Posts Tagged ‘illegal immigration’

Democrats Ask Why Hasn’t KY Clerk Been Fired In Gay Marriage License Case? SAME REASON YOUR OBAMA HASN’T BEEN FIRED.

September 2, 2015

Democrats and liberals – otherwise known as “pathological rabid hypocrites” – are demanding to know why the Kentucky clerk who is refusing to sign gay marriage certificates hasn’t been fired.

The same damn reason your false messiah hasn’t been fired, you moral cockroaches.

Democrats say “If Kim Davis doesn’t want to certify same-sex marriages, she should quit her job.”  They say the law is on their side.

So where the hell were you moral roach hypocrites when the “law” very clearly stated that marriage was between ONE man AND ONE woman and Barack Hussein Obama refused to honor a law that had been passed by both the House and the Senate and signed INTO LAW by President William Jefferson Clinton???

We see that the “ACLU wants Kentucky clerk in contempt of court over denying gay marriage licenses.”  So I suppose what that means is that it is an act of “contempt” not to follow the law.

So where WERE you holier-than-thou Pharisees when you were cheering wildly as Barack Hussein Obama should have been held in contempt, impeached and forcibly removed from office from blatantly violating the law of the land that you are now so upset is being violated???

We can go back more than four years to see Obama:

Obama administration will no longer defend DOMA

You had the law of the land, you had somebody refusing to follow the law of the land.

Obama issued one of his Führer’s Directives and the same people who are now purple apoplectic with rage cheered wildly.  Because you lawless Nazi thug-punks were drunk with the power of being able to ignore any damn law you didn’t like and flat-out making your OWN laws when the actual laws of the land demanded or imposed something you didn’t like.

Politico described Obama’s policy.  Here it is:

Obama’s policy strategy: Ignore laws

And of course, Obama has played this lawless game over and over again.  For example, our Roach-in-Chief publicly stated at least TWENTY-TWO TIMES that he would be a lawless, unconstitutional, anti-democratic fascist thug EMPEROR to impose “laws” by executive order on illegal immigration.  And then did the very thing he said he legally was banned from doing.

I think of the sanctuary cities whose very intent is to fly in the FACE of federal laws on the books.  I think of Obama demonically refusing to do a damn thing to protect the border states against illegal immigration, and then suing them when they tried to enact their own laws arguing that laws pertaining to immigration status or borders are solely under federal jurisdiction.  Unless, of course, that is, unless Democrats do the opposite version of the same damn thing Obama went on the warpath to prevent Republican states from doing.

But of course it’s different when Obama flagrantly ignores the law, dontchaknow.  Being a lawless political fascist thug is a GOOD thing when Obama does it.

So fine.  In Kentucky a clerk has the SAME DAMN STRATEGY and all of a sudden it is this horrible thing and she needs to lose her job and be held in contempt and have her fingernails torn from her clutching hands while she screams in pain.

And all she’s doing is following YOUR policy strategy, Democrat.

In the Los Angeles Times editorial, the Times stated the following that I at least appreciate for the sake of candid acknowledgment:

Where ‘God’s authority’ ends

For Democrats, there is no real point where God’s authority should BEGIN, and it should as sure as they will burn in hell for eternity be ENDED immediately and at every point where it in any way, shape or form intersects with their wickedness.

The Times admits that:

Historically this country has been generous toward individuals whose religious beliefs make it difficult for them to comply with the law.

And then immediately counters with a “but”:

But the accommodation must stop at the point at which a public official refuses to discharge her legal duty by invoking “God’s authority,” as Davis has done.

The God of the Bible’s authority should END, they tell us; what should NOT end and what should not even be interfered with is the authority of THEIR god, the omnipotent human state, as it grows more and more and more powerful.

Unless, of course, someone other than one of THEIR high-priests-of-Satan are at the helm of that government.

Shouldn’t the same smarmy-pharisaical Lost Angeles Slimes editorial board have also said:

But the accommodation must stop at the point at which a public official refuses to discharge his legal duty by invoking his OWN “God authority,” as Obama has done.

Pathologically dishonest, hypocrite Democrats keep playing the “God game” where they invoke religion or God or even the Bible to pervert these when they can twist them into supporting their ideology.  Oh, yes, you pathologically dishonest hypocrite lying liberal Democrat:

Obama invokes Jesus more than Bush
By  Eamon Javers
06/09/09, 04:09 AM EDT
Updated 06/09/09, 03:12 PM EDT

He’s done it while talking about abortion and the Middle East, even the economy. The references serve at once as an affirmation of his faith and a rebuke against a rumor that persists for some to this day.

As president, Barack Obama has mentioned Jesus Christ in a number of high-profile public speeches — something his predecessor George W. Bush rarely did in such settings, even though Bush’s Christian faith was at the core of his political identity. […]

What is always fascist and wrong for thee is always right and good for me, Democrats believe as a matter of their religion of fascist emperor worship.

You listen to twisted liars like Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton and you’d think that Jesus was a fervent socialist when JESUS NEVER SAID A SINGLE WORD AFFIRMING THE EXPANSION OF HUMAN GOVERNMENT.  And when in fact it was human government that violated its own “laws” to put Jesus to death.  Just like Jesus was NOT a homosexual and Jesus HATES abortion murder.  And then these same Democrats ban religion from intruding into their unholy human government all the other times because all of the above flat-out refute everything-the-hell-they’re-doing and every-reason-the-hell-why-they’re-doing it.  Religion is a tool that demonic Democrats cynically exploit to impose their godless way even as they scream out against any who would legitimately follow its actual teachings.  Which is why Democrats have demanded that Christians be barred and banned from being able to exercise their religion and their religious freedom in every practical way imaginable, even as they impose THEIR religion of secular humanism time and time and time again.

And yes, atheism and secular humanism ARE religions:

Atheists Score Major Win In Federal Court
by Jack Jenkins Nov 3, 2014 9:59am

A federal district court in Oregon has declared Secular Humanism a religion, paving the way for the non-theistic community to obtain the same legal rights as groups such as Christianity.

On Thursday, October 30, Senior District Judge Ancer Haggerty issued a ruling on American Humanist Association v. United States, a case that was brought by the American Humanist Association (AHA) and Jason Holden, a federal prisoner. Holden pushed for the lawsuit because he wanted Humanism — which the AHA defines as “an ethical and life-affirming philosophy free of belief in any gods and other supernatural forces” — recognized as a religion so that his prison would allow for the creation of a Humanist study group. Haggerty sided with the plaintiffs in his decision, citing existing legal precedent and arguing that denying Humanists the same rights as groups such as Christianity would be highly suspect under the Establishment Clause in the U.S. Constitution, which declares that Congress “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”

“The court finds that Secular Humanism is a religion for Establishment Clause purposes,” the ruling read.

The decision highlights the unusual position of the Humanist community, which has tried for years to obtain the same legal rights as more traditional religious groups while simultaneously rebuking the existence of a god or gods. But while some Humanists may chafe at being called a “religion,” others feel that the larger pursuit of equal rights trumps legal classifications.

Mind you, you can google the phrase, “Religion is man’s way to reach God; Christianity is God’s way to reach man” and find that many Christians reject that CHRISTIANITY is a “religion.”  But it is only Democrats’ atheists and secular humanists who get to play both sides of the field and represent themselves as NOT being a “religion” whenever it suits them as they tear down “religion” but they ARE a “religion” whenever it suits them as they apply the “if you can’t beat them, join them” in order to be a “Fifth Column and destroy religion from within” tactic.

Meanwhile they get to impose their atheist and secular humanist RELIGIOUS VALUES all over the damn place as they impose their tyrannous religion on everybody else.  All while loudly asserting that they’re somehow “protecting us from religion.”

Because to be a “Democrat” is to be a “moral cockroach hypocrite.”

When you’re screaming in hell, Democrat – and one day, soon, mark my words, you WILL BE screaming in hell – I just want you to remember that you’re not burning in hell for your blatant abandonment of MY morality.  No, you’re be burning in hell for your OWN hypocrite double-standards where what was right became what was wrong because you’re a twisted pervert and what was wrong became right because you’re a twisted pervert.  You’re going to burn in hell by your OWN standard, applied to YOU by the very God Whose authority you dedicated your life to trying to end.

So I’ll tell you what’s going to happen here: that poor virtuous Kentucky Clerk, Kim Davis, is going to be persecuted and punished in the name of “the law” by the same lawless thug system that has been running roughshod over the law for the past six damn years.  And our “justice” system is going to do it, because:

“The law has become paralyzed, and there is no justice in the courts. The wicked far outnumber the righteous, so that justice has become perverted.” — Habakkuk 1:4

Which is why I am now calling “judges” INjustices.  They have nothing to do with “justice” any more.

God announced that He was going to bring HELL to such a wicked nation.  Start reading from verse five on to see that.  And He’s preparing this country for the same fate.

But don’t worry.  Democrats have ended God’s authority.  The God of the Bible is now powerless, they triumphantly assert: only godless, wicked human government is omnipotent and has the divine right to crush any obstacle in its unholy path.


Liberals Don’t CARE About The Poor And Disadvantaged They Cynically Exploit

August 25, 2015

How do liberals hate and despise you, poor people?  Let me count the ways (in no particular order):

First, there is illegal immigration.  What does it do?  Does opening the floodgate of illegal immigration to pour over the United States help legal immigrants?  Absolutely NOT.  It suppresses wages for legal poor minorities.  This is simply something called a “fact.”  “Illegal immigration has tended to increase the supply of low-skilled, low-wage labor available.”  There is something called THE LAW of supply and demand: the greater the supply of something, the less the demand for that thing and the more the value of it goes down as a result.  This is literally again A LAW that will ALWAYS happen in ANY economic situation with no exceptions.  You cannot continue to increase the supply of something and have that thing continue to go up in economic value: the exact OPPOSITE will happen.  And so, for U.S. blacks, for example, we find that “six in 10 adult black males have a high school diploma or less, and are disproportionately employed in the low-skilled labor market in likely competition with immigrants.”  Again, the impact of illegal immigration on the wages and job opportunities for legal poor immigrants and minorities is simply a FACT.

It simply boils down to this question: how – and I defy a liberal to explain this to me – does bringing in more poor people to compete with the poor people already here for a limited number of jobs – do anything other than undermine the poor people who are already here???

Liberals tell us about migrant field laborers and how nobody else will do those jobs.  This argument is contingent upon your being stupid enough to believe that every single illegal immigrant is out in the fields picking our crops and no illegal immigrants have any other kind of job.  They idiotically overlook the fact that most agricultural zones are considerable distances from the urban population centers – so there is simply no one reasonably close enough to take those jobs.  And the migrant laborers largely live in deplorable conditions and, yes, MIGRATE to the various fields to do the jobs.  And they send a great deal of the money they earn back home to their families in other countries such as Mexico.  That’s one thing.  But another thing is that it is simply a categorical fact today that MOST, IF NOT THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY, OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS ARE NOT IN THE FIELDS.  THEY ARE WORKING JOBS THAT AMERICAN POOR PEOPLE DO WANT TO WORK.  My church has a Hispanic congregation.  Many of them are not here legally.  I know many of these people.  I know what many of them do for a living.  Very FEW of them EVER work in ANY field around these parts.  No, they are home care assistants, they are tree trimmers, they are construction workers, they are contractors, they cut our hair.  And they are in stores and businesses working in jobs that YES LEGAL IMMIGRANTS AND POOR MINORITIES WOULD HAVE TAKEN.

So I ask the question again: how do Democrats do ANYTHING other than undermine and hurt the poor when they demand that more poor people be allowed to keep flowing in to compete for the scarce jobs here???

Why did liberals open the floodgate of illegal immigration?  Why do they stupidly refuse to see the obvious and crystal-clear distinction between “legal” immigrants and “ILLEGAL” immigrants?  Because there is absolutely ZERO question that the Democrat Party politically and incredibly cynically benefits from a violation of the law that undermines the nation as a whole.  And Democrats are nothing if they are not political cockroaches who crawl to any and every dung pile that feeds them.  It is a simple fact that Hispanics as a whole overwhelmingly vote Democrat, so therefore the more illegal immigrants – especially given the fact that Democrats have made it IMPOSSIBLE to prevent people from registering to vote and from voting illegally – the better for Democrats.  And Democrats couldn’t give less of a DAMN if what they are doing hurts the people who they are keeping ignorant enough to keep voting for them.  Democrats count on ignorance and they count on their ability to keep ignorant people on their plantation through propaganda that has ALWAYS been the tool for abusive governments to control their people.

So Democrats actively pursue political strategies that suppress wages for poor people.  This is a FACT.  And what do they DO about the crisis they created?  Why create ANOTHER crisis, of course.

So second, there is the outcry to forcibly raise minimum wages as the left exploits one crisis it created in order to create another crisis.  We therefore have the movement to artificially and forcibly raise wages by government fiat.  But does that create more jobs and therefore more opportunity or does it do what common sense ought to tell you it does and do the precise OPPOSITE:

In a National Bureau of Economic Research paper published last December, University of California-San Diego professors Jeffrey Clemens and Michael Wither, found that increases in the minimum wage were responsible for 14% of the decline in the percent of the working-age population employed between 2006 and 2012. Minimum wage increases significantly reduced the probability of low-skill workers reaching the middle class.

This is simply a fact validated by study after study.  Employers – faced with paying artificially high wages, will either go to higher-skilled and therefore more productive labor or they will switch to machines to do jobs that used to be cost-effective for low-skilled workers to do before liberals destroyed those jobs with their stupid demagogic policies.

Aside from the fact that forcing employers to pay more money than they can afford or that the job they would otherwise offer is worth to them, you have another giant dilemma of unintended consequences: artificially imposing higher labor costs ipso facto means imposing higher prices for products and services that poor people have to pay:

… it’s a safe bet that virtually all of the cost of this minimum wage hike will be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices. You might think that, well, this isn’t a huge deal if it’s rich people who are paying these higher prices.

But of course it will often be poor people who pay them…  This makes poor consumers worse off in a direct sense, in that they can purchase less with their earnings. And if consumers are at all sensitive to prices, at least some of them will choose to spend less on labor-intensive goods and services now that they are more expensive. That could reduce the number of minimum wage jobs available.”

Another term for that is “vicious cycle.”  We artificially impose higher wages which artificially increases prices, which makes goods and services artificially more expensive to pay those higher wages, which reduces consumers’ ability to purchase those goods and services, which reduces the amount of goods and services purchased, which undermines the job market further.  And further.

