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
God is ultimately going to burn America in hell for murdering 55 million babies so far since Roe v. Wade in 1973. But Planned Parenthood is making out pretty good until that day comes: they got more than half a billion dollars killing babies for Obama this year. They are receiving more and more federal money and are performing more and more abortions while offering fewer and fewer of the non-abortion services that they deceitfully use to justify the half billion plus dollars a year they get from taxpayers:
(CNSNews.com) – Planned Parenthood Federation of America’s latest annual report for 2011-2012 says that its affiliated clinics performed 333,964 abortions in fiscal 2011.
That works out to an average of one abortion every 94 seconds.
The 333,964 abortion Planned Parenthood did in fiscal 2011 is an increase of 4,519 from the 329,445 abortions it did in 2010, according to a fact sheet that Planned Parenthood published last year.
Over two years, Planned Parenthood says, it has aborted 663,409.
The 2011-2012 report states that Planned Parenthood received $542.4 million in “government health services grants and reimbursements,” which it states includes “payments from Medicaid managed care plans.”
The report also shows that Planned Parenthood’s total assets top $1 billion dollars, specifically $1,244.7 billion.
“We are so proud of the year’s many successes, and deeply grateful for all the partners, sponsors, volunteers, staff and friends who helped make them possible,” states the report’s introductory letter, signed by PPFA president Cecile Richards and Cecelia Boone, chairwoman of the organization.
I’m sure Adolf Hitler said something just like that during the Holocaust: “We are so proud of the year’s many successes, and deeply grateful for all the partners, sponsors, volunteers, staff and of course SS troops who helped make the death camps possible.”
More than fifty-five million murdered human beings. And your government is helping add another murder every 94 seconds.
Meanwhile, what does God say about His role when having to do with unborn human beings?
“For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother’s womb. I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Wonderful are Your works, And my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from You, When I was made in secret, And skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth; Your eyes have seen my unformed substance; And in Your book were all written The days that were ordained for me, When as yet there was not one of them.” — Psalm 139:13-16
When my mother developed breast cancer, I looked for organizations devoted to ending breast cancer to donate to.
Susan G. Komen for the Cure quickly got crossed off my list (my mother’s list too, fwiw) because of its rabid pro-abortion stance.
Breast cancer is neither right wing nor left wing. Both conservative and liberal and Republican and Democrat women (and men) get it. And the same is true for the spouses, family members and friends of breast cancervictims.
But the left has co-opted breast cancer and transformed a medical condition into a naked political opportunity.
Some studies have concluded that abortion can TRIPLE the risk of developing breast cancer. And while other studies do not find that link, it nevertheless strikes me as pathetically ironic that an organization devoted to finding a cure for breast cancer may very well be advocating behaviors that cause breast cancer. That said, this article is not on that research.
It is on the bi-polar reversal-then-reversal-of-their-reversal policy of Susan G. Komen.
The creating more breast cancer so we can fight more breast cancer thing is not the only bizarre and self-defeating element of Susan G. Komen. The organization exists to fundraise; it raises money for breast cancer research. And wouldn’t you think that a fundraising organization that raises funds would want to actually raise more funds???
The controversy has led to an outpouring of funds to both organizations.
Brinker said Komen’s donations had risen 100% since Tuesday, and Planned Parenthood announced that it had already received a large portion of the funds it needed to replace the loss of Komen grants. Among the Planned Parenthood donors was New York MayorMichael R. Bloomberg, who pledged to give $1 for every new $1 donation made to Planned Parenthood, up to $250,000.
There are people who like to give to provide more abortions and kill more beautiful little babies; there are people who like to give to help find a cure for breast cancer; and there is a much smaller subset of people who both love killing babies and finding a cure to breast cancer.
Susan G. Komen – it is now documented – could raise FAR more money (TWICE!!!) by abandoning its connection to abortion. And you find out that Planned Parenthood wouldn’t even suffer.
So the only thing that Susan G. Komen is truly hurting by caving in to the pressure from the rabid left is BREAST CANCER RESEARCH.
And of course there’s still more bi-polar behavior from Susan G. Komen for the Kill:
Officials for the Susan G. Komen for the Cure foundation defended its decision to eventually end grants to Planned Parenthood for breast-health activities and suggested that the Komen money might be better spent elsewhere.
That article appears in the LA Times ON THE VERY SAME DAY THEY REVERSED EVERYTHING THAT KOMEN SAID IN THAT ARTICLE. It is simply beyond bizarre.
Which is to say that Susan G. Komen for the “Cure” has been lured into providing the “cure” of ABORTION.
In the Los Angeles Times’ letters section, February 3, 2012 (page 114), a woman who says she had breast cancer writes:
The decision by Komen to discontinue funding for Planned Parenthood is shameful and a giant step backward for women’s healthcare.
As a breast cancer survivor and a donor to both Komen and Planned Parenthood, I am outraged that this seemingly politically motivated move made so casually by Komen will affect many women who will once again be disenfranchised in the world of cancer prevention. I will stop contributing to Komen, stop wearing the pink ribbon and double my donations to Planned Parenthood.
I will also encourage my friends to do the same.
The letter is signed “Irene Briggs, Huntington Beach.”
It is equally sick to claim that if Susan G. Komen doesn’t give money to an abortion outfit, that women will somehow be barred from having breast cancer screening.
And while the move on the part from Susan G. Komen to stop funding abortionist Planned Parenthood was more to get AWAY from politics than giving in to political pressure, there is no question that their reversal had EVERYTHING to do with vicious political pressure from the left. As an example, more than 20 Senators – ALL of them leftist Democrats or socialists – sent a “toughly-worded letter” to private organization Susan G. Komen to pressure the private organization into continuing financially supporting a leftwing outfit that gets 30% of its funding from the government.
The reason I cited the letter above was to point out that if a liberal feminist who had breast cancer can cease her donations and stop wearing a pink ribbon (which is a symbol for Breast Cancer Awareness, NOT Susan G. Komen, btw), then I can certainly stop donating to Komen because of its deliberate participation in the slaughter of abortion.
The real shame is that it now stands as a FACT that Susan G. Komen is undermining its own purpose by clinging to Planned Parenthood. Because an awful lot of people would give to them to provide life if they only would quit also helping to provide death at the same time. And now that it is a well-known fact that Susan G. Komen is tantamount to giving to Planned Parenthood, you can bet that they will see a fair amount of their donations dry up in the future.
