits and an aversion toward merit pay have irked taxpayers for years. The recession ignited that anger, and no last-gasp advertising blitz will change the perception of insensitive teachers who told taxpayers to eat chalk.

So, the question is: Was it worth it?

The average public school teacher makes $63,000, and the average raise this year was roughly 4 percent, so teachers traded $2,520 for these scars, which never will heal. And because Christie and taxpayers asked only for a one-year pay freeze, it’s money teachers could have recovered next year.

Imagine how differently teachers would be perceived today if they had agreed to a pay freeze and willingly offered a few bucks toward their health policies. They’d be heroes.

Heck, we would have staged a rally for them.

Kevin Manahan is a member of the Star-Ledger editorial board.

Want to hear how the public school teachers are responding to being asked to show some responsibility to a massive financial crisis that is threatening their state with bankruptcy?  Want to see how mature and tolerant they are?

Teachers Call Christie ‘Fat F**k,’ ‘A**hole’ On Facebook
GEOFF MULVIHILL | 04/19/10 09:43 PM

HADDONFIELD, N.J. — They’re the kind of obscenity-laced schoolyard taunts that could get a student suspended.

But the target of this tirade is New Jersey’s Gov. Chris Christie – and the perpetrators are the state’s teachers, irate over his calls for salary freezes and funding cuts for schools.

In Facebook messages visible to the world – not to mention their students – the teachers have called Christie fat, compared him to a genocidal dictator and wished he was dead. The postings are often riddled with bad grammar and misspellings.

“Never trust a fat f…,” read one profane post on the Facebook page, “New Jersey Teachers United Against Governor Chris Christie’s Pay Freeze,” which has some 69,000 fans, many of them teachers.

“How do you spell A– hole? C-H-R-I-S C-H-R-I-S-T-I-E,” read another.

The rhetoric has become ever more heated as residents of most of the state’s school districts get ready to vote Tuesday on property tax levies that support district budgets. And while many of the postings are emotional, most aren’t personal attacks.

Christie, a first-year Republican governor who inherited a state in dire financial straits, wants voters to reject the proposals in districts where educators won’t agree to salary freezes for the coming school year.

The acrimony intensified last month when Christie proposed cutting state and federal aid to districts by 11 percent, calling it a way to share sacrifice as the state tries to rein in spending.

That’s when the Facebook attacks really took off. […]

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: these are the loathsome, dishonest hypocrites who have repeatedly attacked the tea party people as being hateful bigots.  When THEY’RE the hateful bigots.

How about praying for Governor Christie to die?

TRENTON, N.J. — A teacher union’s memo hinting that New Jersey’s governor should die has escalated a war of words in a state already squabbling about public schools and how much they cost.

The memo from the Bergen County Education Association to its locals reads in part: “Dear Lord this year you have taken away my favorite actor, Patrick Swayze, my favorite actress, Farrah Fawcett, my favorite singer, Michael Jackson, and my favorite salesman, Billy Mays. I just wanted to let you know that Chris Christie is my favorite governor.”

Christie doesn’t care.  He knows these people are vile, loathsome, and hateful, and that they are selfish, greedy, little Marxist commissars who demand that the system keep paying them top benefits in their cushy 180-day-a-year jobs even as the people reel from high taxes and unemployment.

Here’s Christie on video confronting a teacher.  It’s edited for mainline media news consumption, but Christie still manages to shine through:

I love that exchange.  Teacher: “Bitch bitch bitch, whine whine whine.”  Christie: “Then quit.”

Politico has a brief write-up of the encounter:

New Jersey GOP Gov. Chris Christie told a disgruntled teacher that if she doesn’t like the pay, she doesn’t “have to do it.”

Christie was speaking to a small crowd in a church gymnasium in Rutherford on Tuesday when the Bergen County Record caught the exchange between Kearny teacher Rita Wilson and the governor.

Wilson claimed that if she were getting paid only three dollars an hour for the 30 students she teaches, her salary would be $83,000 a year, a much higher sum than her current take.

