Posts Tagged ‘liberalism’

Democrat Butthurt To Infinity And BEYOND: Democrats Take Their Rabid Intolerance To The Super Bowl

February 3, 2017

I’ve NEVER been a Patriots fan.  Even before the whole “deflategate” thing.  The biggest reason is because they have WON so much.  Being a lifelong Lakers’ (and a TrailBlazers’ fan when I lived in Portland and went to quite a few Blazer games), I first hated the Celtics when they won, then I hated the Pistons when they won, and then I hated the Bulls when they won.

Nothing personal.  I would have told you Larry Bird or Isaiah Thomas – or even Darth Vader himself, Bill Laimbeer – or Michael Jordan were awesome stars and I wish I had them on my team.  It was almost as much fun to root against a team as for one.  And when the team you love to hate plays the team you love to love, well, that’s the catharsis of sports at its best.

But “catharsis” is for those who were made in God’s image and have the quality of being formed in His likeness.  We can not only rise to the heights of joy, but we can get over our depths of low and still be happy people.  But Democrats of course believe they are the random products of the magic power of enough billions of years to claim anything can happen, plus the even more magic power of chance, plus the bizarre notion that mutation is actually a good thing that produces positive changes.  Anything but God, and certainly anything but the God of the Bible.

Catharsis is for human beings, not for mutated bugs who over the course of billions of years exchanged their little roach heads for human-looking ones.

And so we have this from a man who comes from generations of Patriots’ fans, but can’t be a fan any more because he’s too butthurt because being butthurt along with being a hypocrite is what makes a Democrat a Democrat:

Rooting for Tom Brady used to be easy. Until Donald Trump came along.
The agony of being a New England Patriots fan who didn’t vote for the president.
By Luke O’Neil February 3 at 6:00 AM
Luke O’Neil is a writer in Boston.

BOSTON — My father and I have a predictable routine when we speak on the phone, a not uncommon one around here in Massachusetts, it’s safe to assume. After cataloging the well-being of various family members, the conversation inevitably turns to the latest on-the-field exploits of one Thomas Edward Patrick Brady Jr. I probably don’t need to tell you our opinion of him is generally quite favorable! So talented. So handsome. My mother and I have a similar, albeit inverted routine of our own. There’s one person we never talk about, if only to maintain a fragile semblance of civility: President Trump.

Brady can relate to that right now. If there’s one thing that can reliably be said about the purposefully enigmatic — or boorishly obtuse, depending on your rooting interests — New England Patriots quarterback, set to compete in his record seventh Super Bowl this weekend, it’s that he really, really does not want to talk about Trump.

“If people want to take sides, you know, they can obviously do that,” he said this week. “It’s everyone’s right. They have a right to do that. And I have a right to stay out of it, too.”

But when it comes to Trump, no one can be apolitical. Brady’s nonchalant neutrality is itself a political statement, one that says he’s either too rich to worry about how Trump’s whirlwind of chaos will affect his life, or worse, too indifferent about the rapidly diminishing prospects of those who are not. This isn’t easy to say about someone I’ve idolized as an emblem of determination and athletic heroism for more than 15 years, but here in the reliably blue precincts of New England, Brady is already assuming a strange new role in the eyes of many fans: Tom Brady looks like a loser. Tom Brady looks like a coward.

Would that it were simple enough for the millions of Trump-opposed Patriots fans like myself to simply wash our hands of it all and abandon ship. But it’s no easier to divorce yourself from a team you’ve supported your entire life than it would be to cast out a family member, and believe me, I’ve considered both options. Making matters somewhat more complicated, no one knows exactly where Brady stands, precisely because he’s been so obstinately vague. With other athletes, it’s a much easier decision to cut the cord. We loved star tight end Aaron Hernandez until it turned out he was a murderer. Likewise, many Ravens fans turned on Ray Rice when video of him punching out his wife emerged. With Brady, we’re confronted with a wishy-washy attempt to have it both ways. Were he to come out and say that like Trump, he thinks Mexicans are rapists, or imply that any refugee is likely to be a radical Islamic terrorist, that would be one thing. Instead, he makes mealy-mouthed appeals to friendship.