All of this is part of the out-and-out war of the left against life and against Judeo-Christianity.
WASHINGTON (AFP) – Defying a White House veto threat, the Republican-led US House of Representatives on Thursday passed a stopgap spending bill to avoid a government shutdown as a deadline looms.
US President Barack Obama’s budget office had vowed to reject the measure, dubbing it “a distraction” from difficult, ongoing negotiations on funding the US government for the rest of the fiscal year that ends September 30.
And Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had vowed to block the measure, calling it a “fantasy” and “a non-starter.”
The bill, which cleared the House by a mostly party-line 247-181 vote, would also have funded US military operations for the rest of the year.
Republicans, relying on the measure to gain leverage in the spending cut battle, used that to argue that Democrats and the White House opposed funding for US troops in harm’s way.
Harry Reid says funding for Cowboy Poetry festivals even as we face a $1.6 trillion deficit this year, yes. Funding for our troops, hell no.
Here’s where these dishonest, disingenuous lying rat bastards are now:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said Friday afternoon that he is in talks with Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to get a short-term budget deal to the floor to stave off a government shutdown.
Reid said there would be competition for what bill gets considered, with a “number of competing continuing resolution” requests on the table. Because the clock runs out at midnight, Reid would need a time agreement — what Reid referred to a “unanimous consent request” — to cut through the normal procedural red tape.
The negotiation between the two Senate leaders is in addition to Reid’s ongoing talks with the House GOP, which still are at an impasse just hours before the government is set to run out of funds.
Reid said Friday afternoon the Democrats’ proposed “clean” extension would maintain the levels of the continuing resolution set to expire Friday at midnight, a measure that contained $6 billion in cuts over three weeks. Reid added that it also would include funding through the year for the military.
Republicans in the House passed a one-week measure Thursday that would slash another $12 billion in spending and fund the Defense Department for the rest of the fiscal year.
Without securing a time agreement on any bill, stopgap or otherwise, the government is likely to shutdown because 30 hours are required between a procedural vote to open debate and a vote for final passage.
“If we’re very close [to a broader budget deal], we will figure out a way to keep the government running. If we’re very close, within an inch or two of an agreement,” Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) told reporters after a press conference featuring the entire caucus.
The Senate Democrats’ move toward a temporary bill Friday is a shift in strategy from earlier this week, when leaders insisted they only wanted a long-term deal. President Barack Obama had called the short-term approach a “distraction.”
By Thursday night, No. 2 Senate Democrat Dick Durbin placed the House-approved bill that funds the government for a week and the Department of Defense for a year on the Senate calendar while closing the floor. The formal action was taken when Reid (D-Nev.) was at the White House meeting with the president and Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio).
Now that the House-approved bill is on the docket, Reid could offer the Democrats’ bill as an amendment in the form of a substitute, essentially replacing the House legislation with his, passing it and sending it back to the lower chamber.
Congressional Democrats and the White House have said emphatically and repeatedly that the House Republican short-term offering is unpalatable. It includes a policy rider limiting funds for abortions in the District, but GOP aides are quick to note that measure had been included in another omnibus package Democrats voted for when it first cleared Congress. Earlier Thursday, the administration issued an official policy advisement stating it “strongly opposed” the GOP measure and would recommend the president veto it if it were to make it to his desk. […]
Question number one: Which party is creating a government shutdown? The Republican Party that passed a temporary fix to keep it running, or the Democrat Party – which by the way refused to do their jobs last year and pass this budget when they had total control of the presidency, the Senate and the House – which has done nothing but demonize and doesn’t even yet have a bill to offer in place of the Republican-passed bill?
Question number two: Which party is using tricks and gimmicks? The Republicans, who passed a bill, or the Democrats who are relying on last-nanosecond chicanery?
Question number three: Which party is making abortion the issue: Republicans, who are merely requiring language that Democrats themselves have passed themselves? Or Democrats, who demand that that the law continue to be ignored? It is further informative that Barack Obama voted for the language that Republicans are using now when he was a Senator, and Joe Biden voted for it seven times as a Senator.
Question number four: Which party gives the slightest damn about our soldiers, sailors, Marines and Air Force personnel? The Republicans who funded them and provided funding for Obama’s three wars, or the Democrats who want to use our troops for leverage in their reckless game of chicken?
See my article here for more on the history that got us to the ridiculous point where we are now at.
This is what the Republicans said: “There’s not agreement on numbers,” Boehner told reporters Thursday. “And nothing will be agreed to until everything is agreed to.”
It is frankly asinine that every single Democrat has come out rigidly adhering to their fuehrers’ talking points and claiming some deal had been reached even a full week after Republicans said no such deal had ever been reached. Not one single Republican has said there was ever any kind of a deal; they have in fact said precisely the opposite all along.
How about this, Harry and all you Demoncrats: President “Zero” Obama and I agreed to a deal while you were getting your “deal”: we agreed that the Democrat Party would fold and Democrats would collectively (like the collectivists they are) march off a cliff in proverbial lemming fashion. How about you stick to that made-up deal???
The week-long argument that Republicans should somehow be compelled to stick to a totally-invented “deal” that zero-point-zero Republicans have ever said occurred is simply on the level of second graders. And that said with all due apologies to second graders for the comparison.
Democrats are demagogues and demonizers of the worst sort imaginable. If you listen to them, Republicans want to reduce the massive deficit for no other reason than that they want poor people to suffer and slowly die.
In a city with overheated rhetoric, Pelosi’s statement ranks high on this year’s list of bloviated bluster. It’s bad enough that she repeatedly mixed up 6 million meals and 6 million people — and made no effort to correct the record after her statement was reported in the media. But the figure she used appears to have been invented itself, with little basis in fact.
“Republicans want to shut down our nation’s government because they want to make it harder for women to get the health services they need,” Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said on the floor Friday. “This is indefensible and everyone should be outraged — men and women should be outraged.”
That’s right. It doesn’t have anything to do with Democrats’ reckless and frankly immoral out-of-control spending that will necessarily cause the collapse of America and a great depression that will make the last one look like a walk in the park on a sunny day. It’s only because Republicans hate women and want them to suffer.
“But Republicans are asking me to sacrifice my wife’s health, my daughter’s health and my nine granddaughters’ health. They’re asking me to sacrifice the health of women in Nevada and across America. I won’t do it.“
Really, Harry, you demented liar? You despicable little twisted piece of cockroach feces? You secretly recorded Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell demanding that you sacrifice every female member of your family to their demonic god of meanness, did you? Y0u ought to be tarred and feathered before having your butt permanently kicked down the steps of the Capitol for that kind of outrageous vileness.
