Of the sons of Issachar, men who understood the times, with knowledge of what Israel should do, their chiefs were two hundred; and all their kinsmen were at their command — 1 Chronicles 12:32
When Barack Obama was inaugurated as our 44th president of the United States – an event not one Republican boycotted, fwiw – there was the great inspirational sense that this nation had finally in his election soared past its most sorrowful history: the history of racial inequality. Many Americans who didn’t even agree with Obama’s policies were swept up in this inspiration.
I myself didn’t vote for Obama because I believe that a president ought to be judged by the content of his character rather than by the color of his skin. And while I would and will vote for any candidate – regardless of race or gender – who upholds sacred values, Barack Obama has NEVER upheld sacred values either before or following his election.
Still, there was no denying that Obama’s presidency – the presidency of the first black president – held great promise and great potential.
And Obama proceeded to piss that promise and that potential away with personal- and policy-pettiness.
And so eight years later, the great day of the election of the nation’s first black president was eclipsed by the even greater day when Obama crawled into “Executive One” – so named because it carried Obama rather than our PRESIDENT – and flew off to the roach motel of his choice.
What is Obama’s legacy? I’ll sum it up for you in a few of Obama’s very own words:
“The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents – #43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic.” — Barack Hussein Obama in 2008, campaigning in Fargo, North Dakota.
And look at what this fool-in-chief has created since: TWICE AS MUCH DEBT AS THE MAN HE VICIOUSLY DEMONIZED AND SLANDERED. Obama himself pointed out Bush’s debt was $4 trillion; what is YOURS, fool? It was $10.626 trillion when Obama took office; it’s 19.961 trillion as I write this. And oh my gosh, I’ve got a calculator and I’m not afraid to prove what a LYING DISGRACE you are. Because the difference is $9.335 trillion and you MORE THAN DOUBLED the debt of the president you mocked and slandered.
How about this one after Obama got his hypocrite. lying weasel ass into office by his lies:
Amen, Democrats. And now you get to live the bitter reality of your own sentiments. Because Democrat, elections have consequences, you said. And at the end of the day, you won, you said. And now that shoe is on the other foot but you’re butthurt hypocrite fascists rather than decent human beings.
Those were terrible, dark, EVIL, vile words coming from a man who had presented himself as the living embodiment of the repudiation of “back of the bus.” Instead, the man who represented himself as “there are no red states and blue states, just the United States” became the most bitterly partisan and polarizing president in our nation’s entire history.
“I take the Constitution very seriously. The biggest problems that we’re facing right now have to do with [the president] trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all. And that’s what I intend to reverse when I’m President of the United States of America.” (3/31/08)
“I do have an obligation to make sure that I am following some of the rules. I can’t simply ignore laws that are out there. I’ve got to work to make sure that they are changed.” (10/14/10)
“I am president, I am not king. I can’t do these things just by myself. We have a system of government that requires the Congress to work with the Executive Branch to make it happen. (10/25/10)
“Sometimes when I talk to immigration advocates, they wish I could just bypass Congress and change the law myself. But that’s not how a democracy works. What we really need to do is to keep up the fight to pass genuine, comprehensive reform. That is the ultimate solution to this problem. That’s what I’m committed to doing.” (5/10/11)
“I swore an oath to uphold the laws on the books …. Now, I know some people want me to bypass Congress and change the laws on my own. Believe me, the idea of doing things on my own is very tempting. I promise you. Not just on immigration reform. But that’s not how our system works. That’s not how our democracy functions. That’s not how our Constitution is written.” (7/25/11)
“This is something I’ve struggled with throughout my presidency,” said Obama. “The problem is that I’m the president of the United States, I’m not the emperor of the United States. My job is to execute laws that are passed.” (2/14/13)
Barack Obama proved that ultimately he is the hypocrite in chief and violated the essence and spirit of his hypocrite repudiations of his office as that of a king, an emperor, a leader of a constitutional republic featuring the clear and deliberate separation of powers, an anti-democrat violating the functions of legitimate democracy.
How about this trip down memory lane during the debates between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama in 2011 as Obama mocked Romney’s statement that Russia was America’s greatest geopolitical threat:
The only argument is whether the “D” in Democrat stands for “Disgrace” or “Demonic.”
I quoted “civil rights hero” John Lewis for that “illegitimate president” crap. And I’ll come back to the Demonic Disgrace that is Rep. John Lewis later.
How about this foreign policy gem when a reporter on January 7, 2014, specifically referenced events clearly referring to ISIS:
Obama responded: “The analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a jayvee team puts on Lakers uniforms that doesn’t make them Kobe Bryant.” (For the nonsports fan, JV stands for junior varsity, and it usually means a high school or college’s secondary team.)
And cosmic fools like Obama lecture us that Muslims are the victims of this hate. Well, Muslims are the PERPETRATORS OF THIS HATE. And it turns out that Muslims murder wherever they happen to be – when they’re where other Muslims are they murder other Muslims – and when they’re here, they murder us here.
This man TORTURED the people who finally rose up and voted his skinny, pathetic, arrogant party out of office.
Now, above I linked to Rep. John Lewis, who was once beaten by Democrats before becoming one with the people who beat him like a dog. A Former Black Panther pointed that out:
“In the early 70’s and late 60’s, we were demonstrating and protesting for the right to compete as adult citizens of America, we were not demonstrating to be taken care of. Congressman Lewis –he walked across the Pettus bridgeand they beat him and ran over him, but those were Democrats. It was Democrat George Wallace [who] stood in the schoolhouse door, it was Democrat Bull Connor that oppressed [black] folks…
…he [Lewis] was fighting Democrats, but after they beat his behind on that bridge and ran over him and stomped him in the ground, he got up and turned and joined them!”
Former Black Panther and Vietnam Veteran Mason Weaver went on to say:
“Every district they [black Democrats] own and control is a ghetto hell hole. Is a place that no one wants to go to. They’re in control of every inner city school system, every inner city police, every inner city jail, they produce nothing but drugs and misery. They should be ashamed of themselves. I don’t understand why any black person could be a democrat.”
“The Democrat party has always been the party of abuse, the party of the Klan, the party that went to war to keep slaves – the party that’s always been [about] the destruction of black people. Mr. Lewis, you have presided over the destruction of black America, and you owe us an apology.”
John Lewis is a racist race thug. Democrats are dishonestly telling us that other Republicans like John McCain and Mitt Romney were decent men, but Trump is below the pale. But John Lewis exploited his status for being beaten by Democrats – because the Democratic Party has ALWAYS been and always WILL BE the party of naked racism and racial politics – by viciously and hatefully slandering first George W. Bush, then John McCain, then Mitt Romney.
John Lewis is a pure, rabid political ideologue from the party of naked, cynical politicized race-baiting.
The Democrat Party is the party of naked hate and naked intolerance and naked hypocrisy.
Being an “artist” means having the creative freedom to express yourself. Which is another way of saying there IS no such thing as a Democrat “artist.” Because Democrats are the anathema of freedom intellectual or moral or otherwise.
Just imagine for one nanosecond if this had happened at Obama’s inauguration. Just imagine the damn names that would have been used against people who opposed their president. The left would have angrily used every ugly name in the book.
I mean, OF COURSE THE GOAL OF THE REPUBLICANS WAS TO MAKE OBAMA A ONE-TERM PRESIDENT. That was like their JOB!!! Can you stupid roach fascists tell me the last time the Democrat Party refused to run a candidate for president because their goal was to re-elect the REPUBLICAN in office???
But the over the top, visceral hate and rage. The “How DARE you!?!?!?”
Now these same people are literally rioting before Trump even has a chance to take the oath of office.
Look in the mirror from now on whenever you use an ugly label, Democrat. Because your talking about YOURSELF.
If you are a Democrat, you stand for vicious, violent, Nazi stormtrooping thugs. Period. When I call you fascist thugs “Nazis,” I am accurately describing who you are, what you do and the way you do it.
I constantly marvel at Democrats. These people self-righteously label Republicans as “haters,” and then HATE on a level ten-thousand times worse than anything we EVER did.
The outright, naked HATE that is the Democrat Party is on full public display.
When Obama was president, anything that wasn’t literal WORSHIP was demonized as racism and treason and every other over-the-top description. And now these people are so far beyond the pale the abject and immoral hypocrisy simply never ceases to fail to amaze.
I want to again point out for the historical record that I predicted the rise of someone that Democrats would find so terrible and so terrifying:
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. — My words on June 18, 2012
To the extent that you Democrats are shocked and appalled by the presidency of Donald John Trump, you DESERVE to be shocked and appalled.
You supported a truly evil man for eight years.
Elections have consequences. And at the end of the day, YOU LOSERS LOST.
Donald Trump now has the right to defy the Constitution. Because YOU DEMOCRATS GAVE HIM THAT RIGHT THROUGH YOUR WICKED MESSIAH. Donald Trump has the right to issue sweeping executive orders that will have you howling in bitter rage. Because YOU DEMOCRATS GAVE HIM THAT RIGHT THROUGH YOUR WICKED MESSIAH. And the Republican Congress has the right to totally and utterly and brutally ignore the minority Democrats in the House and the Senate and throughout the nation. Because YOU DEMOCRATS GAVE THEM THAT RIGHT THROUGH THE VILE ACTIONS OF THE DEMOCRAT PARTY WHEN THEY HELD ALL THREE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT.
So suck on that.
I’ve compared Democrats repeatedly to Nazis. Because that’s what they are. Their response now is uber similar to the devout Nazis response: Hitler drove his people to ruin, but the devout worshipers of their beloved Fuehrer said that the nations allied against Germany only did so because they hated the Fuehrer and hated his beautiful vision for a better world; they said that Hitler had given them the good times, so they owed him their devout loyalty in the hard times.
Meanwhile, the Zyclon-B of the Nazis in the death camps for the 6 million Jews they murdered was MERCIFUL in comparison to the viciousness of Democratic Party abortion techniques that have murdered more than TEN TIMES as many innocent human beings as the Nazis murdered.
So your current response now merely amounts to further proof that you deserve a Berlin response where Trump drives TANKS over your crushed and mangled bodies after firebombing your leftist cities.
I’ve been writing for years now – primarily because of Obama and the wicked depraved spirit of the Democratic Party – that “the beast is coming.” The funny thing is that today secular humanist Democrats fully agree with conservative fundamentalist Christian dispensationalist that the literal interpretation of the Book of Revelation is at hand.
Well, congratulations, Democrat: YOU brought the end of days about!!!
The moment news of the Panama Papers first came out, I immediately wondered if the name “Hillary Clinton” was involved.
It wasn’t. Just as the name “Vladimir Putin” wasn’t involved.
It turns out that neither name appears in the files, but rather that BOTH corrupt, fascist leaders have multiple henchmen who ARE in the papers.
You want to know what Hillary Clinton’s presidency would look like? Just look at Vladimir Putin (sans Putin’s nationalistic desire to advance the power of his country).
Putin has been slammed for the Panama Paper revelations even though his name appears nowhere in them: you see statements such as “…the president’s name does not appear in any of the records” in the media reports; yet strangely Hillary Clinton has NOT been so slammed even though the same evidence that indicts Putin also indicts her. Because FACT: Hillary Clinton has ties to the Russian bank named in the Panama Papers through several key associates. And the reason this hasn’t EXPLODED in our media is the same damn reason Putin’s Panama Papers thingy hasn’t exploded in the Russian media: because America under Obama and the mainstream media ideological allies of Obama and the Democrat Party is every bit as much a fascist propaganda state as Russia is:
Russia’s state-run media almost entirely ignored the recent report by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ), more commonly known as the Panama Papers, despite the fact that the released documents mentioned close friends and associates of president Vladimir Putin.
Major free-to-air television networks, such as Channel One, Rossiya, Ren-TV and NTV, didn’t even mention the controversy in their news desks, while state-controlled wire services Rossiya Segodnya and TASS provided only brief discussion of the report.
Oppositionist legislator Dmitry Gudkov demanded explanations for the brief and incomplete coverage of the “Panama Papers” from the state media. Dmitry Kiselev, head of Rossiya Segodnya, responded by saying he had no intention of discussing the organization’s editorial policies with Gudkov.
Other Russian media gave the Panama Papers more coverage, but often focused on foreign personalities implicated in the controversy, including soccer player Lionel Messi and Michel Platini, former president of the European soccer governing body UEFA, rather than examining the Russian angle.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov, who previously spoke about “an information attack” against Russia orchestrated by the West, said at a news briefing that Putin was the main target of the Panama Papers, even though he was not directly mentioned in the released documents.
Peskov’s statement, in which he accused the West of “Putinophobia,” was widely covered by the Russian media.
Meanwhile, the pro-Kremlin English-language television network Russia Today (RT) dismissed the Panama Papers as poor quality journalism.
“Why is the West so obsessed with focusing its narrow attention span on Putin at the exception of corrupt Western leaders who only get passing mention in these hack pieces?” read a comment published on the network’s web site.
Independent newspaper Vedomosti quoted Igor Yakovenko, head of the foundation Public Examination, as saying that Russians, who have been heavily exposed to Kremlin propaganda across the media, are likely to ignore the controversy.
Today she claims she is the living embodiment of defending women; but when it mattered she was laughing over her trick in getting the rapist of a twelve-year-old girl completely off the hook. When it mattered she was at the head of a campaign to destroy the credibility of all the women who came forward detailing incredibly inappropriate behavior from her husband while maintaining instead that Bill’s disgusting behavior toward woman after woman was “a vast, right wing conspiracy.”
I could literally spend the rest of the article detailing nothing but one massive criminal coverup after another one. But I’m just screaming in a hurricane.
Because we have the same kind of media here that Russia has.
Even back in the Soviet days, intelligent Russians were amazed at the US media deception and how effective it was here to a gullible public that just ate it up thinking it was actual news the way goldfish in the ponds in front of the doors of family restaurant eat up children’s spit thinking it was actual food. “A Soviet correspondent once said of the American mainstream media, “I have the greatest admiration for your propaganda. Propaganda in the West is carried out by experts who have had the best training in the world — in the field of advertizing — and have mastered the techniques with exceptional proficiency … Yours are subtle and persuasive; ours are crude and obvious … I think that the fundamental difference between our worlds, with respect to propaganda, is quite simple. You tend to believe yours … and we tend to disbelieve ours.”