It didn’t have to be this way. None of us would’ve given much thought to Brady’s politics if he hadn’t introduced the idea himself early in the campaign, when reporters spotted a Make America Great Again hat in his locker. (Who does Atlanta Falcons quarterback Matt Ryan support? I have no idea.) At the time, Brady tried to brush off the idea that he was endorsing Trump, calling him an old friend and adding “it would be great” if Trump were president. Having observed Brady and interviewed him a couple times, I have no doubt he did not intend it to become much of a story — if there’s anything the Patriots organization disdains more than losing, it’s “distractions.” But as with all things Trump, the story quickly grew larger than anyone would have imagined. All of a sudden, Brady’s conspicuous absence when the team visited then-President Barack Obama in the White House after winning the Super Bowl in 2015 didn’t seem so innocent. And Trump couldn’t seem to go a week without invoking his great friendship with Brady on the campaign trail. Brady, you see, like Trump, is a winner.

Brady, though. Brady hurt. Particularly when contrasted with the outright bravery of Colin Kaepernick, who kick-started a movement this season when he refused to stand for the national anthem, or other megastars such as LeBron James who’ve been outspoken politically, or NBA coaches such as Gregg Popovich and Steve Kerr, who’ve strongly criticized Trump’s ban on travel from seven majority-Muslim nations. It’s not so much that Brady apparently values his golf-buddy friendship with Trump enough to ignore the president’s very clear xenophobic worldview — not to mention the fact that he was caught on tape bragging of his ability to get away with sexual assault. It’s that he won’t even own it. Be a Republican if you must, but at least take a stand. I wouldn’t have loved to have seen Brady supporting Mitt Romney, but Trump is different. Say what you will about former Red Sox great Curt Schilling, but at least he signs his name to the unhinged screeds he pukes up on his website.

With so many other pressing issues, it’s irrational to care so much about who Brady supports. But if there’s anything that disables our critical thinking function, it’s sports. (And presidential politics.) No one rationalizes fandom. By its very nature, it defies scrutiny; you either support a team or you don’t. Besides, anyone who lets themselves think too much about professional football — a  jingoistic, militarized enterprise that devastates its players physically and mentally and is led by a cabal of voraciously greedy owners hellbent on squeezing every last dollar out of taxpayers that they can for stadiums — wouldn’t remain a fan very long. Willful cognitive dissonance is as long-standing a football tradition as the forward pass.

That hasn’t stopped my friends and me from trying to find new justifications for rooting for the Pats, though. On a fan Facebook group I run, the header image is safety Devin McCourty and tight end Martellus Bennett raising their fists in power during the playing of the national anthem earlier this season. Bennett, in particular, has become a favorite of ours, one of the more interesting, thoughtful and politically engaged Patriots players in memory. He’s said he probably wouldn’t visit the Trump White House were they to win on Sunday. The Patriots roster is loaded with decent, non-publicly-Trump-supporting players. Special-teams captain Matthew Slater is said to be an exemplary human being, as is star cornerback Malcolm Butler. Mercifully, Rob Gronkowski, a harmless oaf, has not yet held forth on the relative merits of school vouchers. We look for hope, or at least an absence of despair, wherever we can find it.

None of my friends has gone so far as to say we’re turning on the team entirely. But there’s no doubt that we feel differently about Brady than we did before. I would still prefer if he won the game on Sunday, but I won’t be quite so heartbroken as usual if he doesn’t. Trump was right about one thing, in the end. There’s going to be a lot of winning going on around here. So much winning, it might make us sick.

Do you understand this whining little fools’ thesis?  He’s arguing that you literally HAVE to worship the beast and take his mark on your right hand, or on your forehead, and renounce all things Jesus in order not to be hated.  I mean, Brady doesn’t have a right to campaign for Trump or even to vote for Trump or even to remain silent or more incredibly even not to NOT publicly demonize Trump.  No, he’s got “to take a stand,” defined as an überfascist stand for the überviolent fascists who are burning and rioting and looting and hating.