But for Democrats, that kind of over-the-top vicious lie is simply a typical negotiating tactic.
“We are absolutely outraged. This is the functional equivalent of bombing innocent civilians,” she said.
That’s right. The only thing keeping Republicans from firebombing every single city in America is Democrats. Because Republicans want to murder as many Americans as they possibly can.
This is actually how these people debate.
Then there’s the whole Planned Parenthood thing – which was at the heart of the evil Democrat statments above. First of all, if Demoncrats had wanted to pass their own budget, they damn well should have done so last year when they were in total control of all three branches of government. Instead, they played their stupid political games and refused to deal with their primary responsibility as politicians. They didn’t want to pass a budget because it was an election year and the American people would have seen how determined Democrats seem to be to bankrupt America and turn us into a banana republic. And now they are pathetically whining when Republicans take over to do their damn job for them in a way they don’t like. Democrats shrilly and hysterically claim that Republicans are trying to kill people so nobody will look at the facts. They say Republicans are trying to destroy women’s health so people won’t see how despicable they’ve been.
Here’s the thing: the “women’s health” argument is demonstrably bogus.
Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards claimed“If this bill ever becomes law, millions of women in this country are gonna lose their healthcare access — not to abortion services — to basic family planning, you know, mammograms.” Numerous Demoncrats such as Barbara Boxer have repeated that false claim to justify continued funding of Planned Parenthood. Boxer said, “In California alone, hundreds of thousands of women, the Democratic Senator said, use the organization’s “life-saving” services — including cancer screenings, mammograms, day-to-day health care, OB-GYN services as well as contraception and family planning.” Liberal mainstream media took up the false claim that women’s lives are being saved with Planned Parenthood mammograms. And:
But here’s the truth: a very recent sting revealed that Planned Parenthood does NOT provide mammograms. It was all a lie told by an organization that is based entirely upon abortion and the dishonest defenders of abortion:
In the tapes, a Live Action actor calls 30 Planned Parenthood clinics in 27 different states, inquiring about mammograms at Planned Parenthood. Every Planned Parenthood, without exception, tells her she will have to go elsewhere for a mammogram, and many clinics admit that no Planned Parenthood clinics provide this breast cancer screening procedure. “We don’t provide those services whatsoever,” admits a staffer at Planned Parenthood of Arizona. Planned Parenthood’s Comprehensive Health Center clinic in Overland Park, KS explains to the caller, “We actually don’t have a, um, mammogram machine, at our clinics.”
“I learned that Planned Parenthood is not about women’s health care at all. Their primary profit center and their entire corporate culture is about abortions,” Johnson says in the ad. “My superiors actually instructed me to increase the number of abortions at my facility. I couldn’t take it anymore. Low income women need real health care services and it is time America knew the truth about Planned Parenthood.”
Caught red-handed in a total lie that was the basis of their demand for funding for Planned Parenthood, Demoncrats simply dismiss reality and continue their screeching screeds of demagogic hatred.
Republicans point out this is about spending at a time when we don’t have money. They point out that since Planned Parenthood is an abortion organization in addition to being a radical leftwing outfit that DOESN’T perform the services they claim, they should get their money from somewhere other than the federal government.
Let’s say I get federal funding for encouraging children to eat their broccoli. But when parents call me to get me to come and get their children to actually eat broccoli, I say, “I’m sorry, but I don’t provide that service.”
Should I keep getting federal funds?
In a sane world the answer would be “hell no.” But Demoncrats do not live in a sane world; and they do not want the rest of us to be allowed to live in one, either.
If Planned Parenthood wants to provide abortions, let them. It’s evil, and one day every liberal who advocated the murder of these fifty-two million babies will burn in hell, and decent people will continue to do everything we can to stop this monsterous Nazi practice. But go private and get your damn money from liberals. Don’t you dare bait-and-switch us with bogus claims that it’s all about women’s health and demand government money. Particularly when it turns out you rat bastards were even lying about that.
We are facing national extinction in a not very distant time. We cannot even possibly continue to spend like this. It is insane. It is morally and fiscally insane. And yet Democrats WILL NOT make even trivial cuts in spending. And any time Republicans try to make the cuts that are absolutely necessary to prevent the financial implosion and Great Depression that is guaranteed to come, Demoncrats falsely demonize them at every turn.
We don’t need to cut billions of dollars from the federal government; we need to cut TRILLIONS of dollars from the federal government.
It comes down to this: if Democrats get their way, if the American people support them with their votes, America will fall, and fall soon.
Then we will truly see which party wanted the people to suffer.
As we face an impending government shutdown, it becomes an interesting question to ask, “How did we get here?” And why are the Democrats literally scheming to shut down the government over the Republicans’ demand to cut just 2% of our massive deficit? Why do Democrats want to hurt our troops and their families by denying the pay of soldiers who barely make it month to month? Especially when Republicans have passed a stopgap measure that would fund the troops for the year and keep them out of any budget squabbles?
First, let’s get one fact on the table: this entire “shutdown” mess is the result of Democrats’ pathetic failure to pass a budget when they controlled the White House, the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives last year.
What is being fought over is the FY-2011 budget. We are now SIX MONTHS into that fiscal year thanks to Democrat incompetence. And the reason Democrats didn’t bother to pass a budget when they were in total control of the government was because it was an election year, and Democrats didn’t want the American people to see how morally and fiscally insane they truly were. Bottom line: if Democrats had passed the kind of reckless budget that Democrats invariably pass, the election would have gone even worse for them than it did.
Furthermore, as soon as the new Republican House took over, they immediately went to work on the budget for this year that Democrats had refused to bother with last year when they were supposed to do so as the most basic part of their duties. They sent that budget to the Democrat-controlled Senate. And Harry Reid sat on it and did nothing.
And, for the record, Senate Democrats STILL don’t have any kind of a budget whatsoever. The only thing they’ve got is a big can of deceitful demagoguery.
Those are the documented facts.
The mainstream media – as they sharpen their knives to carve up Republicans and make them the culprits – are simply lying to you.
For the record, the last budget from a Republican President AND a Republican Congress – FY-2007 (passed in 2006) – resulted in a$161 billion deficit at a time when unemployment was 4.6%. That’s what happened the last time the GOP was in control.