It’s an easy bogus case to make for demagogues: we’ll force other people to pay you more money.  Nothing could be easier.  The sad fact – “sad” because liberals hate and despise facts – is this: the BEST way to have a good, well-paying job is to start out in a lousy, sucky-paying job and work your way UP as you demonstrate and document a good work ethic and develop more experience.  But when there are fewer and fewer jobs available because fewer and fewer employers can afford to pay for more workers, well, so much for hard work and experience.

And so we have a THIRD way Democrats hatefully hurt the poor: income inequality.

Income inequality, you say?  Isn’t that a Democrat issue?  Aren’t Democrats campaigning to end this hateful disparity of income and wealth that Republicans want to maintain?  Why yes, at least, if you are a truly stupid, ignorant, propaganda-fed sheep.  In fact, income inequality has EXPLODED under Barack Obama’s liberal economic policies.  It is a FACT that Barack Obama has taken America back to Great Depression-levels of income inequality.  Yes, I said FACT: under Obama and because of Obama, income inequality is the WORST since 1928.  Why is this?  Well, we can go to Obama’s supermassive debtDeficit spending necessarily ultimately forces internal devaluation, which deflates worker wages.  Wealthier people can invest and stave off this debt-inflation which eats the poor alive.  We can go back to illegal immigration again: “illegal immigration exacerbates income inequality by adding mostly low-wage earners and thereby, depressing wages for those workers. This is especially harmful to minorities — often immigrants themselves — that have larger shares of their populations living in poverty.”

Here’s another nuance of this vicious income inequality for you: poor people tend to try to save toward a better life; wealthy people tend to invest their wealth.  Barack Obama and the Democrat Party machine have created a giant debt apparatus that sucks savings.  What interest do you get when you put your money in the bank?  You get ZERO.  Poor people cannot afford to invest and make money the only way the Obama-Democrat-debt machine have built for someone to make money off his or her money.  They have created a system – and keep in mind that Wall Street overwhelmingly supported Obama in both of his elections – where the Fed keeps pumping money into the system and the banks lend it at low rates to the big businesses.  But if you are poor, if you are on a fixed income, Obama has left you high and dry.

Democrats are simply vile, venal people: they create godawful pain, they literally take a 2X4 and viciously whack somebody on the back of the head, and then they blame the nearest Republican knowing that their ideological counterparts in the mainstream media will duly report the “fact” that Republicans are responsible for the crimes perpetuated over and over and over again by Democrats.  It’s called propaganda, and it’s the one and only thing the left has always excelled in.

Poverty and homelessness has skyrocketed under the cancer of the Obama presidency.  Poverty has smashed a fifty year record under ObamaHomelessness is skyrocketing. And you should stop wondering why.  But whose fault is it?  Well, gosh, we can’t blame Bush anymore, so it’s got to be the Republican Congress’ fault, doesn’t it?  I mean, yes, we blamed Bush for the economic meltdown even though Democrats were in lock-step control of both the House and the Senate because the president is responsible.  Unless of course the president is a demagogic Democrat and then Congress is responsible even when it held only one branch of government.

And so fourth, let’s talk about how incredibly cynical and depraved Democrats are in regards to homelessness.  There’s a New York Post story with a picture of a man urinating right in the middle of a public street.  The title says it all: “20 Years of Cleaning Up New York City Pissed Away.”  It is absolutely pathetic and despicable what Democrats have done to piss away progress and decency.  Back when Mayor Rudy Giuliani led New York, for example, the police took an active and proactive role in dealing with homelessness.  They would show up with a social worker and not only get that person off the streets, but also HELP that person.  But liberals, being hateful, said, no, no, no, these people have a right to be here, blah-blah-blah.  The didn’t view them as human beings who needed real help, but as ideological abstractions and as pawns in a leftwing propaganda war.

Here’s an article that perfectly illustrates what I’m talking about:

Team Obama’s fight to keep the homeless living on the streets
By Betsy McCaughey
August 18, 2015 | 8:07pm

America’s homeless are lawyering up to fight for a “right” to live on the street — your neighborhood and personal safety be damned.

From Fort Lauderdale to Los Angeles, cities are struggling with a surge in people living in cardboard boxes and doorways. Local lawmakers are trying to ban “camping out” in public, and ordering police to clear the fetid encampments.

But lawyers for the homeless are pushing back. They’re demanding that “sleeping rough” be legally protected. In Denver, where living on the street is outlawed, lawyers for the homeless want to guarantee vagrants “the right to use and move freely in public spaces without discrimination.”

Outrageously, the Obama administration is siding with vagrants against local governments. Obama’s Justice Department is trying to block Boise, Idaho’s ban on sleeping in public. Cities around the country are worried their own laws may be next.

Not New York, of course. In our city, lawyers for the homeless already run City Hall. One of Mayor De Blasio’s top advisers is Steven Banks, a lawyer who spent three decades at the Legal Aid Society and has sued the city numerous times on behalf of the homeless.

Under de Blasio’s tenure, 311 calls complaining about the homeless are up nearly 60 percent. The mayor dismisses that as “hysteria,” insisting the vast majority of homeless “don’t bother anybody.”

Los Angeles — the homeless capital of the nation — is trying to halt the spread of cardboard shanties: Obamavilles. But the city has lost a string of lawsuits, as judges ruled the homeless have constitutional rights to sleep in cars and store their possessions on the sidewalk. […]

The reason the left wants all the crazy people to be walking around free is because otherwise there would be no one to vote DEMOCRAT.

Depravity and chaos and slum is taking over.  You’ve got Obama to ENSURE it.  The modern Democrat Party wants it, welcomes it, YEARNS for it.  They THRIVE on the chaos and the bitterness they create.  They incite it and exploit it to keep pushing for more and more and more and worse and worse and worse.  They are “progressives” who are progressing America right off the cliff and into hell.

And there’s a consistent pattern if you have eyes to see and ears to hear.

Fifth, there is the terrible, despicable evil that Democrats perpetuated decades over regarding mental illness.   Liberals called the horror they imposed in the name of their progressive moral stupidity a broad-based movement called “deinstitutionalization.”  So-called “compassionate” liberals came up with the “humane” plan to move patients from long-term commitment in state mental hospitals into community-based mental health treatment.  There was the progressive religious faith in science: the Kennedy Administration optimistically described how the days of long-term treatment were now gone forever because newly-developed drugs such as chlorpromazine meant that two-thirds of the mentally ill “could be treated and released within 6 months.”  I am accurately quoting Kennedy from his message on mental illness given on February 5, 1963.  A liberal can argue that Ronald Reagan signed something – passed by Democrat majorities in both houses of the legislature – along these lines.  But Ronald Reagan ALSO signed a bill that same year legalizing abortion in California.  Which is to say that in 1967 he wasn’t very conservative by any modern standard.  And there is simply no question that the national trend toward deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill was dominated by progressive liberals.  At about the same time, two more ideas came to the forefront of American progressive thinking that continue to haunt society today: 1) that there was a right to mental health treatment, and 2) that there was a right to a more substantive form of due process for those who were to be committed to a mental hospital. If there was a right to mental health treatment, then liberal activist judges could use the threat of releasing patients as a way to force reluctant legislatures to increase funding for treatment.  ACLU attorneys such as Bruce J. Ennis successfully claimed before moral idiot liberal judges that less than 5 percent of mental hospital patients “are dangerous to themselves or to others” and that the rest were improperly locked up “because they are useless, unproductive, ‘odd,’ or ‘different.’”  But these progressive ideas backfired terribly.  These two new “rights” imposed by leftists (the “right” to treatment plus the “right” to impose impossible legal burdens on the system) had the horrifying and hateful result of suddenly making hundreds of thousands of seriously mentally ill people homeless and helpless.  And it was all done in the name of the same progressivism that we see in Obama and Hillary Clinton today.  Because again, the left doesn’t actually give a flying damn about these people; they are like “fetuses,” non-human abstractions that can be destroyed for the sake of some greater leftist cause.  Mentally ill people fell through the cracks, living shorter, more miserable lives, and often greatly degrading the quality of urban life for everyone else.  And liberals moved on to their next project of collapsing and imploding America.

We USED to get these crazy people of the streets and put them in mental institutions.  We used to protect both the mentally ill and society as a whole.  But the left said, no, no, no, you can’t do that, you can’t lock these people up against their will.  Well, they’re wandering around out in the streets now.  They’ve been wandering the streets for decades, ignored by Democrats, because Democrats dishonestly and slanderously use the heinous crimes that the mentally ill commit with the freedom that liberals gave them to decry guns.  As if a gun picked itself up and started shooting versus a Democrat releasing a psychopath onto the streets who picked up a gun and started shooting.  And so now they’re shooting up movie theaters, etc. etc. and whose fault is the consequences?  Republicans for allowing law-abiding citizens to maintain their God-given and constitutionally guaranteed right to defend themselves, their homes and their property from all the whackjobs and criminals liberals have running around on the streets.

Sixth, Black Lives Matter.  Well, NO THEY DON’T.  Not to liberals, anyway.  Do you know how we’ve just had riot after riot because black lives matter so much whenever a black person gets killed by a white cop?  Well, that’s the ONLY time “black lives matter” to these horrible political demagogues – and the fact of the matter is a tiny fraction of a tiny fraction of a tiny fraction of way under one percent of all black lives are killed by white cops.  We just had a nine-year old girl murdered by black thugs while she was on her mother’s bed doing her homework; she died in her grandmother’s arms, and her life didn’t matter AT ALL to anyone in the “Black Lives Matter” bowel movement.  Because they don’t give a flying DAMN about “black lives,” save as how they can cynically exploit a tragedy for the sake of their rabid and venal political ideology.  THAT’S all that actually matters to them.  The truth is that police kill far more whites than blacks, but Black Lives Matter is about NOTHING but ginning up outrage and bitterness and hate for the sake of their precious political screed.

More than sixty percent of all black lives are snuffed out by liberals in the abortion mills that were literally established by a racist eugenicist to encourage black people to engage in self-genocide.  This racist Nazi sympathizer is today Hillary Clinton’s hero.  But nobody cares about such depravity.  Black lives don’t matter to the damn left.  324,000 black lives have been snuffed out by other blacks in just the past 38 years – and NONE of those lives matter to the leftist Black Lives Matter movement.  93 percent of all black lives snuffed out are snuffed out by other blacks – but those lives don’t matter one damn bit to the left.

The left is trying to manufacture a “distinction” to explain why they don’t give a damn for the vast majority of all the black lives callously ended by their own that they don’t give a damn about.  They claim that they’re decrying the “state-sponsored murders” of black men.  Bullcrap.  Unless the black mayor of Baltimore ordered the black states attorney to order the black police chief in Baltimore to gun down black men, THERE ARE NO STATE-SPONSORED KILLINGS.  There are rather individual tragedies as some black men are legitimately killed because they tried to face down armed policemen, while others are illegitimately killed in unfortunate accidents as individual untrained or scared cops lost their professional composure in one tragic moment.

A black woman named Peggy Hubbard had enough and showed what real decency looks like as she took down this bowel movement by exposing it for the abject disgrace it truly is.

And Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson had an article that just documents that “Black Lives Matter” is marching in the completely wrong direction as he exposes the REAL tragedies facing the black community that the leftist black leadership doesn’t want anyone to notice about the godforsaken place they’ve brought their people.

And just to further expose “Black Lives Matter” for the lie that it is, we now find that it is led by a white man masquerading as black.  Because being black means being a VICTIM to the left, and being a VICTIM is the most coveted status by the left.  And until black people truly decide they want to be VICTORS rather than VICTIMS, they will live in a sordid condition.

Seventh, consider the hatred generated by the left against law enforcement by the above Black Lives Matter organization as well as pretty much the entire damn left.  I mean, holy crap, the murder and violent crime rates are SKYROCKETING.  This “sudden spike” has been entirely the creation of leftists who have racially agitated every single instance – regardless of how entirely justified most of those instances have been – in which a white police officer has killed a black suspect.  In the uber-leftist city of Baltimore, we are watching an aftermath that would make you think Boko Haram had just been there.  And it is going on in liberal city after city – Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, Ferguson, St. Louis, Dallas, Atlanta, Milwaukie – as the liberal policies in which “we gave them space to destroy” have utterly failed.  And who is suffering the most?  The very poor and minorities that the left is shrieking in the name of!  Black lives don’t matter to the left – that’s just another cynical political lie; Democrats MURDER more than SIXTY PERCENT OF ALL BLACKS in the abortion mills.  And Pro-Democrat blacks are doing 99.999% of all the gunning down of other blacks.  Police are pulling OUT of poor minority communities because they are now terrified of being prosecuted for trying to do their jobs.  A cop literally ought to be more terrified of a damned Democrat politician than he is of a gangbanging murderer pointing a gun in his face.  And it is the poor who the liberals really hate who are suffering the most as a result.

They used to call it “white flight” in the mainstream media “reporting,” which of course meant it was obvious somehow racist.  I mean, how DARE that white family – seeing criminality and thuggery overtake their neighborhood – just up and move out and find a better neighborhood for their kids?  But now sane, decent people understand that it never had anything to DO with racism; black people and Hispanic people, et al do it to: if you want to be a decent person and raise a decent family and you see low-brow, criminal elements moving in, you either have a community that deals with the scourge or your decent families get the hell out of that budding hellhole.  And so we have whole cities that have been dominated by liberalism for a hundred damn years looking like World-War-II-Europe after the heavy bombers leveled them.

Like I said, there is a CONSISTENCY and a PATTERN to what Democrats are doing as they seek the destruction and collapse of the United States of America.

Eighth, consider college tuition.  Can’t get a damn job because the Obama economy has crushed the American Dream into the Marxist Utopia hellhole?  Well, why not be a college student the rest of your life?  I mean, ultimately you’ll be crushed with mindboggling debt because the more liberals drone on – whether that be in a classroom or in the Oval Office – the more it’s gonna cost you in debt you can never possibly hope to ever repay.  Don’t ever think for one nanosecond that conservatives have anything to do with the massive cost of college: liberals dominate; conservatives are shown the door because liberals are rabidly intolerant fascists.  But now the liberals who made college so astronomically expensive are saying they’ll fix the disaster the created by creating, yes, ANOTHER disaster that will be even MORE expensive.  I hear Bernie Saunders and Hillary Clinton trying to outdo each other making college more “free.”  But college tuition has skyrocketed under Obama.  As colleges and universities have become more and more dominated by liberal-progressive socialism, it has – surprise, surprise – gotten more and more expensive.  Now, liberals say it should be FREE for college students.  Okay, poor dude who never had a chance to go to college: YOU GET TO PAY FOR ALL THOSE PEOPLE WHO GOT TO GET WHAT YOU DON’T GET TO HAVE.