And we are therefore on the verge of electing the same sort of leader Russia has.
And the cases in point are now way, WAY beyond legion.
You want to claim that Hillary Clinton actually CARES about poor people with her reptilian heart? Just consider the pure, unforgivable coldness she demonstrated toward the people of Haiti when her Foundation came in to save the day but in reality set up a pay-to-play system
Development banks are the butt of jokes among economists because while they claim to fight poverty they are mostly good at empire building. The same might be said of the Clintons in Haiti. A few months after Hillary Clinton became secretary of state in 2009, Bill Clinton was named the U.N. special envoy to Haiti. That gave the Clintons a lot of power over U.S. foreign-aid decisions in the small country.
They accumulated more influence after the 2010 earthquake, when Bill was named co-chair of the Interim Haiti Recovery Commission. The State Department began directing parties interested in competing for Haiti contracts to the Clinton Foundation. Being on the right side of Bill matters if you want to benefit from U.S. foreign aid destined for Haiti.
The scandals are UNREAL. But to the extent they are even reported at all they are “reported” with an attempt to fabricate a yawn-response by the hopelessly deceived American public.
It is beyond amazing how fascist hypocrite Democrats truly are. Bernie Sanders is running on a government for the people rather than for the big donors. And there is literally no human being on earth today who is more FILTHY in crony-capitalist fascist self-benefitting trading of power-for-favors than Hillary Clinton. But they will eagerly vote for the very thing they will tell you with straight faces that they claim to most despise.
The revelations from the Panama Papers—leaked documents from a secretive Panamanian law firm that helps political elites hide their money—have been hitting home across the world, exposing the widespread corruption of world leaders and their hangers-on.
It ought to hit here, too, because it reminds us of everything that should give us the heebie-jeebies about Hillary Clinton.
The Panama Papers have simply confirmed everything we already pretty much knew. This is just the way things work in much of the world. Clawing your way into high political office means that you have a lot special of favors to give out, contracts to distribute, land and timber and shipping deals to approve, and so on. So you dole them out to friends, relatives, and backers—and they naturally show their gratitude by kicking some of it back to you. And if you don’t officially get rich—well, mi casa es su casa, what’s a little sharing between friends? This has long been Vladimir Putin’s method. “In 2010, US diplomatic cables suggested Putin held his wealth via proxies. The president formally owned nothing, they added, but was able to draw on the wealth of his friends, who now control practically all of Russia’s oil and gas production and industrial resources.” The Panama Papers shed light on the fortune of Putin’s old friend Sergei Roldugin, who has somehow amassed billions as an obscure classical musician. Putin knows how easy it is for corrupt officials to live like kings without officially owning anything, because that’s the way things worked in the good old days of the Soviet Union.
In most of the world, this is known and more or less accepted as the way things work. But not traditionally in the US and in the developed countries of the West, where our governments have been structured, either from the beginning or over many years of civil service reforms, to prevent corruption and conflicts of interest. So when they are exposed, it’s a major scandal. That’s why they’re pretty much ignoring the Panama Papers in Moscow, but in Iceland, crowds swarmed Raykjavik and forced the resignation of the prime minister.
And that confronts us with a question: do we want Panama here?
Because a couple of other names pop up in the Panama Papers, including those of a few well-known associates of Hillary Clinton: longtime Democratic Party fixers John and Tony Podesta and Clinton sycophant Sydney Blumenthal. And why not? Hillary Clinton has been up to her neck in crony deals from the very beginning. All the way back in 1978, for example, she indulged a sudden mania for trading cattle futures, from which she made just shy of $100,000 in less than a year—a lot more money back then than it is now, and a whole lot for a young couple like the Clintons. She has shown no interest in commodities trading since, which is surprising considering how successful she was at it. But maybe not so surprising when you consider that her trades back then were made under the guidance of an attorney who worked for a large company that just happened to be regulated by her husband. Gee, that almost looks like a bribe.
That’s the kind of thing that’s all over the Panama Papers, and it’s what Hillary Clinton has been doing forever. It’s how the Clintons suddenly made $100 million in the first few years after leaving the White House, with nothing to offer the business world but their political connections. It’s why the Clinton Foundation got massive donations from Russian businessmen with deals that required State Department approval.
The problem is wider than Hillary Clinton, of course. Donald Trump has openly bragged about his role in this system from the other end, as the businessman who buys the influence of politicians. Even Bernie Sanders, who has been making hay from the Panama Papers, advocates a much bigger role for government, particularly in regulating international trade—which is precisely the kind of playground for corruption revealed by the Panama Papers. Only Ted Cruz, despite playing footsie with protectionism during the South Carolina primary, advocates a smaller role for government in picking winners and losers in the economy.
The fact is that the reason official corruption is rampant across much of the world is not just that they have insufficient civil service reforms. It’s because their governments have vast, arbitrary powers. Hillary Clinton is one of the most visible reminders of this kind of wheeling and dealing among the global elites—and she presents us with the prospect of bringing the whole sordid system back from Panama and straight into the Oval Office.
As bad as Bernie Sanders would be – Barack Obama didn’t just enrage the American people beyond capacity that he gave us Donald Trump; he broke any and all confidence in the entire system that he gave us OPENLY SOCIALIST Bernie Sanders as well – if the GOP doesn’t win, I hope Bernie does. Because Hillary Clinton is just nakedly evil in absolutely everything she thinks and does.
I see Hillary Clinton’s campaign slogan –
– And viscerally see that a vote for the Democrat Party isn’t a vote for “Hil,” it’s a vote for HELL.
Hillary Clinton is the very same sort of paranoid, power-hungry, fascist thug that Vladimir Putin is. She has manipulated her entire life lusting for the power that Putin has. And she’s on the verge of that power because to be a Democrat today is to be the same sort of pathologically dishonest hypocrite that their mistress has revealed herself to be.
Obama’s reverend for 23 years summed it up beautifully: “God DAMN America!” You just keep voting for it, America. Because God Almighty will see to it that you get everything you voted for and then some.
I came across this article and the sheer, common-sense logic and the gigantic hypocrisy of the left flabbergasted me:
Body cameras have become the solution of the day for stomping out discriminatory behavior against minorities by police officers. Cameras provide a neutral record of events, so we have a better idea what happened during an encounter. Some research even suggests that the presence of body cameras steeply reduce the use of force by officers and the number of citizens’ complaints.
But that raises a question: what’s to limit this type of solution only to police officers? It’s a slippery slope to an Orwellian future, where Big Brother could be watching all of us — for our own good, of course.
Consider health care, another interaction which produces potentially life-or-death outcomes. In general, African Americans and other people of color receive inferior medical treatment, leading to higher death rates. David R. Williams, a professor of public health at Harvard, who has researched this issue writes that blacks and other minorities receive fewer diagnostic tests, fewer treatments, and overall poorer-quality care — even after adjusting for variations in insurance, facilities, and seriousness of illness.
Leaving aside patient outcomes, there are also highly credible accusations that medical staff have groped and sexually abused sedated patients. Body cameras on doctors and nurses might well prevent such incidents, or provide evidence if they did occur.
If the doctor’s office is off-limits, what about the classroom?
U.S. Department of Education data shows that black students are suspended or expelled at rates three times higher than whites, even though no studies examining the relationship between race, behavior and suspension have proven that black students misbehave more often. Currently, parents who insist their children are innocent or are being excessively punished for minor offenses have no evidence.
Make teachers wear body cameras, and parents would see and hear exactly what the teacher heard and saw. An overreaction? Keep in mind, a growing body of evidence shows that school punishments do long-term damage Students who are expelled or suspended are less likely to graduate, and more likely to end up involved with the criminal justice system.
Perhaps even our politicians should be required, by law, to wear body cameras at all campaign and fundraising events while they’re in, or running for, office. If that sounds unnecessary, recall that it was only because of a surreptitious recording that voters found out that 2012 GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney thinks there are 47% of Americans who “are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it.”
But this isn’t partisan. Personally, I’d welcome video or audio of what Hillary Clinton has to say to the people paying $353,000 to sit next to her and George Clooney at an upcoming fundraising dinner.
Sure, the officials, professionals or politicians could simply turn off their cameras — but that break in the recording log will be interpreted as evidence that the person was hiding something, and probably up to no good.
A recent article in an American Bar Association magazine summed up the legal landscape: “The battle for workplace privacy is over; privacy lost.” Employers have a right to monitor employees (provided the employees are aware of it) to measure productivity, prevent theft, promote workplace safety and so on. Advances in digital technology that vastly reduced the cost of cameras just accelerated this trend. Mass monitoring has begun where the need is critical (e.g., police stops) but also where the workers are least able to resist (sanitation workers, truck drivers, Amazon warehouse employees, and so on).
Higher-paid professionals mistakenly assume increased workplace surveillance will be confined to the hoi polloi. In reality, given the technology is available (and improving) all it may take is a high-profile incident or two. Imagine something analogous to the police shooting an unarmed person happening in a school or hospital, and how quickly that could trigger for demands for wider personal surveillance like body cameras. Already the ubiquity of smartphones has made ad hoc recording by employers, customers or colleagues almost effortless.
I simply state this as a categorical fact: IF you are a Democrat, YOU PERSONALLY are a pathologically dishonest hypocrite liar, because you support Hillary Clinton who is the FIRST government official to do all her “business” on a secret private server and then PURGED thousands of emails so that no one could see what she was up to. But because you are just flat-out hypocrite depraved, it’s “Body cameras for thee, but never for me.”
So since you Democrats love Orwellian fascism so damn much, let’s go for it. Just be honest and consistent for ONCE in your miserable, loathsome lives and apply the same damn “logic” to everyone that you apply to your enemies.
It’s really an amazing thing, to watch the way the media covers the news.
As for the Jonathan Gruber revelations, do you know what the press is doing in “covering” it? They’re saying, “Don’t consider what Gruber actually said about the fascist dishonesty behind the passage of ObamaCare that ought to get it thrown out by any legitimate Supreme Court; fixate on the bright shiny object about Gruber pointing out that the American people are stupid instead.
If you believe for half a second that a story about a senior Bush Iraq war architect called the American people stupid and claimed that the Bush administration had deliberately lied to garner support for their war would have been ignored, you are an even bigger fool than I think you are.
That’s exactly what happened in this case. And to the extent that the media has bothered to cover it at all, they have played a bait-and-switch game by hyping the “stupid” remark rather than the “we lied to get this turd that no one would have supported if they’d known what it was” remark.
But how the media covers the news is as pervasive as it is fascist. They keep playing the same dishonest tricks over and over and over again, either not bothering to cover Obama scandals AT ALL or only covering a trivial aspect of it and then dropping it. And meanwhile the wheels of America’s destruction under Obama’s “fundamental transformation of America” grinds on and on.
Back in September of 2013, Obama entered into negotiations with Iran over something that no president – including Obama himself, according to the fool’s own deceitful rhetoric – had ever been willing to negotiate: Iran becoming a full-fledged nuclear power.
Conservatives like John Bolton immediately predicted what would happen: Iran would take advantage of the “negotiations” to buy time, endlessly extending deadlines. For instance, on October 1, 2013, Bolton anticipated precisely what is now taking place as a deal-desperate Obama AGAIN extends yet ANOTHER deadline:
Mr. Obama is inverting Dean Acheson’s maxim that Washington should only negotiate from strength. Even if there were some prospect that Iran could be talked out of its nuclear-weapons program, which there is not, the White House approach is the wrong way to start discussions. Given the president’s palpable unwillingness to use the military to enforce his Syria red line—let alone to answer the Sept. 11, 2012, Benghazi terrorist attack—and his paucity of domestic political support, Iran’s ayatollahs know that the president’s “all options on the table” incantation regarding their nuclear program carries no weight.
Iran undoubtedly wants relief from international sanctions, which have exacerbated decades of incompetent economic policy. But there is no evidence that the sanctions have impaired Iran’s nuclear or ballistic-missile programs. Instead, Tehran has increased its financial and military assistance to Assad and Hezbollah in Syria.
Mr. Rouhani’s strategy is clear: Lower the rhetorical temperature about the nuclear issue; make temporary, cosmetic concessions, such as allowing inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency at already-declared nuclear sites; and gain Western acceptance of its “reactor-grade” uranium enrichment. Once that goal is attained, Iran’s path to nuclear weapons will be unobstructed and within Tehran’s discretion.
Iran will demand in return that international sanctions be eased, focusing first on obtaining small reductions to signal Western “good faith.” Mr. Obama and Europe already seem eager to comply. Western diplomats will assert defensively that these concessions are merely a matter of “sequencing,” and that they expect substantive Iranian concessions. They will wait a long time. Mr. Rouhani fully understands that once sanctions start rolling back, restoring them will be hard, perhaps impossible, absent a major provocation.
Mr. Rouhani will not supply one. Instead, he will continue making on-again, off-again gestures seducing the West into protracted negotiations. Meanwhile, Iran’s nuclear-weapons and ballistic-missile programs will proceed unimpeded in unknown, undisclosed locations. This was his 2003-05 playbook.
Extended negotiations will enable Mr. Obama to argue that a “diplomatic process” is under way to resolve the Iranian nuclear threat. No phrase is more beloved at the State Department. Mr. Obama will then use this process on Israel to prevent pre-emptive military action against Iran’s nuclear program.
In time, even Hamlet came to understand that “one may smile, and smile, and be a villain.” Maybe one day President Obama will figure it out.
You read that entire article from more than a year ago and John Bolton predicted that Iran would paly Obama for the moral idiot fool that he is.
Everything Bolton said was right and continues to be even MORE right today.
Do you know WHY there has been such little angst? Because the jackass propagandists in the mainstream media haven’t EVER examined the predictions and the results of those predictions from conservative experts like John Bolton seriously. They have all along simply “reported” what the Obama administration said, then “reported” what the Obama administration said after the first time what the Obama administration said would happen didn’t happen, and on and on ad infinitum, ad nauseum.
Meanwhile, Iran keeps working on their nuclear bomb and they keep working on their ballistic missile technology without which a nuclear bomb is nearly useless. And the day that Iran is capable of delivering a nuclear missile to Israel or worse yet, the United States, the world will inexorably move toward what the Bible calls “Armageddon.”
So what happens when the talks with Iran that were idiotic to begin with went nowhere as anybody with any wisdom whatsoever knew would happen? Obama did the bidding of his masters in Tehran and extended the talks so that Iran could once again draw out negotiations without any agreement. So that Iran could keep working toward their goal of Armageddon while Obama rewarded them.
