Posts Tagged ‘hypocrisy’

Obama’s Visit To Hollywood Dream Works Shows That His Dream Doesn’t WORK

November 29, 2013

So Obama goes to überliberal Hollywood, home of the überrich white hypocrites who get paid millions, shirk on their taxes, take every tax dodge known to man on the taxes they DO bother to pay, while self-righteously declaring that the Middle Class should suck it up and render to Obama what is due to him (i.e. everything, because of course we owe everything to Obama and his big government State).  And the Los Angeles Times celebrates the moment with its title, “Obama visits DreamWorks, calls Hollywood a ‘bright spot’ of economy.”

Mind you, these are the people who make movie after movie making themselves rich glorifying gun violence only to tell us that we have to give up our guns - the same guns that Hollywood liberals and their Hollywood-Liberal-in-Chief rely upon to protect themselves while doing every damn thing they can to deny that protection to everyone else.

Which is why examples of Hollywood hypocrisy abound.  And so:

The American Federation of Musicians is fighting mad at their Hollywood paymasters. What could separate these two institutions of liberalism? Cash, of course. AFM is upset that Marvel’s Iron Man 3 decided to go abroad to use foreign musicians for cheap. John Acosta, vice president of AFM Local 47, summed up the case against Marvel: “Marvel is unfair to musicians because they take tax breaks from states but when it comes to doing a score for their movies, they outsource the work overseas. We’ve been protesting and raising the alarm about this over two years since Iron Man 1 and we feel those jobs belong in the US.”

For years, individual states have been reaching out to the film industry in an attempt to woo Hollywood dollars. Recognizing the business-hating climate of Los Angeles, even liberal governors are trying to outcompete the Hollywood locals by handing out tax breaks and incentives

To be a liberal is to be a hypocrite who says, “What I want to impose upon thee is not good for me.”  So I’ll follow the example of my hypocrite Democrat Party and pass a “health care reform” law that screws everybody else but vote myself safe from it’s grasp.

But there was this admission buried in the back of the LA Times article even as it attempted to glorify President False Messiah:

Obama’s visit and upbeat message about the entertainment industry come at a  time of widespread anxiety among the middle-class crew members in Southern  California who work behind the scenes on films and TV shows.

Many have seen job  opportunities and incomes dwindle as work has migrated to other  states and countries that offer film productions tax breaks and incentives better than  those available in California.

“Some indicators suggest that activity in the entertainment industry is up,  but that has not translated into jobs here in California,” said Robert Kleinhenz, chief economist with the Los Angeles  County Economic Development Corp. “In fact, the number of industry-related jobs  locally and in California has shown little improvement since the recession, even  as industry employment nationally has increased modestly over the past couple of  years.”

More than 50 visual effects workers held a rally outside the studio to call  attention to the plight of California’s visual effects industry, which has been  hard-hit by layoffs, foreign subsidies and the outsourcing of jobs.

DreamWorks itself, which employs 2,200 people, laid off about 350 employees  earlier this year after a decision to shelve production of the movie “Me and My  Shadow,” but that layoff was not tied to outsourcing.

“This is not an attack on DreamWorks Animation or Obama, but we do not have  jobs coming to us. They are all going to other countries,” said Tom Capizzi, a  longtime visual effects employee who in February lost his job at Rhythm &  Hues. “It’s having a huge impact on the workers of Los Angeles.”

Obama was in L.A. on the last leg of a three-day West Coast tour to raise  money for Democratic House and Senate candidates. His itinerary included two fundraisers Monday night, one at the home  of athlete and entrepreneur Magic  Johnson and another at the home of Hollywood mogul Haim Saban, who is  chairman of Spanish-language channel Univision  Communications Inc. On Tuesday morning, the president attended a Democratic  fundraiser at the Hancock Park home of Marta Kauffman, co-creator of the  television show “Friends.”

What happens when a socialist president imposes high taxes?  Hollywood liberals put their money in foreign projects so they won’t have to pay out their wazoos, that’s what happens.

It’s only wrong when the Koch brothers do it, though, in the minds of sanctimonious, self-righteous, pathologically hypocritical liberals.

Liberal-dominated California is too morally stupid to ever understand that high taxes equal low growth and low growth equals no damn jobs.

That’s the beauty of ObamaCare right now: all the quintessentially self-centered liberals who were fine with somebody ELSE getting royally screwed are now appalled – APPALLED! – that they’re the ones getting screwed, too.

Liberal labor unions are the worst (because they’re the most liberal, and the more liberal you are, the more despicable and depraved a human being you are): they are beyond outraged that they would have to suffer the results of their own damn FASCISM that they worked so hard to impose on everyone else.  How DARE you not exempt them???

Every liberal who votes that SOMEBODY ELSE pay higher taxes is nothing more than a hypocrite who is willing to undermine American productivity so they can feel warm inside.  They would do better to just pee in their pants instead; that way they can have all the feeling of “warmth” they want without inflicting their childish stupidity on everybody else.

If you want an industry to be able to succeed, LOWER THEIR DAMN TAXES so they can actually keep their profits.  If you want the American people to be allowed to prosper, LOWER THEIR DAMN TAXES.

It is so damn simple: Tax Cuts Increase Revenues; They Have ALWAYS Increased Revenues.

‘The blood is on the hands of the NRA. Let it be on YOUR sons and daughters’: The Fascist, Hypocrite Heart Of The Left

September 23, 2013

We’ve got a little situation in liberal-dominated journalism and liberal-dominated academia at the same time epitomized in these words:

#NavyYardShooting The blood is on the hands of the #NRA. Next time, let it be YOUR sons and daughters. Shame on you. May God damn you.

— David Guth (@DWGuth)

There’s an analogous situation going on in Kenya right now, and let’s complete the analogy by altering the tragedy to put it in “NRA” terms.  The children of non-NRA members are being released; the children of NRA members are being killed execution style:

al-Shabaab at Kenya Mall “We only want to kill non-Muslims”

al-Shabaab gunman – ‘All Muslims leave… we only want to kill non-Muslims’: Gunmen massacre at least 22 in Kenyan shopping mall after releasing anyone who could prove they are Muslim.

One witness who was embroiled in the situation claimed that the gunmen told Muslims to stand up and leave and that only non-Muslims would be targeted when they opened fire at the upmarket mall of the Westlands district around midday.

At least two dozen people, wounded and dead, were wheeled out on stretchers and in shopping trolleys by security guards, while others were seen walking out of the building, clutching bloodied clothing around their injuries.

Locals and tourists who were out shopping on the sunny Saturday in Kenya ran screaming from the building and cars were left abandoned as attackers threw grenades and fired AK47s.

Over the course of an hour people streamed from the building, at least half a dozen covered in blood and clutching small children to them.

The Kenya Red Cross Society now says that 22 have been reported dead and at least 50 wounded.

Via Live Leak

The death toll is up to 68 as last I’ve heard reported.

Another title of the terrorist atrocity in Kenya can be re-phrased thus:

“If they found me, I’m the child of an NRA member, so I’m dead.”  Survivors reveal how gunman executed non-liberals…

And there are other similar attacks exemplifying David Guth’s liberal fascist hatred going on TODAY.  What was it Obama said about Christians in Pennsylvania who were clinging to their guns and their BiblesWhy not just treat ‘em all the same:

Angry and scared, Pakistan’s beleaguered Christian community has demanded proper protection from the government as the death toll from the attack on an historic Peshawar church reached 85.

As mourners continued to bury the dead from Sunday’s double suicide blast assault, Christians protested in cities across the country, blocking roads and burning tyres as they called on the authorities to act.

“People are so angry. They are asking for protection from the government,” said Sohail Johnson of the Sharing Life ministry in Lahore, who had travelled to Peshawar in the aftermath of the attack. “We all feel insecure in Pakistan. The law enforcement agencies and the government have failed us. We are not even able to celebrate our Sunday service for two or three hours.”

Hundreds of Christians had just left a service inside the All Saints Church and were gathering on the lawns outside for a free meal when two suicide bombers approached the crowds and detonated their devices. People were torn apart by the explosives, which are believed to have included ball bearings.