“You’re getting more than that if you include the cost of your benefits,” Christie pointed out.

The teacher responded by saying that she has a master’s degree and that her current salary isn’t compensating her for the value of her higher education as well as her experience.

To that, the governor responded: “Well, you know then that you don’t have to do it.”

What doesn’t come out of this exchange is something that Chris Christie couldn’t have known: that Rutherford teacher Rita O’Neil Wilson actually makes $86,389 a year for her 180-day-a-year job, according to the records.  Like all liberals, she lied.  Like all liberals, she couldn’t even come up with an example that actually worked to attack the already-way-too-generous system.

Stop and think about this teacher’s demented, pathologically entitlement-minded demand for $3 an hour per student.  Where in the world does this “$3 an hour per child” mentality come from???  Say that she were teaching 15 students, and then started teaching thirty: did she actually double her work load?  Does she now spend twice the time preparing her lessons?  Of course not.  This woman is making $86,000 a year for a 180-day-a-year job.  And she thinks she should collect more because of some $3 an hour per kid figure some liberal loon pulled out of her butt?  I don’t think so.

But I’d take her up on her offer and have her teach just ONE kid at $3 an hour.  Because if you should get $3 an hour for thirty kids, you should get $4 an hour for one kid.  And that way she’d only get to destroy only one kid’s life through her socialist indoctrination.  Maybe after she left New Jersey could hire a less whiny and less self-centered teacher in her place, who would actually be delighted to teach children 180 days a year for over $86 grand.

Whether America crashes and burns into a failed socialist hellhole, or whether we’re able to pull ourselves up out of a mountain of debt, is up to whether people like union teachers or Chris Christie win the day.

Al Gore’s Argument With Sarah Palin Reveals Inconvenient Truths For ‘Climate Change’

Someone put it this way:

Al Gore has it exactly right. If Republicans can use Sarah Palin as a source, then Al Gore, who has actually studied this issue, deserves a hearing too.

I’ll bite on that.  Al Gore has a right to be heard.  After all, we’re not like the vindictive global warming “scientists” who suppress the work of those who disagree with them in what has all the appearances of a fanatical effort to persecute anyone skeptical of their religion.

From the largest and most trusted newspaper in the land, The Wall Street Journal:

Some emails also refer to efforts by scientists who believe man is causing global warming to exclude contrary views from important scientific publications.

“This is horrible,” said Pat Michaels, a climate scientist at the Cato Institute in Washington who is mentioned negatively in the emails. “This is what everyone feared. Over the years, it has become increasingly difficult for anyone who does not view global warming as an end-of-the-world issue to publish papers. This isn’t questionable practice, this is unethical.” […]

In one email, Benjamin Santer from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in Livermore, Calif., wrote to the director of the climate-study center that he was “tempted to beat” up Mr. Michaels. Mr. Santer couldn’t be reached for comment Sunday.

In another, Phil Jones, the director of the East Anglia climate center, suggested to climate scientist Michael Mann of Penn State University that skeptics’ research was unwelcome: We “will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!” Neither man could be reached for comment Sunday.

So I as a global warming skeptic am willing to let Al Gore be heard simply because I am a more open and honest person than the global warming alarmists.

But it’s not just that.  I’m also willing to let Sarah Palin debate Al Gore even though Al Gore “has actually studied this issue.”  After all, I’m willing to bet that Sarah Palin, unlike Al Gore, knows that the temperature of the earth’s core is not the “several million degrees” that Al Gore wrongly and frankly idiotically claimed it was.

I’m sure that Al Gore has studied something, but it wasn’t actual facts, it wasn’t truth, and it certainly wasn’t “science” by any legitimate meaning of the word.

All I want from Al Gore when he gets his “hearing” is that he actually tells the truth, rather than making false and misleading statements.

Here’s one for instance:

Al Gore has studied the Climategate emails with his typically rigorous eye and dismissed them as mere piffle:

Q: How damaging to your argument was the disclosure of e-mails from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University?