But here we are, extending the “negotiations” with Iran so they can keep working on their nuclear bomb and ballistic missile ambitions in peace and safety YET AGAIN.
Now, as morally insane as that “negotiation” with RABID EVIL is, understand that there is a group of people with whom Obama would burn down the world rather than negotiate: the majority of the American people whom he utterly despises.
After that election, Barack Obama acted exactly like Adolf Hitler would have acted after losing an election, after Joseph Stalin would have acted after losing an election, after Chairman Mao would have acted after losing an election. In short, he acted just like the socialist “Government is God” monster that he is.
What does the fascist propaganda press do? Ignore the 352 bills Democrats ignored, ignore the naked fascism of Harry Reid’s thug-style, and fixate on that ONE bill that Republicans didn’t move on in the House. Because in the most wicked and dishonest media since Goebbels, Democrats’ sins can be myriad
But the same fascist moral monster who won’t give the GOP one freaking nanosecond to formulate an immigration policy and pass a bill has now proven he will give rabid terrorist rogue regime Iran eternal extensions until they have successfully developed their nukes and their ballistic missiles to carry their nukes on.
“I can’t wait forever,” Obama says of illegally imposing his fascism on the backs of an American people who just overwhelmingly rejected him by issuing de facto amnesty for at least five million illegal immigrants. But of course he CAN wait forever for Iran to develop Armageddon for America and for Israel.
“I can’t wait forever.” So therefore I won’t wait AT ALL.
Barack Obama had TWO FULL YEARSof absolute control over all three branches of elected government and didn’t give a rat’s hairy rabies-filled ASS about immigration or immigrants. He could certainly wait THEN the same way he is now proving he can wait forever if need-be with nuclear-bomb-wanting Iran. But he can’t wait AT ALL for a Republican majority who would do the thing Obama is most terrified of: pass a law with the full support of the American people. So he sabotaged it in advance.
What Obama just did with immigration is like me negotiating over a sandwich with you – you know, after I’ve taken three giant bites out of the middle. When two parties negotiate, one side gives up something to get something else and the other side gives up something to get something else: Obama just obliterated that by taking what he wanted and telling the Republicans who now control two-thirds of elected government, “If you give up everything I’ll give you a meaningless promise to do part of what you want but then I’ll lie and ignore the law like I have always done before.”
If you’ve got an alternative theory, liberal Nazi, then just explain why Obama waited until AFTER an election (given the fact that he knew if he’d done this before the election the landslide against him would have even been MORE disastrous for his party) but refused to wait until after the new Congress that was just affirmed by the American people in a process called “democracy” was allowed to be seated. Explain why Obama did this after saying at least 22 times that doing what he did would be illegal, unconstitutional, anti-democratic, unfair to all the people who waited in line to legally immigrate and harmful to the American people as a flood of illegal immigration would occur as a result of the fascist act he took anyway.
There are now five million new “Americans” as millions more illegal immigrants on top of that number try to race in to our borders to exploit Obama’s lawless “law.” Which means there will be millions more in the USA to experience the hell of the Iranian nuke that Obama is also letting in detonate over our atmosphere.
It’s really quite staggering: the same Barack Obama is almost simultaneously Hitler on one issue with his fascist edict and Neville Chamberlain on another with his “peace in our time” extensions with soon-to-be nuclear Iran.
If I sound furious, it is because I am FURIOUS. We have watched the Party of Lies, the Party of Satan, take over America and it may be too late to change course now from the “God damn America” that Barack Obama and the Democrat Party have “fundamentally transformed America” into.
The essence of fascists is that they must lead the stupid sheep to pasture and they often have to lead the stupid animals by deception.
Democrats are tied with “the most pathologically dishonest people who ever existed.” Because you can be AS dishonest as a Democrat, but it is impossible to be MORE dishonest.
Let us listen to the true voice of fascist liberal arrogance:
The tape, played on Fox News’ “The Kelly File,” showed Gruber speaking at an October 2013 event at Washington University in St. Louis.
Referring to the so-called “Cadillac tax” on high-end health plans, he said: “They proposed it and that passed, because the American people are too stupid to understand the difference.”
Gruber specifically was referring to the way the “Cadillac tax” was designed — he touted their plan to, instead of taxing policy holders, tax the insurance companies that offered them. He suggested that taxing individuals would have been politically unpalatable, but taxing the companies worked because Americans didn’t understand the difference.
And ObamaCare architect Jonathan Gruber in a different speech:
This is similar to remarks he made at a separate event around the same time in 2013. In a clip of that event, Gruber said the “lack of transparency” in the way the law was crafted was critical. “Basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical for the thing to pass,” he said.
Did Gruber do this twice? Nope; he did it at least three times (and probably many more):
A third clip of Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber has emerged, this time of the MIT professor speaking to a University of Rhode Island crowd in 2012 about the health care law’s so-called “Cadillac tax” — and bragging at the utter inability of the American people to comprehend its complexities.
The “Cadillac tax” requires that insurance companies, not individual policy holders, pay the difference between higher- and lower-cost packages — a plan that was pushed into realization by then-Sen. John Kerry, Mr. Gruber said, Fox News reported.
Mr. Gruber then said that a tax on individuals would have been “politically impossible” — but that a tax on companies would prove palatable to voters, mostly because they didn’t understand.
His comments, Fox News reported: “So basically, it’s the same thing. We just tax the insurance companies, they pass on higher prices that offsets the tax break we get, it ends up being the same thing. It’s very clever, you know, basic exploitation of the lack of economic understanding of the American voter.”
These audio comments followed a clip that was played on Fox News’ “The Kelly File” on Tuesday evening that showed Mr. Gruber speaking at Washington University in St. Louis about the same “Cadillac tax” and saying it passed “because the American people are too stupid to understand the difference.”
And before that, another clip made the media rounds of Mr. Gruber saying at a different event in 2013 that Obamacare passed due in large part to its “lack of transparency.”
His widely reported comments: “Basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical for the thing to pass.”
Mr. Gruber has since expressed regret on national television for his comments. But critics of Obamacare say his remarks only prove what many on the left really believe about Americans.
“It confirms people’s greatest fear about the government,” Sen. John Barrasso, Fox News reported. “Remember, it was Nancy Pelosi who said first you have to pass [Obamacare] before you get to find out what’s in it.”
And yes, I know when I said “fascist liberal” I was employing a tautology and saying the same thing twice in a slightly different way. You know, like the heart of liberal Darwinism’s “survival of the fittest,” where the “fittest” are defined as “the ones who survive.” Because “fascism” survived as “liberalism.” And one is as pathologically dishonest as the other.
Democrats are like the people who come up to you with a story to get money. and you give them money because you buy their pathetic story. And they walk away with your money mocking you for a stupid idiot because you were actually stupid enough to believe them.
And Democrats are nothing but liars and horrible demon-possessed people. So you actually MUSTbe truly stupid to believe them.
“Democrat.” It sounds good, right? You know, it sounds like somebody who cares about the will and the voice of the people.
Bullcrap. Democrats have naked CONTEMPT for the will and the voice of the people. The people are obstacles, they are pathetically stupid sheep who must be deceived in order to be hauled off to the slaughtering pen.
After the first tape surfaced — prompting Republican outrage — Gruber went on MSNBC to express regret. On Tuesday, he said: “I was speaking off the cuff and I basically spoke inappropriately, and I regret having made those comments.”
But after Fox News played the second tape, GOP lawmakers said it proves what they’ve been saying all along.
Jonathon Gruber went on MSNBC rather than on Fox News because if he’d gone on the air with Megyn Kelly it would have taken about twenty seconds for everyone to know which one of those two was the “stupid” one. He knows he has to go to the channel that only STUPID PEOPLE WATCH in order to sell his patent lies.
The “stupid people” are Democrats. It’s not Republicans that are idiot enough to watch MSNBC. It’s the Nazi faithful who follow their Führer and await his next message from his bunker (and I don’t give a damn if you call it “the Führerbunker” or “the White House.” Because it’s the same place by a different name under this “president.”
PELOSI: We’re not finished getting all of our reports back from CBO, but we’ll have a side by side to compare. But our bill brings down rates. I don’t know if you have seen Jonathan Gruber of MIT’s analysis of what the comparison is to the status quo versus what will happen in our bill for those who seek insurance within the exchange. And our bill takes down those costs, even some now, and much less preventing the upward spiral.
So again, we’re confident about what we set out to do in the bill: middle class affordability, security for our seniors, and accountability to our children.
Democratic Senate Minority Leader-elect Harry Reid called Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber “one of the most respected economists in the world” on the Senate floor during the 2009 push to pass Obamacare.
Lies and hypocrisy are the essence of Democrats. If you’re not a hypocrite and a liar, you’re not a Democrat. If you are a liar and a hypocrite, you are either a Democrat or a cockroach Nazi fascist by some other name crawling slithering around over some other part of planet earth. All you want is big totalitarian government to be imposed by any means necessary. But whether you’re an ISIS terrorist sawing people’s heads off or Barack Obama, if you are a Democrat you are somebody who views people as an obstacle who must either be exterminated, intimidated or lied to in order to get your way.
“NAZI” stood for “National Socialist German Workers Party.” And for the record, that party was the “German Workers Party” until Hitler got ahold of it. Because Satan is a socialist. It was HITLER who changed it to the National Socialist German Workers Party so that the world could better experience the hell of socialism after the communists gave us the first taste of that wicked, ugly hell. Neither of those two groups were ever honest about their project, either. If there was a “National Socialist American Workers Party,” and you don’t believe that would be the damned DEMOCRAT Party, you are worse than a fool to be that kind of ignorant to be so morally idiotic to believe that it is conservatives and Republicans who want to make America “socialist.”
Who votes Democrat? BAD PEOPLE, that’s who. People who are selfish and greedy and vote to take the stuff that other people worked for by raw government force, just like the damned Nazis did when they looted other people’s wealth from them. And they do it the same way the Nazis did; by pitting groups against groups and arguing for instance that white people are thieves and don’t deserve what they have. Just like the Nazis argued their race-baiting lies that Jews were thieves and didn’t deserve what they have.
Let’s describe the people who vote Democrat:
First there are the welfare turds. We now have in America generations of families who have never worked – unless you define “work” by “making more babies” in order to collect a larger welfare check. We have now more “Americans” on welfare than ever before in history. Which, to put it in Obama campaign-slogan terms means, “Yes we CAN go on welfare and food stamps and join the massively growing Useless Class who do absolutely NOTHING to build America and absolutely EVERYTHING to help collapse it. 100% of this group who can get off their lazy butts long enough to cast a ballot vote “Democrat.” To wit: the Democrat Party literally purchased their vote.
Then there are the “working class.” But let’s define what that REALLY means: the UNION class. The UNION class – because let’s call them what they truly are – survive by “collective bargaining.” Because throughout history, good workers who actually produced a benefit for their employers have never had to worry about their jobs, but only the lazy, bitter, slacker “workers” were in jeopardy. The trick to “collective bargaining” has always been to lie (see this whole damned article as a “for example”) to decent workers and deceive them into supporting the lazy, useless slackers who would have otherwise been FIRED in any honest workplace. And once you get your union in, good luck trying to fire these turds. And yeah, most of them vote “Democrat,” too. Because socialist Democrats impose bureaucracies, laws, regulations and judges that make it impossible for employers to do anything but knuckle under to the blue lie agenda of unions and Democrats who alternately climb over each other’s backs to keep grabbing more and more and more share of the pie.
Then you’ve got your intellectual class who live in the ivory towers of the universities. They actually have a lot in common with the first two groups above; namely, they live off of other people and depend upon government policy for their largesse. The cost of colleges/universities has inflated FAR more than damned near anything else. Do you know why? Because it’s an industry that is subsidized by the government. Government keeps pumping out “student loans” and increasing the amount of student loans as the costs of education skyrocket. And so colleges and universities respond by further raising the costs of education – because the students (another group of “stupid people” fwiw) – backed by more and more loan money that will put them in debt for DECADES – can “afford” higher tuition. And then higher tuition and higher tuition and higher tuition, ad infinitum.
A vote for the Democrat Party is a vote for education costs that you either can’t afford or decide to become a debt-slave to the government for decades to come in order to be able to afford.
And so if you are a “professor” what you really are is a pig with your snout shoved up past your ears into the trough of government socialism.
Your whole way of life depends on it.
And you therefore keep spewing and pumping out propaganda to keep the system flowing so it will keep pouring more of other people’s money into your pig trough. And you vote Democrat, of course. Because the Democrat Party is the Party of Pig Troughs.
What you find is that the Koch Brothers – the face of the evil Filthy Rich Republican – aren’t even ON the list of the top fifty donors. But a whole lot of Filthy Rich LIBERALS sure are.
There’s a passage from Burton Folsom Jr.’s book, New Deal or Raw Deal that comes closer to framing the essence of FDR’s New Deal in a nutshell – and explaining why the Filthy Rich vote Democrat – than anything I can think of:
Let’s start with the New Deal’s effort to promote industrial recovery: the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA), which became law in 1933 and was soon shortened to the NRA. Of that act, Roosevelt said, “History will probably record the National Industrial Recovery Act as the most important and far-reaching legislation ever enacted by the American Congress.” The president was right: the NRA was revolutionary. It allowed American industrialists to collaborate to set the prices of their products, and even the wages and hours that went into making them. Leaders in all industries, from steel and coal to shoulder pads and dog food, were invited to sit down together and write “codes of fair competition” that would be binding on all producers in their industry. — page 41
This identical tactic was employed again and again in various components of the New Deal: the rich and the powerful were able to cozy up to the politicians and write the laws and regulations that enabled THEM to continue but suppressed their smaller competitors from being able to compete. In some ways, the brilliance of the scheme was its counter-intuitiveness: the Filthy Rich imposed regulations on themselves that made the cost of doing business dramatically higher. Because they could afford to pay those higher costs of complying with regulations but their smaller competitors could not.
And thus the Filthy Rich and the Democrat Party became bedfellows: the Democrats got the massive totalitarian fascist control they wanted and the Filthy Rich got to choke out their smaller competitors and retain supremacy.