Oh, you don’t have to worry.  I mean, Obama promised that he’d won the war on terror and that al Qaeda was on the run and decimated and everything.  So I must just be making all of these murders up, I guess.

Getting back to Professor David Guth and his liberal hatred, I’ve said this many times before: the essence of liberalism is abject moral hypocrisy.  If you take the hypocrite out of a liberal, he or she simply dematerializes altogether.

Liberals are people who define themselves as “tolerant” and define those who disagree with them as “intolerant.”  And then they tell you that it’s okay to be intolerant to intolerant people.  Here’s an example of such a quote in a liberal screed celebrating the death of Jerry Falwelll:

I’m intolerant toward intolerant people.  I’m also bigoted against bigots.  I see no contradiction in that.  There’s no requirement in my morality to give equal consideration to reprehensible positions.

Posted by: Amy | May 16, 2007 10:35 AM

That may sound reasonable to you.  But the problem with that line of reasoning is that it is a game that ANYBODY can play.  All you have to be is an abject hypocrite and voilà: you’ve defined yourself as “tolerant” and anybody who doesn’t think you’re “tolerant” is ergo sum INTOLERANT.  And of course it is a good thing to be intolerant to intolerant people, so you can attack them and purge them and even kill them without mercy.

Mind you, liberals by way of the ACLU are the SAME people who forced Holocaust surviving Jews to “tolerate” a Nazi parade through their town of Skokie, Illinois.  They have no problem forcing OTHER people to be tolerant toward intolerant people.  Just like they have no problem forcing other people to pay higher taxes while they refuse to pay their own taxes.

So the Obama Department of Justice dictates that you must be OPENLY FOR gay marriage.  Why?  Because “Silence will be interpreted as disapproval.”  That’s why.  In Obama’s God damn America, there is no freedom to disagree, because 2,000 years of Judeo-Christian morality has been criminalized.  And it is a crime to have a conscience that in any way disagrees with Obama.  Even though even Obama disagreed with Obama just a few years ago in order to get himself elected.

It aint just in Kenya and in Pakistan where Christians are specifically targeted for not agreeing with the government, you see.

What can I say?  That was then, and this is now.  And now that Obama has all the guns – or at least is trying to GET all the guns – he gets to make all the new rules.

There is nothing new under the sun, the Bible tells us.  This has been done before, as I shall point out below: the Marxists did it, the Nazis did it, and now the new left is following the old left and doing all the same things.

I’ve done some thinking about how liberalism operates in the last few days.  Liberals are people who demand that America can’t be allowed to profile the actual terrorists who have committed the actual terrorist attacks – and thus we must create a giant bureaucracy that treats EVERYBODY like a terrorist in a totalitarian way.  Liberals are people who demand that the mentally ill who commit all the mass murder shooting sprees must not be singled out in any way – and thus we must treat EVERYBODY like a mass-murdering psycho and take everybody’s guns away and leave everybody defenseless apart from a giant totalitarian bureaucracy to protect all of us herd animals.  Liberals are people who demand that we can’t be allowed to hold anyone individually responsible for their incredibly poor and destructive life choices – and thus we must create a giant welfare bureaucracy to redistribute benefits to people who won’t work for them.

And all the while they are demonizing and slandering anybody who disagrees with them.

Tolerance historically referred to the practice of putting up with disagreeable behavior by other people because, while you disagreed with said behavior, you respected those people as being fellow human beings and recognized their right to be different.  Liberals got their foot in the door seizing advantage of that attitude.  But when they got inside the door, they proceeded to slam it shut on anybody who might disagree with THEM.  That was how liberals came to take enough power to proceed to systematically purge out nearly all the conservatives from academia and journalism in the first place.

It’s why Helen Thomas, one of the most lauded “journalists” in modern times, said:

I’m a liberal, I was born a liberal, I’ll be one ’til I die, what else should a reporter be when you see so much and when we have such great privilege and access to the truth?

She was one of the “tolerant” ones, you see.  And the little fact that she was a rabid anti-Semite Jew hater is besides the point.  Because liberals are people who see the speck in your eye while ignoring the giant log stuck in their own eyes.

David Guth – as a journalism professor – is a member of not one, but THE TWO MOST INTOLERANT CAREER FIELDS in the world today.

We can examine how the Nazis allowed and even ENCOURAGED anything – and I mean ANYTHING - that undermined the old regime and its underlying value system, only to become hard-core reactionaries against anything that threatened their rule.  Allistair Hamilton, in his important work, The Appeal of Fascism: A Study of Intellectuals and Fascism, wrote:

“Fascism, the Fascism of the intellectuals above all, had its origins in sheer rebelliousness, in an anarchistic revolt directed against the established order” [p. xx].

As an example, the Nazis were every bit as determined to destroy the influence of Judeo-Christianity and its morality as the modern left and the Democrat Party is today.  And when they succeeded, those who sowed the wind reaped the same whirlwind that Americans are reaping now.  Nazi fascists were incredibly avant-garde in their pursuit of a new value system until the NAZIS became “the established order.”  And then they destroyed anyone and anything that threatened their “established order.”  And as a result, many thinkers and artists became casualties of the very ideology that they themselves had been completely instrumental in advancing (just as the leftist labor unions are learning they are casualties after working so hard to advance the socialist takeover of the American health care system).

Jonah Goldberg captured the reason behind this intellectual and ideological hypocrisy in these words:

“Doctrinaire fascism, much like communism, sold itself as an unstoppable force of divine or historical inevitability.  Those who stood in the way – the bourgeoisie, the “unfit,” the “greedy,” the “individualistic,” the “traitor,” the kulak, the Jew – could be demonized as the “other” because, at the end of the day, they were not merely expendable, nor were they merely reluctant to join the collective, they were by their very existence blocking the will to power that gave the mob and the avant-garde which claimed to speak for it their reason for existence.”

The modern left have created a society - following the tradition of their previous leftist Marxist and fascist intellectual ancestors - in which the people were treated as herd animals whose thoughts and actions were directed toward a common goal by a few who had absolute power to impose their will to power.  Everyone and everything is expendable in the pursuit of this government-owned collective and anything that threatens it will be ruthlessly attacked with all the means the government collective has at its disposal.

And if you disagree, well, you must either serve the collective or the blood as a result of pretty much anything that happens is on your hands and you - or at least your children in the warped mind of David Guth - should die.

That’s what liberalism did during the days of the French Revolution which swiftly degenerated into the reign of terror, and it’s what liberalism did in the days of Marxism which swiftly degenerated into Stalinism and Maoism, etc. etc.  And it’s what liberalism continues to do today.

And, of course, that was why the very first thing the Nazis did was to confiscate all the guns so only the regime had them.  Because he who has the might gets to make the rules.  And the American society founded upon the idea of individual liberty and the right of the people to keep and bear arms to defend that individual liberty don’t mesh with fascist takeovers.  So your gun has got to go.

As we speak, Barak Obama is out demonizing his Republican opponents as “playing politics” while the “politician-in-chief” implicitly declares himself incapable of such a sin as “playing politics.”  He says that the Republicans are evil for refusing to compromise when he himself refuses to compromise and literally called House Speaker John Boehner just to tell him that he was not going to negotiate even the slightest detail of anything with Republicans.

We are watching fundamental hypocrisy on such a vast scale that it is simply beyond unreal.

And to the extent that it works, well, the blood WILL be on our hands and on our children’s heads.

Postscript: A parent was arrested and sentenced to ten years for speaking out at a public school event where Obama’s Common Core was being shoved down their throats.  He said, “Don’t stand for this!”  Don’t be sheep!  Don’t be cattle!” as they hauled him away for trying to ask a few important questions.

According to the dictates of fascism, you ARE sheep, and yes you WILL sit there like cattle.  Or the stormtroopers will be coming to drag YOU away, too.

Postscript: In Überrliberal Chicago, the government is literally demanding the National Guard be called in to deal with the incredible violence by all the Democrat voters there.  Don’t think for a second that these liberal fascists will allow law-abiding citizens to protect their own children.

Crap like this doesn’t happen where people are allowed to defend themselves.  That’s why the gang bangers locate in areas where liberals have rendered them defenseless.