A: To paraphrase Shakespeare, it’s sound and fury signifying nothing. I haven’t read all the e-mails, but the most recent one is more than 10 years old. These private exchanges between these scientists do not in any way cause any question about the scientific consensus.

In the interview above, Al Gore repeats this lie about all the emails being more than ten years all three separate times.

But here’s the inconvenient truth that Al Gore would tell if he were being honest or factual:

In fact, as Watts Up With That shows, one Climategate email was from just two months ago. The most recent was sent on November 12 – just a month ago. The emails which have Tom Wigley seeming (to me) to choke on the deceit are all from this year. Phil Jones’ infamous email urging other Climategate scientists to delete emails is from last year.

The emails Jones wanted deleted were related to a Freedom of Information Act issue.  The “global warming skeptics” wanted research so they could do their own review.  It was unethical and contemptible to try to destroy such evidence.

The most damaging emails were from this year, not from “more than ten years ago.”  In point of fact, the latest email was dated 12 Nov 2009 19:17:44 GMT.  They weren’t just cheating, lying, colluding, conspiring, demagoguing, concealing, and distorting ten years ago.  They were cheating, lying, colluding, conspiring, demagoguing, concealing, and distorting only last month.

Here’s an inconvenient truth: global warming “scientists” such as Phil Jones were manipulating the data to get the result they wanted:

“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”

Now, the global warming alarmists are trying to say that “trick” is being used colloquially as in a clever thing to do, but what’s the purpose of the “trick”?  “To hide the decline.”

Why would they want to “hide the decline”?

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

We’re not the ones using “tricks” to “hide the increases.”  It’s the global warming alarmists who are using “tricks” to “hide the declines.”

There is an obvious pattern of deceit and corruption from politically- and ideologically-involved scientists who will get far more grant money hyping global warming and trying to solve the manufactured crisis of climate change than they would get if they said there wasn’t a problem.

And if that isn’t bad enough, we now find that these “scientists” have purged all their raw data – which had been sought by skeptics of anthropogenic warming for years.   Beyond trusting the massaged data of documented liars and frauds, we now have to merely take their word for most of their “research conclusions.”

I’d trust my newborn baby to a starving pack of coyotes before I’d trust these people to tell me the truth.

So when we give you that hearing you deserve, Al Gore, tell the truth.  Don’t keep selling the massive package of lies you’ve been selling all these years.

Al Gore says:

I’m not a scientist, so I’m not the best witness, but I have followed the debate for 40 years. It was a somewhat harder case to make 30-40 years ago, but it was still clear. So many of the details have been filled in now, it’s very hard to find a respectable argument contrary to the consensus on the main points about global warming. Some people don’t want to hear that, but it’s a fact.

That’s real interesting, considering that in 1971 – fewer than forty years ago if my math is correct – prominent global warming alarmists such as NASA demagogue James Hansen were predicting an ice age that would emerge from global cooling.

So it’s not “clear” in the way that science should be clear; rather, it’s “clear” in the way that radical judicial activists “clearly” saw the “penumbras and emanations” in the Constitution that showed that women should be able to murder the father of their childrens’ babies without the father of those same children having any say whatsoever in the matter.

Their “science” is as “clear” as their fecal matter, except for the fact that fecal matter would constitute raw data – something that they don’t have.

So we finally get to the current argument between Al Gore and Sarah Palin.  Palin wrote an Op-ed in the Washington Post that Al Gore emerged from his carbon-spewing private jet to comment on in an interview:

MITCHELL: Well, one of the things that she has written recently on Facebook is that this is doomsday scare tactics pushed by an environmental priesthood that makes the public feel like owning an SUV is a sin against the planet.

GORE: Well, the scientific community has worked very intensively for 20 years within this international process, and they now say the evidence is unequivocal. A hundred and fifty years ago this year was the discovery that CO-2 traps heat. That is a — a principle in physics. It’s not a question of debate. It’s like gravity; it exists.