And if he doesn’t take the mark of the beast and worship him, well, Luke O’Neil will cease and desist from his lifelong love of the Patriots.

Because “Hate Trumps Love,” to spin the leftist logo that the way they put it was an oxymoron as people literally carried “Love Trumps Hate” signs to RIOT.

I never thought I would see the day when I would become a passionate fan of the New England Patriots.  I mean, this is really amazing.

But a turd who is as much of a “I’ll take my ball and go HOME!” whining little puke as this jackass Luke O’Neil really ought to be butthurt for life.

I mean, holy crap, THERE IS SO MUCH LEFTISM IN SPORTS IT IS BEYOND UNREAL.

The worst leftist political channel on the planet isn’t MSNBC, it’s ESPN.

A back-up puke named Colin Kaepernick fired up the imagination of American-hating Democrats everywhere when he refused to honor the United States of America or its flag because apparently there are too many rich scumbags like Colin Kaepernick who won’t redistribute all their wealth to black people or something like that.

He inspired a generation of leftist puke punk turd delinquints to have as much disrespect for their country as he does.

I mean, hey, Colin, I hear that the North Korean Kimworshipers have an opening for quarterback: why not try out?

Before that, it was LeBron James on the court wearing a shirt that said, “I can’t breathe” to show he sides with the pukes against the decent people.

Before that it was the abject contempt and derision and outright hatred of all things Tim Tebow, because he was, after all, a devout Christian who wanted to inspire kids toward something OTHER THAN urinating on their national flag before trying to light it on fire.

No Democrat wants to hear that Jesus loves you, EVER; they want to hear about how to better riot against our despised Constitution and our flag and the republic for which it stands.

I remember when Rush Limbaugh was blocked from trying to buy a part ownership of the St. Louis Rams before they went back to Los Angeles and became pretty much the worst football team in the history of the entire space time universe.  Basically, the rabid, hysterical campaign against Limbaugh from being able to participate in the NFL was that he had said “racist” things on his radio program.  It didn’t matter that there existed no audio anywhere of him ever saying any of the stuff they claim he said in spite of the fact that he’s on NATIONAL DAMN RADIO; it didn’t matter that the Rush Limbaugh program produces a word-for-word transcript of the program and it wasn’t there, either.  No, the “evidence” was taken from a leftwing hate site that basically claims that as they were listening to some leftist hate site, this “transcript” of Rush Limbaugh came to their warped, delusional, psychotic progressive-liberalism-devoured brains.  It didn’t matter: the “evidence” stood and Rush was banned.

There are a million examples of rabid progressive liberalism being ALL OVER professional sports in EVERY professional sport.

But that’s not the problem, is it?

No, the problem is that there might be ONE CONSERVATIVE somewhere.

And the hysterical, psychotic paranoia that is today’s Democrat Party cannot tolerate that.

Anymore than they can tolerate one conservative being able to speak at a university without having a Kristallnacht.

They cannot tolerate ANY idea that disagrees with them.

And these fascists have now had a whole damn BUNCH of Kristallnacht moments.  Because that is who they are.

These people are STALINISTS.  And their butthurt hate for anything approaching actual, legitimate TOLERANCE where one tolerates disagreement and puts up with people they don’t agree with or even like as part of being decent members of civil society are simply not in their little bug souls.

So we get Madonna to the cheers of a million butthurt women who want the right to murder their babies while the fathers of those babies are rendered powerless to have anything whatsoever to do with whether their own children can even LIVE; we’ve got Sarah Silverman publicly demanding a freaking MILITARY COUP because what Nazi wouldn’t want a military coup.

And if you don’t do that, Tom Brady, well, we demon-possessed bureaucrats (i.e. “Democrasts”) will hate on you if only for keeping your mouth shut when we demand that you join us in mindlessly screaming rabid hate.

So here’s abject mockery of every butthurt Democrat.

You first made me a Trump fan with your outrageous in-your-face democracy-despising Nazism.