Ah, liberalism, where you can create an ocean-full of problems and then blame Republicans for the ensuing flood.

Progressive Liberals, Open-Mindedness And Tolerance: The Great Oxymoron

July 31, 2013

It’s an amazing thing how the word “tolerance” has been perverted by secular humanist progressive liberalism.  A couple of articles point this out (see here and here and here and  here).  It’s not like I’m inventing anything with this charge.  Basically, in classical usage, the word “tolerance” meant the following as recorded in the 1828 Webster’s definition:

The power or capacity of enduring; or the act of enduring.

And according to Webster in 1828 it also carried the meaning of:

The allowance of that which is not wholly approved; to suffer to be or to be done without prohibition or hinderance; to allow or permit negatively, by not preventing; not to restrain; as, to tolerate opinions or practices

In other words, what did you “endure”?  Stuff that you didn’t approve of, such as opinions or practices.  There is absolutely no sense according to this definition that you have to AGREE with the stuff you “tolerate.”  In point of fact, in order to “tolerate” something, you had to NOT approve of it.

But, like pretty much everything else secular humanist progressive liberals have touched, they perverted the notion of tolerance.  They turned the definition on its head and today it has the sense of somehow being open minded to all ideas.

The problem is that liberals are anything BUT that.

An ostensibly humorous definition of “tolerance” from a liberal point of view is this:

 A fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward the opinions and practices of others as long as they fit the liberal agenda

But what you find out pretty quickly is that as much of a joke the above might appear to be, it is actually quite true.  Read this piece, for example, from liberal Lauren Jacobs on the liberal Huffington Post:

Many people I’ve spoken to lately seem to be confused about the true meaning of “tolerance” and “liberalism.” I think it is time to set the record straight. Tolerance in its simplest definition is “freedom from bigotry.”

Liberalism in its simplest definition is a belief in tolerance (freedom from bigotry) and in progressive reform in socio-cultural, moral/religious, and political matters.

Neither one is about being required to accept all people’s viewpoints all the time, especially when those viewpoints are themselves the opposite of tolerant and liberal, containing bias, prejudice, hate, or a belief that someone other than the self is less-than the self.

Americans who are poor, female, of color, queer, or not Christian cannot afford to practice the nonchalant type of acceptance-of-any-and-all-opinions when the opinion of many hardline social conservatives is that it would be preferable to exclude these people from the conversation altogether (if not to eliminate their equal/human rights).

Lauren says that “many people … seem to be confused.”  So she volunteers to be the blind leading the blind into further blindness.  I want you to note that she immediately manages to redefine “tolerance” as “freedom from bigotry” rather than what it always used to mean before secular humanist progressive liberals came along to pervert it.  And then she immediately goes on to impose HER OWN bigotry on her already twisted definition.  Note that white male heterosexual Christians such as myself are all but guaranteed to be the bogeyman on her presentation.  I mean, somebody please help me, I’ve been “labeled” by a narrow-minded, bigoted, intolerant - and oh, yeah, misandrist - liberal.

As a Christian and a conservative, I am very definitely NOT “open-minded” in the sense that the liberals demand I be.  I’m one of those who believes that the Bible says it, I believe it and that settles it.  And I submit that the first being who suggested “open-mindedness” was the devil in the Garden.  God told Adam and Eve some very specific things, and they believed what God said.  But then the devil came along in Genesis chapter 3 and told Eve that she should question God, that she should be open-minded to other possibilities – such that God was lying to her and Adam and that God was lying in order to keep them down.

And in being “open-minded” to God, Adam and Eve committed the first sin.  Which resulted in total human depravity.  Which of course ultimately resulted – after a long string of degeneration and perversion – in secular humanist progressive liberalism.

That being admitted, let’s look at liberals and see just how “open-minded” and “tolerant” they are to opposing ideas and views.

Are liberals more “open-minded” than conservatives?  They sure do have a funny way of showing it:

Today the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee held a hearing in DC called “A Conversation on Race and Justice in America”. The three panelists were all far left people who believe America is essentially an unjust country. How exactly is this a “conversation”?

That is a very accurate description, given that:

Pelosi will preside over the hearing, which will include Democrats from the party’s Steering and Policy Committee.

The scheduled panelists are Southern Poverty Law Center founder Morris Dees, Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson and civil rights lawyer Maya Wiley, president of the Center for Social Inclusion.

Hey, Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas and Allen West, did your invitations get “lost in the mail” again?  Darn.  We’re so, so sorry.  Better luck next year.  And of course, if those invitations get lost in the darn mail again, better luck the year after that.  Or maybe the year after that.

Ah, yes, “tolerance” is refusing to allow the side and the people you disagree with to not even have a VOICE.  “Open-mindedness” is only allowing liberals in the door.  Just like that not-so-funny-after-all-definition said above.

Just imagine if the State of Israel were to have “A Conversation on Race and Justice in Jerusalem” and only invited ultra-Zionist Jews to attend it who of course would offer nothing but ultra-Zionist Jewish conversation.  Because who needs Palestinians to have such a “conversation,” am I right???  I’m just guessing that liberals – who hate Israel as much as they hate Christianity – would be outraged at the hypocrisy and the intolerance and the narrow-mindedness.

Not that liberals aren’t über hypocritical and über intolerant and über narrow-minded, but they’d sure hate it if Israel did what THEY do on a daily basis.

Yeah, that’s right.  I’m a conservative and I’ve pretty much made up my mind about the world.  And the liberals who have every scintilla as much made up THEIR minds about the world constantly demonize me for doing what they’ve done because they are hypocrites and liars.

For the record, “making up your mind about the world” is NOT a bad thing to conservatives like me.  Moses demanded, “Whoever is for the LORD, come to me.” And people like me made up their minds and came over to where Moses stood.  Joshua said, “Choose this day whom you will serve” and people like me made their choice to serve God.  We made up our minds.  And the secular humanist progressive liberals have been demonizing us for it ever since.  Literally dating back to Adam and Eve when the very first open-minded and tolerant liberal started crawling around.

Hypocrite Liberalism, Where Leftist Sean Penn’s Racist Son Calls A Black Reporter The N-Word While MLK-Marching Charleton Heston Gets Demonized

March 29, 2013

According to the tenants of liberalism, this is fine:

Say What? Sean Penn’s Son Calls Black Photographer ‘N**er’ and ‘Fa**ot’
Mar 27, 2013
By Ruth Manuel-Logan

Hollywood A-Lister Sean Penn was once notorious for his explosive temper but now his son, Hopper (pictured right), has apparently followed suit.

Well, somewhat.

The younger Penn is accused of resorting to vicious and racist name-calling after he got into an altercation with a random Black photographer who confronted the pair as they entered a medical building, reports TMZ.

The nasty encounter between the photographer (pictured) and the 19-year-old was captured on video.  Hopper is seen pushing the unidentified man and this is followed by a face-to-face confrontation where the hot-headed teen is heard spewing the words, “F**k you,  you’re a f**king fa**ot…shut up you fu**ing ni**er.”

During the raucous, police just happened to be in the vicinity and overheard what had transpired between Hopper and the photographer. When officers questioned the shutterbug about what had happened, he just sloughed off the argument and refused to press charges.

Yes, he did say that.  On camera, no less.  With his words being recorded.  For the record, without the asterisks, Sean Penn’s apple that didn’t fall very far from the tree shouted, “You’re a fucking faggot.  Shut up you fucking nigger!”

Now, of course, if it had been Sarah Palin’s kid, imagine the rabid-cockroach feeding frenzy the press would have had.  You would have thought Sarah herself had been caught on tape mouthing those obscenities if it had been her kid who had said that.  She would have been persona non grata.  You know, the way the left already treats her.

Instead, it’s yawnsville.  You know, much the same way that famous liberal actor and loud-mouthed punk Alex Baldwin “a rude little pig.”  Which you’d think would be, you know, a WAR ON WOMEN.