What happened when the Democrats took control in January 2007? Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi passed a FY-2008 budget that had a $459 billion deficit – nearly three times the deficit in the immediately previous Republican-passed budget. Three times. And this before the financial crisis that somehow “necessitated” all this massive spending.
Now, that’s a pretty crazy increase under Democrat control. But you aint seen nothin’ yet.
The Democrats passed a FY-2009 budget with a staggering, mind-boggling, totally reckless $1.42 TRILLION deficit.
The FY-2010 budget approved by Reid and Pelosi and signed by Obama had an estimated $1.6 TRILLION deficit.
The deficit has increased from $161 billion in the last budget before Democrats took control of the Congress (FY 2007) to $1.42 trillion in the most recent fiscal year (FY 2009)—an increase of $1.26 trillion or 782%.
We also suffered a budget shortfall of $94 billion in the month of June, which marks the first June in more than ten years (read, “encompassing the entire Bush presidency”). Bush’s success in raising revenues is bookended by two Democrat presidents who failed.
That’s your history lesson. Anyone who wants to blame the reckless spending on Bush or Republicans is either lying, or ignorant, or an ignorant liar.
Three, we need to chop TRILLIONS of dollars in spending if we don’t want our entire nation to collapse and our children to starve in front of our eyes in a depression that will make the 1930s look like a nice day at the beach.
Democrats are literally fighting to the death over a few billion dollars in this FY-2011 budget that they did nothing about when they had the chance. At the same time, they are loudly demonizing Paul Ryan’s 2012 budget (notice how, unlike the Democrats, the Republicans are actually being responsible and passing a budget?) that will save $6.2 trillion compared to Obama’s budget over the next ten years – even as it spends more than $40 trillion (as compared to Obama’s $46 trillion). Ryan’s budget is called “The Path to Prosperity.” Obama’s out-of-control budget is now the status quo. Which looks better to you?
There is absolutely NO WAY the nation will do anything but collapse if Democrats are allowed to play any role whatsoever in its governance at this point.
If you vote Democrat, this is your basic posture: “I don’t care about the next generation. I do not give one DAMN about America. I want everything that I and my union special interests can get, and screw everybody else.”
And my response is that Democrats are a greater threat to America than al Qaeda or China. They are a fifth column destroying America from within so our worst enemies don’t have to bother. We must crush Democrats before they can crush America.
Four, it is an absolute LIE that Republicans are shutting down the government. The fact is, Republicans just passed another stopgap that would fund the government for a week and fund military operations (as in Obama’s military operations that he’s now placed into three wars) for the remainder of the year.
Consider reality for a change. From the Associated Press:
WASHINGTON (AFP) – Defying a White House veto threat, the Republican-led US House of Representatives on Thursday passed a stopgap spending bill to avoid a government shutdown as a deadline looms.
US President Barack Obama’s budget office had vowed to reject the measure, dubbing it “a distraction” from difficult, ongoing negotiations on funding the US government for the rest of the fiscal year that ends September 30.
And Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had vowed to block the measure, calling it a “fantasy” and “a non-starter.”
The bill, which cleared the House by a mostly party-line 247-181 vote, would also have funded US military operations for the rest of the year.
Republicans, relying on the measure to gain leverage in the spending cut battle, used that to argue that Democrats and the White House opposed funding for US troops in harm’s way.
And, with all due respect, that is precisely what the rat bastard Democrats are doing; opposing funding for US troops in harm’s way.
Democrats don’t want to allow the troops to be funded. Like the terrorists whose side they routinely take, they want to hold America’s ability to defend itself hostage; they want “leverage” over Republicans. Cave in to our demands or else we’re destroy the military. Allah Akbar!
Obama and Democrats do not WANT to prevent a government shutdown. Obama and Democrats are enraged that Republicans give a damn about our troops and their ability to sustain operations.
What Obama and the Democrats want is to force a government shutdown over Republican attempts to prevent one and then use the power of the most propagandist media since Goebbels ran Hitler’s “mainstream media” to blame the GOP.
Because that is the kind of vermin the Democrats have become.
Harry Reid is refusing to allow the Republicans’ stopgap to even come up for debate in the Senate – even though there is no sane alternative. In fact, the ONLY alternative Reid proposes is a Senate measure that would require a unanimous vote of all 100 Senators. Which is to say that Harry Reid is forcing a government shutdown. Period.
Go back and look at the past. Consider that, under Democrats’ leadership, the federal budget has gone from $161 billion to $1.6 trillion a year with no end in sight until we get these bloated Democrat leeches off our backs. Understand that a “trillion” is a thousand billion. That makes the Democrats’ $1.6 trillion deficit a hundred times worse than what the Republicans left us with the last time they controlled Congress.
And consider that Democrats are doing everything they can to shut down the government and cause as much suffering for ordinary Americans as they can with the cynical belief that their liberal mainstream media allies will report the lie every single day that the Republicans are to blame until an ingorant population believes their Big Lie.
I believe we are in the last days before the Tribulation that God forewarned us about nearly 2,000 years ago. I believe the beast is coming – and that beast will be a big government totalitarian fascist who will be the fulfillment of everything the Democrats have been trying to push America toward for most of the last century.
God didn’t decree the coming Antichrist and the terrible hell on earth that would result from his “government as God” rule; God merely knew that in the last days of the human race we would make the kind of terrible mistakes that would cause the coming of the beast and his seven coming years of hell. And that is precisely what we have been doing.
We COULD do the right thing and avoid the hell that awaits us. But we won’t. And, amazingly, America will be the nation that starts the “beast” ball rolling; when America catches a cold, they say, the rest of the world catches the flu. And because of the morally and fiscally insane policies of Democrats, America now has flesh eating disease. You can already see the clear “last days” signs that have resulted from Obama’s wicked and foolish policies.
James O’Keefe, master of the video sting, targets NPR this time, in a pretty damaging interview with Ron Schiller, NPR’s senior vice president for development, and Betsy Liley, senior director of institutional giving.
O’Keefe’s compatriots, Shaughn Adeleye and Simon Templar, posed as members of a Muslim group with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood that wants to give NPR $5 million in light of the recent Republican threats to defund public broadcasting.
In the course of a lunch at Café Milano, Schiller presents himself as a liberal who thinks the tea party is “scary” and that there are not enough Muslim voices on the American airwaves, nodding as his lunchmates say they are glad NPR allows Hamas’s and Hezbollah’s views to be heard.