That tactic is still used to this very day even as the Democrats slanderously demonize the other side as doing what THEY are the ones who do: they keep imposing more and more and more and more sweeping regulations which drive up the cost of doing business. The small business that would have competed with the bigger companies and corporations can’t afford to comply with the burdens; but the Filthy Rich just hire another regulatory compliance officer and keep sailing along, knowing that they can increase their prices and make the people pay because they have no competition to drive their profits down.
Let me tell you a secret the Democrat Party, their mainstream media propagandists and their pseudo-intellectual leftist professor class don’t want you to know:
Economic inequality in the US reaches levels not seen since Great Depression Wealth inequality in the US is reaching its most extreme point since just before the start of the Great Depression in 1929, according to a new economic analysis. Even the 1 percent are lagging behind the 0.01 percent.
Christian Science Monitor
By Henry Gass
November 10, 2014
It’s 2014, but when it comes to wealth inequality in the United States, it’s starting to look a lot like 1929.
In the late 1920s, the top 10 percent of Americans possessed 84 percent of the country’s wealth. Since then, wealth inequality in America has followed a U-shaped trajectory, declining through the Great Depression until the mid-1980s, then steadily increasing since then. Now, the richest Americans have a share of the country’s wealth almost big enough to rival those in the late 1920s, according to a new study
The study, from Emmanuel Saez of the University of California at Berkeley and Gabriel Zucman of the London School of Economics, uses a greater variety of sources to paint its picture of wealth inequality in the US than other recent analyses. […]
According to an analysis of data sourced through 2012 – including detailed data on personal income taxes and property tax – Professors Saez and Zucman found that the richest 0.1 percent of Americans have as much of the country’s wealth as the poorest 90 percent. Both groups control roughly 22 percent of total wealth, but while the average wealth of the bottom 90 percent is $84,000, the top 0.1 percent were comprised of 160,700 families with net assets above $20 million, according to their study.
An even closer look at their data has shown that while the growth of the American middle class has been restricted by modest income growth and soaring debt –thanks in large part to the 2008 mortgage crisis – the super-rich have been making significant gains in income and wealth.
While the bottom 90 percent of Americans and the top 0.1 percent control about 22 percent of the country’s wealth each, the top 0.01 percent of Americans now control 11.2 percent of total wealth. That share of the wealth held by the country’s richest 0.01 percent – a group of roughly 16,000 families with an average net worth of $371 million – is the largest share they’ve had since 1916, the highest on record, according to the study.
I think I’ve already explained why that is.
Keep in mind that for the first two years of Obama Democrats controlled the ENTIRE government. They passed EVERYTHING they wanted to pass and shoved it down the American peoples’ throats – lying as needed, we now know. Since then, they have held lock step control of the White House or the Führerbunker or whatever the hell Obama calls it when he’s not golfing, and the Senate under Democrat Harry Reid has blocked more Republican-House-passed bills and shut down more amendments than all previous Senate Majority Leaders in the entire history of the republic TIMES TWO.
But we’ve got two more giant lies from the party of the devil going on; namely, number one, that it’s somehow the Republican Party that is the “party of obstruction” when it’s the damn DEMOCRAT Party and number two that income inequality is the fault of Republicans when it has been the result of OBAMA’S vile FDR-esqe policies that have created this disaster.
Democrats – liars, remember – will tell you about “corporate welfare” and they’ll tell you about the big banks being given billions by Republicans. Just remember that Barack Obama voted for that deal that gave the banks billions in that bailout, that the Tea Party who are Obama’s primary conservative enemies opposed it fiercely and bitterly. If you’re a Lehman Brothers, or a Morgan Stanley or a JP Morgan or a Citigroup or a Goldman Sachs, well, you know who your Führer is. But, hey, you’re a Democrat, so you can always just LIE and blame what you did on your opponents, right?
Every single Democrat votes to crush the small businesses and therefore exalt the Filthy Rich. That is the malicious fascist evil of the Democrat Party tradition – and it has been thus for over eighty years.
If you don’t like exalting the Filthy Rich, support conservative Tea Party Republicans. Well, or else be a Democrat LIAR and lie about it being the fault of the other side who opposes the very thing you want to do and demonize them for doing.
I could add to these groups the people who despise America, the William Ayers and the Professor Ward Churchills and your Black Panther types. I could add the bitter race-baiters, I could add the people who want to divide America up by gender, or by all the other issues that these people want to divide America with. I could add the illegal immigrants who have no love for America or its ways but only want to come here to be able to exploit what others built. There are a lot of horrible, bad, warped, evil people who form the nucleus of the Democrat Party.
But let’s just stick with the three groups I discussed at greater length above, so you can contemplate the incredibly parasitical nature of the Democrat Party that is the party of leeches.
And realize that the quintessential tactic of this diseased party is to lie and lie and lie and then lie some more.
Because to the extent they aren’t truly “stupid,” they know that the American people are increasingly – since Democrats drove God out of this nation – become a bad people. And it is always the nature of bad people to prefer lies to the truth.
There’s this narrative that conservatives and Republicans favor the big rich guy and the corporations and that liberals and Democrats favor the little, poor guy and the workers.
It’s a complete lie and if you believe that crap, you are stupid.
As usual, there are multiple stories to disprove this easily refutable lie.
The “Proud Whopper” to celebrate gay pride, will be in a rainbow wrap.
Burger King released a short film Wednesday on YouTube featuring patrons’ reactions when opening the new burger, offered during San Francisco’s Pride Parade Sunday, June 29. The burger appears different on the outside, but soon enough customers realize it’s the same Whopper the fast-food chain has been selling for years. Once unwrapped, the words “We are all the same inside” are revealed on the wrapper.
“I cried in there because I was overwhelmed,” one patron said in the video. “A burger has never made me cry before.”
“Have it your way” has been changed to “Be your way.”
God knows what that “patron” is talking about. That sodomy burger makes Him cry, too.
I have never walked through the doors of a Burger Queen since, for the record. If conservatives started to boycott liberal companies the way liberals target conservative businesses, there would be a truce right quick in the boycott industry. But as it is, liberals are free to target any business they don’t like for doing anything they don’t like that business doing, while conservatives stand on the “principle” of allowing businesses to do what they want. With the result being that our businesses are naked and exposed and quickly fold while the rest of the businesses realize that they had better get in bed with the rabid left because it won’t cost them anything to do so and it will cost them dearly if they don’t.
So here’s überliberal hypocrite Warren Buffett leading überliberal Burger Queen into the very sort of inversion tax dodge that liberals claim they hate:
Burger King’s $11.4-billion deal for Canadian coffee-and-doughnut chain Tim Hortons Inc. — with a new headquarters in Canada — sparked calls for a boycott and criticism of billionaire Warren Buffett, who is helping to finance the merger..
The latest in a series of corporate offshore tax-reducing moves, known as inversions, also puts the Obama administration in a difficult spot as it tries to stem the flow of U.S. companies moving to countries such as Canada with lower tax rates.
“I’ve eaten my last Whopper,” Oscar G. Echeverría of Irvine vowed Tuesday in one of dozens of negative comments about the deal on Burger King’s Facebook page.
Alejandra Aguilar, 35, of East Los Angeles said she planned to stop going to Burger King, where she eats once or twice a month.
“If that goes through, especially if it means the loss of money and jobs in the U.S., I would definitely boycott them,” said Aguilar, who works as a distributor for a beauty company. “I would, even though I love the little burgers.”
Burger King Worldwide Inc. executives said the move to create a corporate holding company in Canada was not a tax dodge. Instead, they said, it was justified because Canada would be the new company’s largest market. They noted that Burger King would remain a stand-alone brand with its headquarters still in Miami.
The outrage over another corporation moving out of the U.S. normally would fuel President Obama’s recent efforts to tighten restrictions on inversions. But the role of Obama ally Buffett, whose firm is investing $3 billion to finance the deal, muddled the message for the administration.
Buffett has been a staunch advocate of companies and citizens paying their fair share of taxes — so much so that the administration’s proposal to force millionaires to pay the same share of their income in taxes as middle-class families is known as the Buffett Rule.
But on Tuesday, Buffett was criticized as a hypocrite even though he echoed Burger King’s comments that the move was not done to avoid paying U.S. taxes.
“It has to be twisting the White House in messaging and political knots,” said Chris Krueger, a Washington policy analyst with Guggenheim Securities.
“How can you hammer a deal for tax policies when the very person your signature tax policy — the Buffett Rule — is named after is involved and argues that [the deal] is not tax-motivated?” Krueger said.
“The White House cannot paint this as a black-and-white issue, and Buffett’s involvement shows that it is more like 50 shades of gray,” he said.
Burger King’s purchase of Tim Hortons, creating the world’s third-largest fast-food company, is one of the highest-profile tax inversions so far.
In such a maneuver, which is legal, a U.S. company buys a foreign competitor in a nation with a lower corporate tax rate and shifts its headquarters to that country. As inversions have gained in popularity in recent years, the Obama administration and some congressional Democrats have been pushing for new restrictions.
[Blah, blah, blah]
Just remember that Warren Buffett is a good shameless hypocrite whore and the Koch brothers are evil and the liberal narrative will remain pristine in unicorn fairy land where every village idiot in the land chants mindless leftist slogans.
The überleftist apologist propaganda mill otherwise known as “the press” is desperately trying to equivocate this story. After all, they tell us, Canada isn’t exactly a tax haven. Well, here’s the thing: the US corporate tax rate is the highest in the damn WORLD. EVERY OTHER PLACE ON EARTH is a damn tax haven compared to Obama’s Socialist States of Amerika.
Okay, next story, same day, same Los Angeles Slimes newspaper, same crony capitalist fascist liberals:
So, remember that $1-billion plan to get iPads for each and every Los Angeles Unified student the district has been working on and steadfastly defending for a couple of years now?
Forget about it. The deal is off, creating a new round of L.A. Unified chaos just as another school year begins.
The announcement came just days after the release of emails detailing Supt. John Deasy’s cozy contacts with Apple and curriculum software manufacturer Pearson before they were awarded large contracts.
Deasy, who has denied any improprieties, actually tried to put a positive spin on the long-running fiasco when he announced that the deal with Apple was kaput. The decision, he said in a memo to school board members Monday night, will “enable us to take advantage of an ever-changing marketplace and technology advances.… We will incorporate the lessons learned from the original procurement process….”
You’d think all had gone according to plan, but make no mistake:
Despite the upbeat, moving-on tone of that message, the Deasy pullback is a defining moment in his tenure. It was nothing short of a forced surrender to critics who have argued for months that Deasy charged ahead on the iPad project as if he knew best and everyone else’s job was to get out of the way.
And what did that get us? A commitment to spend tens of millions of dollars on pricey tablets and on software programs that hadn’t even been developed.
And the iPad fiasco is not the only problem bearing down on Deasy.
He’s got a newly radicalized teachers union calling for his scalp in the middle of contract negotiations. The two sides are miles apart on a range of issues, including salaries, teacher evaluations and the ever-rancorous philosophical divide over the corporate and nonprofit influences on public education.
He’s potentially lost his reliable majority on the school board with the election of George McKenna to an open seat.
He’s got the possibility of a new round of investigations into the Apple/Pearson deals by the L.A. Unified inspector general because of the emails.
And the school district, which years ago ditched a disastrous $120-million computerized student tracking system, is now trying to figure out how to fix persistent problems with the new $20-million system that replaced it. Early glitches have sent some parents and teachers into a tizzy over ridiculously large class sizes and misplaced transcripts, among other mishaps, and Jefferson High students staged a sit-in.
But getting back to iPads, Deasy’s white-flag moment follows not only the email release, but also comes in the wake of a damning report on the bidding process by an L.A. Unified technology committee. A draft, obtained last week by my colleague Howard Blume, covered what critics have been telling me and others for more than a year — that the rules of the bidding process appeared to benefit Apple and Pearson, and that there was at least an appearance of a conflict of interest on the district’s part.
And the emails really make you want to hold your nose.
“I believe we would have to make sure that your bid is the lowest one,” now-departed Deasy deputy Jaime Aquino wrote to Pearson in May 2012, two years before the contract was approved.
Aquino, if you have forgotten, had been an executive with a Pearson affiliate prior to heading up Deasy’s tech implementation plan.
Deasy — who graciously appeared in a promotional video for iPads before the contracts were awarded — later jumped in on that same email conversation.
“Understand your points and we need to work together on this quickly,” wrote Deasy, later adding he did not want to lose “an amazing opportunity.”
Deasy maintains that the emails were not about the larger, $1-billion tech plan but about “a pilot program we did at several schools months before we decided to do a large-scale implementation.”
Even if you believe that, along with Deasy’s claim that “nothing was done in any inappropriate way whatsoever,” his contact with Apple and Pearson raises countless questions about whether a legitimate bidding process was ever an objective.
“You should make every bidder think they have a slim chance of getting the job,” said Stuart Magruder, the school bond oversight committee member who briefly lost his post for asking too many questions about all of this. Deasy “didn’t do that. He created an environment where Apple and Pearson probably didn’t have to be as creative as they could have been.”
Or as thrifty. As Magruder noted, the district agreed to a far higher cost per device than what other districts were paying. Magruder also argued that he believes the main objective with digital devices has always been to facilitate more test-taking rather than better teaching and deeper, more meaningful learning experiences for students.
“There are all of these adults fighting among themselves and doing nothing to actually get the kids educated,” Magruder said. “And so many skirmishes between us seem to drive more skirmishes.”
So here we are, back to square one after a couple of wasted years, with Deasy calling for the process to begin all over again. It’s almost as if now he’s in a hurry to make everyone forget the past.
But it remains to be seen whether the superintendent, having lost a great deal of credibility, can survive the political fallout and learn enough from his blunders to lead the way more capably.
“I think that John Deasy lives by the sword and suffers by the sword of urgency,” L.A. Unified board member Steve Zimmer said. “I wouldn’t want him to not be urgent, and not be impatient, but sometimes there’s a cost to that.”
So, yeah. An überleftist crony capitalist fascist liberal school superintendent from one of the most radically liberal cities on EARTH is caught pretty much red-handed committing about every sort of fraud known to man. And he did it with YOUR tax dollars. Because THAT’S what liberalism does.
You need to understand: according to liberalism, it’s evil when a business wants to keep more of its own money rather than pay it out to big government liberals in the form of the highest tax rate on the planet. Well, unless it’s LIBERALS doing it, which they do every damn bit as much as the people the constantly demonize and slander. But it’s perfectly FINE when liberals take that giant stash of money they looted from all the businesses they forced to pay all those taxes and “invest it” – crony capitalist fascist liberal style – on their politically-engineered boondoggle.