Hell, you can even slaughter dogs after you’ve mangled them by forcing them to fight with other dogs as long as you belong to the “permanent ward of the liberal State” class.  As Michael Vick didRush Limbaugh can’t become a part owner of an NFL team because he’s a Republican and Republicans are evil, but people who force dogs to fight to their deaths and then viciously slaughter the ones who aren’t vicious enough are peachy dandy as long as they’re black.  The media falsifies stories to demonize the former while ignoring the truth to celebrate the latter.  You can get caught red-handed committing adultery with whores in the scores, like Tiger Woods did.  And Obama will still play golf with you during one of his countless vacations.  Why not?  Obama is pissing on marriage by replacing it with sodomy; so why not further piss on it by endorsing the crown prince of all adulterers???

No one is ever to be punished for their words or their behavior except Republicans, you see.  Because Democrats despise actual morality and view the world through a rabid political prism that Stalin would have admired.

It’s Charleton Heston – the first famous actor to put his stand with the civil rights movement and march with Martin Luther King when people were getting beaten BY DEMOCRATS – who should be tormented in the “fundamentally transformed” world of liberalism.  Even from beyond the grave by worthless punks like Jim Carrey who is upset that anybody else should be allowed to have guns to protect themselves with the way his ARMED SECURITY has guns to protect him with.  But, what the hell – he’s a conservative so his sacrifical service out of his love for his fellow man should be mocked by a worthless liberal turd.

When I first saw Jim Carrey, I thought he was hilarious.  But by the time I saw his third movie, I realized that he was purely one-dimensional.  And if you’ve seen one of his films, you’ve pretty much seen his entire repertoire.  Unlike, say, Charleton Heston – an actual ACTOR.

Greg Gutfeld of Fox News’ “The Five” has destroyed Carrey.  He pointed out that Carrey attacked Heston because he didn’t think he could lose an argument with a dead man.  But the funny thing is THAT HE DID LOSE AN ARGUMENT WITH A DEAD MAN.  Because a dead Charleton Heston is worth a 16.7 trillion Jim Carreys (or however many trillions Obama’s national dead is at now).

The quintessential essence of the left is abject moral hypocrisy.  If you are a Democrat, you are a hypocrite; if you are a liberal Democrat, you are a tyrannosaurus hypocrite on megasteroids.  Whether it’s about racism or guns or taxes or any other damn thing under the sun of their fascism.

This is an amazing time when the truth is urinated upon while liars and their lies are beloved.

The day is coming when liberals are going to stand before a just and holy God and find out the hard way that morality is a real thing and that God will judge them according to His Word that they mock rather than their self-serving standard of political correctness.

That day will be so beautiful that it’s worth wading through all the liberal ugliness and filth to get to.

Update, 3/29/13: I wrote this piece to highlight the galling and appalling constant piss of liberal hypocrisy.  I have Jim Carrey to thank for providing more documentation to prove my thesis.  The whiny little turd just released a letter bitching about “vicious slander” from Fox News because this pathetic little turd believes that only HE should have the right to viciously slander people.  He alludes to a lawsuit because this little creep knows that the man whose grave he literally danced on is dead and can’t sue him right back.  Most amazing of all is his assertion that the clear majority of Americans that he mocks and slanders – as proven by the fact that even the majority of DEMOCRATS refuse to embrace his fascist position on guns as evidenced by Harry Reid’s tabling the so-called “assault weapons” ban – are “intolerant” even as this intolerant little creep demonizes them.  What a pygmy little loser.

What Liberals ‘Helping’ The Poor REALLY Looks Like (Exactly Like A Slum).

February 14, 2013

Liberals – with the help of the most dishonest media since Joseph Goebbels’ Ministry of Propaganda in the good old Nazi days or Joseph Stalin’s TASS in Moscow’s heyday – have convinced most ignorant people (i.e., the majority of the American people) that they are the ones who care about the poor.

Bullcrap.

They’ll tell you that unless you believe in their socialism you’re not a real Christian.  Even as they demand that art that puts the cross of Christ in a jar of urine be publicly funded and even as they openly attack religion on virtually every level of culture.

Again, bullcrap.

Obama sure didn’t give a flying damn about the poor before he decided to break his promise and run for president after saying he wouldn’t.  Because prior to that, he didn’t give the poor butkus.  And as hard as it is to be more cynical and selfish and greedy than Barack and Michelle Obama, Joe Biden actually managed to pull it off.  Obama’s less than one percent charitable giving – you know, with his OWN money rather than forcing other people to “give” – looks pretty damn good compared to Joe Biden’s less than one-eighth of one percent.

How do Democrats get away with demonizing Republicans when there are ten demons in them?  It’s easy: they are as dishonest and as slanderous as they are hypocritical.  So Mitt Romney – who was actually incredibly generous with his own money – was slandered by the media propaganda as being greedy while Barack Obama who actually IS greedy was eulogized as somebody who care’s deeply about these people he didn’t give a penny to when it mattered.

That’s why it was so easy for the party of FDR, of JFK, for 2000 Democrat candidate Al Gore and for 2004 Democrat candidate John Kerry to demonize Mitt Romney because he was rich just like they all were.  When you combine the flagrant dishonesty of the Democrat Party and the flagrant propaganda of the leftwing elite media, you can get away with pretty much anything.

Michelle Malkin in her excellent book “Culture of Corruption” documented that Valerie Jarrett (Obama’s top adviser was a ruthless liberal slumlord in Chicago before she became a liberal saint in Washington.

That’s right.  A slumlord.

But the Chicago Way is all the rave now.  Which is why liberal psycho Major Bloomberg took the trick with him to New York:

How in NYC the Homeless Pay $3,000/Month to Live in Tenements
Posted on February 12, 2013

I read a lot of news every day.  It’s become my life and my passion.  Rarely do I come across a story of greed and corruption so absurd that I can’t believe my own eyes as they scroll the page.  This is one of those stories.

This takes the concept of slumlord to an entirely new level.  As New York City struggles to find shelter for its increasingly large homeless population, some landlords are paying off their rent-stabilized tenants in order to overcharge the city on rentals for the homeless.  In some cases, the rent ends up being as high as $3,000 a month for a tiny room without a kitchen or a bathroom.  Yep, you read that correctly.  So next time you wonder why you are paying so much money for your little box in the sky, you can thank America’s growing slumlord industry.  Prepare your jaw to remain open for the next couple of minutes.

From the New York Times:

The city’s Department of Homeless Services pays many times the amount the rooms would usually rent for — spending over $3,000 a month for each threadbare room without a bathroom or kitchen — because of an acute shortage in shelters for homeless men and women.

Indeed, the amount the city pays — roughly half that amount goes to the landlord, while the other half pays for security and social services for homeless tenants — has encouraged Mr. Lapes to switch business models and become a major private operator of homeless shelters. He is by most measures the city’s largest and owns or leases about 20 of the 231 shelters citywide. Most of the other shelters and residences are run by the city or by nonprofit agencies, but his operation is profit-making, prompting criticism from advocates for the homeless and elected officials.

The fact that these modest living spaces have such high rents opens a window on a peculiarity of the city’s overall homeless policy. That policy, which was put in place in response to court settlements in 1979 and 2008, requires the city, under threat of sizable fines, to find a roof immediately for every homeless person. It has given landlords willing to house the homeless leverage to dictate rental prices and other terms.

With the number of homeless people rising to 30-year record levels — over 47,216 people as of early this month, 20,000 of them children — the city has struggled to find landlords willing to accommodate a population that includes people with mental health and substance abuse problems.

Wait a minute. The number of homeless is at a 30 year high?  How could this be in the booming economic recovery we’ve got going?

Joyce Colon, a resident there who entered the homeless system in December, said she was shocked by the violence and prostitution in the building.

“For $3,000 I could have gotten an apartment, a down payment and a security deposit and some furniture,” Ms. Colon, 49, said. “The landlord is getting $3,000 and I’m getting nothing.”

Patrick Markee, a senior policy analyst for the Coalition for the Homeless, blamed the Bloomberg administration for the continuing use of private landlords to house the homeless, citing a policy not to give the homeless priority for public housing projects and Section 8 vouchers because of long waiting lists.

Of course Bloomberg has his little paws in this somehow.  Perhaps he should’ve thought about this instead of spending his time banning large sodas.