Even other committed liberals who actually understand money realize that Hillary Clinton’s plan is a stupid demagogic political stunt that won’t do a damn thing to lower the skyrocketing cost of tuition.  Billionaire Mark Cuban said, “[Hillary’s plan] stands a better chance of increasing the amount of money students owe than decreasing it.”

The fact of the matter is that college and universities are dominated by liberalism whether it is in the faculty lounges or in the administration buildings.  Liberals are by definition people who constantly whine for more money for themselves in the name of some greater cause.  And so there is a one-to-one correlation between how much federal money gets poured into colleges and universities (and ipso facto into liberals’ pockets) and how much tuition keeps going up.  The more you allow students to borrow, the higher the tuition price you can suddenly afford.

It’s what’s known as a vicious cycle.  Because liberals are vicious.

Ninth, I’m going to talk about women and how the “War on Women” narrative is a despicable charge by the left that is waging the actual war on women in our society.  And I’ll end with a discussion of how anyone who actually wanted HEALTH CARE rather than some “insurance card” with a tiny network and sky-high deductibles is a victim of the left.  I’ll finish up when I get back from some meetings.

Of Donald Trump’s Rabidly Stupid Remarks And His Pig-headed Determination To Stand By Them

July 20, 2015

Let me just begin by prefacing thus: there are a LOT of reasons to attack John McCain.  For simple starters he’s a RHINO – which for politically illiterate is an acronym meaning “Republican In Name Only” – who has made a career out of splitting the difference by betraying conservatives.  I voted for him in the general election, because my alternative was a backstabber or the damned devil, but no way was that turd my primary vote.

So there are a LOT of ways that a reasonable person could reasonably attack John McCain.  Heck, one of those ways involves the very category of “prisoner of war” that Donald Trump attacked McCain on.  Certainly Trump had every right to go after John McCain for saying that 15,000 American citizens living in McCain’s own state of Arizona were “crazies.”

But for the official record the way that Donald Trump viciously attacked John McCain simply for BEING a prisoner of war is beneath the pale of decency or dignity.  And Donald Trump seriously needs to be fired by every decent American for his stupid idiotic indecency.

Donald Trump said the following about John McCain:

Luntz: “He’s a war hero. He’s a war hero …”

Trump: “He’s not a war hero …”

Luntz: “He’s war hero.”

Trump: “He is a war hero …”

Luntz: “Five and half years in a Vietnamese prison camp …”

Trump: “He’s a war hero because he was captured. I like people that weren’t captured. So he’s a war hero …”

Luntz: “Do you agree with that?”

Trump: “He’s a war hero, because he was captured, okay? I believe, perhaps, he’s a war hero. But right now he said some very bad things about a lot of people. So what I said is John McCain, I disagree with him that these people aren’t crazy.”

Okay, Trump had his say.  But here is something called the ACTUAL DAMN FACTS as to how John McCain became a P.O.W.:

On October 26, 1967, McCain was flying his twenty-third mission, part of a twenty-plane strike force against the Yen Phu thermal power plant in central Hanoi[102][103] that previously had almost always been off-limits to U.S. raids due to the possibility of collateral damage.[101] Arriving just before noon, McCain dove from 9,000 to 4,000 feet on his approach;[104] as he neared the target, warning systems in McCain’s A-4E Skyhawk alerted him that he was being tracked by enemy fire-control radar.[105] Like other U.S. pilots in similar situations, he did not break off the bombing run,[62] and he held his dive until he released his bombs at about 3,500 feet (1,000 m).[106] As he started to pull up, the Skyhawk’s wing was blown off by a Soviet-made SA-2 anti-aircraft missile fired by the North Vietnamese Air Defense Command’s 61st Battalion,[101][104] commanded by Captain Nguyen Lan[104] and with fire control officer Lieutenant Nguyen Xuan Dai.[101][104] (McCain was later awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross for this day,[100] while Nguyen Xuan Dai was awarded the title Hero of the People’s Armed Forces.[101] Decades later, Soviet Army Lieutenant Yuri Trushechkin claimed that he had been the missile guidance officer who had shot McCain down.[107][108] In any case, the raid was a failure, as the power plant was not damaged and three of the Navy planes were shot down.[104])

McCain being pulled out of Trúc Bạch Lake in Hanoi and about to become a prisoner of war,[109] on October 26, 1967.

McCain’s plane went into a vertical inverted spin.[110] Bailing out upside down at high speed,[111] the force of the ejection fractured McCain’s right arm in three places, his left arm, and his right leg at the knee, and knocked him unconscious.[111][112] McCain nearly drowned after parachuting into Trúc Bạch Lake in Hanoi; the weight of his equipment was pulling him down, and as he regained consciousness, he could not use his arms.[105] Eventually, he was able to inflate his life vest using his teeth.[105] Several Vietnamese, possibly led by Department of Industry clerk Mai Van On, pulled him ashore.[113] A mob gathered around, spat on him, kicked him, and stripped him of his clothes; his left shoulder was crushed with the butt of a rifle and he was bayoneted in his left foot and abdominal area.[105][111][112] He was then transported to Hanoi’s main Hỏa Lò Prison, nicknamed the “Hanoi Hilton” by American POWs.[114]

McCain reached Hoa Lo in as bad a physical condition as any prisoner during the war.[114] His captors refused to give him medical care unless he gave them military information; they beat and interrogated him, but McCain only offered his name, rank, serial number, and date of birth[115][116] (the only information he was required to provide under the Geneva Conventions and permitted to give under the U.S. Code of Conduct).[104] Soon thinking he was near death, McCain said he would give them more information if taken to the hospital,[115] hoping he could then put his interrogators off once he was treated.[117] A prison doctor came and said it was too late, as McCain was about to die anyway.[115] Only when the North Vietnamese discovered that his father was a top admiral did they give him medical care,[115] calling him “the crown prince”.[114] Two days after McCain’s plane went down, that event and his status as a POW made the front pages of The New York Times[92] and The Washington Post.[118] Interrogation and beatings resumed in the hospital; McCain gave the North Vietnamese his ship’s name, squadron’s name, and the attack’s intended target.[119] This information, along with personal details of McCain’s life and purported statements by McCain about the war’s progress, would appear over the next two weeks in the North Vietnamese official newspaper Nhân Dân[104] as well as in dispatches from outlets such as the Cuban news agency Prensa Latina.[120] Disclosing the military information was in violation of the Code of Conduct, which McCain later wrote he regretted, although he saw the information as being of no practical use to the North Vietnamese.[121] Further coerced to give future targets, he named cities that had already been bombed, and responding to demands for the names of his squadron’s members, he supplied instead the names of the Green Bay Packersoffensive line.[119][122]

It’s not like John McCain did a Bowe Bergdahl and abandoned his fellow soldiers to seek out and subsequently provide aid and comfort to the enemy.  John McCain is a combat veteran who had honorably served his country in time of war in 22 previous missions before being shot out of the sky, terribly wounded, and pulled out of a lake where he nearly drowned.  He was easily taken prisoner because his arms were too injured to move and one of his legs was useless.  The obvious implication is “JUST WHAT THE HELL WAS THE GUY SUPPOSED TO DO?”

Let me ask some follow-up questions of Donald Trump:

1) Are you seriously telling me that you possessed – in spite of your own lies about dodging the draft and your five damned deferments – that you possessed far superior fighter jet aviator training such that there is no way you could have ever possibly been shot down out of the sky by an anti-aircraft missile?  Is that your story, The Donald?  That had it been YOU in that cockpit the man who repeatedly obtained deferral after deferall rather than serve in the war that you insinuated John McCain was some kind of coward for having actually FOUGHT in you would have used your superior hair weave to duck and dodge the missiles that took McCain’s aircraft out???  Because you are Trump the CHUMP if that’s your testimony, you worthless boastful punk.

2) Is it your suggestion that John McCain would have been braver had he done what YOU would have done – because YOU’RE the one who dodged fighting in a war with your superior skills in compiling an impressive number of student deferments – and by simply refusing to serve in the first place???  Is THAT what you’re saying?  That cowardice is the better part compared to valor???  Are you saying that at the first sign that you were being tracked by enemy radar, that you would have bailed on your mission as John McCain failed to do because unlike you he actually IS a war hero???

3) Or maybe you’re suggesting to us that had it been YOU that had been shot down by a missile, had it been YOU who were shot down “in as bad physical condition as any prisoner during the war” – that you would have tied your ridiculously expensive business-suit’s accompanying necktie around your head like the businessman-version of Rambo and killed 10,000 North Vietnamese with your bare hands as you crawled your way to the border on your ruined knee???  Maybe THAT is what you’re saying, you pathetic little turd???

But actually I think what Donald Trump is really telling us is that 4) Trump the Chump looks at Adolf Hitler and says, “Now there is one awesome badass great LEADER!”  Allow me to provide illustrations of what I mean before I explain myself further:

Regarding Adolf Hitler: the Führer had a nasty habit of giving orders to his soldiers such that “Every man shall fight or fall where he stands.”  He REPEATDLY ordered his units to die fighting rather than surrender or even merely withdrawal rather than be overrun.  As one US military analysis of Hitler’s “leadership” we have the following typical statement (see page 22):

Hitler’s unrelenting policy of no retreat at Stalingrad cost thousands of German soldiers’ lives. According to James Duffy, “It was a policy of fanatical resistance. On October 14, 1942, Hitler issued this order to his troops: ‘Every leader, down to squad leader must be convinced of his sacred duty to stand fast come what may even if the enemy outflanks him on the right and left, even if his part of the line is cut off, encircled, overrun by tanks, enveloped in smoke or gassed.’”

One of Hitler’s own generals said of his “leadership”:

And there were, for Hitler the commander, some deeper flaws as German Field Marshal Erich von Manstein observed: “He was a man who saw fighting only in terms of the utmost brutality. His way of thinking conformed more to a mental picture of masses of the enemy bleeding to death before our lines than to the conception of a subtle fencer who knows how to make an occasional step backwards in order to lunge for the decisive thrust. For the art of war he substituted a brutal force which, as he saw it, was guaranteed maximum effectiveness by the will-power behind it…. Despite the pains Hitler took to stress his own former status as a frontline soldier, I still never had the feeling that his heart belonged to the fighting troops. Losses, as far as he was concerned, were merely figures which reduced fighting power. They are unlikely to have seriously disturbed him as a human being.”

Another German general, Alfred Jodl, described “Hitler’s almost mystical conviction of his own infallibility as leader of the nation and of the war.”  Which I personally see fitting Donald Trump to a “T” when you listen to Trump’s idiotic and fanciful statements that he’d build a border wall and make Mexico pay for it or from a position of weakness and debtor (WE owe THEM trillions of dollars) somehow end up owning them because of course he’s just that darn great.

And just before he shot himself to death like a coward rather than actually die fighting the way he had ordered millions of his own men to do, Hitler decreed:

‘The armed forces have lied to me and now the SS has left me in the lurch. The German people has not fought heroically. It deserves to perish.

‘It is not I who have lost the war, but the German people’.”

So under a Hitler – and yeah, under a Trump the Chump – you pretty much have two choices as a soldier: die fighting or just die.  Otherwise you’re a coward.

Now, Hitler said he couldn’t fight because he might get merely wounded instead of killed and then be captured:

“He said that he could not go out and die fighting on the barricades as he was afraid of merely being wounded and captured by the Russians. He would therefore shoot himself.”

And we couldn’t have that, could we?  So he ordered his men to die rather than give one inch of ground while he himself cowered in the concrete bunker that the millions serving him were ordered to die to protect.  And then there’s Trump the Chump, who in spite of his four student deferments before finally managing to find some doctor who was willing to say that Trump was too much of a pathetic little physical wuss to serve, that somehow John McCain should have died fighting in spite of having just sustained terrible wounds after being shot out of the sky by a missile.

I think it’s 4), myself.  Not that the other three make Trump look like anything other than an outright idiot, but personally I find 4) the most terrifying indictment of Trump the Chump of all of the above.

Under a Trump the Chump Führer-in-chieftainship, if President Trump the Chump orders a fascist-style banzai charge, you run into machine gun fire screaming and you die.  But what you are NOT allowed to do under ANY circumstances possible is to allow yourself to be captured for any reason under the Rising Sun.

In the aforementioned Imperial fascist Rising Sun mentality, we have soldiers that a President Trump the Chump could approve of:

LAURENCE REES: And how can we understand the reasons for what you call the ‘suicidal mentality’ of the Japanese?

AKIRA IRIYE: Some people trace it back all the way to the feudal ethos. I think it seems to be a combination of two things. One is belief in Japanese national uniqueness, again this is an insular mentality, summed up in the sense that Japan is a unique country unlike any other country that can do things that no other country can do, and things like that. And this sense of uniqueness is combined with the Emperor worship. Again this is rather a recent origin: in the 1870s and 1880s the government decided to rally national opinion around the image of the Sacred Emperor, because this Emperor system seemed to be a long living line of Emperors; that is the longevity of the imperial line. Japan was unique and you died for your country but in fact you died for your Emperor, everything was in the name of the Emperor.  In war, in battle, [soldiers] fought for the sake of honouring the Emperor, that kind of thing. That is one, mental attitude.

And the second reason is a more material kind of reason. That is that the Japanese army is much more poorly equipped. So the Japanese say, well, maybe we’re not as good in producing so many weapons as the Americans, but we have this spiritual aspect to it, that we can fight not simply with guns, but we can fight with our spirit. That spirit is the spirit of our selflessness and this is nothing that is part of your fighting. You know this famous exhortation not to be taken prisoner of war because they say to be taken prisoner of war is a shameful thing. Why? Because it shows that you have not fought till the very end. To fight to the very end is to honour the Emperor and to show that you can compensate for meagre weapons by using yourself, perhaps as a human shield, or in a suicide attack.

For these reasons I think even as early as the Russian/Japanese War you get lots of Japanese casualties because they believe in it, that death in battle is an honourable thing. I would think that there were so few Japanese prisoners of war taken by the Russians because they either committed suicide or they just fought to the very end before the Russians could capture them. The same is true in the 1930’s as well. I think you brought dishonour to your family and to your parents if you were caught prisoner during the war, so for these reasons I think there is a sense that the war is never finished until the last man dies. And the last man dies because that’s what they’re supposed to do.

LAURENCE REES: How can we understand here in the West this phenomenal cultural pressure on the individual to conform?