He claims the Republican party has been “hijacked” by the tea party, and when one of his lunch partner’s suggests that they’re “radical, racist, Islamaphobic, Tea Party people,” Schiller says, they’re “not just Islamaphobic, but really xenophobic, I mean basically they are, they believe in sort of white, middle-America gun-toting. I mean, it’s scary. They’re seriously racist, racist people.”
He also veers pretty wildly off the script that NPR CEO Vivian Schiller clung to during her address to the National Press Club Monday, saying “it is very clear that in the long run we would be better off without federal funding.” Vivian Schiller (no relation) was very careful to make the point Monday that while federal funding is only about 10 percent of NPR’s budget, it’s essential.
It was announced yesterday that Ron Schiller is leaving NPR to take a job at the Aspen Institute.
He came to NPR from the world of university fundraising and became NPR’s top fundraising official in late 2009, not long before discussions began for the $1.8 million gift from George Soros’s Open Society Foundations that, along with the Juan Williams firing, helped make NPR such a potent political target for Republicans.
I’ve reached out to NPR for comment and will update when I hear back.
UPDATE: NPR media reporter David Folkenflik tweets NPR’s comment: “We are appalled by the comments made by Ron Schiller in the video, which are contrary to what NPR stands for.”
UPDATE: The full NPR statement from Dana Davis Rehm, senior vice president of Marketing, Communications & External Relations:
“The fraudulent organization represented in this video repeatedly pressed us to accept a $5 million check, with no strings attached, which we repeatedly refused to accept. We are appalled by the comments made by Ron Schiller in the video, which are contrary to what NPR stands for. Mr. Schiller announced last week that he is leaving NPR for another job.”
Oh, that’s right. The REAL bad guys in this story are the people who demonstrated just how completely corrupt and dishonest you rat bastard taxpayer-dollar shakedown artists at NPR are.
Keep in mind, the people that NPR is on film demonizing at present constitute most of the American people. But according to liberal orthodoxy, conservatives, Republicans and Tea Party people are supposed to be forced to subsidize an organization that couldn’t be more unfair to them.
Are you seriously so demented and so depraved that you believe that these people could give conservatives a fair shake?
If you said yes, you just failed the moral IQ test; you are a truly stupid and immoral human being. You cannot see the world as it is because you are too depraved.
Bottom line: given that NPR is supposedly “objective,” and yet we now know just who these hard-core leftwing zealots are, let’s just realize that the entire mainstream media is basically one leftwing propaganda machine.
This an undercover video is by filmmaker, James O’Keefe of Acorn Video Expose fame, who hired two men to pose as members of an Islam organization linked closely to the Muslim Brotherhood. In the video, the men were discussing their wish to make a $5 million donation to NPR over dinner with Schiller.
It was at that dinner that Schiller is caught on video making claims, his comments fully transcribed below from the video on the left sidebar, that has landed him and NPR in the middle of yet another public funding scandal:
RON SCHILLER (President, NPR Foundation): I think what we all believe is that if we don’t have Muslim voices in our schools, on the air – I mean it’s the same thing we faced as a nation when we didn’t have female voices.
The current Republican party, particularly the Tea Party, is fanatically involved in people’s personal lives and very fundamental Christian. I wouldn’t even call it Christian; it’s this weird evangelical kind of move.
The current Republican party is not really the Republican party, it’s been hijacked by this group; that is, not just Islamaphobic but really xenophobic. I mean, basically, they are, they believe in sort of white, middle American, gun toting — I mean, it’s scary. They’re seriously racist, racist people.
Now, I’ll talk personally – as opposed to wearing my NPR hat. It feels to me that there is a real anti-intellectual move on the part of a significant part of the Republican party. In my personal opinion, liberals today might be more educated, fair and balanced than conservatives.
Well, to me, this [Egypt] is representative of the thing that I, uh, I guess I am most disturbed by and disappointed by in this country; which is that the educated, so-called ‘elite’ in this country is too small a percentage of the population, so that you have this very large, uneducated part of the population, that, that carries these ideas.
It’s, it’s much more about this type of anti-intellectualism than it is about a political. A university, also by definition, is considered in this country to be liberal, ah, even though it’s not at all liberal. It’s liberal because it’s intellectual — pursuit of knowledge and that is traditionally something that Democrats have funded and Republicans have not funded.
So, particularly Republicans play off of the belief among the general population that most of our funding comes from the Government. Very little of our funding comes from the Government; but, they act as though all of it comes from the Government.
It’s about 10% of the total station economy. The total station economy is about $800 million a year; and about $90 million comes from the Federal Government.
Well, frankly, it is very clear that we would be better off in the long run without Federal funding. And the challenge right now is that if we lost it altogether, we would have a lot of stations go dark.
Speaking to why he felt that way: I think for independence, number one. Number two is that our job would be a lot easier if people weren’t confused — because we get Federal funding, a lot of Americans, a lot of philanthropists actually think we get most of our money from the Federal government; even though NPR, as you know gets 1% and the station economy, as a whole, gets 10%.
NPR would definitely survive and most of the stations would survive.
Speaking of Zionist influence at NPR: I don’t actually find it at NPR; the zionist or pro-Israel even among funders. No. I mean it’s there in those who own newspapers, obviously; but no one owns NPR. So I, actually, I don’t find it … Right, because I think they are really looking for a fair point of view and many Jewish organizations are not. And frankly, many organizations, I’m sure there are Muslim organizations that are not looking for a fair point of view. They’re looking for a very particular point of view and that’s fine. We’re not one of them. I’m gathering that you’re not, actually.
And even around the Juan Williams issue, we had a very long discussion and they all agreed in the end — well of course you had to fire [Juan Williams]; but why they won’t say that? [shaking his head] In all of the uproar, for example around Juan Williams, what NPR did, I’m very proud of and what NPR stood for is non-racist, non-bigoted, straightforward telling of the news.
Our feeling is that if a person expresses his or her opinion, which anyone is entitled to in a free society, they are compromised as a journalist. They can no longer fairly report. And the question that we asked internally was – Can Juan Williams, when he makes a statement like he made, can he report to the Muslim population and be believed? And the answer is no. He lost all credibility and that breaks your basic ethics as a journalist. (To be continued.. TheProjectVeritas.com)
But hey, I’m sure National Propaganda Radio is every bit as fair in its coverage to the violent, unfair, ignorant, uneducated, anti-intellectual, xenophobic, seriously racist racist Republicans as they would be to the superior and enlightened Democrats. In fact, it’s very difficult to discern any difference in Schiller’s views toward Republicans and Democrats, unless you look really, really hard.