Now you’ve even made me a Patriots fan.

I hope Brady throws for 10 touchdowns.  And then gives Donald Trump the credit saying he called The Donald and got a hot tip because The Donald is awesome in all things, after all.

Advertisements

Brock Turner, Stanford, College Rape Culture, And The Liberal Progressivism That Is Responsible For All Three

September 2, 2016

So let’s start with the current story of the vile punk rapist who got a joke six-month sentence which was apparently twice as harsh as it should have been given the fact that they released him in three.

And decent people are left saying, “What the hell…?”

And the ONLY reason liberals are angry is because women constitute one of the perennial victim classes that make up the left.  And how dare you prey on one of our victim classes when it is our coalition of victim classes that is supposed to be able to ride political correctness to exploit everyone else instead?

I recently read an LA Times op ed titled, “Understanding the Nate Parker scandal” by Michael Eric Dyson in which the author rehashes every leftist slogan as he tries to swim through the waters of liberal butthurt women and black butthurt activists who both demand that their sacred cows remain sacred.  I mean, gosh, they’re both such victims, and what happens when one liberal protected victim class preys on another liberal victim class?  It’s GOT to be the white man’s fault; it’s just GOT to.  So the conclusion of the article would seem to be that every time a black man rapes a white woman, a white male should do hard, painful time for it.  Because otherwise the piece was a load of patronizing leftist drivel.

Allow me to dive in – since this is a story about a rapist swimmer – and offer my own op ed on the gist of this despicable story.  Brock Turner is an entitled punk who doesn’t believe he should be held responsible for his own actions; Stanford is one of the most leftist liberal progressive major universities in the nation, and “college rape culture” is the inevitable result of leftist Darwinian values, in that order.

We start with this pathetic little worm Brock Turner and the sense of entitlement that permeates his little roach soul.  The view is, “If I want something, someone else should provide it for me.”  You know, like if I want your money, I should vote for the government to confiscate it from hard-working people and redistribute it to me.  As I will say throughout here, it’s just the exact same entitlement worldview on a different entitlement stage.  I want your hard-earned money and you won’t give it up to me unless I redistribute it to myself; I want your sex and you won’t give it to me unless I can redistribute your unconscious body behind a dumpster.  Either way, I’m taking something that isn’t mine, and I ought to be able to do it because after all, I’m entitled and somebody somewhere owes me what I want but can’t obtain the honest way by legitimately working for it.

“Affluenza” is the latest form of stupid entitlement excuses.  It wasn’t Brock Turner’s fault, it was “the whole rotten village,” right?  But ALL of these damn excuses are vile.  “I did it because I’m rich and white” is no more morally shame-worthy of an excuse than “I did it because I’m poor and black.”  And I simply state for the record that accepting the latter entitlement excuse guaranteed that the former one would ultimately succeed, too.  So black writer Michael Eric Dyson, trying to explain or better-yet explain away Nate Parker’s behavior, blames it on “jock culture” and “male privilege.”  How about you did it because you’re a bad person and you’re going to pay the consequences of your depraved actions?

If you live by victim mentality, you ought to die by victim mentality.  Because sooner or later, you whiny victim, there will come a more whiny victim than you.  And so now the feminists who “fundamentally transformed” women into a victim class are aghast and appalled because male rapists are themselves victims.

It’s like liberal heroine Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who falsely claimed special status because she believes that somewhere in her family ancestry going back to the dinosaurs, somebody was a Native American.  It’s like that, because somewhere sometime I was a victim of something.  And I’m not responsible because after all, I’m a victim and I’ve got the entitled whining to prove it.

And thank you, liberalism.  That whole load of crap would have been impossible without the toxic pile of fecal matter that is your worldview.

So our rapist swimmer went to Stanford, of course.  Where else would a whiny liberal puke go?

Now, consider the “college culture” and whose damn culture it is:

Liberal Colleges

That’s political donations.  Now consider the faculties of these indoctrination centers:

If you’ve spent time in a college or university any time in the past quarter-century you probably aren’t surprised to hear that professors have become strikingly more liberal. In 1990, according to survey data by the Higher Education Research Institute (HERI) at UCLA, 42 percent of professors identified as “liberal” or “far-left.” By 2014, that number had jumped to 60 percent.