AKIRA IRIYE: I think there is no question about that. I think a kind of collective mentality, or collectivist mentality, and also the idea that you are a member of this family, and what you do brings dishonour to your parents, but not only that, to the Emperor too. This is the whole idea of the nation as one family with the Emperor as the Divine Head. So whatever you do you are bringing either honour or dishonour to the Emperor. There’s nothing in between. So to die is more honourable than to live. I think the conception of life and death, things like that, are maybe at the basis of this. No individual thinking here. Of course there were people who were not that way, but they would not be able to express their opinion more clearly or more frankly during the war because of the mentality of wartime Japan.

Under the Western and American concept of warfare, you are ordered to place yourself at risk.  You are ordered into harm’s way.  You are ordered to fight the enemy.  But in the face of certain death, you are NOT required to die.  Americans are individuals, not herd animals.  You fight honorably, but you have the right to surrender when you have no other option but certain death.

But Trump the Chump’s remark which was tantamount to an assertion that every single prisoner of war was somehow a failure has nothing whatsoever to do with the Western or American concept of a soldier honorably serving on a field of battle; it is straight out of Hitler and it is straight out of Imperial Japanese fascist emperor-worship.

So under Emperor Trump, you die fighting for the glory and honor of “The Donald.”  A Trump the Chump cannot understand why you would not be willing to take a few hundred bullets for him.

To allow a Donald Trump to be anywhere NEAR the office of the president of the United States is simply evil.  We fought a terrible war to kick people like Donald Trump out of their dictatorships.

And the man is so pig-headed that he cannot admit that he made a mistake any more than the CURRENT DISGRACE-IN-CHIEF contaminating our White House.

Allow me to now point out that this isn’t the first incredibly wrong thing that Donald Trump has said.  What Donald Trump said about illegal immigrants was beneath the pale of dignity, as well.

Understand, I am fiercely opposed to illegal immigration.  I believe that we should be fighting with everything we’ve got to dismantle a system whereby people are encouraged to essentially put themselves at the head of the line ahead of all the people trying to enter America from all around the world LEGALLY by ignoring our laws and just flooding into this country.  BUT my beef is NOT with the people coming into America, but with ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION.  Whereas Trump the Chump personally demonized the character of pretty much nearly ALL illegal immigrants.

Allow me to contrast my own belief about illegal immigrants vis-à-vis the system tolerating and even encouraging illegal immigration from a prior article to Donald Trump’s vindictive statements:

Let me assure you of something: if Hispanic illegal immigrants voted Republican, you would see the rabid, poison-dripping FANGS of Democrats come out in a spirit of rage and hate unlike nothing you’ve ever seen on the faces of Republicans as they went completely poop-flinging nuts over the invasion of our border.

I attend a church that has an English and Hispanic congregation.  And I regularly take part in ministry to Hispanics, quite a few of which are here illegally.  As a true Christian, I DON’T hate illegal immigrants.  I realize as a moral human being that if I were a poor Mexican or Central American living in a completely failed state the way these people are, I would come to America too – either legally or illegally.  I recognize that for many illegal immigrants, work is a good thing that they are grateful for.  And that they send a lot of the money they earn home to their families.  These are virtuous things.  What I rabidly despise is a cynical and dishonest liberal ideology that wants to politically benefit from these poor people’s misery and ignorance.  I blame the left for its hostility to America as they seek to cynically grab further political advantages by exploiting these people.  Liberals are like drunken braggarts in a bar, buying drinks for everyone in order to be popular and then refusing to pay the tab when the bill comes.  America cannot afford to continue living so wildly and wickedly beyond our means.  We are going to completely economically and socially collapse because of the vile wickedness of Democrats.  And then you will see suffering as you have never seen before – suffering that Democrats forced upon the America that they destroyed.

I believe, therefore, that we ought to treat the illegal immigrants who are coming here as human beings.  And that we should protect our nation, protect our borders, protect our culture, protect our way of life by controlling our borders and enforcing our laws.

You see the difference?  I recognize that many, MANY illegal immigrants are good and decent people whose ultimate crime is to give themselves and their families a better life than they could ever get in the pathologically broken system that is Mexico and much of Central America.  Are there terrible criminal illegal immigrants?  Okay, yes.  But on the same token, are there terrible criminal LEGAL immigrants?  Yep.  And for that matter, are there terrible criminal native-born American CITIZENS?  Oh, you betcha, there are.

My theory on illegal immigration is that we need to profoundly reform our SYSTEM.  We need to begin by first changing the law that BROKE our system: the 1965 law that “reformed” our system that had previously favored immigrants with vital job skills that this nation desperately needed in order to maintain the best industrial base in the world to one whose central purpose was reuniting families.  Should we have a system that emphasizes more doctors, more engineers, more mechanics, more skilled workers, more trained people who can help build America, or should we bring in every single family member of the immigrants who are already here?  Democrats broke our system by preferring the latter over the former.  And that inaugurated a flood of immigration that has NOT made America better, but worse, not richer, but poorer.  We certainly also need to aggressively patrol our borders and deport the people who should not be here.

But we shouldn’t demonize the millions of people who came here seeking a better life.  And I believe that if I were a Mexican and my country was broken the way Mexico was broken and America gave me a chance for building a better life for my family, I would come here to.  And no I would NOT be a “rapist” for doing so, contrary to Trump the Chump.

As a conservative and as a Republican, I demand that we continue to make a distinction between being “anti-illegal immigration” versus being “anti-immigrant.”  And I believe Donald Trump stupidly crossed a line and should have apologized immediately rather than “doubling down” as is apparently the only trick of this one-trick pony.

If you exclude Donald Trump’s giving since 2012 – when he decided he was a “Republican,” Donald Trump has actually given more money to the DEMOCRAT Party over the previous 26 years.  Prior to 2012, Trump gave $581,350 to DEMOCRATS versus only $497,690 to the GOP.  But even when you factor in Trump’s total giving, the man hardly stands as a genuine Republican.  Politifact acknowledges that “Trump has actually been relatively evenhanded in doling out cash to the two parties” and that “The difference in donations is almost entirely captured in Trump’s recent giving” when Trump went from 1989 to 2012 giving MORE to Democrats to giving $463,450 to Republicans against $3,500 to Democrats.  Personally, I would just assume that my Republican president hadn’t only been one for three years and had been a Democrat prior to that.

The man clearly is NO spokesman for the Republican Party or Republican Party values.  And as just one shining example of the hypocritical and opportunistic demagogue that Trump the Chump truly is, he actually attacked Mitt Romney’s very moderate position on illegal immigration as “mean-spirited” in 2012.  Which may mean that while he isn’t the racist he’s coming off as being, what he in fact is is a dishonest demagogue who will say whatever the hell will get him the attention that this arrogant blowhard narcissist clearly seems to need.

Donald Trump needs to be made to shut up and go away.  And yes, anybody who actually thinks that this fool ought to be president IS certainly a “crazy” from this point on, if he or she wasn’t one already.

What A Difference A Hypocrite – Actually Just The Whole Hypocrite Democrat Party – Can Make When It Comes To Shutting Down The Government

December 12, 2014

Last year, Obama and the entire Democrat Party came unglued over Republican obstructionism – and literally anarchy and even hostage-taking and terrorism – because the Republicans were prepared to vote against the Democrat Party agenda and risk a government shutdown.

I mean, do you remember this crap out of Obama’s White House a year ago?

White House compares GOP to terrorists as government shutdown nears
By Dave Boyer – The Washington Times – Thursday, September 26, 2013

Senior White House adviser Dan Pfeiffer on Thursday compared Republican lawmakers to suicide bombers as the showdown over a possible government shutdown intensified.

“We are for cutting spending, we are for reforming our tax code, we are for reforming entitlements,” Mr. Pfeiffer told CNN’s Jake Tapper. “But what we are not for is negotiating with people who have a bomb strapped to their chest.”

Here was Obama:

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Good morning, everybody.  At midnight last night, for the first time in 17 years, Republicans in Congress chose to shut down the federal government.  Let me be more specific:  One faction, of one party, in one house of Congress, in one branch of government, shut down major parts of the government — all because they didn’t like one law.

This Republican shutdown did not have to happen

Last night Democrats in the House did absolutely everything they coul to shut down the government.

But in a world and in a political party that despises truth, such facts are irrelevant.

And of course the mainstream media – being the NAZIS they are – duly drooled out the Democrat Party talking points in lieu of the actual news.

But what a difference a year makes.  And now where are all the cockroach “journalists” who had horrible labels for Republicans because they were acting like Democrats acted just last night???

They’re hiding under the refrigerator, of course.  BECAUSE LIBERALS ARE ROACHES.

Elizabeth Warren was against government shutdowns before she was for them
By Doug Powers  •  December 11, 2014 02:56 PM

Last year, Elizabeth Warren tomahawked those in the GOP “Anarchy Gang” for bringing the government to the point of a shutdown:

Warren telling GOPers last year that “this democracy has already rejected your views” is an overdose of retro-irony considering the results of last month’s election. But anyway, fast forward to this week:

Congressional Democrats objected on Wednesday to controversial financial and political campaign provisions tucked into a $1.1 trillion U.S. spending bill, keeping the risk of a government shutdown alive.

The complaints from House of Representatives Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and other top Democrats clouded the chances for passage of the funding bill as a midnight Thursday deadline drew near.
Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren, a staunch advocate for tougher regulation of Wall Street, called for Democrats to withhold support from the bill due to the derivatives provision, which would effectively strike down a portion of the Dodd-Frank financial reform law enacted in the wake of a financial crisis fueled partly by complex mortgage derivatives.

Shutdowns are now … whatever the socialist hypocrite opposite of “anarchy” is:

So now the Democrats are calling Republicans “blackmailers.”

Nancy Pelosi: This is ‘blackmail’
By Lauren French
| 12/11/14 2:31 PM EST
| Updated 12/11/14 9:13 PM EST

Nancy Pelosi is “disappointed” in Barack Obama for backing a bill she described as a form of “blackmail” on the part of Republicans.

Because to be a Democrat is to be a pathologically unhinged lying hypocrite.

So now voting to pass a damn budget is “blackmail” when a year ago it was the essence of patriotism and virtue.  And to vote to shut down the damn government is the essence of patriotism and virtue, when a year ago it was the essence of treason and the heart of right-wing racist darkness.

This abject, despicable display of rabid hypocrisy is nothing new.  It’s par for the course from the party that decreed “elections have consequences.”  Unless they lose said election.  This is par for the course from the party that supported the Iraq War and voted for it only to treasonously betray their very own votes the moment the political winds changed.  58% of Democratic senators (29 of 50) voted for the Iraq War Resolution, including Joe Biden (D-DE), Hillary Clinton (D-NY), John Kerry (D-MA) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA).  Only to turn on the American troops they themselves had voted to send to war.  This is par for the course for the party that was fully briefed on waterboarding with NO OBJECTIONSAND OH, YES THEY WERE BRIEFED – only to later lie about it and disown the truth the way the disowned the CIA officers whose “crime” was to follow the laws as the laws were at a very dark and frightening time when 3,000 innocent Americans had just been viciously murdered and no one knew whether another massive attack was imminent.  Now they put America at risk in a “report” that amounts to a giant whine in which the informed professional officials like Obama’s own handpicked CIA Directors Leon Panetta and John Brennan directly refute.  Just imagine what would have happened to their $40 million hit job if they’d actually bothered to interview the professionals who WEREN’T Obama political appointees, given what even the political appointees say.

This is par for the course from the party whose fascist president bitches at Bush for waterboarding three vicious terrorists when this aforementioned fascist bitchy president has murdered more American citizens without one scintilla of due process than Bush waterboarded terrorists.  Meanwhile, Obama’s drone strike victims number in the THOUSANDS with scores of innocent women and children numbered with the guilty.  And this Nazi dares to stand in judgment of a period of time when the New York Times was reporting that al-Qaeda had obtained a 10-kiloton nuclear weapon and smuggled it into New York City.  You sanctimonious tube of slime.

Democrats are officially outraged that the people tasked with protecting America would aggressively interrogate people who saw the heads off of children.  I can’t even begin to describe how much Democrats outrage me.

You want to talk about “betrayal of American values,” Democrat?  I’ve got an idea for you; bring to light what Obama is doing TODAY rather than what Bush did to keep the nation safe ten damn years ago.   Expose what Obama did when he covered-up his fiasco in Benghazi with lies that made a grotesque mockery of our national security; help us expose Obama’s criminal abuse of the IRS as a weapon to target his political opponents; help us expose the cynical lies that were behind the passage of ObamaCare.  Expose Obama’s violation of the separation of powers as Obama himself assured us he would be committing if he issued the executive order on amnesty for illegals that he treasonously went ahead and issued anyway.  Do that and then maybe you’d have a shred of credibility – because you sure don’t have any now.  You want to make America “transparent”???  Fine; just help us expose the wrongs of the LEAST TRANSPARENT PRESIDENT IN HISTORY even according to many doctrinaire liberals.

Democrats don’t want to talk about ANY of the MYRIAD disgraces of American values perpetuated by Obama.  And their rabid protection of the most criminally opaque administration in American history proves the don’t give a flaming damn about “transparency.”

Every day in every way, Democrats are liars and hypocrites.


Why Liberals Are Modern NAZIS: The Death Of Thought And The Demise Of America Through Mindless Emotional ‘Liberal’ Outrage

December 5, 2014

As we speak, I am watching riots.  I am watching burnings and lootings of businesses, I am watching public access points being seized and blockaded, I am watching rabid calls to violence.  All in the name of “demonstrations.”

I am watching what horrified sadly-too-few Germans in the 1930s is what I’m watching.

I ask myself, how many conservative riots have there been?  The answer, of course, is zero.

Is it just black people who riot?  I mean, aside from Ferguson, we can go back to lots of other black riots, such as Watts in ’68 and so on.

But I ask myself, how many conservative black people rioted?  And the answer, of course, is zero.

This behavior isn’t about race.  It’s about a culture that has been led astray by means of an utterly depraved worldview commonly known as “liberalism.”

Interestingly, “liberalism” is about as “liberal” as “ISIS” is “religious.”  Classical liberalism held to the following values:

Classical liberalism is a philosophy committed to the ideal of limited government and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets.

That’s from Princeton.  A strikingly similar definition pins it even better:

Classical liberalism is a political philosophy and ideology belonging to liberalism in which primary emphasis is placed on securing the freedom of the individual by limiting the power of the government.

… It drew on a psychological understanding of individual liberty, natural law, utilitarianism, and a belief in progress.