“The crisis that’s causing the city to open so many new shelters is mostly of the mayor’s own making,” he said. “Instead of moving families out of shelters and into permanent housing, as previous mayors did, the city is now paying millions to landlords with a checkered past of harassing low-income tenants and failing to address hazardous conditions.”

Welcome to the recovery.

Full article here.

In Liberty, Mike

Follow me on Twitter!

“We need to help those poor, poor people,” liberals say.

Because just like everybody else, the poor have way to much money for liberals to be happy unless they can steal it.

I’m a conservative, which means I don’t like slums.  And I sure don’t like the government creating them the way they’ve created Cabrini-Green and so many other thousands of hellholes.  Liberals love them and keep creating more and more and more of them and they get filthy rich doing it.  Because the more ignorant and the more oppressed and the more poverty-crushed and the more welfare-dependent and the more entitlement-demanding these desperate people are, the more they will vote for the people who are keeping them ignorant and oppressed and poor.

The fact of the matter is that conservatives are signficantly more generous with their own money and time than are liberals.

But the wolves have convinced the sheep that the sheepdogs are out to get them.  And now the sheepdogs are largely out of the wolves’ way.

P.S. Obama is nominating Penny Pritzker for Commerce Secretarywho happens to be the SAME Penny Pritzker who was at the EPICENTER of the sub-prime loan crisis that led to our housing collapse in 2008.  This same Chicago billionaire Penny Pritzker paid out a half million dollars in penalties (read “bribe money”) to the government to avoid being criminally charged like the common criminal Chicago thug she in fact is.  If I were a conspiracy theoriest, I would assume that Democrats literally intentionally created the 2008 collapse in order to take control of the government so they could REALLY destroy America from within the system.

P.P.S. Obama is a hypocrite who keeps showing the abject hypocrsiy of liberalism with his pick of Jack Lew to run the Treasury Department.  Remember how being rich and having investments in the Cayman Islands was really, really bad?  Well, that’s only true if the Cayman Island account holder happens to be a Republican; it’s FINE for Democrats.  But let’s also not forget that Jack Lew was actually heading up the unit at Citibank that was making huge profits betting that the Community Reinvestment Act-created housing bubble would colllapse and thus profiteering off of poor people.  And then there’s the fact that this turd accepted a nearly one million dollar “bonus” days before Citibank took BILLIONS in government bailout money.  Which is to say that Obama’s Treasury Secretary pick personally profitted from poor people being forced out of their homes into … slums.

I’ll leave it to the reader to decide whether Obama’s present pick for Treasury Secretary is better than the last one – who was a certified tax cheat being given the job to make sure that conservatives and Republicans paid “their fair share” of the taxes HE didn’t pay.

Being A Democrat Means Never Holding Barack Obama Responsible for Anything After Coming Unglued Over Bush For Everything

February 12, 2013

This is just too funny.  Buzzfeed should give Benny Johnson a raise or a company car or something:

7 Things Democrats Would Have Freaked Out About If Bush Had Done Them
Obama’s national security policy has continued some of the most controversial moves of the Bush administration. Silence from much of the left.
posted on February 11, 2013 at 1:44pm EST
Benny Johnson, BuzzFeed Staff

Democrats were overjoyed when George W. Bush left office in January of 2009.

7 Things Democrats Would Have Freaked Out About If Bush Had Done ThemView this image ›

Obama had promised to end Bush’s hawkish foreign policy and the “war on terror’s” detention and interrogation regime.Obama had promised to end Bush's hawkish foreign policy and the "war on terror's" detention and interrogation regime. View this image ›

But in the beginning of his fifth year as president, Obama’s record has been surprisingly similar to his predecessor’s in those areas.
But in the beginning of his fifth year as president, Obama's record has been surprisingly similar to his predecessor's in those areas.

1. Democrats fought George W. Bush’s troop surge in Iraq in 2006.

Democrats fought George W. Bush’s troop surge in Iraq in 2006.View this image ›

Obama copied it in Afghanistan in 2009.

Obama copied it in Afghanistan in 2009.View this image ›

You would think Democrats would react the same way they did to Bush’s surge policy:

7 Things Democrats Would Have Freaked Out About If Bush Had Done ThemView this image ›

But they were really more like:

7 Things Democrats Would Have Freaked Out About If Bush Had Done ThemView this image ›

2. American deaths in Afghanistan have skyrocketed since Obama took office.

American deaths in Afghanistan have skyrocketed since Obama took office. View this image ›

Actually, the death tolls in Afghanistan under each administration look like this:

Actually, the death tolls in Afghanistan under each administration look like this: View this image ›

So you would think Democrats would react like this:

7 Things Democrats Would Have Freaked Out About If Bush Had Done ThemView this image ›

But they are much more like this.

7 Things Democrats Would Have Freaked Out About If Bush Had Done ThemView this image ›

3. President Obama’s drones and special operators are working down “kill lists” of suspected terrorists.

President Obama's drones and special operators are working down "kill lists" of suspected terrorists. View this image ›

Obama even put Anwar al-Awlaki — an American citizen — on such a list.

Obama even put Anwar al-Awlaki — an American citizen — on such a list. View this image ›

Al-Awlaki [an American citizen] was killed under secret authorization from the justice department in 2011.

If Bush did this, the Democrats would be all like:

7 Things Democrats Would Have Freaked Out About If Bush Had Done ThemView this image ›

But now they are more like:

7 Things Democrats Would Have Freaked Out About If Bush Had Done Them

4. Drone attacks have risen sharply under Obama.

Drone attacks have risen sharply under Obama.

Last year, a teenage American citizen, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, was taken out in a drone strike without a trial.

Last year, a teenage American citizen, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, was taken out in a drone strike without a trial.View this image ›

If Bush did this, Democrats would literally hyperventilate.

7 Things Democrats Would Have Freaked Out About If Bush Had Done Them

7 Things Democrats Would Have Freaked Out About If Bush Had Done Them

In Pakistan alone, the administration has launched more than 300 drone strikes. View this image ›

Pakistani civilian casualties due to these strikes are as high as 800 according to international estimates.

So the Democrats should be like:

7 Things Democrats Would Have Freaked Out About If Bush Had Done ThemView this image ›

But they are a lot more like:

7 Things Democrats Would Have Freaked Out About If Bush Had Done ThemView this image ›

6. Obama promised to end the Bush-era torture interrogation practices.

Obama promised to end the Bush-era torture interrogation practices.  View this image ›

Image by Kevin Lamarque / Reuters

But last year the U.N. released three damning reports detailing torture in Afghan facilities under Obama’s security watch.

But last year the U.N. released three damning reports detailing torture in Afghan facilities under Obama's security watch.

Image by Andrew Burton / Reuters

When Bush did this, Democrats were like:

7 Things Democrats Would Have Freaked Out About If Bush Had Done ThemView this image ›

Now:

7 Things Democrats Would Have Freaked Out About If Bush Had Done ThemView this image ›

7. Obama was unable to deliver on his pledge to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center, which Bush had also said he would close.

Obama was unable to deliver on his pledge to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center, which Bush had also said he would close.

Image by John Moore / Getty Images

When Bush did this, Democrats were all like:

7 Things Democrats Would Have Freaked Out About If Bush Had Done Them

And…

7 Things Democrats Would Have Freaked Out About If Bush Had Done Them<

8. And…

7 Things Democrats Would Have Freaked Out About If Bush Had Done Them

But now they are much more like:

7 Things Democrats Would Have Freaked Out About If Bush Had Done Them

“We may not be so different, you and I.”

"We may not be so different, you and I."View this image ›

Image by Courtesy of the Bush Center, Houston Texas.

We could add in stuff like the debt, the deficit and the debt ceiling.  But who’s counting?  Not the mainstream media, that’s for sure.

It is amazing how hypocritical the Democrat Party and the liberals who form their core truly are.  They are bad people and bad people always prefer lies just as they are always hypocrites.  You cannot have an honest argument with people who say one thing,do another – and then say something completely different without ever having acknoweledged how dishonest they were from the beginning.

In order to have a fair and honest debate, you simply have to have both sides have integrity.  We don’t have that as long as we have liberals with any power.