Sarah Palin’s response to Al Gore was tantamount to a bitch slapping, only Al Gore was “the bitch”:

Steven Hayward has a great article in The Weekly Standard on the Climategate scandal. Be sure to check it out.

The response to my op-ed by global warming alarmists has been interesting. Former Vice President Al Gore has called me a “denier” and informs us that climate change is “a principle in physics. It’s like gravity. It exists.”

Perhaps he’s right. Climate change is like gravity – a naturally occurring phenomenon that existed long before, and will exist long after, any governmental attempts to affect it.

However, he’s wrong in calling me a “denier.” As I noted in my op-ed above and in my original Facebook post on Climategate, I have never denied the existence of climate change. I just don’t think we can primarily blame man’s activities for the earth’s cyclical weather changes.

Former Vice President Gore also claimed today that the scientific community has worked on this issue for 20 years, and therefore it is settled science. Well, the Climategate scandal involves the leading experts in this field, and if Climategate is proof of the larger method used over the past 20 years, then Vice President Gore seriously needs to consider that their findings are flawed, falsified, or inconclusive.

Vice President Gore, the Climategate scandal exists. You might even say that it’s sort of like gravity: you simply can’t deny it.

– Sarah Palin

Let me add a little more to Sarah’s incredibly good response to Al Gore.  Gore wants to claim that CO2 trapping heat is a principle of physics.  And it is.  But what he doesn’t account for – and what none of the global warming alarmist data-massaged computer models don’t account for – is that the planet has a means for venting vast amounts of carbon dioxide.

We have long known for a decade about the climatic heat vent over the Pacific that vents global warming gasses into space.  We have long known that greenhouse gasses are trapped in the “sponge” of the oceans.  What we find is that the vent increases the efficiency of rainfall when the sea surface temperatures rise above 28 degrees centigrade, and that the CO2 goes into the clouds, and then out of the atmosphere.  So Al Gore again demonstrates that global warming proponents don’t know very much about science.  CO2 traps heat, but only in a hypothetical closed system.  Which is simply not the case here on the “real world” of earth.

Also read:

What the Science REALLY Says About Global Warming

What You Never Hear About Global Warming

Biden Calls Republicans ‘Absolutists’ As His Party Vows to Punish Joe Lieberman

Vice President Biden once again proved that he is the intellectual compatriot with Ruprecht the Monkey Boy in his statement about Republicans being “absolutists” even as he attacked conservatives such as Sarah Palin in a quintessentially absolutist manner.

Biden stumps for Owens, takes dig at Palin

(CNN) – Vice President Joe Biden challenged Republican voters in New York’s 23rd congressional district to teach conservative “absolutists” a lesson in the special House election Tuesday by voting for the Democratic candidate in the race.

“We aren’t asking you to switch your party,” Biden said at a rally for Democrat Bill Owens in Watertown, New York Monday morning. “We are just saying join us in teaching a lesson to those absolutists who say no dissent is permitted within your own party.” […]

“This is a different ideology,” Biden continued. “This is different than anything I’ve known in my 45 years of being familiar with this district. You know, they may have any room for moderate views in the Republican Party upstate anymore, but let me assure you, we have room, we have room.”

Later in his remarks, the vice president couldn’t help but return to the subject of the former Alaska governor when the issue of energy came up.

“Sarah Palin thinks the answer to energy is ‘Drill, baby, drill,’ he said, leaning into the microphone. “It’s a lot more complicated, Sarah, than drill baby drill.”

First of all, Ruprecht, you total waste of a human brain, it wasn’t the Republican Party that displayed “absolutism.”  A group of “eleven county GOP committee apparatchiks” selected Dede Scozzafava in a form of “absolutism” that was clearly idiotic, but hardly ideological.  There was no election; the people in the Republican Party of NY-23 did not get to express their voice.  Secondly, it was hardly the Republican Party that displayed “absolutism,” apart from the “so-open-minded-their-brains-fell-out” form of idiocy mentioned above; GOP establishment figures such as Michael Steele and Newt Gingrich endorsed Scozzafava in spite of a whole host of reasons not to.