By the classical definition of liberalism, I am a liberal.  I want more freedom for individuals because individuals are held accountable for their actions and therefore I want a limited government that emphasizes that liberty and freedom and corresponding duty of the individual.  Barack Obama, Nazi Pelosi (couldn’t resist) and Harry Reid are fascists bent on expanding government until individuals are free to do what government wants to force them to do by a massive system of laws, policies, rules, regulations, bureaucracies, and of course out-of-control executive orders by a now self-professed king or emperor who has fundamentally abrogated the Constitution and tossed out the Separation of Powers.

True liberals want individual personal liberty and individual personal responsibility that must correspond with individual personal liberty.  Because rights without duties is moral chaos.  And therefore true want limited government, they want a laissez-faire free market economy,  they want the rule of law and they want private property rights.  The “liberals” of today are joyfully running roughshod over all of these values as they seek to impose bigger and bigger and more and more powerful – and more totalitarian and more fascist – government.

What’s the mechanism of the left?  We’re watching it all around us today as liberals riot and burn and loot over a police officer who shot a man who had just strongarm robbed a store and brutally shoved aside its owner ON VIDEO, walked down the middle of a large avenue as if he owned it, physically assaulted a police officer in his car, punched that officer in the face, tried to take the officer’s weapon from him, and then ultimately charged the officer with murderous rage as the officer fired repeatedly at him.  That’s what the witness testimony – of at least half a dozen black people, fwiw – says and that’s what the forensic evidence says.

That was, of course, irrelevant to the left, who raced off to burn and loot and riot the moment they heard there would be no indictment of the police officer without bothering to hear the massive evidence justifying that jury decision (which included three black people).  Some examples of the eyewitness testimony:

  • “Mike Brown continuously came forward in the charging motion and at some point, at one point he started to slow down and he came to a stop. And when he stopped, that’s when the officer ceased fire and when he ceased fired, Mike Brown started to charge once more at him. When he charged once more, the officer returned fire with, I would say, give an estimate of three to four shots. And that’s when Mike Brown finally collapsed right about even with this driveway.”  Read original – Grand Jury Volume 6 , page 167

  • “Then Michael turned around and started charging towards the officer and the officer still yelling stop. He did have his firearm drawn, but he was yelling stop, stop, stop. He didn’t so he started shooting him.”  Read original – Grand Jury Volume 18, page 27

  • I thought he was trying to charge him at first because the only thing I kept saying was is he crazy? Why don’t he just stop instead of running because if somebody is pulling a gun on you, first thing I would think is to drop down on the ground and not try to look like I’m going to attack ’em, but that was my opinion. ”  Read original – Grand Jury Volume 11, page 181

  • “Um, I guess it was like he stopped and he turned around like this, and then he started moving towards the officer and kind of looked like he picked up a little bit of speed, and then he started going down.” Read original – Grand Jury Volume 23, page 137

There were people who saw or claimed they saw something different.  But here was their problem according to the Washington Post:

And once an inaccuracy becomes part of a person’s recollection, it’s almost impossible to dislodge. Even when that person, Tversky wrote, is challenged with direct information that refutes his or her own memory. “Once witnesses state facts in a particular way or identify a particular person as the perpetrator, they are unwilling or even unable — due to the reconstruction of their memory — to reconsider their initial understanding.”

This appears to be what occurred in the Darren Wilson investigation. Even when authorities challenged witnesses with forensic evidence — which McCulloch said “does not change because of public pressure or personal agenda” — they didn’t back down. He gave as an example witnesses who said they saw Wilson pump bullets into Brown’s back, sticking with their story even after autopsies demonstrated that no bullets entered Brown’s back.

They “stood by original statements even through their statements were completely discredited by the physical evidence,”  McCulloch said.

The New York Times acknowledges:

Of the 20 or so eyewitnesses who appeared before the grand jury, most of those who spoke to the issue said they believed Mr. Brown had his hands up. But some accounts were clearly not credible and were recanted under interrogation. And of the credible witnesses whose stories were largely consistent, many were at odds with one another.

The people who claimed that Michael Brown surrendered and had his hands up and was saying “Don’t shoot” but that Officer Wilson shot him in the back, etc, were directly refuted by the physical evidence.  Many of them actually DID recant their previous inflammatory testimony when placed under oath.

There was NO WAY IN HELL A JURY WAS EVER GOING TO CONVICT OFFICER DARREN WILSON.  Just no freaking way.  Juries are loathe to convict or even indict police officers because they are loathe to second-guess men and women who they know have a difficult job which is to protect people and protect society from violent predators.

In short, most citizens agree with something Charles Barkley said:

“The notion that white cops are out there just killing black people is ridiculous. It’s flat-out ridiculous,” he said. “I challenge any black person to make that point. Cops are absolutely awesome. They’re the only thing in the ghetto (separating this place) from this place being the wild, wild west.”

This isn’t about race.  It is easy to document that there are cases of black officers who shot and killed white suspects who were not indicted for their actions, as well.

The worst thing on earth that could happen to black communities is if police officers – stung by leftist hate and violence – stopped patrolling black neighborhoods and allowed the people they are being hated for killing to run the streets.

Those are simply facts.

But the facts simply didn’t matter to the left.

The following – detailing the story of a “rape” and the brutally dismissive culture that refused to respond to the terrible and shocking crime – is manifestly descriptive of the mindset of the left today.

Rolling Stone set off a firestorm – which they breathlessly reported on after creating aforementioned firestorm – when it ran the following story.  I want you to note that the disclaimer was just added today as Rolling Stone all but refuted their own “reporting”:

A Rape on Campus: A Brutal Assault and Struggle for Justice at UVA
Jackie was just starting her freshman year at the University of Virginia when she was brutally assaulted by seven men at a frat party. When she tried to hold them accountable, a whole new kind of abuse began
By Sabrina Rubin Erdely | November 19, 2014


Last month, Rolling Stone published a story titled “A Rape on Campus” by Sabrina Rubin Erdely, which described a brutal gang rape of a woman named Jackie at a University of Virginia fraternity house; the university’s failure to respond to this alleged assault – and the school’s troubling history of indifference to many other instances of alleged sexual assaults. The story generated worldwide headlines and much soul-searching at UVA. University president Teresa Sullivan promised a full investigation and also to examine the way the school responds to sexual assault allegations.

Because of the sensitive nature of Jackie’s story, we decided to honor her request not to contact the man she claimed orchestrated the attack on her nor any of the men she claimed participated in the attack for fear of retaliation against her. In the months Erdely spent reporting the story, Jackie neither said nor did anything that made Erdely, or Rolling Stone’s editors and fact-checkers, question Jackie’s credibility. Her friends and rape activists on campus strongly supported Jackie’s account. She had spoken of the assault in campus forums. We reached out to both the local branch and the national leadership of the fraternity where Jackie said she was attacked. They responded that they couldn’t confirm or deny her story but had concerns about the evidence.

In the face of new information, there now appear to be discrepancies in Jackie’s account, and we have come to the conclusion that our trust in her was misplaced. We were trying to be sensitive to the unfair shame and humiliation many women feel after a sexual assault and now regret the decision to not contact the alleged assaulters to get their account. We are taking this seriously and apologize to anyone who was affected by the story.

Will Dana
Managing Editor

What we find when we begin to examine the “victim’s” story is that there WAS no frat party the night she claimed there was a party, that there is no staircase in the house in refutation of her account, and numerous other details prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that this story was a complete and utter lie perpetuated by truly vile, depraved, wicked “liberal” fascist Nazis.

What we find is that the Rolling Stone “reporter” actually went “rape-shopping” to find the perfect story to fit her pre-conceived narrative.  This wasn’t “journalism,” it was LIBERAL journalism, which is another term for “Nazi propaganda.”  Rolling Stone didn’t even bother to do interviews with anyone who could have told the truth or reported the actual facts because the last thing liberalism cares about is the truth or the facts.  Liberals who as postmodernists mock the reality of truth the exact same way that Pontius Pilate mocked the existence of truth as he was turning away from the very embodiment of it and sentencing Him to death somehow hypocritically and dishonestly believe that they are the sole arbiters of the very thing that they deny.  And so they alone are in sole possession of “the truth” and they act accordingly.

The fraternity that was dishonestly slandered by this story was vandalized, its members threatened and ostracized.  Mobs of liberals chanted outside, “Burn this place down” over and over while they huddled inside.  As the University of Virginia, reacting to the mobs and responding to the dictates of liberalism, issued a moratorium that has STILL not been lifted essentially shutting down the frat from the right to do business.

There was a “rape,” all right.  Those young men and that fraternity were raped by progressive liberalism, which is fascism.

This story will soon be purged from the Rolling Stone database, purged from all the leftist hate sites that used it as “evidence” of their viciousness, and it will be like it never happened.

But the fascist feminist PC policies that the fascist PC Nazi university administrators and faculty implemented as a direct result of this lie will go on  forever.

Liberalism is a lie made possible by lies.  Liberalism is pathologically dishonest policies that are implemented as a result of pathologically dishonest lies from leftist liars.  The issues that liberals gin up demonic hate in order to impose their fascist tyranny change as the same people employ the same tactic again and again and again.  But the dishonesty and hypocrisy are always there.

Let’s remember this, also.  Let’s remember how a liberal fellow traveler, Meghan Daum, described the leftist mindset:

Column The University of Virginia rape Rorschach test
▼Those looking closely at the UVA rape story represent a cross-section of the political spectrum
Questioning the UVA rape story will almost certainly get us dismissed as traitors to the sisterhood
December 3, 2014, 6:02 PM

Are you a “UVA truther”? In other words, are you an abhorrent, woman-hating, “pro-rape Republican”?.

Or are you a “feminazi” guided by “rape crisis fantasy” and driven by emotions over logic?

Those are among the epithets being hurled in the court of public opinion over the explosive allegations of a staggeringly awful rape at the University of Virginia published by Rolling Stone. In the story, a woman identified as Jackie tells of being led into a dark bedroom at a fraternity party, where seven men, with assistance from two others, raped her over a three-hour period.

The 9,000-word article by Sabrina Rubin Erdely set off a tidal wave of horror and outrage. Soon enough, though, came a trickle of inquiries into Erdely’s reporting methods, chiefly the question of why she hadn’t talked to the alleged perpetrators.

And since many of the first askers of that question had conservative or libertarian leanings, the feminist backlash was almost immediate. When The Times’ resident conservative columnist, Jonah Goldberg, examined holes in the story, his usual critics dismissed his conjectures as mere right-wing pushback against political correctness.

When a Reason magazine writer penned an evenhanded article on the case, indicating that he initially believed Jackie’s story, the liberal site Talking Points Memo nonetheless reacted with the headline “Libertarian Magazine Wonders if UVA Rolling Stone Rape Was a ‘Hoax.’” The lively feminist blog Jezebel did TPM one better: “‘Is the UVA Rape Story a Giant Hoax?’ Asks Idiot.”

Such snark is eye-catching and click-generating, but in this case, it’s not just conservatives and purported anti-feminists who are asking questions. In the New Republic, Judith Shulevitz eventually landed on an insight from lawyer and feminist social critic Wendy Kaminer, who told her, “I’d guess that the story is neither entirely fabricated nor entirely true and, in any case, compels a real investigation by investigators with no stake in their findings.”

In an interview on Slate’s feminist-leaning Double X podcast, writer Hanna Rosin confronted Erdely with questions similar to the ones her more libertarian counterparts had raised, with ambiguous results. On Wednesday, after further reporting including talking to several of Jackie’s friends, Rosin and Slate senior editor Allison Benedikt posted an article critical of both Erdely and Rolling Stone.

In the “us versus them” paradigm that so often colors discussions around gender and sexual assault , such a response might be surprising coming from a feminist. After all, it’s supposed to be the Jonah Goldbergs of the world (“idiots,” according to Jezebel) who would dare to question a woman’s account of a rape, or another woman’s account of her account. But the journalists and others who are now looking closely at this story represent a cross-section of the political spectrum.

Rosin and Shulevitz are hardly conservatives. Neither am I. Yet questioning the story will almost certainly get us dismissed as traitors to the sisterhood. If you don’t believe me, wait a few seconds for the rants from “activists” who will insist that asking rational, even obvious questions makes you a rape apologist, someone who dismisses all women’s stories or won’t admit that campus sexual assault is a problem.

Such attacks are not only absurd, they’re also insulting. They’re insulting to journalists, who know the importance of holding themselves and their sources accountable to the truth. Worse, they’re insulting to survivors of sexual assault whose stories should be told without obfuscation and equivocation. It’s that kind of murkiness, after all, that contributes to an undercurrent of suspicion of victims — an undercurrent that, unfortunately, continues to dominate many conversations about rape.

Inquiries into this story should not devolve into battles between truthers and believers, the “idiots” and the “real feminists.” Believe it or not, conservatives don’t have a monopoly on skepticism, just as liberals and feminists aren’t the only ones inclined to believe a story like Jackie’s. If those of us asking questions turn out to be idiots for not believing the story on its face, fair enough.

But last I checked, nothing cures idiocy like asking questions.

Which, ultimately, is another way of saying there’s no cure for modern so-called “liberalism.”  Because to be a “liberal” today is to be a rabid fool who spits out hate and riots over any suggestion of a question.

They are modern Nazis by a euphemistic new name.  But don’t think the tactics of Hitler and Goebbels aren’t alive and well in their demon-possessed souls.

You can’t reason with liberals because their knee-jerk reaction is invariably to demonize your motives – which are beyond anyone’s ability to prove or disprove – and thus demonize everything you think, say or do because you are a “racist” or a “homophobe” or a “misogynist” or a “misanthropist” or whatever label they want to hate you with.  It’s an element of their theology that you are evil and therefore you must obviously be evil.  And good luck talking to the rabid left.

I think of Ferguson.  I remember the left decrying the Gestapo tactics of the police as they showed up in force to prevent rioting.  All the subsequent rioting, of course, was clearly the result of the police for showing up with armored cars to prevent rioting.  So of course after the grand jury verdict was read, the police weren’t out in force.  And of course there was rioting.  And the same cockroach leftists who had decried the police presence now proceeded to blame the lack of police presence for the next wave of rioting and burning and looting.

If the grand jury had decided to indict Officer Darren Wilson, do you know how many conservatives would have rioted?  ZERO.  And that’s because conservatives are decent and liberals are NAZIS and the worst kind of ugliness is always in their hearts 24/7, just waiting to erupt in another riot like all the other riots they’ve called “demonstrations.”

Because to be a liberal is to be morally insane and therefore to be insane in every other way, as well.

Meghan Daum is pointing out that a few liberals like herself were opposed to this fascist liberal mindset.  And I actually take my hat off to Meghan Daum for her courage.  But the fact of the matter is that there are VERY few like her in the worldview of liberalism.  And she herself described the avalanche-of-hate fascist mindset that confronted anyone who tried in any way, shape or form to question this now-openly-revealed lie.