I remember talking to a liberal professor a couple years back. He literally compared allowing coverage of the conservative point-of-view to allowing a serious discussion about a “flat earth.” On his view, it was idiotic to even allow conservatives to have a voice in any discussion.
And the most incredible thing of all was that after saying all of this, he made the astounding claim that his liberal point of view was “tolerant” and “open-minded.”
What this professor said was what most “journalists” think. It just never occurs to them that conservatives might even possibly have a valid point, let alone think it’s necessary to cover the “flat earther” conservative position. And these are our “gatekeepers” who get to decide what “all the news that’s fit to print” is. And how to slant it.
All that said, obviously, conservatives should be forced to pay for propgandists who hate them and hate everything they stand for.
Wouldn’t it be nice if one day soon, liberals are forced to fund Rush Limbaugh with their tax dollars???
Barack Obama – desperately wanting to divert attention away from his failed policies and the terrible economy those failed policies have produced – poured gasoline onto the mosque being planned near Ground Zero and then lit the match.
In light of Obama’s pretzel-twisting flip-flopping cowardice, comedian Jon Stewart proposes Obama adopt a new campaign slogan: “Yes we can . . . But should we?”
“The First Amendment protects freedom of religion,” said Reid’s spokesman in a statement. “Senator Reid respects that but thinks that the mosque should be built someplace else.”
U.S. House Republican leader John Boehner called Obama’s “endorsement” of the center’s construction near Ground Zero troubling.
“The fact that someone has the right to do something doesn’t necessarily make it the right thing to do,” Boehner said in a statement. “This is not an issue of law, whether religious freedom or local zoning. This is a basic issue of respect for a tragic moment in our history.”
Enter Nancy Pelosi, who demands an investigation of those who oppose the mosque her Messiah voted for before he voted against it:
Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) today called for an investigation of those opposing the mosque being planned for construction a block away from the site of the September 11, 2001, terror attacks on New York City that toppled the Twin Towers at the World Trade Center complex in lower Manhatten and killed nearly 3000 people.
Speaking to reporters in San Francisco, Pelosi at first deferred to New Yorkers on the mosque, calling it an “urban development question” for them to decide.
“I think everybody respects the right of people in our country to express their religious beliefs on their property. The decision though as to how to go forward in New York is up to New York,” Pelosi said.
Pelosi reiterated that New Yorkers should decide in response to a follow-up question about Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) differing with President Barack Obama on the construction of the mosque, but then launched into a brief tirade against being questioned on the mosque and demanded an investigation be made into the opposition to the mosque.
“There is no question there is a concerted effort to make this a political issue by some. And I join those who have called for looking into how is this opposition to the mosque being funded. How is this being ginned up that here we are talking about Treasure Island, something we’ve been working on for decades, something of great interest to our community as we go forward to an election about the future of our country and two of the first three questions are about a zoning issue in New York City,” hissed Pelosi.
Audio of Pelosi’s comments was posted by KCBS-AM-FM which ignored Pelosi’s call to investigate the opposition to the mosque in its summary of her remarks–likewise for the San Francisco Chronicle.
Audio of Pelosi calling for an investigation into the opponents of the mosque, and how they are being funded.
Mind you, she’s not calling upon an investigation as to how the mosque is going to be funded, and which possibly hostile and jihadist foreign sources might be involved with the funding.
The Cordoba Initiative has reported less than $20,000 in assets. Where the $100 million for his project would come from is anybody’s guess. Furthermore, it’s fair to ask why, exactly, Imam Rauf has insisted on building the mosque so close to ground zero, and why he wants to unveil it on the 10th anniversary of the attacks. This not an issue of religious freedom, but rather, a question of safety and security.
No. The Speaker of the House of Representatives is demanding that the people representing the 70% of the American people who oppose the mosque should be investigated.
The mosque would be built less than 600 feet from Ground Zero. On a site that is technically very much a part of Ground Zero, given the fact that it was hit in the 9/11 attack by the landing gear of the plane that slammed into one of the towers of the World Trade Center.
If this mosque is built, our worst enemies overseas will rejoice over their victory. By Islamic tradition, you commemorate a great victory by building a mosque on the site of that victory.
There are over 3,000 mosques in the United States. Many have been recently built, and many more are presently under construction. How easy is it to build a Christian church today in an Islamic country? Try, “impossible.” And that’s even if we don’t try to build one within 600 feet of Mecca.
I find it amazing that Nancy Pelosi felt so free to falsely and maliciously demagogue and demonize Tea Party protesters who were clearly acting within their rights as American citizens, only to now demand an investigation into those who are STILL acting within their rights to oppose an ill-considered mosque being built too close to Ground Zero.
She denounces those who make the mosque a political issue EVEN AS SHE MAKES THE DAMN MOSQUE A POLITICAL ISSUE.
It’s long-passed time we vote these hypocrite fools out of office.
Why is it the tolerant thing to build a mosque near Ground Zero when Muslims created the horror of Ground Zero to begin with? Why isn’t it tolerant to first rebuild the church that was destroyed by Muslims? Why are we supposed to passively allow Muslims to lecture us about our “intolerance” when Islam is far and away the most intolerant religion and culture on the face of the earth?
Why don’t we investigate why Nancy Pelosi and Democrats undermine Christianity as a matter of routine, and bow (literally) and scrape before Islam?
Barack Obama’s Health and Human Services Secretary – just as one of numerous examples – assured the public that there was no public funding for abortion in the Democrats’ health care plan. From McClatchy:
WASHINGTON — Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius pledged Sunday that President Barack Obama will support barring public funding for abortion in any health care overhaul legislation.
“That’s exactly what the president said and I think that’s what he intends, that the bill he signs will do,” she said on ABC’s “This Week.”
Abortion policy has been an ongoing concern throughout the health care debate. In July, the House Energy and Commerce Committee attempted to compromise on abortion funding as it wrote its version of the health care bill.
An organization that tends to run Democrat that calls itself “Factcheck.org” asked back in August:
Will health care legislation mean “government funding of abortion”?