It was the fact that the conservative majority of the NY-23 district deserved better than Scozzafava, just like the country as a whole deserves better than you, Ruprecht.

The PEOPLE you so demagogue and despise rose up and rejected this abortion-supporting abortion of a Republican.  And they chose in place of this apparatchik-foisted pseudo-Republican candidate an actual conservative, which is what they SHOULD have had in the first place.

With Scozzafava no longer clogging the vote as a Republican-In-Name-Only, Hoffman has a huge lead.  In fact, he apparently had a huge lead regardless of WHAT Scozzafava did:

In a three way contest with Democrat Bill Owens and Republican Dede Scozzafava Hoffman leads with 51% to 34% for Owens and 13% for Scozzafava. In a head to head contest with Owens Hoffman holds a 54-38 advantage.

Instead of Republicans learning some fictitious lesson about their “absolutism,” why don’t Democrats learn about just how massively unpopular the radical policies of the Democrats are becoming in the minds of more and more of the electorate?

Meanwhile, Ruprecht, you self-righteous hypocritical fraud, Democrats are “vowing unity,” with “Democrats everywhere are uniting for change.” How is it that you can have unity, but Republicans are evil for wanting the same damn thing?

And while we’re talking about “absolutism,” why don’t we contemplate what happens if a Democrat decides to stop goose stepping for a second and actually voices a dissenting viewpoint?

One of the leading Senate Democrats on healthcare reform legislation fired a warning shot in Sen. Joe Lieberman’s direction yesterday, previewing the possible consequences of joining a GOP filibuster.

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), chairman of the Senate HELP Committee, told reporters that Lieberman (I-Conn.) ought to consider the benefits of his membership in the Democratic caucus before he decides how to vote on healthcare reform.

“[Lieberman] still wants to be a part of the Democratic Party although he is a registered independent. He wants to caucus with us and, of course, he enjoys his chairmanship of the [Homeland Security] committee because of the indulgence of the Democratic caucus. So, I’m sure all of those things will cross his mind before the final vote,” Harkin said in a conference call.

Just who do you damn Democrats think you are to lecture ANYBODY about “absolutism”?

What might be the most delicious thing of all was the way that Sarah Palin, having only Facebook to respond to the White House’s massive communications advantage, nevertheless further pulverized the nectarine mush that is surely stuffed inside the brainless wonder’s skull:

Palin’s Latest Facebook Note

As the vice president knows, I have always advocated an all-of-the-above approach to American energy independence. Among other things, my alternative energy goal for Alaska sits at 50 percent because Alaska reached more than 20 percent during my term in office. The Obama-Biden administration, on the other hand, recently announced a renewable goal of only 25 percent. However, domestic drilling should remain a top priority in order to meet America’s consumption and security needs.

The vice president’s extreme opposition to domestic energy development goes all the way back to 1973 when he opposed the Alaska pipeline bill. As Ann Coulter pointed out, “Biden cast one of only five votes against the pipeline that has produced more than 15 billion barrels of oil, supplied nearly 20 percent of this nation’s oil, created tens of thousands of jobs, added hundreds of billions of dollars to the U.S. economy and reduced money transfers to the nation’s enemies by about the same amount.”

This nonsensical opposition to American domestic energy development continues to this day. Apparently the Obama-Biden administration only approves of offshore drilling in Brazil, where it will provide security and jobs for Brazilians. This election is about American security and American jobs.

There’s one way to tell Vice President Biden that we’re tired of folks in Washington distorting our message and hampering our nation’s progress: Hoffman, Baby, Hoffman!

– Sarah Palin

They say Sarah Palin wasn’t “experienced” enough to be the Vice President.  Sure, she had more executive experience than Barack Obama even counting his ten months as president.  Sure, she could change the entire health care debate with a Facebook entry while on vacation.  Sure, she could demonstrate what an idiot Barack Obama’s pick for V.P. was with a couple of paragraphs.  What matters most of all is that even after Sarah Palin is no longer a candidate for Vice President, and even after she has stepped down as Governor of Alaska, Democrats still become emotionally unhinged at the very thought of her.