Mind you, those paragraphs at the beginning of the above article pretty much represent the entire disgraced presidency of Barack Obama. Let’s just replace the name “Deasy” with the name “Obama” and try it for size:
Obama, who has denied any improprieties, actually tried to put a positive spin on the long-running fiasco when he announced that his cut-and-run from Iraq and then from Libya and then from Syria was kaput. The decision, he said in his 400th damn campaign fundraiser to his rabid ideological communist supporters Monday night, will “enable us to take advantage of an ever-changing “fundamental transformation of the United States of America”.… We will incorporate the lessons learned from the original cut-and-run while we redefine terrorism process….”
You’d think all had gone according to plan, but make no mistake:
Despite the upbeat, moving-on tone of that message, the Obama pullback is a defining moment in his tenure. It was nothing short of a forced surrender to critics who have argued for months that Obama charged ahead on the self-suicidal liberalism project as if he knew best and everyone else’s job was to get out of the way.
And if that disaster computer system doesn’t remind you of the disaster ObamaCare computer system, you are too far beneath the term “idiot” to describe in human terms. You need to be described in single-celled amoeba terms of being capable of anything only when some leftist slogan stimulates you.
If you think I’m being in any way, shape or form unfair to Obama, read this article here that documents the TRUTH about OBAMA’S strategy to completely pull out of Iraq going all the way back to February 2009. The military desperately wanted to remain to prevent the forfeiture of everything they’d fought for. Obama demanded that America cut and run instead. Then read the paragraph that says, “Petraeus was visibly unhappy when he left the Oval Office, according to one of the sources. A White House staffer present at the meeting was quoted by the source as saying, “Petraeus made the mistake of thinking he was still dealing with George Bush instead of with Barack Obama.” Do it Obama’s way until the obvious fiasco happens and then watch him blame everybody else. Obama overrode ALL his generals regarding his now-proven idiotic decision to completely abandon Iraq after all the work America had done to secure the country. Just as Obama would later disregard his ENTIRE national security team when it came to abandoning Syria to terrorists who ultimately exploited Obama’s weak abandonment of Iraq and seized a 36,000 square mile caliphate for themselves.
That’s who liberals are at every turn and in every way. In the spirit of Romans chapter one – which fits liberals to a “T” – they profess themselves to be wise, but in reality they are utter FOOLS.
And If you still think that liberals are one iota more willing to pay income taxes than conservatives, and if you’re NOT a mindless ideologically leftist moron who is as incapable of comprehending basic reality than a cockroach, just do some reading on green energy liberals and Hollywood liberals and liberals in basically every industry under the sun who lavish themselves with tax breaks at every possible turn.
I live in the California desert, and frankly if I had just one damn penny for every phone call I keep receiving from some leftist “green” business trying to capitalize on Obama green energy boondoggles to install subsidized solar energy panels “at no cost to you,” I’d be so filthy rich I’D BE THE ONE BUYING TIM HORTONS instead of Warren Buffett and Burger Queen.
The left has had a strangehold on our education system – both public schools and colleges and universities – for several generations now. And they have made America dumber and dumber and dumber and less and less and less religious. And now its no accident that we’re stupid enough to believe damn well anything.
When the Antichrist comes to take over what liberals started, he’ll have a ready-made population to manipulate with the same sort of lies that liberals have been beaming into the skulls of moral imbeciles since the 1960s.
And one of the core lies is and will continue to remain the lie that liberals only want to help you and conservatives only want to hurt you. When if anything its the other damn way around.
So when somebody tells you that Democrats care about the little guy, it wouldn’t be the least bit inappropriate of you to just start urinating right in their face.
It was only yesterday that I published the article, “America’s Enemy-in-Chief And The Pseudo-Journalist Enemies Of Truth Who Attack Any Of Their Own Who Would Expose Him.” I pointed out in that article how journalists had been personally destroyed for trying to report the truth. I mentioned some names, such as Sharyl Attkisson – award-winning investigative journalist who resigned in despair when CBS refused to air her stories after praising her for the same tough investigative reporting when the president happened to be a Republican. Having resigned, she was free to speak the truth: namely, the truth that a fascist propaganda-press WILL NOT report the truth about Obama that they eagerly drooled to report about Bush. And I mentioned a few courageous journalists – from the New York Times of all places – who dared to call a spade a spade and decry this fascist administration and its destruction on the 1st Amendment.
One of those New York Times journalists that I named yesterday was Jill Abramson.
Abramson pointed out that Barack Obama was – despite all of his arrogant lies to the contrary – the most secretive president she had ever encountered in a career of covering presidents that dated back to the Reagan years. She pointed out that Obama was in fact THE most destructive president of the 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States in all of American history.
And now she’s gone, purged the way ALL who in any way defy the left get purged. Because the left is now pathologically fascist. And the urge to purge is the hallmark of fascism.
Let me move on to another topic in the Obama administration. How would you grade this administration, compared to others, when it comes to its relationship with the media.
Well, I would slightly like to interpret the question as “How secretive is this White House?” which I think is the most important question. I would say it is the most secretive White House that I have ever been involved in covering, and that includes — I spent 22 years of my career in Washington and covered presidents from President Reagan on up through now, and I was Washington bureau chief of the Times during George W. Bush’s first term.
I dealt directly with the Bush White House when they had concerns that stories we were about to run put the national security under threat. But, you know, they were not pursuing criminal leak investigations. The Obama administration has had seven criminal leak investigations. That is more than twice the number of any previous administration in our history. It’s on a scale never seen before. This is the most secretive White House that, at least as a journalist, I have ever dealt with.
And do you think this comes directly from the president?
I would think that it would have to. I don’t know that, but certainly enough attention has been focused on this issue that, if he departed from the policies of his government, I think we’d know that at this point.
So it makes it more difficult for The New York Times to do its job.
Absolutely.
The White House does?
The White House does. And in the case of specific journalists, I would talk for a minute about Jim Risen, who is one of my most valued colleagues. In 2005, he is the reporter who, along with Eric Lichtblau, broke the story about the NSA’s warrantless eavesdropping, which was, in a way, the first view we had into the world of the NSA’s collection of data and communications. He has had this leak investigation hanging over his head for years now.
Allow me to simply state as a FACT that THIS is why Jill Abramson is gone.
Now read the article detailing her ouster and tell me where you see the real reason Abramson was purged:
The New York Times abruptly ousted its executive editor, Jill Abramson, Wednesday, citing “management” issues in the newsroom and sparking a firestorm of speculation across the media industry.
Managing editor Dean Baquet was appointed as her successor, making him the paper’s first African-American newsroom leader. Abramson and Baquet were among the top trending topics on Twitter on Wednesday afternoon, reflecting the intense interest the paper still generates among online readers.
The changes, effective immediately, came as a surprise for the rank and file and to company watchers, though there have been reports that her management style had rubbed some insiders and staffers the wrong way.
The company declined to elaborate on why Abramson, 60, left the company where she had worked for 17 years so suddenly. She was so devoted to The Times that she has a tattoo of the letter “T,” signifying her ties the paper.
In an e-mail, Times spokeswoman Eileen Murphy said Arthur Sulzberger Jr., the publisher of The Times and chairman of The New York Times Co., “made the decision because he believed that new leadership would improve some aspects of the management of the newsroom.”
“You will understand that there is nothing more that I want to say about this,” Sulzberger told the newsroom Wednesday afternoon, according to a Times report. “We had an issue with management in the newsroom. And that’s what’s at the heart of this issue.”
Widely respected for her journalistic skills, Abramson made history as the paper’s first female editor when she was promoted to the job in 2011. She has a reputation for a hard-charging, and at times, prickly personality.
Under her tenure, the paper had to deal with a series of high-profile defections by writers and editors — celebrated blogger Nate Silver to ESPN being the most cited example — who left for competitors and media start-ups.
But she is credited with guiding the organization at a time of deep changes, including the paper’s aggressive shift toward digital journalism and its decision to charge readers for digital content. Like other digital-first media organizations, its reporters are now tasked to write quickly online and update as stories develop, but they continue to produce high-quality enterprise stories and deeply reported features on multiple platforms, which allow the company to grow its circulation revenue.
“I’ve loved my run at The Times,” Abramson said in a statement. “We successfully blazed trails on the digital frontier, and we have come so far in inventing new forms of story-telling. Our masthead became half female for the first time, and so many great women hold important newsroom positions.”
Abramson was not immediately reachable for comment, and the company said she was “no longer here.”
Baquet, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist who previously worked as editor of The Los Angeles Times, has been managing editor at the Times since September 2011 and was seen as an eventual successor to Abramson.
A native New Orleanian, Baquet is well-liked in the newsroom for his engaging personality and easy rapport with staffers. “I think he’s the perfect choice,” said Jim Amoss, editor of The Times-Picayune in New Orleans, who’s been friends with Baquet for decades. “As a manager, he’s a rare combination of inspiring, empathetic and even-keeled. He know instinctively how to respond journalistically to news. The newsroom will naturally gravitate toward him.”
When he addressed the staff Wednesday afternoon, Baquet received a minute-long round of applause from employees, the Times report said.
That was where the print version ended. The digital version I found online continued with this:
“He’d remember a conversation you had with him six months earlier,” said a newsroom employee who spoke anonymously because he wasn’t authorized speak publicly about internal matters. “He’s personable, charming.”
Citing “the confidence and support” Baquet receives from his colleagues, Sulzberger said in the company’s statement that “there is no journalist in our newsroom or elsewhere better qualified to take on the responsibilities of executive editor at this time than Dean Baquet.”
Baquet has had run-ins with Abramson, though it remains unclear if their relationship may have influenced Sulzberger’s decision.Citing people in the company briefed on the situation, The Times reported Wednesday that Abramson sought to hire Janine Gibson, editor-in-chief of the Guardian’s U.S. operation and its global website, and name her co-managing editor alongside Baquet. The move angered Baquet and the tension was brought to the attention of Sulzberger.
Gibson confirmed to the Guardian that Abramson tried to hire her: “The New York Times talked to me about the role of joint managing editor, but I said no.”
Politico also reported that Abramson and Baquet once engaged in an argument that drove Baquet to slam his hand against a wall and storm out of the newsroom. “In recent months, Abramson has become a source of widespread frustration and anxiety within the Times newsroom,” said the story, written in April 2013 by Politico media reporter Dylan Byers. “More than a dozen current and former members of the editorial staff, all of whom spoke to Politico on the condition of anonymity, described her as stubborn and condescending, saying they found her difficult to work with.” The story was widely derided at the time as sexist.
The sudden masthead changes also may be driven by shifting priorities in the fast-changing newsroom, where digital strategizing can be overwhelmed by the daily demands of story production.
Last week, the company released an internal memo, following a 6-month review of its digital strategy, that called for more urgency in the implementation of its digital goals. Among them was a recommendation to create newsroom teams that tracked audience development and formed new strategies, as well a call to prioritize digital hiring.
“The report concludes that the masthead needs to make further structural changes in the newsroom to achieve a digital-first reality,” Abramson and Baquet wrote last week in a memo.
Sulzberger noted on Wednesday that Baquet was “closely involved” with the team that produced the memo.
Whatever precipitated her departure, Abramson doesn’t have “any journalistic apologies to make,” says Alex Jones, a former Times reporter who teaches media and public policy at Harvard University and is co-author of The Trust: The Private And Powerful Family Behind The New York Times.
“She was the head of the newsroom at a difficult time,” he said. “I worked for several top editors (at the Times). Every single one of them is pushy and demanding. I don’t think she is any more difficult than others. I think, overall, that just goes with the territory. It’s a demanding, high-standards place.”
Nowhere – NOWHERE – is her recent comment about the Obama regime mentioned. You know, the thing that ACTUALLY led to her ouster.
She delivered these remarks in a late-January interview. But that interview was given to al Jazeera, and of course nobody heard about it for a while. Until it was discovered and pointed out by Fox News late last week (which was how I heard about what Abramson said). That’s when the fascist wheels at the New York Slimes started grinding – and kept grinding until Abramson was out.
You can see the clues about how rushed this “ouster” – because let’s call it the “purge” that it clearly is – was:
The changes, effective immediately, came as a surprise for the rank and file and to company watchers, though there have been reports that her management style had rubbed some insiders and staffers the wrong way.
The minute-long applause was for the purging of a woman who had dared speak the truth about Messiah Obama. You can only imagine how the doctrinaire liberals who make up the New York Times must have gnashed their teeth for two and a half months waiting for her to be forced out for her blasphemy of their god-king.
“Several weeks ago, I’m told, Abramson discovered that her pay and her pension benefits as both executive editor and, before that, as managing editor were considerably less than the pay and pension benefits of Bill Keller, the male editor whom she replaced in both jobs. “She confronted the top brass,” one close associate said, and this may have fed into the management’s narrative that she was “pushy,” a characterization that, for many, has an inescapably gendered aspect.
But that was shortly after the New York Times ran a series spouting how working women could and should ask for more damn money. Which means that the New York Times would be saying, “Women should ask for more money, so long as they don’t dare ask for it from US.”
Times Co. shares extended earlier losses today, falling 4.5 percent at the close. The stock, which more than doubled during Abramson’s tenure, is still down 71 percent from a 2002 peak.
So maybe she deserved to be paid as much as the MALE who held her job and took the paper downhill was paid. But to be a liberal is to be an abject hypocrite who calls upon other people and other people’s money to do what they themselves refuse to do.
The two quintessential ingredients of modern progressive liberalism – abject hypocrisy and rabid fascism – here go hand in hand: “Don’t do what WE do; do what we TELL you to do.”
I leave it up to you. You can choose which meme you like: The New York Times, as the moral and intellectual leader in the liberal progressive world, fired Jill Abramson because they are blatant hypocrites who don’t give a flying damn about women’s equality. Or The New York Times, as the moral and intellectual leader in the progressive world, are blatant fascists who fired Jill Abramson because they can’t tolerate any dissent whatsoever.