President Obama said Wednesday that’s “not true” and among several “fabrications” being spread by “people who are bearing false witness.”But abortion foes say it’s the president who’s making a false claim.“President Obama today brazenly misrepresented the abortion-related component” of health care legislation, said Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee. So which side is right?
An article from The Hill, dated yesterday, exposes “which side is right” for any who has eyes and at least half a brain:
Rep. Bart Stupak said Speaker Pelosi is not pleased with his effort to change abortion-related provisions in the healthcare bill being crafted by the House.
During an interview on C-SPAN’s “Washington Journal” show, Stupak (D-Mich.) said he is undeterred in trying to ensure that taxpayer dollars do not pay for abortions. Stupak, who opposes abortion rights, acknowledged that some in his party are upset with his public campaign to change the bill.
“The Speaker is not happy with me,” Stupak said.
The Energy and Commerce subcommittee chairman said he has been working with Democratic leaders on a compromise, but they haven’t been able to strike a deal. Stupak pointed out that he and Democratic leaders have a fundamental disagreement on whether health plans that receive subsidies from the government should be allowed to provide coverage options on abortions.
Stupak wants a vote on the House floor to strike the language, and predicts he would have the votes to pass such an amendment.
“This has been federal law since 1976,” he said, noting that President Barack Obama has vowed not to allow healthcare reform to pay for abortions.
Democrat Stupak points out that “Obama has vowed not to allow healthcare reform to pay for abortions.” But he sure isn’t telling Nancy Pelosi or Democrats that he won’t sign any bill that contains such language. And – and this is an IQ test – do you really think that Obama would veto his coveted health care bill if it did not contain provisions to prevent taxpayer dollars from being used to fund abortion? Really?
Keep in mind, Obama is a guy who loudly promised that he wouldn’t sign an Omnibus that contained earmarks, before signing one that contained 9,000 earmarks. From the AP:
Despite campaign promises to take a machete to lawmakers’ pet projects, President Barack Obama is quietly caving to funding nearly 8,000 of them this year, drawing a stern rebuke Monday from his Republican challenger in last fall’s election.
And, yeah, the actual number turned out to be “nearly 9,000,” rather than 8,000.
Funny how items show up in spending bills without any notice — like an earmark for a president who promised not to seek any.
President Obama, who took a no-earmark pledge on the campaign trail, is listed as one of dozens of cosponsors of a $7.7 million set-aside in the fiscal 2009 omnibus spending bill passed by the House on Wednesday.
I think I can rest my case: if the ObamaCare bill has funding for abortion, Obama will break yet another promise and sign it. Pinocchio, in the longest-nosed day of his life, was more honest than Barack Obama.
I remember exactly what I was doing the morning of September 11, 2001. I was a grad student at the time, getting ready for my first class with the television running in the background. Just before the first large passenger plane crashed into one of the towers of the World Trade Center something caught my attention just in time to see it happen live. [Note: please see the update at the conclusion for a correction].
And the day froze into shock, numbness, dismay, terror, and a rising anger.
The broadcasters were talking to themselves about whether this was an accident, or an intentional attack. I didn’t need them to tell me what it was: like many other Americans, I knew exactly what had just happened.
And then the second plane struck the second tower. And shortly afterward the cameras began to catch specks falling out of the towers that turned out to be Americans throwing themselves out of top story windows to their deaths in order to avoid the even more agonizing death by burning.
President George Bush had been President for just over six months. But I would have felt EXACTLY the same sense of horror and outrage whether Bill Clinton, or Al Gore, or George Bush was President.
It wasn’t about being a member of a political party, or who was President or what party he was from; it was about being an American whose country had just been attacked.
That’s just no longer the case, though. I no longer feel that way.
Barack Obama’s constant unrelenting blaming of the Bush administration for virtually every problem under the sun was bad enough; Obama’s description of Bush “torture” and his releasing of CIA memos intended to politically hurt the Bush administration at the expense of informing our enemies exactly how we would and would not interrogate them was bad enough; House Speaker Nancy Peolosi’s demagoguery of the Bush administration over its “torture” and her subsequent lies that she herself had been informed about such “torture” and done nothing was bad enough; but it just never seems to end.
But the following example of Bush Derangement Syndrome finally sent me over the top:
The delusional claims he has made this day could be proved by documentation and firsthand testimony to be the literal and absolute truth, and he still, himself, would be wrong because the America he sought to impose upon the world and upon its own citizens, the dark, hateful place of Dick Cheney`s own soul, the place he to this hour defends, and to this day prefers, is a repudiation of all that our ancestors, all that for which our brave troops of two years ago and two minutes ago, have sacrificed and fought.
Olbermann acknowledges that EVEN if Dick Cheney is telling the truth and his own liberal allies are lying, it doesn’t matter. Because he thinks Cheney and his vision for America are evil. So truth be damned. That is the warped mind of the true ideologue.
And he then uses a rhetorical flourish to indicate that our troops have suffered for Cheney’s hateful vision.
What Olbermann, evil liar that he truly is, fails to mention is that our “brave troops” who “have sacrificed and fought” actually think JUST LIKE Cheney and DON’T THINK like Olbermann.
If Keith Olbermann had even a shred of personal honesty, integrity, character, or virtue, he would not have dragged American soldiers into his hateful polemic given that they themselves are on the very side that Olbermann so utterly despises. But Olbermann doesn’t have any honesty, integrity, character, or virtue.
So he warps the men and women who supported George Bush and Dick Cheney so overwhelmingly into victims.
Olbermann says:
Gee, thanks for being motivated by the deaths of nearly 3,000 Americans to go so far as to take a serious second look. And thank you, sir, for admitting, obviously inadvertently, that you did not take a serious first look in the seven months and 23 days between your inauguration and 9/11. For that attack, sir, you are culpable, morally, ethically. At best, you are guilty of malfeasance and eternally lasting stupidity. At worst, sir,in the deaths of 9/11, you are negligent.
Again, if Keith Olbermann had so much as a shred of personal or professional honesty, he wouldn’t say something like this.
Let’s review the list: 1) In 1993 Bill Clinton ran from Somalia after a battle with Islamic insurgents that left 18 American servicemen dead; 2) Also in 1993 the US suffered a terrorist attack in the form of the first World Trade Center bombing that killed 6 and wounded more than 1000 Americans; 3) In 1995 the US suffered its first domestic terrorist attack at the Oklahoma Federal Building that left 168 Americans dead; 4) In 1996 19 American servicemen were killed in a Saudi Arabian terrorist bombing of the US military Khobar Towers barracks; 5) In 1998 there was a simultaneous terrorist bombing of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania that killed more than 200 people; 6) In 2000 the USS Cole was attacked by terrorists, leaving 17 American servicemen dead.