I have long-since become sick with Democrats – who have become the biggest demagogues since Joseph Goebbels – routinely pointing fingers of blame when they are five times more guilty of whatever they are accusing the Republicans are doing.

 

Sarah Palin Continues To Confound Bitter Left

Remember the avalanche of political obituaries journalists wrote following Sarah Palin’s decision to step down as governor?

Sarah Palin was 14 for 14 defeating one trumped-up “ethics” violation after another from unhinged leftists who were using the courts as a means to attack her.  But in today’s caricature of justice that liberalism has created, one can win big and lose huge: she was at least $500,000 in debt – and I’ve heard figures close to $1 million – fending off these frivolous lawsuits.  With her own children under vile personal attack, with her family deep in debt through no fault of her own, and with her very ability to govern hamstrung by “Sarah Palin Derangement Syndrome,” she stepped down and left the governance of Alaska to her trusted lieutenant.

And it was revealing how the very same people who unrelentingly dumped on Sarah Palin as some kind of inbred hill-billy chick who wasn’t qualified to manage a 7-11 were outraged by her decision to step down as governor.

In any event, if I had a nickel for every mainstream media entry into the “Sarah Palin is finished” narrative, I’d be so filthy rich it would be unreal.

Sarah Palin redefined the entire debate on ObamaCare with a single Facebook entry submitted while she was on vacation.

Not bad for a political has-been who destroyed her platform and popularity by stepping down.

Now we learn another little factoid about Sarah Palin’s ongoing relevance:

Palin worth $100,000 per hour; over 1,000 invitations so far

August 31, 9:57 AM Fresno Political Buzz Examiner Nicco Capozzi

Many pundits, Alaskans, and simple political observers have pondered why Former Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin resigned from office. One answer now seems apparent—money. Since her resignation, Palin has been offered over 1,000 invitations to make paid speeches, appear, and campaign on behalf of politicians and political groups.

She has received offers from numerous speakers’ bureaus (scouts for speechmakers) and has reportedly signed with at least one of them, the Washington Speakers Bureau. Washington Speakers Bureau’s clientele currently consist of Former President George W. Bush and Laura Bush, Bob Woodward, Katie Couric, Colin Powell, Rudy Giulianni, Alan Greenspan, and many others. For a full list of speakers click here.

Nearly all of the over 1,000 invitations include request for speeches. On top of the speeches, over 120 political candidates from all levels of federal and state government have requested Palin to appear on their behalf at various political events. She will also make cameos for charities, Christian organizations, and other related social causes and groups.

So when Palin beckoned to Alaskans that she would better serve them not as their governor but as a private citizen, what she really meant was, she will raise a tremendous amount of money so that she could have a better chance of running for President in 2012.  Or, she could have resigned simply to make money without having any plans to run for higher office.  Of the 1,000 speech invitations, almost all will be bring the former governor $100,000 each.

Palin has not yet confirmed where she will be speaking or campaigning, but responses to the invitations are expected to begin this week. However, one cannot expect Palin to hurry in confirming such invitations as she has her book to finish (reported to be 85% complete), and a giant file of other offers ranging from cable to business ventures that she is still considering. With all the possibilities, it is no wonder Palin left a $100,000 government job as she can now make that in one hour of work—a sum to which soccer moms and plumbers can certainly relate.

Now, of course, that last sentence immediately above is just pure bitter leftist showing through.  Sarah Palin could be the most successful human being who ever lived, and the leftwing wouldn’t allow her so much as one yoctogram of praise or credibility.  Comprehending reality is just not in their nature.

Not only has Sarah Palin not lost her relevance; but she has gained more than she had when she was serving as governor of Alaska.

You know who really SHOULD step down?  Every single “journalist” who discredited himself or herself trying to tear Sarah Palin down.  How much credibility do the people who wrote Sarah Palin’s obituary deserve?