I don’t care what the subject is: ObamaCare?  Yeah, everything that Obama and his rabid supporters said turned out not only to be untrue, but outright lies advanced to deceive the American people who were deemed “stupid.”

Two minutes is all you need to utterly destroy ObamaCare:

You can read transcripts of some of what ObamaCare architect – BECAUSE YES, HE WAS – here.

But you go back and see the hateful charges from Nazis – I mean “liberals” – who accused us of everything from racism (because to not adore absolutely everything about Barack Obama and his entire worldview meant you clearly had to be a racist) to hatred of the poor and literally a desire to kill them.

That “law” was passed by fascists using fascist methodology, pure and simple.  It was passed by those who believe that the American people are stupid – and not deserving of individual liberty and not capable of individual personal responsibility – and therefore these sheep must be steered and guided if not herded by their Utopian masters.

We can talk about Obama’s fascist and tyrannous executive power grab over illegal immigration the same way.

It doesn’t matter that Obama himself personally refuted his own actions on at least 22 separate occasions.

That’s nothing more than a fact.  It’s nothing more than the truth.  And both are totally irrelevant to “liberals” today.

I’m watching another liberal protest going on now as leftist mindlessly chant, “We can’t breathe!” over and over and over and over again.

What they ought to be chanting is “We can’t think.”

They WON’T think.

Obama Willing To Negotiate With Terrorist Nuke Wannabe Iran Forever But No Such Deal For GOP Who Just Massively Won Elections

November 24, 2014

Consider what I’m saying here in light of the fact that a primary ObamaCare architect has now been caught repeatedly – and I mean over and over and over again – pointing out that the operating thesis of the Obama administration is that the American people are stupid and that Obama’s fascist thugs had to lie to them and manipulate them with lies in order to pass ObamaCare.  Consider what I’m saying in light of the fact that we now have the smoking gun backing up everything that reporter Sharyl Atkisson claimed when she said the Obama thug White House was out to suppress her and target her and intimidate her in a manner that comes right out of fascism rather than a free society.  We now know that a senior Eric Holder aid contacted CBS to suppress Sharyl Atkisson.  Consider what I’m saying in light of the FACT that the Obama administration is THE most fascist and THE most dangerous rogue regime in American history, bar none.

It’s really an amazing thing, to watch the way the media covers the news.

As for the Jonathan Gruber revelations, do you know what the press is doing in “covering” it?  They’re saying, “Don’t consider what Gruber actually said about the fascist dishonesty behind the passage of ObamaCare that ought to get it thrown out by any legitimate Supreme Court; fixate on the bright shiny object about Gruber pointing out that the American people are stupid instead.

As for the man who revealed all the Gruber remarks?  He tried to give the story to the media, but strange thing, nobody in the press bothered to call him back.

And the crickets are still a’ chirping as the media basically continues to ignore the story that reveals that ObamaCare was in FACT the heart of darkness.

If you believe for half a second that a story about a senior Bush Iraq war architect called the American people stupid and claimed that the Bush administration had deliberately lied to garner support for their war would have been ignored, you are an even bigger fool than I think you are.

That’s exactly what happened in this case.  And to the extent that the media has bothered to cover it at all, they have played a bait-and-switch game by hyping the “stupid” remark rather than the “we lied to get this turd that no one would have supported if they’d known what it was” remark.

But how the media covers the news is as pervasive as it is fascist.  They keep playing the same dishonest tricks over and over and over again, either not bothering to cover Obama scandals AT ALL or only covering a trivial aspect of it and then dropping it.  And meanwhile the wheels of America’s destruction under Obama’s “fundamental transformation of America” grinds on and on.

Back in September of 2013, Obama entered into negotiations with Iran over something that no president – including Obama himself, according to the fool’s own deceitful rhetoric – had ever been willing to negotiate: Iran becoming a full-fledged nuclear power.

Conservatives like John Bolton immediately predicted what would happen: Iran would take advantage of the “negotiations” to buy time, endlessly extending deadlines.  For instance, on October 1, 2013, Bolton anticipated precisely what is now taking place as a deal-desperate Obama AGAIN extends yet ANOTHER deadline:

Mr. Obama is inverting Dean Acheson’s maxim that Washington should only negotiate from strength. Even if there were some prospect that Iran could be talked out of its nuclear-weapons program, which there is not, the White House approach is the wrong way to start discussions. Given the president’s palpable unwillingness to use the military to enforce his Syria red line—let alone to answer the Sept. 11, 2012, Benghazi terrorist attack—and his paucity of domestic political support, Iran’s ayatollahs know that the president’s “all options on the table” incantation regarding their nuclear program carries no weight.

Iran undoubtedly wants relief from international sanctions, which have exacerbated decades of incompetent economic policy. But there is no evidence that the sanctions have impaired Iran’s nuclear or ballistic-missile programs. Instead, Tehran has increased its financial and military assistance to Assad and Hezbollah in Syria.

Mr. Rouhani’s strategy is clear: Lower the rhetorical temperature about the nuclear issue; make temporary, cosmetic concessions, such as allowing inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency at already-declared nuclear sites; and gain Western acceptance of its “reactor-grade” uranium enrichment. Once that goal is attained, Iran’s path to nuclear weapons will be unobstructed and within Tehran’s discretion.

Iran will demand in return that international sanctions be eased, focusing first on obtaining small reductions to signal Western “good faith.” Mr. Obama and Europe already seem eager to comply. Western diplomats will assert defensively that these concessions are merely a matter of “sequencing,” and that they expect substantive Iranian concessions. They will wait a long time. Mr. Rouhani fully understands that once sanctions start rolling back, restoring them will be hard, perhaps impossible, absent a major provocation.

Mr. Rouhani will not supply one. Instead, he will continue making on-again, off-again gestures seducing the West into protracted negotiations. Meanwhile, Iran’s nuclear-weapons and ballistic-missile programs will proceed unimpeded in unknown, undisclosed locations. This was his 2003-05 playbook.

Extended negotiations will enable Mr. Obama to argue that a “diplomatic process” is under way to resolve the Iranian nuclear threat. No phrase is more beloved at the State Department. Mr. Obama will then use this process on Israel to prevent pre-emptive military action against Iran’s nuclear program.

In time, even Hamlet came to understand that “one may smile, and smile, and be a villain.” Maybe one day President Obama will figure it out.

You read that entire article from more than a year ago and John Bolton predicted that Iran would paly Obama for the moral idiot fool that he is.

Everything Bolton said was right and continues to be even MORE right today.

In July 2014, you had this article title to say everything: “Iran Nuclear Talks Deadline Looms With Little Angst About Extension.”

Do you know WHY there has been such little angst?  Because the jackass propagandists in the mainstream media haven’t EVER examined the predictions and the results of those predictions from conservative experts like John Bolton seriously.  They have all along simply “reported” what the Obama administration said, then “reported” what the Obama administration said after the first time what the Obama administration said would happen didn’t happen, and on and on ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

Meanwhile, Iran keeps working on their nuclear bomb and they keep working on their ballistic missile technology without which a nuclear bomb is nearly useless.  And the day that Iran is capable of delivering a nuclear missile to Israel or worse yet, the United States, the world will inexorably move toward what the Bible calls “Armageddon.”

You might want to read my previous article, which interacts with a surprising admission of the fiasco of Obama’s negotiation strategy, titled, “Thanks For Armageddon: Liberals Implicitly Acknowledge Obama Completely Wrong On Iran And Conservatives Completely Right.”  In that article I stated:

So what happens when the talks with Iran that were idiotic to begin with went nowhere as anybody with any wisdom whatsoever knew would happen?  Obama did the bidding of his masters in Tehran and extended the talks so that Iran could once again draw out negotiations without any agreement.  So that Iran could keep working toward their goal of Armageddon while Obama rewarded them.

But here we are, extending the “negotiations” with Iran so they can keep working on their nuclear bomb and ballistic missile ambitions in peace and safety YET AGAIN.

Now, as morally insane as that “negotiation” with RABID EVIL is, understand that there is a group of people with whom Obama would burn down the world rather than negotiate: the majority of the American people whom he utterly despises.

The Republican Party seized control of the Senate, won more House Seats than they have held since FDR was poisoning America during World War II, taken such an overwhelming majority of governorships its beyond a joke and dominated state houses (see also here) after Obama said “make no mistake, my policies are on the ballot.”

After that election, Barack Obama acted exactly like Adolf Hitler would have acted after losing an election, after Joseph Stalin would have acted after losing an election, after Chairman Mao would have acted after losing an election.  In short, he acted just like the socialist “Government is God” monster that he is.

And so the Republicans who just won shocking majorities and can finally escape the tyrannous, fascist hell of Harry Reid

In reality, Harry Reid has now blocked more US Senators from offering any amendments to legislation more often than EVERY OTHER SENATE MAJORITY LEADER IN THE UNITED STATES COMBINED.  TIMES TWO.

– will get exactly ZERO-POINT-ZERO SECONDS to formulate an immigration policy with their new control that the American people gave them.

Even the New York Times has reported on Harry Reid’s “brutish style” and “uncompromising control.”

There are at least 352 Republican House-passed bills that are sitting on Harry Reid’s desk because Democrats are the REAL obstructionists as they played naked cynical politics in vain effort to protect their weaker members from taking votes that would have exposed them to the American people.

What does the fascist propaganda press do?  Ignore the 352 bills Democrats ignored, ignore the naked fascism of Harry Reid’s thug-style, and fixate on that ONE bill that Republicans didn’t move on in the House.  Because in the most wicked and dishonest media since Goebbels, Democrats’ sins can be myriad

But the same fascist moral monster who won’t give the GOP one freaking nanosecond to formulate an immigration policy and pass a bill has now proven he will give rabid terrorist rogue regime Iran eternal extensions until they have successfully developed their nukes and their ballistic missiles to carry their nukes on.

“I can’t wait forever,” Obama says of illegally imposing his fascism on the backs of an American people who just overwhelmingly rejected him by issuing de facto amnesty for at least five million illegal immigrants.  But of course he CAN wait forever for Iran to develop Armageddon for America and for Israel.

“I can’t wait forever.”  So therefore I won’t wait AT ALL.

Barack Obama had TWO FULL YEARS of absolute control over all three branches of elected government and didn’t give a rat’s hairy rabies-filled ASS about immigration or immigrants.  He could certainly wait THEN the same way he is now proving he can wait forever if need-be with nuclear-bomb-wanting Iran.  But he can’t wait AT ALL for a Republican majority who would do the thing Obama is most terrified of: pass a law with the full support of the American people.  So he sabotaged it in advance.

What Obama just did with immigration is like me negotiating over a sandwich with you – you know, after I’ve taken three giant bites out of the middle.  When two parties negotiate, one side gives up something to get something else and the other side gives up something to get something else: Obama just obliterated that by taking what he wanted and telling the Republicans who now control two-thirds of elected government, “If you give up everything I’ll give you a meaningless promise to do part of what you want but then I’ll lie and ignore the law like I have always done before.”

If you’ve got an alternative theory, liberal Nazi, then just explain why Obama waited until AFTER an election (given the fact that he knew if he’d done this before the election the landslide against him would have even been MORE disastrous for his party) but refused to wait until after the new Congress that was just affirmed by the American people in a process called “democracy” was allowed to be seated.  Explain why Obama did this after saying at least 22 times that doing what he did would be illegal, unconstitutional, anti-democratic, unfair to all the people who waited in line to legally immigrate and harmful to the American people as a flood of illegal immigration would occur as a result of the fascist act he took anyway.

There are now five million new “Americans” as millions more illegal immigrants on top of that number try to race in to our borders to exploit Obama’s lawless “law.”  Which means there will be millions more in the USA to experience the hell of the Iranian nuke that Obama is also letting in detonate over our atmosphere.

It’s really quite staggering: the same Barack Obama is almost simultaneously Hitler on one issue with his fascist edict and Neville Chamberlain on another with his “peace in our time” extensions with soon-to-be nuclear Iran.


Liberals ‘Religion’ Is The ‘Religion’ Of Abject Hypocrisy, Cynicism And Fascism

July 30, 2014

It’s a funny thing, liberals and Jesus.

On the one hand, they loudly and shrilly denounce conservatives from talking about religion and most certainly for actually trying to make their religion part of public policy in any way, shape or form.

“How DARE you?!?!” they declare with über self-righteous indignation and moral outrage.  “The separation of church and state is the foundation of our democracy!!!”

Only that’s an outright lie, or course, as is easily proven by reading the words of our founding fathers – including our very greatest founding father who was the father of our country:

What are the foundations of America? After 45 years of public service, George Washington, our greatest patriot and the father of our country, gives his farewell address. He says, ‘We need to remember what brought us here. We need to remember what made us different from all the other nations across Europe and the rest of the world. We have to remember what our foundations are.’ It was the road map, showing us how we’d become what we were, and how to preserve it. It has long been considered the most important address ever given by any US president. President Lincoln set aside an entire day for the entire Union Army and had them read and understand it. Woodrow Wilson did the same during WWI. But we haven’t studied it in schools for over 45 years, so your lack of understanding is understandable. Washington said:

“Of all the habits and dispositions which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.” — George Washington, Farewell Address

If you want your politics to prosper, the two things you will not separate will be religion and morality. If you want your government to work well, if you want American exceptionalism, if you want the government to do right, if you want all this, then you won’t separate religion and morality from political life. And America’s greatest patriot gave a litmus test for patriotism. He says in the very next sentence (immediately continuing from the quote above):

“In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars.” — George Washington

Washington says, Anyone who would try to remove religion and morality from public life, I won’t allow them to call themselves a patriot. Because they are trying to destroy the country.

I have a lengthy volume of quotes in the article I link to above proving that “separation of church and state” was not a value our founding fathers cherished.  What modern progressive liberals wanted is most clearly seen in the near-contemporaneous events of a very different worldview that emerged in the French Revolution and ended in “the Reign of Terror” as a truly ugly and tragic spirit of atheism became a toxic, murderous cancer across France.

But what is most interesting about liberals isn’t merely their hatred of the morality of religion and their determination to suppress and exterminate religion by essentially banning it from government and from culture.

It is the amazing hypocrisy that they immediately show when they believe they can twist, pervert, distort religion to their side.

As an example, let’s consider what liberals – and I mean the liberals who are most toxic in their rants against the “Christian right” – are doing to subvert Jesus into their political ideology.