Of course, if you’ve been following me so far, you know I take the latter position (to the extent that I don’t point out liberals are BOTH of the above). I submit that while Jill Abramson may have been an uppity woman whom the creators of liberals’ “war on women” hypocritically resented for wanting what liberals deceitfully claim they believe women ought to have; her real crime in their eyes was that she was an uppity woman who committed the unpardonable sin of speaking out against the fascism of the Obama regime.
What we’ve seen in both journalism and academia is a trend in which progressive liberals got their feet into the door, “progressively” and systematically began to hire more and ONLY liberals, and attained to a level of power in which they were able to dominate the agenda and shut down any and all opposition to their ideology. And then the purges. What worked well for Stalin works equally well for American progressive liberals.
The homosexual movement is a microcosm of the above. Homosexuals – citing the American tradition and the constitutional freedom of speech – demanded a voice. And Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians and Independents alike shrugged their shoulders and agreed that, yes, everybody deserves the right to speak freely and represent their cause or their view. But the moment they were allowed in the door, they began to slam it shut on everyone who disagree with THEM.
In other words, the “free speech” crap was merely that, rhetorical jiu-jitsu by fascists as a ploy to get as much as they could before seizing the rest.
It’s really no different from Hitler – who got to power largely by the homosexual movement in pre-WWII Germany. Hitler was quite willing to talk his way to power until he had garnered all the power he could by talking and it was time to seize complete power and then crush and exterminate his rivals (sadly for homosexuals, they ironically ended up on the wrong side of his subsequent purges).
A letter sent last year to Solis by the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, an independent agency that investigates allegations of administrative violations of fundraising rules by federal officials, said it began an inquiry after receiving a complaint that Solis had solicited a donation from a Labor Department employee. According to the letter, the complaint alleged that in March 2012, Solis “left a voicemail message on a subordinate employee’s government-issued Blackberry in which you asked the employee to contribute toward and assist with organizing others to attend a fundraiser for the President’s reelection campaign.”
Solis has declined to comment on the investigation, but a spokesman reiterated Friday that she believes she has done nothing wrong.
The January 2013 letter, which was reviewed by The Times, noted that Solis had resigned from her federal position earlier that month. As a result, the office said it was closing its inquiry into possible violations of the Hatch Act, which prohibits certain political activities by federal workers and imposes administrative penalties. The letter said the administrative inquiry could be reopened if Solis takes an executive branch job in the federal government.
Despite assurances to the contrary, the IRS didn’t destroy all of the donor lists scooped up in its tea party targeting — and a check of those lists reveals that the tax agency audited 10 percent of those donors, much higher than the audit rate for average Americans, House Republicans revealed Wednesday.
Republicans argue that the Internal Revenue Servicet come clean about the full extent of its targeting, which swept up dozens of conservative groups.
“The committee uncovered new information indicating that after groups provided the information to the IRS, nearly one in 10 donors were subject to audit,” Rep. Charles W. Boustany Jr., Louisiana Republican and chairman of the Ways and Means Committee’s oversight panel, told IRS Commissioner John Koskinen at a hearing Wednesday.
The quintessential fascism that is the heart of the left is emerging in every area and every arena across the board. If you are a liberal, YOU ARE A FASCIST. I’ve been pointing out – literally for years now – that “NAZI” stood for “National Socialist German Workers Party,” and that if there were a “National Socialist American Workers Party” there is absolutely NO QUESTION that it would be the progressive left. To wit: the Democrat Party today is the Nazi Party in everything BUT name. And if liberals were anything other than completely dishonest, they would call themselves what they truly are.
It is amazing to watch in these days shortly before the Antichrist prophesied by the Bible comes to a worshiping world the self-righteous left that praises itself for “tolerance” when they define “tolerance” as: thinking and acting as we say or else we’ll destroy you.
Its been nearly three years since I wrote a long article titled, “Why I Call Obama A Fascist.” And the man has EXPLODED in fascism since I wrote that with his targeting of nearly 300 conservative groups using his thug IRS as a major recent example. He is a firehose of pure fascist evil and you literally cannot keep up with it unless you stay up 24/7 trying to document it all.
But this article isn’t about Obama per se; it’s about the left that Obama is a creature of. It’s about the left that is quintessentially fascist. Which is all-too easy to prove and to document.
In a nutshell, “NAZI” stood for “National Socialist German Workers Party.” The only difference between fascist “national socialism” and “communism” was the fact that one favored “national” socialism while the other demanded “international socialism.” But socialism is socialism. Socialism is always and in every case big government run amok. Socialism is government dictating to the people what to do and how to live and what to think. If there was a National Socialist American Workers Party, is anyone actually fool enough to believe it would be the Republicans or the conservatives??? Because conservatism stands for the ANTITHESIS of socialism: we stand for LIMITED federal government, for individual liberty rather than governmental control, for laissez-faire free markets rather than government taxation and regulation.
Gene Edward Veith makes this point:
“Part of the problem in recognizing fascism is the assumption that it is conservative. [Zeev] Sternhell has observed how study of the ideology has been obscured by “the official Marxist interpretation of fascism.” Marxism defines fascism as its polar opposite. If Marxism is progressive, fascism is conservative. If Marxism is left wing, fascism is right wing. If Marxism champions the proletariat, fascism champions the bourgeoisie. If Marxism is socialist, fascism is capitalist.
The influence of Marxist scholarship has severely distorted our understanding of fascism. Communism and fascism were rival brands of socialism. Whereas Marxist socialism is predicated on an international class struggle, fascist national socialism promoted a socialism centered in national unity. Both communists and fascists opposed the bourgeoisie. Both attacked the conservatives. Both were mass movements, which had special appeal for the intelligentsia, students, and artists, as well as workers. Both favored strong centralized governments and rejected the free economy and the ideals of individual liberty. Fascists saw themselves as being neither of the right nor the left. They believed that they constituted a third force synthesizing the best of both extremes” [Gene Edward Veith, Jr., Modern Fascism: Liquidating the Judeo-Christian Worldview, p. 26].
Which is to say that you are already a far-leftist socialist – a communist – merely to believe the lie that the communist propaganda put forward about fascism being “right-wing.”
The notion that fascism/and or Nazism is “right-wing” is utter nonsense beyond this: Nazism and fascism are the extreme right of the far, radical LEFT. Socialism is inherently LEFT-WING, not right-wing. The Nazis believed in a fiercely nation-based socialism whereas the communists believed in an international, “workers of the world unite!” brand of socialism. But they BOTH wanted a giant, all-powerful, totalitarian government that is the heart of not the right but the LEFT.
So “fascism” is NOT“right-wing.” The next surprise is that “liberalism” is not “liberal” in any classical understanding of the term.
One of the things the reader must understand is how liberals have perverted the term “liberal” and “liberalism.” Yes, fascism is ideologically the opposite of liberalism; but that is “liberalism” in the CLASSICAL sense of liberalism, rather than what today’s progressive liberals believe and are doing. What is “liberalism” in the classical sense?
In other words, a limited proponent of limited government, free markets, individual liberty. THAT’S a classical liberty. Which is to say that I as a modern conservative am a classical liberal, whereas modern progressive liberals are – you guessed it – fascists. Modern liberals, like the fascists, believe in the OPPOSITE of all these things that classical liberals held and hold the most dear.
As you think about fascism and Nazism (which was merely a particular form of fascist socialism, think about some of the tenants and try to understand how what I am going to document that which is coming from the American left today is genuinely fascist.
Only a couple of months ago there was this gem of rabid fascist intolerance from the left:
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.”
Korn’s view grabbed the attention of the nation’s top conservative voice, Rush Limbaugh.
“This is not unique. This is not satire. This is not parody,” Limbaugh said on his nationally broadcast radio program Tuesday. “This woman, Sandra Korn, is real, and she’s serious that free speech needs to be abridged because it is threatening liberalism. It means that liberalism cannot hold up to scrutiny. It cannot withstand a challenge. If liberalism were infallible, if liberalism were so powerful and automatic, they would welcome challenges to it – and they would welcome the attempt to persuade and to convert. But instead they’re threatened by it.”
When asked of he thought her belief was going to become a movement, Limbaugh indicated it already was one.
“This is what the left is,” he explained. “Why do you think they want to get rid of this program? Why do you think they want to get rid of Fox News? Why do they want to silence criticism? What is Obama’s modus operandi? Eliminate the opposition. This is already a movement!”
“This woman has just written a column about it at Harvard with what appears to be an extreme view of eliminating the First Amendment as a way of silencing opposition. But she’s very honest. The First Amendment, free speech, ‘threatens liberalism,’ meaning liberalism cannot thrive in an open society. Liberalism is totalitarianism. Liberalism is statism. It is authoritarianism. It is all of the horrible Isms, and it cannot thrive when there is open debate. It cannot survive challenges.”
“Ah, the ‘community organizer force’ is strong with this one,” I’m sure Darth Obama – who held a similar position writing for Harvard – must have mused when he heard this.
The question, “Is this already a movement?” – and not merely an intellectual bowel movement – has been powerfully answered in the few weeks since this article came out from Harvard (the brains of the cockroach that is the leftist organism).
Just days after taking the job, Brendan Eich has resigned as chief executive of Mozilla, the maker of Firefox, after coming under fire for his 2008 support of Proposition 8, the California constitutional amendment that disallowed the marriage of same-sex couples in the state.
Mozilla announced Eich’s resignation Thursday afternoon in a blog post, saying that his hiring did not reflect the organization’s beliefs.
“While painful, the events of the last week show exactly why we need the Web. So all of us can engage freely in the tough conversations we need to make the world better,” Mozilla Chairwoman Mitchell Baker said in a statement. “We need to put our focus back on protecting that Web. And doing so in a way that will make you proud to support Mozilla.”
The organization named Eich CEO last week after operating under an interim CEO for more than a year. Eich had worked at Mozilla for years and was known as the founder of JavaScript, a popular programming language.
But Eich came under sharp criticism for donating $1,000 to a campaign that supported Poropisition 8, Several Mozilla board members resigned to protest his appointment.
Numerous Mozilla staffers also took to Twitter to call for his resignation. One popular online dating site OKCupid displayed a message on its website asking Firefox users to access the Web using a different browser.
“We took the stand because it seemed like the right thing to do,” a spokesman for OKCupid said.
Mozilla said it is still discussing what comes next for its leadership.
This guy Eich was incredibly well qualified to run this company, which he’d helped found. But liberals hold religious purity tests having nothing to do with corporate performance – and Eich was found to be a heretic and blasphemer.
If you ask the question, “Is Sandra Korn running Mozilla?” the answer is, “She might as well be.” Because fascist leftist who are rabidly intolerant of ANY point of view that differs from their own and cannot emotionally or intellectually handle dissent are what they are whether they’re at Harvard or at Mozilla.
Imagine the fallout had a corporation purged a CEO for the death penalty-worthy crime of having exercised his or her freedom to donate to the No on 8 campaign. And said they were doing it out of a spirit of “inclusiveness” and “diversity” (which they would have as much to claim as the opposite side). But for the most part, the propaganda mill that constitutes “journalism” simply ignored this story.
What is rather fascinating is that one particular paragraph in the print article (on page B2 of the LA Times’ Business section) – was purged from the online article that you see here. It immediately follows the “did not reflect the organization’s beliefs” line of crap. Here it is:
“Our organizational culture reflects diversity and inclusiveness,” Mozilla Chairwoman Michell Baker said in a statement. “Mozilla supports equality for all.”
You can see that statement from Mozilla in broader form here.
What is funny – and I mean laugh-till-you-pee-your-pants-funny – is how these Nazis actually view themselves as “inclusive.” You can understand why the uberleftist LA Times would purge that: it is so obviously self-refuting that it could not stand the light of day and had to be hidden the way ashamed parents would hide a child molesting freak in the basement.
Hell, I still remember when Barack Obama stated the following when he was lying his way to the presidency:
“I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. [big audience applause] For me as a Christian it’s also a sacred union, you know, God’s in the mix….I am not somebody who promotes same-sex marriage.” — Barack Obama, Saddleback Church debate moderated by Rick Warren, August 20, 2008
The ONLYreason the left didn’t go after Obama the way they have rabidly gone after everyone who said the same words is that they understood that – being one of them – Barack Obama was a pathological liar who said one think until it was time to say the opposite of the thing he said.
Pathological dishonesty goes hand in hand with pathological fascism.
When “inclusive” means, “If you don’t think exactly like I do, I will destroy you,” you have arrived at the spirit of Orwellianism. And the soul of the left skinny dips in Orwellian anti-thought.
If you are a Democrat, if you are a liberal, you DON’T think. You double-think. You unthink. You anti-think. Which is why you are such a complete moral idiot. And why you have no shame, no honor, no virtue, no integrity of any kind whatsoever.
Sandra Korn was also apparently running the National Young Feminist Leadership Conference – which was (laughably) all about “inclusiveness” too.
Its “safe space policy” promised the event would be “structured around inclusivity … with a focus on representing various perspectives,”according to the event’s official website(feministcampus.org).
Watch how “inclusive” they are the moment they discover “the other” and tell me about that “safe space policy” again. Tell me how this is what “structured around inclusivity” looks like. Tell me that this is what it looks like to have “a focus on representing various perspectives”:
Campus Reform’s Katherine Timpf attended the National Young Feminist Leadership Conference (NYFLC) — an event which promised to be about “inclusivity” and welcoming everyone — only to be told that “conservative” women were not welcome.
Timpf attempted to ask students’ their opinions on feminism, but conference organizers made an announcement advising participants not to talk to Campus Reform because it was a “conservative” outlet.
“You guys aren’t wanted here.”
The organizers also followed Timpf around the conference to interrupt her conversations with students to tell them the same thing.
“They’re a group that’s conservative, so what we are fighting for is not something…” one organizer told a student who was talking with Timpf, prompting the student to walk away.
“You’re just assuming that based on where I work,” Timpf told the organizer.
“Yeah, we are,” the organizer stated.
“You guys aren’t wanted here,” a participant told the reporter after the warning.
“I thought this was supposed to be an inclusive thing, why am I being excluded because of where I work?” Timpf asked another organizer after another interruption.
“Because the place that you work is not inclusive,” the organizer responded.
“You don’t know that,” Timpf said. “You don’t know anything about me or my personal beliefs, I’m just being labeled and excluded based on a label.”
Its “safe space policy” promised the event would be “structured around inclusivity … with a focus on representing various perspectives,” according to the event’s official website.
“We will not tolerate, allow, or encourage behavior which makes folks feel uncomfortable, threatened, or demoralized,” the policy continued.