There may well have been more, but that is all I can remember.
How can Keith Olberman in good conscience so blame Bush and Cheney for 9/11 when the Clinton administration had never taken terrorism seriously themselves? But Olbermann doesn’t have a good conscience. He is a truly depraved human being.
Bill Clinton failed to take 9/11 seriously for the same reason George Bush failed to take it seriously in the six months of his administration preceding the 9/11 attack: because we hadn’t been hit hard enough yet. Clinton should have learned from the attacks America suffered throughout his entire presidency; and Bush should have paid attention to Clinton’s disastrous track record.
Olbermann said:
You saved no one, sir. If the classified documents you seek released really did detail plots other than those manufactured by drowning men in order to get it to stop, or if they truly did know plans beyond the laughable ones you and President Bush have already revealed, hijackers without passports, targeting a building whose name Mr. Bush could not remember, clowns who thought they could destroy airports by dropping matches in fuel pipelines 30 miles away, men who planned to attack a military base dressed as pizza delivery boys, forgetting that every man there was armed, and today, the four would-be synagogue bombers, one of whom turns out to keep bottles of urine in his apartment, and is on schizophrenia medicine.
So the man popping schizophrenia medicine and washing it down with his own bottled urine is none other than Keith Olbermann and everyone at MSNBC and everyone who watches the network. It certainly isn’t Dick Cheney.
Olbermann saves his ugliest and most hateful remarks for last:
You saved no one, Mr. Cheney. All you did was help kill Americans. You were negligent before 9/11. Your response to your complicity by omission on 9/11 was panic and shame and insanity, and lying this country into a war that did nothing but kill 4,299 more of us. We will take no further instructions from you, sir. And let me again quote Oliver Cromwell to you, Mr. Cheney. “You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of god, go.”
I’ve written about other things that Keith Olbermann and his “guests” have said. Only very recently Janeane Garofalo said:
This is about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up. That is nothing but a bunch of teabagging rednecks. And there is no way around that. And you know, you can tell these type of right wingers anything and they’ll believe it, except the truth. You tell them the truth and they become — it’s like showing Frankenstein’s monster fire. They become confused, and angry and highly volatile. That guy, causing them feelings they don’t know, because their limbic brain, we’ve discussed this before, the limbic brain inside a right-winger or Republican or conservative or your average white power activist, the limbic brain is much larger in their head space than in a reasonable person, and it’s pushing against the frontal lobe. So their synapses are misfiring. Is Bernie Goldberg listening?
And there was Keith Olbermann and Michael Musto engaging in about as hateful of an attack as one can possibly imagine against Miss California Carrie Prejean for the simple reason that they despise her right to express her own views about an issue that most Californians and most Americans agree with her over.
Keith Olbermann is a vain, petty, vindictive, vicious, hateful, and truly ugly human being. And MSNBC would do far better broadcasting in place of pro-terrorist al Jazeera than it is doing here. Both networks run basically the same message.
But Keith Olbermann’s rant against Dick Cheney and every conservative who agrees with him rose to such a level of hatred, such a level of vicious, bitter, ugly, deceitful, and frankly evil rhetoric, that it transcends anything I have ever heard.
Right now, liberals like Keith Olbermann are teeing off on conservatives for waterboarding when we now learn that liberals like Nancy Pelosi and many other Democrats were fully briefed on “enhanced interrogation techniques that had been employed,” and neither said or did anything to prevent such techniques. And even the very liberal new CIA Director under Obam0, Leon Panetta, essentially says Pelosi is lying. How are their attacks now anything but partisan demagoguery?
And right now, liberals including Barack Obama himself are deceitfully claiming the moral high ground even as the new liberal administration takes many of the same positions that it hypocritically and demagogically found so hateful on the campaign trail. As many policies as Obama has undone that will make this country less safe, there have been almost as many that he once demonized, only to follow himself once in office.
And Obama has indicated that he likewise reserves the right to continue to hold some prisoners without trial indefinitely – a position he demonized during the campaign. How can such a man who so hypocritically employed such demagoguery only to come to the same position as the man he demagogued claim any semblance of moral high ground? Obama is lower than Bush in his character, not higher. Bush and Cheney didn’t self-righteously demagogue; only Obama did.
Obama decided against the release of the remainder of the infamous Abu Ghraib photos. But only because he had to bow to the reality of the massive resitance against his decision to release them and the consequences such a stupid and depraved act would have had both for our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan and for Democrats at home. In electing not to release them, Obama took the SAME position that Bush/Cheney had taken. Obama is not better than Bush or Cheney; he’s worse. They didn’t waiver and pander before going back on their decision out of the selfish interests of political survival. They were consistent in their determination to do the right thing.
Obama has idiotically promised he would close Gitmo, but even his own party now realizes how foolish that would be and has twice denied him funding to do so until he come up with a plan that makes some kind of sense. Obama wrapped himself up in puffed-up, posturing self-righteousness, but the reality is that Bush was forced to confront the same unsolvable dilemmas. The only difference was that Bush was wiser than Barack Obama in recognizing the problems that made a closure of Gitmo nearly impossible; and that Bush – unlike Obama – was never a pandering demagogue.
Again, Obama isn’t one iota better than Bush or Cheney. He’s worse.
Not that any of these FACTS matter to liberals. Because far too many of them are exactly like Keith Olbermann: even if the facts support conservatives, it doesn’t matter. Such liberals are completely false, vile people who routinely treat the truth with as much contempt as Olbermann does.
I said earlier that I no longer feel the same way about my country that I did following 9/11. I wish it were not true, but the constant unrelenting barrage of lies, hypocristy, demonization, and demagoguery from the left – particularly on national security issues – have left me with an increasingly bitter taste in my mouth. And following so many years of such hateful tactics, I fear that if we are attacked again, that I will react politically, rather than patriotically. I wish it weren’t true, but there it is.
Update: I have since realized that the first attack was not covered live, and film footage of the first airplane was not made available until later. What I would have seen was video footage of smoke billowing out of the World Trade Center shortly following the first attack, finally followed by live footage of the 2nd plane strike. I attempted to describe from memory what I had seen 8 years ago, and it turns out that my memory was not perfect.
Start Thinking Right 