I came across on the editorial page of the überleftist Los Angeles Times a cartoon by the liberal cartoonist Jimmy Margurilis one such example:

Who Would Jesus Deport

Well, I suppose I’d like to ask Jimmy Margulies – since the opinion of Jesus is clearly so important to him – who Jesus would TAX?  Who would Jesus regulate?  Who would Jesus oppress with government bureaucracy?  Who would Jesus, for that matter, sentence to prison on Margulies’ deeply flawed understanding?  If Jesus wouldn’t deport anyone, He wouldn’t imprison anyone either, would He?  He’d just forgive them and let them go scott free to torture and rape and murder and oppress the rest of us.   That’s the Jesus the left loves: the benign Jesus who morally stood for NOTHING but “tolerance.”

Here’s another liberal telling us we should be a theocracy:

“Revised Tea Party Gospel: ‘Suffer the little children come unto me. Unless they’re undocumented kids from Central America,'” tweeted King Tuesday before adding: “Much easier to be a Christian when the little children aren’t in your back yard, isn’t it?” — Stephen King

It turns out that Christian groups – the very people Stephen King is most demonizing – are doing by far and away the MOST work to help these people who are flooding across the border.  And they rightly asked the secular humanist progressive liberal turd, “What are YOU doing to help these people???”

But here Stephen King is quoting the Bible for us, quoting the Jesus who said, “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life.  NO MAN comes to the Father except through ME.”  The same Jesus also said, “I did not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it.”  In fact, Jesus said, “not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.”  And oops, Stephen, that includes the parts about homosexuality being an abomination and a detestable act and the like.  And oops, that includes abortion and the systematic murder of more babies than the total number of dead – civilian and military alike on both sides alike – of the bloodiest and most murderous war in the history of the human race.

Liberals believe in the separation of church and state.  Oh, until it suits their purpose NOT to believe in the separation of church and state.  To put it more accurately, liberals believe in the separation of church and state for Republicans and conservatives.

Which is why it is always amazing to hear a liberal try to tell you that we should open our arms, surrender our borders, and allow every single “refugee” to come flooding into our country because it’s in the Bible.  Where, number one, it is NOT in the Bible, and number two, even if it WERE, it would fundamentally and profoundly contradict your precious “separation of church and state” to do it anyway.

If Stephen King and Jimmy Margulies and Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid want a Judeo-Christian theocracy, fine.  Let them say so.  Let them stand for the stoning of homosexuals and adulterers and forced worship of Christ.  But that’s not what they want, is it?  No.  They want a liberal progressive, secular humanist salad bar where THEY and ONLY THEY get to cherry pick the highly selective parts of the Bible they want to follow after splitting those parts out of their context and warping them.

See, I could actually LIVE in a world where Jesus was taken seriously and obeyed.  It’s LIBERALS who would be violently revolting.  Because liberals are people who are so toxic to Jesus that they literally put Him in a jar of urine and funded it as “art.”

I ask you, liberal, to produce for me ONE Bible verse that says it is secular government – and not the church’s and not God’s people’s – role to provide welfare.  I’m just going to state it categorically until you do, that your worldview is found NOWHERE in the Bible.

When the disciples came to Jesus because there was a crowd of 5,000 men (probably a good 15,000 people) who had nothing to eat, do you know what Jesus did NOT tell them to do?  He didn’t tell them to go to King Herod or to Governor Pilate for a government welfare program to feed the poor.  He said YOU feed them.  And after a little humming and hawing the disciples finally did the right thing: they did their best to put some food together and came to Jesus and asked HIM to bless it.

In 1 Samuel chapter 8, we find that the people, in wanting to be like all the other nations with a human king and a human big government, were rejecting GOD.  If you don’t believe me, why don’t you read 1 Samuel 8:7 for yourself?  And God warns the people, saying over and over again, when you have your big government king, HE WILL TAKE… HE WILL APPOINT FOR HIMSELF… HE WILL TAKE… HE WILL TAKE… (and redistribute them to his cronies according to 1 Samuel 8:14).   HE WILL TAKE (and redistribute them to his cronies according to 1 Samuel 8:15).  HE WILL TAKE (and exploit what he takes for his political and ideological projects according to 1 Samuel 8:16).  HE WILL TAKE … and you will become HIS servants.

And God will not answer you because you made GOVERNMENT your God and your master.

And that is exactly what liberals have done and exactly what liberals want.

Unless, that is, in their twisted and perverted way, they think they can twist and pervert Jesus into their socialist elf.

It’s actually true that the Bible tells us not to harm the sojourner in your land.

But let’s see if that’s an all-encompassing and all-inclusive edict that should apply to illegal immigrants who break our laws to enter our country and consume our resources like locusts when they arrive.  Let’s see what God had to say to Israel about how to treat the Jebusite, the Hittite, the Canaanite, the Philistine, etc:

“Only in the cities of these peoples that the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, you shall not leave alive anything that breathes.  But you shall utterly destroy them, the Hittite and the Amorite, the Canaanite and the Perizzite, the Hivite and the Jebusite, as the LORD your God has commanded you, so that they may not teach you to do according to all their detestable things which they have done for their gods, so that you would sin against the LORD your God. — Deuteronomy 20:16-18

I wonder if liberals are going to quote that passage to me when it comes with how to deal with illegal immigrants???

Oh, wait, I DON’T wonder.  Because liberals are the worst kind of self-serving, dishonest HYPOCRITES who despise the Bible in any kind of actual, legitimate CONTEXT.

God commanded Israel to drive out or destroy these peoples because they were absolutely wicked and depraved.  God knew they would corrupt His people with their vile ways.  A little leaven leavens the whole loaf.  And history proves that Israel collapsed spiritually and morally before they collapsed politically because they failed to carry out God’s command.

God was incredibly patient with these people in their wickedness.  In Genesis 15:6, God gave Abraham the land these wicked peoples inhabited.  But first Israel would remain in Egypt for four hundred years.  Why?  God explained, ” In the fourth generation your descendants will come back here, for the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure.”  When these peoples reached their “full measure” of wickedness, it was time for Israel to come in and take what God had given them.

And America is in a very similar situation as millions of illegal immigrants pour in who do NOT love America, who do NOT want to assimilate, who have NO love for our Constitution, our founding fathers or our ways.  And they are subverting everything this nation used to stand for just as the above “immigrants” subverted everything that God intended for Old Testament Israel to stand for.

I state for the factual record that there are a lot more verses like that one regarding “immigrants” in the Bible than there are the kind the liberals cite as categorical commands to allow illegal immigrants to come in and take over our country as Democrats exploit them to “fundamentally transform” America.

And how did Obama instruct the people the liberals demand we let in?

“If Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, ‘We’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us,’ if they don’t see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election, then I think it’s gonna be harder and that’s why I think it’s so important that people focus on voting on November 2.”

But I’m sure that leftist propagandist Jimmy Margulies would fully agree that Jesus would instruct His followers to “punish your enemies.”  And of course Jesus would use the IRS as a political weapon to harass, intimidate, dismantle and persecute – and yes, “punish” – His political opponents, wouldn’t He???

Let me assure you of something: if Hispanic illegal immigrants voted Republican, you would see the rabid, poison-dripping FANGS of Democrats come out in a spirit of rage and hate unlike nothing you’ve ever seen on the faces of Republicans as they went completely poop-flinging nuts over the invasion of our border.

I attend a church that has an English and Hispanic congregation.  And I regularly take part in ministry to Hispanics, quite a few of which are here illegally.  As a true Christian, I DON’T hate illegal immigrants.  I realize as a moral human being that if I were a poor Mexican or Central American living in a completely failed state the way these people are, I would come to America too – either legally or illegally.  I recognize that for many illegal immigrants, work is a good thing that they are grateful for.  And that they send a lot of the money they earn home to their families.  These are virtuous things.  What I rabidly despise is a cynical and dishonest liberal ideology that wants to politically benefit from these poor people’s misery and ignorance.  I blame the left for its hostility to America as they seek to cynically grab further political advantages by exploiting these people.  Liberals are like drunken braggarts in a bar, buying drinks for everyone in order to be popular and then refusing to pay the tab when the bill comes.  America cannot afford to continue living so wildly and wickedly beyond our means.  We are going to completely economically and socially collapse because of the vile wickedness of Democrats.  And then you will see suffering as you have never seen before – suffering that Democrats forced upon the America that they destroyed.

I believe, therefore, that we ought to treat the illegal immigrants who are coming here as human beings.  And that we should protect our nation, protect our borders, protect our culture, protect our way of life by controlling our borders and enforcing our laws.

And, like the Christians that Stephen King demonizes, I’ve actually put both my time and my money where my mouth is.

Liberals don’t want to follow God or His ways.  They HATE and DESPISE God and His ways.  Instead, they want to REPLACE God with their human government and they want to replace God’s ways with the ways of “political correctness” that they can shape and distort and control by first banning God from our discourse and then replacing God’s ways with their ways in the vacuum that they created with their “separation of church and state.”

If you actually follow Jesus and His Word and regard both as your moral authority, fine, you go ahead and quote Jesus and quote the Bible.  But when I know and YOU know that you really despise both Jesus and the Word of God, THEN DON’T YOU DARE DISHONOR CHRIST BY SUBVERTING HIS TEACHING WITH YOUR WICKED IDEOLOGY THAT IN EVERY WAY, SHAPE AND FORM ABANDONS HIM.

I tell you what, liberal.  Since what you really want is more big government, instead of quoting the Jesus whom you clearly don’t follow, why don’t you quote the sources that actually represent your real belief system?  Quote me fellow adherents and proponents of your monster-sized (and frankly monstrous) government system.  Quote me Chairman Mao, quote me Joseph Stalin, quote me Adolf Hitler, quote me Kim Jong-Il on illegal immigration.  But, oh, that’s right: these people EXTERMINATED immigrants they didn’t like.  You’d be completely and utterly long, but at least you’d have the virtue of integrity.

But instead what you do is falsely masquerade behind an artificial Jesus when we both damn well know you don’t follow Jesus and never will.  There’d be nearly 57 million more babies born to grow up and come to the feet of Jesus if you believed Him, just for starters.

What liberals really want isn’t Christ, but the Antichrist.  They want the ultimate big government tyrant who will viciously persecute the people of God and impose the complete socialist takeover of the world in the economic system known as the “mark of the beast” such that no one can buy or sell ANYTHING without government approval.  THAT’S the “Christ” liberals want.

Jesus told us in the last days prior to “the Democrat Jesus” – the Antichrist – coming, people would come in His name claiming to represent Him.

And in the warped, dishonest left, that’s what we’re seeing.

Which is how we can know the beast is coming.



Obama: Adding 11 Million Low-Skilled Illegal Immigants To America’s Dependency Roles Will Strengthen Middle Class Rather Than Depressing Wages

January 31, 2013

There aren’t a lot of laws in economic theory.  But one of them is called “the law of supply and demand.”  Basically, the more abundant something is, the less valuable it becomes.  If you increase the supply of something, you reduce the demand for that something accordingly.

So somebody’s got a brilliant idea: let’s glut our economy with low-skilled immigrants who will be competing with low-skilled Americans for increasingly scarce low-skilled jobs.  It will be great.  Trust your messiah.

Fools believe this, just as fools believed that Bush was inciting the Middle East and an Obama presidency would usher in a reign of peace (actual history alert: the Middle East is in greater turmoil and greater risk of complete meltdown than it has EVER been under ANYBODY).  Fools believe this, just as they believed that under Obama, average Americans would never have to pay more taxes:

Obama Claims Adding 11 Million Low-Skilled Workers Will Strengthen the Middle Class
January 29, 2013 By Daniel Greenfield

Could it be that when Obama was leafing through the thesaurus looking for synonyms for “Destroy”, “Smash”, “Utterly Eradicate” and “Eliminate Beyond Any Trace of Recognition”, he found himself with the antonyms rather than the synonyms?

Right now, we have 11 million undocumented immigrants in America; 11 million men and women from all over the world who live their lives in the shadows.  Yes, they broke the rules.  They crossed the border illegally.  Maybe they overstayed their visas.  Those are facts.  Nobody disputes them.  But these 11 million men and women are now here.  Many of them have been here for years.  And the overwhelming majority of these individuals aren’t looking for any trouble.  They’re contributing members of the community.  They’re looking out for their families.  They’re looking out for their neighbors.  They’re woven into the fabric of our lives.

Obama is confusing Mexican illegal aliens with Cotton Incorporated. They didn’t just break the rules. They broke the law.

They’re not contributing members. They take away jobs from Americans, leech off the social benefits system and commit a number of crimes besides the whole “illegal entry” deal. Jails tend to be full of illegal aliens for a reason.

Every day, like the rest of us, they go out and try to earn a living.  Often they do that in a shadow economy — a place where employers may offer them less than the minimum wage or make them work overtime without extra pay.  And when that happens, it’s not just bad for them, it’s bad for the entire economy.  Because all the businesses that are trying to do the right thing — that are hiring people legally, paying a decent wage, following the rules — they’re the ones who suffer.   They’ve got to compete against companies that are breaking the rules.  And the wages and working conditions of American workers are threatened, too.

So if we’re truly committed to strengthening our middle class and providing more ladders of opportunity to those who are willing to work hard to make it into the middle class, we’ve got to fix the system.

Obama’s solution to employers hiring people under the table for low wages is to legalize 11 million illegal aliens. Which will open up positions for more illegals to come and work under the table, while the newly legal illegal aliens end up eventually going on unemployment once they get their green cards because there’s no work for them. And then we’ll legalize the new illegal aliens because etc…

How does dumping 11 million aliens into the economy, on the social system and into the job markets strengthen the middle class?

It doesn’t. It destroys it.

There’s a lot of talk about a system that will prevent employers from hiring illegal aliens. Obama has been in office for four years, if he genuinely supported such a system, there was plenty of time for it. Ditto for the Republicans. These proposals have been made and sabotaged and then linked to amnesty as a “comprehensive” package.

That’s a scam. There will be amnesty and no enforcement. And Obama is refusing to even tie amnesty to enforcement as a prerequisite. Not that such an agreement would change anything.

The shadow economy is never going to come into the light, because businesses on both sides of the aisle benefit from it. So do politicians on the left side of the aisle.

But because this change isn’t permanent, we need Congress to act — and not just on the DREAM Act.  We need Congress to act on a comprehensive approach that finally deals with the 11 million undocumented immigrants who are in the country right now.  That’s what we need.

That is what Obama needs. It’s what his political allies want. It’s what the left wants. It’s what some billionaires want. The middle class needs this like it needs more tax hikes and more unemployment.