The NYFLC conference was held March 29-31 at the DoubleTree by Hilton in Crystal City, VA.
The Nazis couldn’t have done it any better. One female editorialist described it as “Mean Girls with ugly women.”
But hey, I’m not done yet detailing how the left self-refutes themselves and documents their OWN rabid hypocrisy and intolerance.
Try this bit of “Sandra Korn” at other liberal universities like UC Santa Barbara and Oberlin, which are beginning to impose “trigger warnings” that would allow students to opt out of anything that might harm a liberal mind (you know, like reality or the truth):
The latest attack on academic freedom comes not from government authorities or corporate pressure but from students. At UC Santa Barbara, the student Senate recently passed a resolution that calls for mandatory “trigger warnings” — cautions from professors, to be added to their course syllabi, specifying which days’ lectures will include readings or films or discussions that might trigger feelings of emotional or physical distress.
The resolution calls for warnings if course materials will involve depictions and discussions of rape, sexual assault, suicide, pornography or graphic violence, among other things. The professors would excuse students from those classes, with no points deducted, if the students felt the material would distress them; it is left unclear how students would complete assignments or answer test questions based on the work covered in those classes.
The student resolution is only advisory, a recommendation that campus authorities can turn into policy or reject. They should not only choose the latter course but should explain firmly to students why such a policy would be antithetical to all that college is supposed to provide: a rich and diverse body of study that often requires students to confront difficult or uncomfortable material, and encourages them to discuss such topics openly. Trigger warnings are part of a campus culture that is increasingly overprotective and hypersensitive in its efforts to ensure that no student is ever offended or made to feel uncomfortable…
May I please have my liberal reality inoculation please? Because reality really, really upsets me and I have to be protected from it at all cost. That’s why I went to college where I could swim in a protective ocean where only fascist liberalism is allowed.
The police report regarding UC Santa Barbara Professor Mireille Miller-Young has been released. Miller-Young made news after tearing a sign away from an anti-abortion activist in the university’s Free Speech Zone. Here is the PDF, and here is a rather illuminating quote.
It’s worth a reminder that this professor’s areas of study include “Pornography; Sex Work; Black Film, Popular Culture and Art; Feminist & Queer Theory; African American & African Diaspora Studies,” all of which require confronting potentially upsetting material. So what exactly is the limit on what is permissible on university campuses?
Outside of Santa Barbara, this story is receiving the most attention from conservative outlets. I’m curious to know what mainstream left-of-center outlets think about this.
This post was provoked by Donald Douglas, who writes, “America’s college campuses: literally the most f-ked-up places in the nation.”
So if I’m upset by something, I have the right to employ violence? Only if I’m a liberal. If I’m a conservative, I’m going to get hauled away and prosecuted to the very fullest possible extent of the law just for SAYING that a liberal cockroach doesn’t have a right to be somewhere. That’s the kind of double-standard that also went on as “Germany” became “Nazi Germany.” Only the fascist thugs had the right to beat the hell out of somebody they didn’t like.
The amazing thing is that THESE ARE THE PEOPLE WHO CALL ME A NAZI. And they’re so pathologically dishonest and they’ve so completely deceived even themselves that they actually do it with a straight face.
You wonder how their skulls don’t explode from trying to hold so many massive contradictions, but they manage to pull it off. Because they anti-think when un-thinking or double-thinking fails them. And they are the most rabidly intolerant people that there are – and you literally have to be a full-fledged NAZI to be more rabidly intolerant than these liberals. And it is my observation that liberals are “progressives” who are progressing quite rapidly toward being full-fledged Nazis.
Do you want to know what is interesting? It is that when the Nazis came to Germany, it was these same university professor-types who were the FIRST to knuckle under and collaborate with their Nazi masters:
“Within the system of the concentration camp, something very strange took place. The first to give in, the first to collaborate—to save their lives—were the intellectuals, the liberals, the humanists, the professors of sociology, and the like. Because suddenly their whole concept of the universe broke down. They had nothing to lean on.”
Albert Einstein (a Jew who fled before the Nazis could capture him):
“Having always been an ardent partisan of freedom I turned to the Universities, as soon as the revolution broke out in Germany, to find the Universities took refuge in silence. I then turned to the editors of powerful newspapers, who, but lately in flowing articles, had claimed to be the faithful champions of liberty. These men, as well as the Universities, were reduced to silence in a few weeks. I then addressed myself to the authors individually, to those who passed themselves off as the intellectual guides of Germany, and among whom many had frequently discussed the question of freedom and its place in modern life. They are in turn very dumb. Only the church opposed the fight which Hitler was waging against liberty. Till then I had no interest in the church, but now I feel great admiration and am truly attracted to the church which had the persistent courage to fight for spiritual truth and moral freedom. I feel obliged to confess that I now admire what I used to consider of little value.”
Modern liberalism and those who cling to it had no answers or courage against Nazism. And in fact their philosophies, the values they hold today ARE the same as that of the Nazis they bowed down to when their moment to stand heroically came.
Here’s what you need to know about the university liberals who endlessly lecture us:
Soon after the end of World War II, the Jewish scholar Max Weinreich published Hitler’s Professors: The Part of Scholarship in Germany’s Crimes against the Jewish People. This exhaustive study of the complicity of German intellectuals with the Nazi regime documents how the scholarship of the time provided the intellectual justification and the conceptual framework for the Holocaust. This is not to say that these intellectuals necessarily intended the Holocaust, but, argues Weinreich, it would not have been possible without them. “Did the administer the poison?” he asks, “By no means; they only wrote the prescription.” — Veith, Modern Fascism, p. 79-80
Ask yourself if “Professor” Mireille Miller-Young did far more than “write a prescription” justifying violence.
Weinreich establishes that these many academics who supported Hitler were sophisticated thinkers. Their problem was that the “value-free” assumptions with which they pursued their research resulted in a mendacity inherent in any scholarship that overlooks or openly repudiates all moral and spiritual values. Which is THE same cancerous flaw that modern progressive intellectual liberalism suffers from today.
Now that I have documented the fascism in the left’s behavior, allow me to proceed to develop a new point about the fascism central to the left’s philosophy. Jonah Goldberg, in his great work Liberal Fascism makes this point:
For more than sixty years, liberals have insisted that the bacillus of fascism lies semi-dormant in the bloodstream of the political right. And yet with the notable exception and complicated exceptions of Leo Strauss and Allan Bloom, no top-tier American conservative intellectual was a devotee if Nietzsche or a serious admirer of Heidegger. All major conservative schools of thought trace themselves back to the champions of the Enlightenment – John Locke, Adam Smith, Montesquieu, Burke – and none of them have any direct intellectual link to Nazism or Nietzsche, to existentialism, nihilism, or even, for the most part, Pragmatism. Meanwhile, the ranks of left-wing intellectuals are infested with ideas and thinkers squarely in the fascist tradition. And yet all it takes is the abracadabra word “Marxist” to absolve most of them of any affinity with these currents. The rest get off the hook merely by attacking bourgeois morality and American values – even though such attacks are themselves little better than a reprise of fascist arguments. — pg. 175-176
The left now acknowledges that it is “common knowledge” that Martin Heidegger was a Nazi. But it’s funny that they spent most of the last eighty years denying that “common knowledge.”
The same methods—suppression of evidence, evasions and falsifications—were employed by the legions of Heidegger interpreters and apologists. They were, until the publication of Farias epochal book, largely successful in preventing any critical scrutiny of Heidegger’s ideas and their relation to his politics. An ironic chapter in this enterprise was played out by the deconstruction theorist, Paul De Man. De Man did much to publicize Heidegger among the American intelligentsia in the 1960s. Then there came the posthumous revelation in the late 1980s that De Man’s hands had not exactly been clean. He had been a Nazi collaborator in occupied Belgium during World War II and in that capacity had written some anti-Semitic articles for a Nazi-sponsored literary magazine. After De Man’s war-time essays were published there ensued a lively controversy about the relationship between De Man’s war-time activity and his subsequent ideas on deconstruction.[
And my exploration of the above distortion of Marxist scholarship of fascism and Nazism at the beginning of this article is merely part of that intellectual tradition of deceit. The left “suppressed evidence” and employed tactics of “evasions and falsifications” to conceal the “common knowledge” of their intellectual hero for most of the last century until one courageous scholar finally blew the doors off the lie. And of course then the left instantly proceeded to apologize and rationalize the man’s heart and mind of pure evil. And of course it is pointed out that the left did the exact same thing with ANOTHER hard-core Nazi intellectual hero of the left named Paul de Man. You can goose step down the list of numerous leftist intellectual heroes such as Herbert Marcuse, Frantz Fanon, Georges Sorel, Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, Carl Schmitt, and others to see the same damn thing. And frankly even documented PROOF of the hatefulness of these men and their ideas – and the CONSEQUENCES of their ideas – don’t matter.
The paragraph that follows the one cited above in Liberal Fascism therefore points out that:
In a seminar there may be important distinctions to be made between, say, Foucault’s “enterprise of Unreason,” Derrida’s tyrannical logocentrism, and Hitler’s “revolt against reason.” But such distinctions rarely translate beyond ivy-covered walls – and they are particularly meaningless to a movement that believes action is more important than ideas. Deconstruction, existentialism, postmodernism, Pragmatism, relativism: all of these ideas had the same purpose – to erode the iron chains of tradition, dissolve the concrete foundations of truth, and firebomb the bunkers where the defenders of the ancien regime still fought and persevered. These were ideologies of the “movement.” The late Richard Rorty admitted as much conflating Nietzsche and Heidegger with James and Dewey as part of the same grand project. — Goldberg, Modern Fascism, p. 176
And it is simply a FACT that all of those intellectual traditions and worldviews are at the very heart of the left and in radical rejection of the Classical Enlightenment foundationalism and Judeo-Christian religious worldview of the right. You can ignore it with your constant exploitation of crisis and demand for action all you want, liberal, but hateful ideas have hateful consequences. And it has been the hateful ideas that you CONTINUE to espouse to this very day that had those hateful consequences that resulted in the gas chambers and the Holocaust of Nazism AND the purges and massacres of MILLIONS of communism.
You OWN it. Even though you are too much of a hypocrite and a liar and frankly a coward to ADMIT that you own it.
One of the primary reasons that the left’s “enterprise of Unreason” (remember how I referred to the left’s “un-thinking” and “anti-thinking” and “double-thinking”?) consistently leads to moral horror boils down to this:
David Hirsch, in his study of Holocaust literature, concludes that one of the most striking characteristics of those who have carried out the exterminations was their inability to have empathy with an “other.” Hans Ebeling criticizes Heidegger in similar terms: “the power of acknowledging the other as the other, as essentially equal, is missing, and for that reason it only remains to oppress the other without any leniency.” Since existentialism focuses upon the individual consciousness, “the other” is necessarily minimized. — Veith, Modern Fascism, p. 103
At thus I reintroduce the demonization and purging of Brendan Eich for no other reason than that he gave a small financial contribution to a view of marriage that Barack Obama was HIMSELF hypocritically and dishonestly claiming at the time. Because it is the NATURE of the left – particularly the “intellectual” left – to lie without shame and cover up the truth and to suppress and to evade and to falsify the FACTS.
It ought to go without saying that if a more conservative-friendly corporation’s CEO had been found to have donated $1,000 to the “No on 8” campaign – as I’m frankly sure many have – he would still be there. Because unlike the left we value intellectual freedom.
So when Barack Hussein Obama routinely demonizes “the other” – that is absolutely everybody who doesn’t think exactly like he does – it’s what they call in golf “par for the course.” It’s who he is and what he does because the man is a fascist who has acted like a fascist his entire adult life as a “community agitator” and who very much THINKS like a fascist.
A lot of times folks would prefer the devil they know to the devil they don’t. But this law is doing what it’s supposed to do. It’s working. It’s helping people from coast to coast, all of which makes the lengths to which critics have gone to scare people or undermine the law, or try to repeal the law without offering any plausible alternative so hard to understand. I’ve got to admit, I don’t get it. Why are folks working so hard for people not to have health insurance? Why are they so mad about the idea of folks having health insurance?
The Big Lie is how Obama has governed. It is his ONLY “leadership technique.” And because he kept repeating the same lies his Big Lie governance literally got him elected and re-elected.
Find ONE Republican who would say he or she is opposed to ObamaCare because – and I quote Obama’s lie from hell here – “I don’t want people to have health insurance.” Just find ONE Republican who has said, “I’m mad about the idea of folks having health insurance.”
Obama has ALWAYS hated and demonized “the other” while maintaining the exact same hatred for the truth and willingness to engage in the “suppression of evidence, evasions and falsifications” that I cite as at the heart of the fascist intellectual tradition above.
Tell you what: I challenge any liberal to a “hate contest.” It’s Bush hate vs. Obama hate. If I can find more examples of Obama demonizing Republicans than you can find of Bush demonizing Democrats, I get to use you as proof – with your consent no less – that all Democrats are Nazi liars who participate in Obama’s campaign of hate against “the other.”
Obama does to Republicans what Hitler did to Jews on a nearly a daily basis.
I’ve been saying it and saying it. The beast is coming, the Antichrist from the Bible. He will be the ULTIMATE Democrat in that he will be the ultimate big government totalitarian who creates the State in place of God and demands worship in place of God. He will do what Democrats have tried to do and he will succeed in completely taking over the economy such that no man or woman may buy or sell without his stamp of approval (a.k.a. the mark of the beast).
Nazism didn’t just fly out of nowhere. It took DECADES for the evil in the German spirit to metastasize to the point where they were willing to murder six million Jews and five million other helpless human beings in their government extermination center.
It was from the minds of thinkers whom the American left still adores and follows today – thinkers such as Nietzsche and Heidegger and Derrida – from which the thought process that led to the death camps and the gas chambers and the ovens.
And Obama has taken that liberal descent into true fascism that will ultimately have the ugliest and darkest consequences a giant step forward.
And of course it’s nothing new when a mob of black liberals (blacks voting so overwhelmingly Democrat that to be black IS to vote Democrat) beat a white man into a coma. So it shouldn’t be any surprise whatsoever that blacks – who are fascist because they are liberals – would beat yet another white man into a coma for the crime of being white.