‘A Vast Hypocrite Conspiracy’ Alert: Obama Demonized Waterboarding – But He Is Murdering Americans With Predator Death Lists

February 6, 2013

Just to make sure you all get the “vast conspiracy” part: yes, there’s a vast, right wing conspiracy going on here.  We’d better blame Bush.

Only the real crisis is being caused by a conspiracy of abject hypocrisy.  And that one’s got Democrats all over it (and for the record, Hillary Clinton’s “vast, rightwing conspiracy” turned out to be a predatory lizard that was living in Bill Clinton’s pants).

I’ll make you a deal, liberal: you can waterboard me the way the CIA waterboarded those terrorists who ended up singing like birds.  The exact number of pours will be rigorously monitored, a doctor will be present to verify that my medical condition is never threatened at any time during the procedure, etc.

Then I get to smash you into so many pieces they won’t be able to fill a little girl’s shoe box with your remains.

Is that a deal?  Obama – being incredibly stingy with his toys – probably won’t let me have a Predator drone, so I’ll be using a big giant axe for my part of this test as to whether waterboarding or killing is worse.  And I’ll get 183 whacks at you to correspond with the 183 pours ultimately used by one of the three terrorists during waterboarding.

That’s right: Obama tried to criminalize the Bush administration and literally prosecute top Bush officials for their role in trying to protect the American people by using enhanced interrogation measures in order to get people who were willing to die to kill as many of us as possible to tell us what we needed to know to stop the next murderous attack.

It’s wrong to waterboard terrorists.

But it is perfectly okay in our “good is evil and evil is good” administration to order the killing of American citizens without any kind of due process.  And without even having to have any actual “evidence.”

I have a theory for why liberals believe it’s wrong to waterboard but perfectly okay to kill without any kind of due process.  You see, liberals are evolved cockroaches on their own theology of Darwinian evolution.  They just randomly mutated and evolved; there’s no meaning, or value or purpose to their evolved insect lives, so why not treat human beings like herd animals and kill them?  At the same time, they are very squeemish, indeed, about aforementioned herd animals being maltreated prior to their slaughter.  So kill them without due processs, yes, but waterboard them, no.

I just want to point out for the official record that every single Democrat on earth who is not loudly crying out for Barack Obama, Joe Biden and top Democrat officials to resign and be criminally prosecuted is a demon-possessed hypocrite – every single one of you weasels:

EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americans
By Michael Isikoff, National Investigative Correspondent, NBC News

A confidential Justice Department memo concludes that the U.S. government can order the killing of American citizens if they are believed to be “senior operational leaders” of al-Qaida or “an associated force” — even if there is no intelligence indicating they are engaged in an active plot to attack the U.S.

The 16-page memo, a copy of which was obtained by NBC News, provides new details about the legal reasoning behind one of the Obama administration’s most secretive and controversial polices: its dramatically increased use of drone strikes against al-Qaida suspects abroad, including those aimed at American citizens, such as the  September 2011 strike in Yemen that killed alleged al-Qaida operatives Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan. Both were U.S. citizens who had never been indicted by the U.S. government nor charged with any crimes.

The secrecy surrounding such strikes is fast emerging as a central issue in this week’s hearing of White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan, a key architect of the drone campaign, to be CIA director.  Brennan was the first administration official to publicly acknowledge drone strikes in a speech last year, calling them “consistent with the inherent right of self-defense.” In a separate talk at the Northwestern University Law School in March, Attorney General Eric Holder specifically endorsed the constitutionality of targeted killings of Americans, saying they could be justified if government officials determine the target poses  “an imminent threat of violent attack.”

But the confidential Justice Department “white paper” introduces a more expansive definition of self-defense or imminent attack than described  by Brennan or Holder in their public speeches.  It refers, for example, to what it calls a “broader concept of imminence” than actual intelligence about any ongoing plot against the U.S. homeland.

“The condition that an operational  leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future,” the memo states.

Instead, it says,  an “informed, high-level” official of the U.S. government may determine that the targeted American  has been “recently” involved in “activities” posing a threat of a violent attack and “there is  no evidence suggesting that he has renounced or abandoned such activities.” The memo does not define “recently” or “activities.”

As in Holder’s speech, the confidential memo lays out a three-part test that would make targeted killings of American lawful:  In addition to the suspect being an imminent threat, capture of the target must be “infeasible, and the strike must be conducted according to “law of war principles.” But the memo elaborates on some of these factors in ways that go beyond what the attorney general said publicly. For example, it states that U.S. officials may consider whether an attempted capture of a suspect  would pose an “undue risk” to U.S. personnel involved in such an operation. If so, U.S. officials could determine that the capture operation of the targeted American would not be feasible, making it lawful for the U.S. government to order a killing instead, the memo concludes.

The undated memo is entitled “Lawfulness of a Lethal Operation Directed Against a U.S. Citizen who is a Senior Operational Leader of Al Qa’ida or An Associated Force.”  It was provided to members of the Senate Intelligence and Judiciary committees in June by administration officials on the condition that it be kept confidential and  not discussed publicly.

Although not an official legal memo, the white paper was represented by administration  officials as a policy document that closely mirrors the arguments of classified memos on targeted killings by the Justice Department’s  Office of Legal Counsel, which provides authoritative legal advice to the president and all executive branch agencies. The administration has refused to turn over to Congress or release those memos publicly — or even publicly confirm their existence. A source with access to the white paper, which is not classified, provided a copy to NBC News.

“This is a chilling document,” said Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director of the ACLU, which is suing to obtain administration memos about the targeted killing of Americans.  “Basically, it argues that the government has the right to carry out the extrajudicial killing of an American citizen. … It recognizes some limits on the authority it sets out, but the limits are elastic and vaguely defined, and it’s easy to see how they could be manipulated.”

In particular, Jaffer said, the memo “redefines the word imminence in a way that deprives the word of its ordinary meaning.”

A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to comment on the white paper. The spokeswoman, Tracy Schmaler, instead pointed to public speeches by what she called a “parade” of administration officials, including Brennan, Holder, former State Department Legal Adviser Harold Koh and former Defense Department General Counsel Jeh Johnson that she said outlined the “legal framework” for such operations.

Pressure for turning over the Justice Department memos on targeted killings of Americans appears to be building on Capitol Hill amid signs that Brennan will be grilled on the subject at his confirmation hearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday.

On Monday, a bipartisan group of 11 senators — led by Democrat Ron Wyden of Oregon — wrote  a letter to President Barack Obama asking him to release all Justice Department memos on the subject. While accepting that “there will clearly be circumstances in which the president has the authority to use lethal force” against Americans who take up arms against the country,  it said, “It is vitally important … for Congress and the American public to have a full understanding of how  the executive branch interprets the limits and boundaries of this authority.”

The completeness of the administration’s public accounts of its legal arguments was also sharply criticized last month by U.S. Judge Colleen McMahon in response to a  lawsuit brought by the New York Times and the ACLU seeking access to the Justice Department memos on drone strikes targeting Americans under the Freedom of Information Act.  McMahon, describing herself as being caught in a “veritable Catch-22,”  said she was unable to order the release of the documents given “the thicket of laws and precedents that effectively allow the executive branch of our government to proclaim as perfectly lawful certain actions that seem on their face incompatible with our Constitution and laws while keeping the reasons for the conclusion a secret.”

In her ruling, McMahon noted that administration officials “had engaged in public discussion of the legality of targeted killing, even of citizens.” But, she wrote, they have done so “in cryptic and imprecise ways, generally without citing … any statute or court decision that justifies its conclusions.”

In one passage in Holder’s speech at Northwestern in March,  he alluded – without spelling out—that there might be circumstances where the president might order attacks against American citizens without specific knowledge of when or where an attack against the U.S. might take place.

“The Constitution does not  require the president to delay action until some theoretical end-stage of planning, when the precise time, place and manner of an attack become clear,”  he said.