But this time, action must follow.  (Applause.)  We can’t allow immigration reform to get bogged down in an endless debate.  We’ve been debating this a very long time.  So it’s not as if we don’t know technically what needs to get done.  As a consequence, to help move this process along, today I’m laying out my ideas for immigration reform.

Because the problem with our country is that we “debate” too many things instead of just passing bills to find out what’s in them.

It’s funny though that Obama’s ideas appear to be the same Gang of 8 ideas, aside from the trigger. Even the rhetoric is a carbon copy of what we’ve been hearing from the pitchmen selling this on the conservative side.

But it wouldn’t be an Obama speech without some whacks at America as an illegitimate colonial state.

It’s really important for us to remember our history.  Unless you’re one of the first Americans, a Native American, you came from someplace else.  Somebody brought you.

You didn’t build that. You settled it. Now step aside and let the indigenous people of Mexico settle it.

Realize that China is a beautiful model for Democrats.  They get to have their communist cake and eat it, too.  They get to create a world in which the elite liberal “haves” get to prosper from their dictatorial regime and the “have nots” get to suck on the tit of welfare until the complete economic collapse comes.  Theres something in the modern Democrat Party for everybody – except people who want the chance to experience freedom and prosperity by the sweat of their own brow.

If Obama gets these people legalized, they will vote for him.  And they will vote to fund their stays by redistributing the wealth of more and more Americans.  Because if they’re entitled to break the law and live here, they’re every bit as entitled to enjoy the same slavish welfare state that other Obama voters enjoy at the expense of Someone Else’s Money.

Get ready for the Upside-Down-U-Shaped economy as we burn in the hell we voted for.  Because Obama also promised us that he would lead America to growth rather than to a negative GDP and the lowest consumer confidence index in over a year.

And you’d better damn well leave room in the food line ahead of you: because there are going to be 11 million more people looking for their free Obama money whom Democrats need to woo to complete their takeover of the republic.

Supreme Court AGAIN Poised To Rule That ‘Constitutional-Scholar-in-Chief’ Obama Is A Fascist Thug

April 26, 2012

First ObamaCare and now Arizona law S.B. 1070.

The otherwise bizarre way Obama demonized the Supreme Court AFTER that court had taken it’s vote strongly suggests that Obama had been tipped off as to the outcome – which even most liberals predicted would go against Obama following the disastrous showing by the Obama administration’s attempt to defend its fascist takeover of the health care system – is itself a tipoff as to how the SCOTUS will rule.  Because why would Obama demonize and try to delegitimize the Supreme Court if it is going to rule in his favor???

Obama’s attack against the Supreme Court of the United States follows his attack against the United States Congress.  And when a president attacks and demonizes the two separate branches that are co-equal with him according to the United States Constitution, that president is a fascist.

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals forcibly rubbed Obama’s nose in his own fecal matter.  And very deservedly so.

Obama has been slapped down before for his fascist Constitution-defying power-grabs.  And we’d better hope he gets slapped down again for his fascist takeovers.  Because what he’s dong is frightening to anyone who loves liberty.

Obama has ALREADY BEEN SMACKED by the Supreme Court regarding his fascist-takeover attempt in Arizona.

Now we’re seeing Obama – the “constitutional scholar – on the verge of getting slapped hard in the face yet again because of his inability to understand that HE IS NOT A DICTATOR.

Supreme Court takes up Arizona immigration law
By MARK SHERMAN | Associated Press – 4/25/12

WASHINGTON (AP) — Supreme Court justices strongly suggested Wednesday that they are ready to allow Arizona to enforce part of a controversial state law requiring police officers to check the immigration status of people they think are in the country illegally.

Liberal and conservative justices reacted skeptically to the Obama administration’s argument that the state exceeded its authority when it made the records check, and another provision allowing suspected illegal immigrants to be arrested without a warrant, part of the Arizona law aimed at driving illegal immigrants elsewhere.

“You can see it’s not selling very well,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor told Obama administration Solicitor General Donald Verrilli.

It was unclear what the court would do with other aspects of the law that have been put on hold by lower federal courts. The other blocked provisions make it a state crime for immigrants not to have immigration registration papers and for illegal immigrants to seek work or hold a job.

Gov. Jan Brewer, who signed the law two years ago, was on hand for the final argument of the court’s term.

The latest high court clash between the administration and states turns on the extent of states’ role in immigration policy, which is essentially under the federal government’s control.

Verrilli tried to persuade the justices that they should view the law in its entirety and inconsistent with federal immigration policy. He said the records check would allow the state to “engage effectively in mass incarceration” of undocumented immigrants.

But Chief Justice John Roberts was among those on the court who took issue with Verrilli’s characterization of the check of immigration status, saying the state merely wants to notify federal authorities it has someone in custody who may be in the U.S. illegally. “It seems to me that the federal government just doesn’t want to know who’s here illegally and who’s not,” Roberts said.

Even Sotomayor may very well rule against Obama:

Chief Justice John Roberts interrupted Verilli to say, “It is not an effort to preempt federal law, it is an effort to enforce the law.” Roberts added that even if Arizona detains an undocumented immigrant “It’s still [the federal government’s] decision” who to deport.

Not surprisingly, Justice Scalia sided almost entirely with Arizona and ventured to an extreme where not even the state of Arizona seemed uninterested in spending much time. Scalia argued in court that the states not only have the right to enforce federal immigration law but also have the right to wholly close their borders to undocumented immigrants.

Even Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who was the most sympathetic to the government’s claims, seemed unconvinced. “I’m terribly confused by your answer,” she said, as Verrilli attempted to explain why it’s okay for states and the federal government to cooperate when the federal government takes the initiative but not when a state moves to mandate their cops to do so.

“Putting aside the argument that systemic cooperation is wrong,” adding, “you can see it’s not selling well,” Sotomayor asked Verilli to explain “what’s left?”

Verrilli did not have a great deal to offer.

Obama has stuck his thumb in the eyes of the United States Congress.  He has stuck his thumb in the eyes of the Supreme Court.  He has stuck his thumb in the eyes of the states.  He has repeatedly demonstrated that he doesn’t give one flying damn about the Constitution.

I’ve written about the Arizona law a number of times before (from newest to oldest):

Obama’s Dismissal of Civil Rights Violator Shabazz Case Continues Racist Democrat Policies

Mexico Says Their Citizens Returning Home Are A Burden: How Were They Not A Burden To America?

California To Arizona: ‘Please Don’t Boycott Us For Boycotting You’

Law Professors Say Arizona Anti-Illegal Immigration Law Is Constitutional

Obama AG Eric Holder Never Bothered To Read Arizona Law But Demonized It Anyway

Obama Is Not Only Demagogic But Anti-Government On Immigration

The Real Issues Behind Arizona’s New Illegal Immigration Law

Based on the oral arguments, it looks like I was right and the “Constitutional-Scholar-in-Chief” was überfascist wrong.

Mexican-‘Americans’ Boo U.S. Soccor Team AND THE AMERICAN FLAG. Democrats Help Them.

June 28, 2011

These are the people that Barack Obama and the Democrat Party want to screw the American people to in order to “win” (read “purchase”) their vote:

Mexican-American soccer fans boo the U.S. flag in Gold Cup? Not nice, los estúpidos
Rick Chandler
Jun 27, 2011, 5:12 PM EDT

Nice comeback win by Mexico to beat the U.S., 4-2, at the CONCACAF Gold Cup in Pasadena on Saturday. But Mexican fans, did you have to boo the U.S. flag? I mean, you live here and everything. You’re U.S. citizens, presumably. No one’s saying you have to root for the U.S. soccer team … pulling for Mexico in this game was completely understandable. But booing the flag, and other acts of hooliganism directed at the U.S.? Unless you believe that all of those folks traveled north from Mexico just for the game — and I don’t — then it’s obvious that people living and working in the U.S. booed and disrespected the American flag. You took it too far, los salvajes.

From the Sporting News:

Other than a column in the Los Angeles Times, the atmosphere at Saturday’s game was hardly noted. When it was, the crowd was called enthusiastic or impassioned.

How about boorish?

Certainly not all 93,420 fans, but enough to leave you wondering just what the U.S. did to get Mexico so enthusiastic and impassioned.

The antics weren’t anything new. In a 2005 World Cup qualifier, the Mexican crowd booed the U.S. national anthem and some fans chanted “Osama! Osama!” during the game. Two years ago fans threw containers holding urine and vomit at Landon Donovan.

If American fans had done that to Javier Hernandez on Saturday, there would be a national manhunt. But almost any criticism of Mexican fans is viewed as intolerant, if bit downright racist.

The question is: How much must we tolerate?

And how far do you take national loyalty at a sporting event? Your country of origin may be Mexico, but if you’ve come to the United States for a better life for you and your family, shouldn’t there be some sense of loyalty to your adopted land?

That’s like me moving to Canada, living and working there for a couple of years, then during the Winter Olympics shooting arrows at the Always Enjoyable Giant Inflatable Beaver. I just wouldn’t do that. Sure, I’d root for the U.S. in hockey, but I’d realize that Canada is my adopted home, and I’d also carry several strips of backbacon in my pockets. In other words, I’d find a place in my heart for both.

Mexican-American soccer fans, I think you went over the line. Apologize, or we’re canceling the George Lopez Show.

In Gold Cup final, it’s red, white and boo again [Los Angeles Times]
Sorry, Mexico, great win but fans were embarrassment [The Sporting News]

Democrats – who are themselves as un-American as these “Mexican-Americans” – want to sell out the American people in order to buy the votes of these disloyal slimeballs.

My view?  If we’re fortunate enough to overcome the biased media propaganda and win the White House and Senate in 2012, we need to kick down doors and haul illegals off to Mexico where they belong.  And then we need to build a giant fence to keep them where they belong and put a few military bases along the border so they can aggressively patrol it in the interest of national security.

If you get the sense that this kind of crap burns my butt you are correct.  Nobody needs to correct me and lecture me that there are Hispanic Americans that are just as repulsed by this loathsome display of ingratitude as any other decent American.  I have been blessed to know Hispanics who are prouder of America than 99.9% of their fellow Americans – because they remember where they came from, and they know America is a land of opportunity rather than a land to be exploited.

But the simple fact of the matter is that this kind of despicable display from “Mexican-Americans” HAPPENS ALL THE DAMN TIME:

Public School Teacher Says American Flag ‘Offensive’; Praises Picture Of Dear Leader Obama

Celebrating Cinco De Mayo In These United States Of Mexico

Who’s The Real American In This Picture?

Liberal Rallies Pimp Hard-Core Totalitarian Socialism

Illegal Immigrants: Amazingly, Conservatives Don’t Want These People In America

There are two groups of people living in the United States of America: there are conservatives who genuinely care about this country and its founding vision, and then there are Democrats and Hispanic and all these other anti-American “special interest groups” who want to exploit this country and feed of its people like leeches until our nation collapses.

Democrats have been saying they believe in the Constitution – as long as they can “fundamentally transform” what it means by ignoring it’s plain historical meaning in context and instead find “penumbras and emanations” – for most of the last fifty years.  We’ve got sneering liberal attitudes such as this one expressed in Time Magazine:

“We can pat ourselves on the back about the past 223 years, but we cannot let the Constitution become an obstacle to the U.S.’s moving into the future with a sensible health care system, a globalized economy, an evolving sense of civil and political rights.”

Richard Stengel goes on to butcher everything legitimate Americans stand for:

The Constitution does not protect our spirit of liberty; our spirit of liberty protects the Constitution. The Constitution serves the nation; the nation does not serve the Constitution.”

When I enlisted in the United States Army, I took an oath.  Did I vow to defend “the spirit of liberty”?  No.  I swore this:

“I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

Do you notice how that oath contradicts everything that the wretched liberal weasel Richard Stengel says?

For the record, members of Congress and federal judges take oaths that also REQUIRE them to “serve” the Constitution.  Liberals take it too.  They are just too damned dishonest to give a damn.  They’re like “Slick Willie” Clinton explaining how he didn’t really lie because it all depends on what the meaning of the word “is” is.  Only most of them do it to the Constitution rather than to White House interns.

And Richard Stengel is hardly the only liberal whose “honesty” extends to letting us know what liberals REALLY think about the Constitution.  Fareed Zakaria has said America should be more like Iceland – which ripped its Constitution up and is now writing a new one on Facebook.

Liberals despise the fact that we have a Constitution that protects us from them, and have done damn near everything they could to erode it away so it means whatever the hell they want it to mean at any given moment.

Basically, I swore to defend my country against liberals who are constantly trying to use our Constitution for toilet paper all the while paying lip service to it.  And of course the real constitutional crisis in this country is that we’ve elected a president who thinks the same loathsome way that Richard Stengel does.

I still remember the words of Michael Scheuer, who had led the CIA unit that pursued Osama bin Laden:

SCHEUER: Well, look at our borders, Sir. If National Defense doesn’t include border control, then National Defense is a nonsense. They don’t care — look at the jobs they have given to the men and women in Afghanistan that are impossible to do. They don’t care that so many of those young men and women are losing their lives, and not having a chance to win because they’re not supported.

They want to play games at home. They want to stay in power forever. They want their office. They don’t want to protect the United States. They somehow think that America is eternal and can never be defeated. Well, they’re going to be in for a great wakeup call, Sir.

And he’s right: they DON’T care.  They don’t give a flying damnSeriously.  They truly couldn’t care less.

I wrote this about “what didn’t matter” to Democrats a year ago, but it applies to Democrats every bit as well today as it did back then:

It doesn’t matter that illegal immigration is costing  the American taxpayers billions of dollars every single year that  are overwhelming our economy:

“Costs on average for every illegal alien headed  household about $19,600   more if they consume the city services than  they pay in taxes, so the   rest of the taxpayers have to part costs.  Schools become overcrowded,   English as second language programs push  out other programs.”

It doesn’t matter that the same illegal immigrants who are a burden  to our country are in fact a burden to their own damn country.  And that if  they’re a burden to their own country, how in the hell are they not a  burden to ours?

It doesn’t matter that the very Mexicans who are demonizing our  tolerant immigration laws don’t seem to care about how harsh the Mexican government is about dealing with THEIR illegal immigrants.

Not only do Democrats side with the people who boo the American flag, but they don’t even give a damn that they side with the people who boo the American flag.

Damn liberals and their damn George Soros “Open Society” and open borders crowd.

They are all going to hell.  And they are trying to take the once great United States of America down with them.

Update: here is an article detailing thirteen obvious factual errors in Richard Stengel’s despicable take on the U.S. Constitution.  Which clearly means the stupid people at Time Magazine should give him a raise.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 605 other followers