We live in a world where Phil Robertson has no right to express his views on homosexuality, but where homosexuals have every right to express their rabid, frothing hatred of Christianity and evangelical Christians. We live in a world where Phil Robertson gets suspended for basically just saying what the BIBLE says but Miley Cyrus doesn’t get suspended for performing a simulated sex act on television. We live in a crazy, morally depraved world, in other words.
I mean, just try to get your head around: Phil Robertson is being suspended from a “reality program” for actually being “real.” And A & E wants to take Phil Robertson out of a show that is actually mostly about HIM (he was the inventor of the duck lures of “Duck Dynasty,” you know) and is entirely about his family of which he is the patriarch. And since A & E wants the family to continue with the show that they just banned the family’s patriarch from, A & E literally is attempting to “suspend” Phil Robertson from his very own family.
Not only does “Duck Dynasty” star Phil Robertson fail to understand what it’s like to be gay, but he also thinks homosexuality is a sin comparable to bestiality.
In a shocking new interview with GQ’s Drew Magary, Robertson — the 67-year-old patriarch of the Duck Commander kingdom that earned his Louisiana family a fortune and a hit A&E series — opened up about “modern immorality” and the gay community.
It doesn’t matter that Robertson didn’t actually do that. Read his quote (and it would have been nice and, well, HONEST had GQ provided the context OF the quote – unless you think Phil Robertson just started popping off about homosexuality without any prompting whatsoever):
“Everything is blurred on what’s right and what’s wrong. Sin becomes fine,” he later added. “Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men. Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers — they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”
Notice that you “START from homosexuality” and then you “morph out from there.” One is NOT necessarily the same as the other in Robertson’s description any more than a nasty kid starts with pulling the wings off of insects and morphs out to killing other children means that children and winged insects are the same thing.
It also doesn’t matter if the Bible confirms the view that, yes, homosexuality really ISnext to bestiality:
“Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molek, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the LORD. Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable. Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.” — Leviticus 18:21-23
In blatant fact, not only is homosexuality next to bestiality, but it is actually sandwiched in between bestiality and child sacrifice (which liberals also love: we call it “abortion” today and 55 million innocent children have been sacrificed to the gods of convenient liberal demonism).
And, no, homosexuals will NOTinherit the kingdom of God. Don’t take my word, don’t even take Phil Robertson’s word, take the Word of God’s word:
Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” — 1 Corinthians 6:9-10
And it’s not just the Book of Leviticus or 1 Corinthians. Go to Romans Chapter One. In fact, go to ANY passage of God’s Word and see if it EVER says a positive word about homosexuality (hint: it DOESN’T).
Liberals have “fundamentally transformed” morality by replacing God’s morality with their own perverted version of it. And now they sit in rabid judgment of God and the Christians whose crime is believing the Word of God which had been the source of the moral backbone of Western Civilization for 2,000 years.
As a Christian, Phil Robertson ought to have the right to accurately express the content of his faith – particularly when he is virtually quoting the Bible when he does it. But “Christianity” now has to bow down before political correctness. And the factual content of the Bible and the Christianity it expresses be damned.
Facts are anathema to the left. They utterly despise them. And therefore they utterly despise anyone who disagrees with them.
You need to understand how liberals, secular humanists, et al view “truth.” I wrote about this a long time back (see part I, part II and part III). Basically, liberals reject the classic philosophical position of foundationalism and believe instead in postmodernist coherentism. Under coherentism, knowledge does not require any foundation and rather can be established by the interlocking strength of its components like a puzzle. Which is to say liberals parted with “truth” long, long ago.
The only difference between an opinion and a fact is the way you look at it.
In many ways, there are no facts. There are just different ways of looking at things.
With that in mind, I think it’s important to think of your opinions as facts.
Don’t tell me what you think. Tell me what you know, and if you don’t feel passionately enough about something to think you “know” it, then you should probably save your breath.
A good argument is when two people take two competing facts and let them battle it out.
The truth is created when an opinion beats out all other opinions.
Don’t say what you think is true. Decide what is true and then try to be right.
Like I said, liberals HATE truth. They don’t even accept the possibility that there could be something called “the truth.” They despise facts as irrelevant whenever they become inconvenient. What they love is perverting discussion about truth into opinion polls. And then relying upon their propaganda control over the media to slant the debate by creating straw men regarding the view they despise versus a celebrity culture regarding the view they cherish.
On my view as a foundationalist, our ultimate foundation for being able to know truth and have genuine knowledge of the external world rests with Creator God who made man in His own image and created the world for the man whom He created in His own image. Because of the Fall and sin, we do not know truth perfectly, but because we are the result of a special creation by a truth-knowing God and because He created the world around us for us, we can reliably know things about the world. That is the ultimate foundation upon which human epistemology rests.
Modern science directly implies that the world is organized strictly in accordance with mechanistic principles. There is no purposive principle whatsoever in nature. There are no gods and no designing forces that are rationally detectable…
Second, modern science directly implies that there are no inherent moral or ethical laws, no absolute guiding principles for human society.
Third…the individual human becomes an ethical person by means of two primary mechanisms: heredity and environmental influences. That is all there is.
Fourth, we must conclude that when we die, we die and that is the end of us…
Finally, free will as it is traditionally conceived…simply does not exist. — William Provine, Distinguished Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at Cornell University
To put it in Phil Robertson Duck Dynasty terms, if you are a man and you prefer another man’s anus to what God intended for you, you are a biological meat puppet insect who cannot help but prefer the anus to the vagina. And since there is no possibility of “morality” in the world your love/lust for the anus is simply a brute fact that cannot be questioned in any way, any shape or any form. And it is for some mysterious reason only those who hold any other view who must be suppressed as ruthlessly as necessary.
“But it should be pointed out that consistent atheism, which represents itself to be the most rational and logical of all approaches to reality, is in actuality completely self-defeating and incapable of logical defense. That is to say, if indeed all matter has combined by mere chance, unguided by any Higher Power of Transcendental Intelligence, then it necessarily follows that the molecules of the human brain are also the product of mere chance. In other words, we think the way we do simply because the atoms and molecules of our brain tissue happen to have combined in the way they have, totally without transcendental guidance or control. So then even the philosophies of men, their system of logic and all their approaches to reality are the result of mere fortuity. There is no absolute validity to any argument advanced by the atheist against the position of theism.
On the basis of his own presuppositions, the atheist completely cancels himself out, for on his own premises his arguments are without any absolute validity. By his own confession he thinks the way he does simply because the atoms in his brain happen to combine the way they do. If this is so, he cannot honestly say that his view is any more valid than the contrary view of his opponent. His basic postulates are self-contradictory and self-defeating; for when he asserts that there are no absolutes, he thereby is asserting a very dogmatic absolute. Nor can he logically disprove the existence of God without resorting to a logic that depends on the existence of God for its validity. Apart from such a transcendent guarantor of the validity of logic, any attempts at logic or argumentation are simply manifestations of the behavior of the collocation of molecules that make up the thinker’s brain.” — Gleason Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, 1982, pp. 55-56
As a result of my view, I can know the truth and I can have free will and freely choose. And I therefore have the right to express my beliefs. Versus anyone who believes in evolution, who necessarily is a biological meat puppet entirely conditioned by DNA and environment and by definition can have nothing the Bible calls a “soul.” Whereas such humanity is utterly and completely impossible to liberals BY DEFINITION.
Anyone who believes in evolution is according to their own view basically an insect who crawls a certain way merely because they were either hard-wired to so crawl or because their parents crawled that way once and didn’t happen to get eaten as a result. That is what you are and that is all you are. It is scientifically impossible for you to ever be anything more.
Ooops. Did I say “free”???
Liberals also viscerally and viciously despise human freedom. And as I believe you ought to see, that hatred stems from their views on human origin itself which result from their radical hatred of the God of the Bible.
Do I have the right to my beliefs? Absolutely, says the liberal. As long as your beliefs accord with mine. Otherwise, as Khrushchev boasted, “We will bury you!”
Liberals, secular humanists, atheists and evolutionists (basically one and the same group, for the record) exploited the view of their enemies regarding individuality and freedom to make their public case. Conservatives opposed what they said, of course, but they did not oppose their right to say it because they believed in freedom. But the moment the left got their way, they shut the door. They use a device called “political correctness” to shape society and therefore shape reality to their point of view.
Being politically correct is not just an attempt to make people feel better. It’s a large, coordinated effort to change Western culture as we know it by redefining it. Early Marxists designed their game plan long ago and continue to execute it today — and now liberals are picking up the same tactic: to control the argument by controlling the “acceptable” language. Those with radical agendas understand the game plan and are taking advantage of an oversensitive and frankly overly gullible public.
We’re told that “political correctness” is about being sensitive to people. But we already have the template for that; it’s called “good manners.” Political correctness is not at all about anything other than power.
You need to understand how this has worked its way into our government: huge, sweeping government that has the power to intrude into virtually every component of our lives. A giant welfare state. A giant ObamaCare bureaucracy. Stifling regulations. The belief that “you didn’t build that” and therefore the government has the right to whatever it demands from the fruit of your hard work.
Obama openly mocked the Bible as a book that should have anything whatsoever to do with modern life or the modern world. I explore Obama’s demon-possessed misunderstanding of Scripture.
And instead of any worldview informed by Christianity in any way, shape or form, we have this demonism:
In a Freedom of Information Act victory, a federal judge has slapped the Obama administration for its secretive ways and ordered officials to turn over a bland-sounding foreign policy document.
Chastising what she called “the government’s unwarranted expansion of the presidential communications privilege at the expense of the public’s interest in disclosure,” U.S. District Judge Ellen Seal Huvelle ruled the Presidential Policy Directive on Global Development is not exempt from FOIA.
Judge Huvelle’s 20-page decision took a shot or two, or three, at the Obama administration’s penchant for secrecy.
“The government appears to adopt the cavalier attitude that the President should be permitted to convey orders throughout the Executive Branch without public oversight, to engage in what is in effect governance by ‘secret law,'” Huvelle wrote.
A federal judge ruled Monday the National Security Agency’s bulk collection of Americans’ phone records “almost certainly” violates the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches. U.S. District Judge Richard Leon described the NSA’s activities as “almost Orwellian.” He wrote, “I cannot imagine a more ‘indiscriminate’ and ‘arbitrary invasion’ than this systematic and high-tech collection and retention of personal data on virtually every single citizen.”
Note: when I called Obama a FASCIST and pointed out that it is the pathological nature of the left to BE fascist, I WAS RIGHT.
In all of human history, we have NEVER had a man as stridently revealed as a complete and utter liar as Barack Obama has now been. More human beings have seen his lies played out before them than any other liar who ever lived. And this dishonest man is a fascist.
And the same damn people – and “damn” being a technical term for those who are one day surely going to burn in hell – are out to get Phil Robertson. Because as I describe above, they are biological meat puppet insects and it is their nature as slave-beings who by definition have no free will and therefore do whatever their hateful slave ideology compels them to do.
You can be the random evolution meat puppet or you can get off your ass and not stand for what the left is trying to do to a man just for expressing his opinion and exercising his freedom of religion.
I mean, stop and think about it: “marriage” has meant a particular thing for the entirety of human civilization and certainly the entirety of the Judeo-Christian-based Western Civilization upon which our society was formed. Liberals believe they have the right to redefine marriage to mean something that it never meant before as they “fundamentally transform” America. But it gets worse, because these fascists literally believe that no one has the right to oppose them or stand for the sum entirely of previous human civilization as they pervert and distort reality to suit their demonic ideology.
In the same manner, a damn liberal judge just imposed POLYGAMY on America. Nothing is more alive in America than the slippery slope that conservatives have been warning about. The claim to polygamy logically follows the claim to homosexuality: who are YOU to tell me I can’t marry the man – or men – of my dreams??? And that same “logic” will necessarily ultimately see the imposition of the very bestiality that Phil Robertson talks about, because who are YOU to tell me I can’t marry my canary??? And again, that same logic will also ultimately spill over to children having the “right” to be sodomized by some adult pervert. Because if a kid is old enough to choose abortion – which all kids are by definition according to the “logic” of liberalism – then who are you to tell them they can’t have sexual relationships with the people they choose to have them with??? It either all logically follows or NONEof it does (another free hint: NONE of it does).
Liberals can say whatever the hell they want and nobody boycotts them because conservatives believe that people have a right to say what they think. But the liberals who believe THEY have such freedom are fascists who would NEVER grant that freedom to anybody who doesn’t think just like they think.
Most Christian opponents of gay marriage oppose gay marriage; they don’t oppose the right of gays to advocate it. Yet thug groups like GLAAD increasingly oppose the right of Christians even to argue their corner. It’s quicker and more effective to silence them.
That is precisely right: Christians who dominated society allowed gays and other radical leftists to have free speech because it is our nature as conservatives to allow freedom. But the left is truly fascist and the moment they were allowed in the door they slammed it shut because genuine freedom is anathema to them.
I update again to add Bristol Palin – who apparently has her mother’s way of expressing herself – to the mix:
“I think it’s so hypocritical how the LGBT community expects every single flippen person to agree with their life style. This flies in the face of what makes America great — people can have their own beliefs and own opinions and their own ways of life.
“I hate how the LGBT community says it’s all about ‘love’ and ‘equality,'” she added. “However, if you don’t agree with their lifestyle, they spread the most hate. It is so hypocritical it makes my stomach turn.”
I demand the left defend it’s “tolerance” when they are so radically INTOLERANT with anybody who doesn’t precisely march to their goose step it is beyond ridiculous.
Take a stand against that fascism while you still have a little bit of your country left.
The “turn in your family and friends to Big Brother for the good of the State” money line is near the bottom:
There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.
And what more can we say but Seig heil, mein Führer!
While we can and should mock Obama for this, we also need to realize that the man is every bit as fascist as he knows how to be in a once truly free society. Democrats lust for government power and control; the only thing they lack to start putting people into re-education camps (or mental institutions) is the power to do so.
I have said this more than once. If I am not on Obama’s enemies list, it only means I have to work harder. If they come to take the Jews away, I hope I will have made enough public statements supporting and defending Israel that they take me with them. If they take the Christians away, I sure hope there is enough evidence to convict me of being one. If they take the conservatives away, let them come for me in the very first wave – before it gets harder to stand up for what you believe when the real oppression comes.
We’re in bad times in Obama’s God damn America, and we’re headed for far worse times. It’s past time that you stood up and took a stand, with your mouth, with your money and with your actions.
Start Thinking Right 