But his speech did not contain the additional language in the white paper suggesting that no active intelligence about a specific attack is needed to justify a targeted strike. Similarly, Holder said in his speech that targeted killings of Americans can be justified  if “capture is not feasible.” But he did not include language in the white paper saying that an operation might not be feasible “if it could not be physically effectuated during the relevant window of opportunity or if the relevant country (where the target is located) were to decline to consent to a capture operation.” The speech also made no reference to the risk that might be posed to U.S. forces seeking to capture a target, as was  mentioned in the white paper.

The white paper also includes a more extensive discussion of why targeted strikes against Americans does not violate constitutional protections afforded American citizens as well as   a U.S. law that criminalizes the killing of U.S. nationals overseas.

It  also discusses why such targeted killings would not be a war crime or violate a U.S. executive order banning assassinations.

“A lawful killing in self-defense is not an assassination,” the white paper reads. “In the Department’s view, a lethal operation conducted against a U.S. citizen whose conduct poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States would be a legitimate act of national self-defense that would not violate the assassination ban. Similarly,  the use of lethal force, consistent with the laws of war, against an individual who is a legitimate military target would be lawful and would not violate the assassination ban.”

Obama’s policy would literally allow him to order a lethal predator drone strike on an American citizen in the United States, according to Judge Andrew Napolitano, who read the White House memo.

And Obama has already defined pretty much everybody who disagrees with his socialist agenda as “a terrorist.”  You know, while using actual terrorists who murdered American servicemen to help him do so.  It is amazing that Obama has STILL refused to call Major Nidal Hasan’s attack “terrorist” even though the man carried business cards stamped “Soldier of Allah” and even though he was screaming “Allahu Akbar!” while gunning down his victims.  But he HAS called pro-life Christians, soldiers returning from Obama’s wars and pretty much everybody else who disagrees with Obama a “terrorist.”

Why is there not more outrage in the media and in the Democrat Party?  Because liberalism is quintessential hypocrisy.  And the more liberal you are, the more of a hypocrite you are.  And because to be a Democrat is to be an abject moral idiot.

That’s why the left demonized and slandered Gitmo while Bush was running it, but hasn’t said a damn word going on five years after Obama – after personally demonizing and slandering Bush over Gitmo himself - promised to shut down the place that is still very much open as he begins his second term.

Here’s the rock that Republicans constantly find themselves under: vile, slanderous, dishonest liberal hypocrites demonize Republicans for their very reasonable methods to deal with evil.  They attack us every single day as some kind of fascist Nazis for doing what needs to be done.  Then when they get elected, they do the very damn things – and far WORSE – than the stuff they poured liquid hate on us for doing.  Obama is literally killing Americans with no due process and claiming that he is above the Constitution.  But when the Democrats do this, the fact that they are demon-possessed hypocrites and slandering liars somehow gets conveniently overlooked.

Obama gets to benefit by demonizing and slandering his political enemies.  Then he gets to benefit again by justifying his policies with comparisons to the very people he demonized and slandered.  And it doesn’t matter that he’s a criminal who ought to be lined up against a damn wall and shot for his own words about the people he is now using to justify his actions.

To be a Democrat is to be somebody who doesn’t give one flying damn about human rights unless it helps them politically.

This is why the beast is gong to come and why America won’t be much more than a banana republic when he takes over the world: because one party is fundamentally hypocritical and profoundly dishonest, and the other party is the constant victim of an endless stream of propaganda smears from that wicked party.  Everything the Republicans do is slandered and demonized by propoganda even when the ideology doing that slandering and demonization does far worse.

One day you people are going to burn in hell for what you’ve done.  Every single one of you voted for more than fifty-five million innocent babies to be murdered in the abortion mills.  Every single one of you voted for Obama to write kill lists that target Americans without due process.  And the day is coming when the fire of hell is going to consume you forever and ever and ever.

Laugh now, Democrat.  You’ll be screaming in eternal agony later.

Democrat=’Demonic Bureaucrat’ Alert: Dishonest Debbie Wasserman-Schultz Fabricates Bogus Quote From Israeli Ambassador To Demonize Republicans

September 5, 2012

You literally cannot be a Democrat today unless you are a liar from hell:

Tuesday, September 04, 2012
Wasserman Schultz lies: Israeli ambassador categorically denies saying Republicans dangerous to Israel

Debbie Wasserman Schultz told a training session of Jewish Democrats on Monday that Israel’s Ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren, has said that Republicans are dangerous to Israel because they criticize President Obama’s record. (Hat Tip: Memeorandum). In a statement issued by Israel’s embassy in Washington, Ambassador Oren categorically denies saying any such thing. In other words – at least according to Oren (and probably correctly) – the Chairlady of the Democratic party is a liar. This is from the first link.

The Florida congresswoman made the charge at a training session for Jewish Democrats held by the Obama campaign here at the Democratic National Convention, aimed at teaching Jewish Democrats how to convince their fellow Jews to vote for Obama.

Much of the session, which featured a string of speakers from the Obama campaign, was devoted to defending Obama’s record on Israel. During her talk, Wasserman Schultz said that Republicans, who “can’t get anywhere with our community on domestic issues” instead “do everything they can to lie and distort and mischaracterize this president’s stellar record on Israel.”

As she was wrapping up her remarks, she claimed that, “We know, and I’ve heard no less than Ambassador Michael Oren say this, that what the Republicans are doing is dangerous for Israel.”

Wasserman Schultz went on to elaborate that Republicans were “undermining Israel’s security by suggesting that the United States and Israel don’t have anything other than a unique and close and special relationship. It undermines Israel’s security to its neighbors in the Arab world and to its enemies. And we need to make sure that the fact that there has never been and will never be daylight between the two parties or the support for Israel that we have in the United States, that that is conveyed to Jewish Americans across this country. That’s our responsibility. It’s the responsibility we’re asking all of you to take on.”

She made similar remarks in a recent interview with Hadassah magazine.

It’s especially ironic for her to argue that Republican attacks were dangerous because they were creating a perception of “daylight” between the U.S. and Israel. Creating daylight was precisely the goal Obama adopted when he took office. As the Washington Post reported, a few months into his presidency, Obama told a group of Jewish leaders that the peace process didn’t advance during the prior administration because President Bush was too reflexively pro-Israel.

Oren denies the charge. This is from the second link.

The Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. has released a statement “categorically” denying Democratic National Committee chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s claim that he accused Republicans of being “dangerous for Israel.” The Washington Examiner earlier reported that at a Monday event here, Wasserman Schultz decried Republicans attacks on President Obama’s record on Israel, and insisted that, “We know, and I’ve heard no less than Ambassador Michael Oren say this, that what the Republicans are doing is dangerous for Israel.”

But the Israeli embassy has now released a statement from Ambassador Michael Oren responding to the Examiner report. “I categorically deny that I ever characterized Republican policies as harmful to Israel,” the statement reads. “Bipartisan support is a paramount national interest for Israel, and we have great friends on both sides of the aisle.”

Gee, wasn’t it the Democrats who were complaining last year about Israel being made into a ‘wedge issue‘?

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 10:22 PM

For the record, Michael Oren was appointed as Israeli ambassador to the United States in 2009 by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu – and he serves at Netanyahu’s pleasure just as American ambassadors serve at the pleasure of the U.S. president. Furthermore, there is little question that Benjamin Netanyahu would very much like to see Romney win in November. Not only is Netanyahu a conservative, but he is a personal friend of Mitt Romney as the two men once worked together and forged a lifelong friendship. Even the liberal New York Times has acknowledged this friendship. If that isn’t enough, it is a further fact that Michal Oren is a conservative himself. There is simply no way Ambassador Oren would have said what Wasserman-Schultz deceitfully says he said either professionally or personally.

Particularly after the Democratic Party Platform just cut and ran on Israel the way it just did whereas Romney is standing on Israel’s side.

Now, to make Wasserman-Schultz an even MORE blatant liar than the above shows, Debbie Blabbermouth again went on the record to demonize the paper that reported on the story:

“Unfortunately, that comment was reported by a conservative newspaper–not surprising that they would deliberately misquote me,” Wasserman Schultz said.

Her statement for the record:

“I didn’t say he said that,” Wasserman Schultz insisted. “And unfortunately, that comment was reported by a conservative newspaper. It’s not surprising they would deliberately misquote me. What I always say is that unfortunately the Republicans have made Israel a political football, which is dangerous for Israel. And Ambassador Oren has said that we can’t ever suggest that there is any daylight between the two parties on Israel because there isn’t. And that that’s harmful to Israel. That’s what I said, and that is accurate.”

The problem for Debbie Blabbermouth is that the paper is confirmed on video as Wasserman-Schultz says on tape the very lie that she then lies about having lied about:

Yeah, you did SO say it, Debbie, you blathering liar.  You clearly demonize the Republicans EXACTLY as the paper reported.  You are a liar.  You have zero credibility.  You should resign.  Let’s see if MSNBC and CNN reports on that.

So there is simply no way around it: Debbie Wasserman Schultz is a liar and a terrible human being. Period.  And the fact that this vile, dishonest psycho is the DNC chair is a screaming indictment against the party of lies.

And every single Democrat who supports this party is a dishonest liar by proxy as well as by result of your completely failed worldview.

Democrat dishonesty is pathological.  And hypocrisy is their quintessential essence.

Democrats have been DEMONIZING Mitt Romney as rich.  It didn’t matter to them when just-as rich-as-Mitt John Kerry ran for president in 2004.  Nor does it matter that their candidate who ran for president in 2000 is worth over $100 million.  To be a Democrat is to say, “It doesn’t matter to us if our guy is rich, but if your guy is rich he’s evil because being rich is evil and greedy.”

Democrats have been all hoity-toity about not taking any money from corporate donors because corporations are evil and greedy.  Democrats said they’d have the most open books in history for who paid for their national convention because they are flagrantly dishonest hypocrites who try to falsely posture themselves as being so much better than Republicans when reality screams otherwise.  And so it is no surprise that we learn that Democrats are secretly and hypocritically doing everything they can to get corporations to donate to their convention:

While publicly pledging to refuse corporate money, the official host committee for this week’s Democratic National Convention has quietly and aggressively courted corporate donors — using a sister nonprofit that has been offering firms special “sponsorship opportunities” if they ponied up $1 million or more to help cover the costs of the event.

A 13-page marketing brochure obtained by NBC News shows how New American City, a nonprofit that is closely affiliated with the official Democratic convention host committee, offered package deals to corporate contributors — with different benefits starting at levels of $100,000 and escalating to the top “Tryon Street Level” of $1 million.

The companies that reached the seven-figure level got “naming rights” at “villages” set up for a Charlotte street festival that opened up the convention, as well as guarantees that “your logo will be featured prominently.” The firms also got to put up banners and logos at other convention-related events — such as a delegate and media welcoming parties — as well as the chance to include their logos in gift bags that are being handed out to 6,000 delegates and over 15, 000 members of the media.

Democrats lie about everything.  Absolutely EVERYTHING.  They are saying that they’re going to move Obama’s Thursday night speech to a smaller venue because it’s going to rain Thursday.  Bullcrap.  The Los Angeles Times article titled, “Rain or shine, Obama to address Democratic convention outdoors” kind of debunks that pathetic excuse.  Remember when Nancy Pelosi falsely labelled the Tea Party as “AstroTurf”?  They were busing an AstroTurf audience in as fast as they could to compensate for the fact that North Carolinians didn’t want anything to do with Obama and his turd policies.  Only they just couldn’t find enough AstroTurf to bus in.  So now they’re suddenly cancelling the 74,000-seat Bank of America Stadium venue because of “rain.”  Even though meteorologists are reporting that rain is unlikely.  Thursday night is going to be the best weather of the entire week, they say.

This versus Republicans who packed 50,000 people during a nationally televised HURRICANE in Tampa.

Democrats lie about every little thing and lie about every big thing.  They’re just liars.  It is their nature.  It is what they are.

You Democrats just make me sick in a way a simple vomit can’t even begin to cure.

Update, 9/6/12: I got a beautiful comment to another article that makes you think about Clint Eastwood’s address and then makes you laugh:

IF anyone is in NC they should get into Bank of America stadium put up an empty chair with an Obama sticker and film the DNC convention of the empty chair talking to the empty chairs.

The skies are crystal clear in Charlotte.  President “Empty chair” was terrified that there would be way too many other empty chairs in that stadium.

Terrorist Suicide Bomber Who Murdered Jewish Teens In Bulgaria All You Need To Know To Understand Bush Right, Obama Damn Fool, Re: Gitmo

July 20, 2012

Forty Israeli tourists - most of them teens – were murdered two days ago.  The story explains it all:

Bulgarian press names bomber: Mehdi Ghezali
Terrorist said to have been a Swedish citizen with a history of Muslim extremist activities
July 19, 2012, 6:11 pm

Bulgarian media on Thursday named the suicide bomber who blew up a bus full of Israeli tourists, killing five Israelis and a local bus driver, in the Black Sea resort of Burgas on Wednesday as 36-year-old Mehdi Ghezali.

Ghezali reportedly arrived in Bulgaria five weeks before the bombing and arrived at the airport via taxi, Channel 2 reported. He was also reportedly given the bomb by someone else, but no further details were provided.

There was no independent confirmation of the veracity of the information. The reports surfaced soon after Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had publicly accused Hezbollah, directed by Iran, of responsibility for the bombing. The Prime Minister’s Office made no comment on the reports.

The Bulgarian reports, rapidly picked up by Hebrew media, posited various versions of how the bomber had detonated the bomb, including the suggestion that the bomber had not intended to die in the blast, but may have wanted to place the bomb on the bus and flee.

Ghezali has a Wikipedia page, which describes him as a Swedish citizen, with Algerian and Finnish origins. He had been held at the US’s Guantanamo Bay detainment camp on Cuba from 2002 to 2004, having previously studied at a Muslim religious school and mosque in Britain, and traveled to Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, it says. He was taken into custody on suspicion of being an al-Qaeda agent, having been arrested along with a number of other al-Qaeda operatives.

Following a lobbying effort by Swedish prime minister Göran Persson, Guantanamo authorities recommended Ghezali be transferred to another country for continued detainment, and he was handed over to Swedish authorities in 2004. The Swedish government did not press charges.

A 2005 Swedish documentary about the Guantanamo Bay detention camp starred Ghezali, who detailed his experience in American custody.

He was also reportedly among 12 foreigners captured trying to cross into Afghanistan in 2009.

Earlier on Thursday the Bulgarian police released a brief video clip that claimed to show the suicide bomber, responsible for Wednesday’s terror attack on a tour bus full of Israeli citizens, walking around shortly before the blast at Burgas International Airport.

The Bulgarian news agency Sofia reported that the bomber was carrying an American passport and Michigan driver’s license, both believed to be forgeries.

Sofia also reported that the Bulgarian Interior Ministry managed to recover the fingerprints of the bomber, which they submitted to the FBI in the United States and the international police organization Interpol. The FBI and CIA joined Israeli and Bulgarian officials in investigating the attack.

Interior Minister Tsvetan Tsvetanov told Sofia that DNA tests were being run to determine the identity of the Caucasian man, who the minister described as casually dressed with nothing suspicious about his appearance to set him apart from the crowd of people at the airport.

The ministry did not indicate how the police came to the conclusion that the man was the suicide bomber.

Question: Why did Bush build Gitmo?  Answer: Because we were catching terrorists from all over the world whose host countries would not bother to prosecute or even detain them, which meant our only way to protect ourselves and our allies from these terrorist psychopaths was to detain them at Gitmo.

Question: Why did liberals like Obama demonize Gitmo and demonize George Bush for building it?  Answer: Because liberals are bad people who are contemptible, naive fools.

Barack Obama and the entire Democrat machine spent the Bush years DEMONIZING him for Gitmo “by taking the moral high ground” – which basically means by asserting depraved liberal political correctness. 

All those times Obama attacked Bush for the evil of Gitmo.  And then the sanctimonious self-righteous hoity-toity little weasel swore on the first day of his presidency to close Gitmo within one year of assuming office.  Well, Gitmo is still open, because Barack Hussein Obama is both a liar and a fool.

And a bunch of innocent Jewish children are DEAD now because Democrats are wicked, depraved little cowards.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 493 other followers