Over the same period, the number of academics identifying as “moderate” fell by 13 percentage points, and the share of “conservative” and “far-right” professors dropped nearly six points. In the academy, liberals now outnumber conservatives by roughly 5 to 1. Among the general public, on the other hand, conservatives are considerably more prevalent than liberals and have been for some time.

Let’s put it in terms of the Pottery Barn Rule that Colin Powel claims he told Bush before he went into Iraq: “You break it, you bought it.”

The college “rape culture” is out of control.  And you’ll find that “over the same period” that liberalism came to so entirely dominate college/university culture, rape culture came right along with it.

On the liberal diatribe, conservatives are warmongers.  How dare we want to fight back against terrorists who want to burn us alive?  Obama’s 1,900 percent increase in terrorism is surely much more peaceful, right?  But by that same diatribe that brought Obama to power, liberals are rapists.  The more liberal you are, the more rapist you are, and vice versa.

This is no accident.  It is literally a scientific progression, as I’ve described before:

And the horror that results in society is equally true of the individual who lives by Darwinism.

Why do we as individuals rape, murder and sleep around?  Because – and I quote – “rape is (in the vernacular of evolutionary biology) an adaptation, a trait encoded by genes that confers an advantage on anyone who possesses them. Back in the late Pleistocene epoch 100,000 years ago, men who carried rape genes had a reproductive and evolutionary edge over men who did not: they sired children not only with willing mates, but also with unwilling ones, allowing them to leave more offspring (also carrying rape genes) who were similarly more likely to survive and reproduce, unto the nth generation. That would be us. And that is why we carry rape genes today. The family trees of prehistoric men lacking rape genes petered out.”  Darwinism is “a scientific idea that, if true, consigns traditions of self-restraint, loyalty, the very basis of family life, to the shredder.”  Now go ye and do likewise.  Unless something inside of you screams “NO!  I will NOT live in accordance with that terrible, wicked, demonic theory of Darwinian evolution!”

One incredibly interesting read calls this “Darwin’s Dirty Secret.”

Let’s call it the ULTIMATE ENTITLEMENT EXCUSE: “I’m a rapist because I evolved that way.”

And progressive liberals “evolved” to become the most closed-minded, rabidly intolerant fascists there are.

Liberal progressivism is intellectual godlessness, and to put it in terms of Obama’s incredibly hypocritical debt, intellectual godlessness leads to moral godlessness 20 trillion times out of 20 trillion times.

If you can murder a baby, you can certainly whitewash away the act that led to the creation of that baby.

I love the Word of God, which is WHY I so passionately reject liberal progressivism which is so totally the denial of the Word of God and the God of the Bible as it is dominated by secular humanism, atheism, Darwinism, postmodernism, existentialism, behaviorism and every other vile form of “-ism” there is.  God’s Word declares:

  • Don’t let anyone capture you with empty philosophies and high-sounding nonsense that come from human thinking and the spiritual powers of this world, rather than from God – Colossians 2:8
  • Claiming to be wise, they instead became utter fools. – Romans 1:22
  • … always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth.  – 2 Timothy 3:7

Whatever progressive liberalism touches, it infects with cancer.  It touched Brock Turner, just as it touched our societal acceptance of drugs and alcohol, touched our abandonment of God and His morality in favor of the amoral nihilism of Darwinism, touched the embrace of personal responsibility and replaced it with the denial of the same and the embrace of the entitlement and victimhood mindset.

You “carry your rape genes,” liberal; I’ll carry my Bible.

And the empirical fact of the matter is that the morality that comes from my Bible is so vastly superior to the depraved bile that comes out of your university system that it is far more beyond belief than the belief in God that you so ardently deny.

 

 

 

 

Liberalism: The Gateway Ideological Drug That ‘Fundamentally Transformed’ Islam Into A Terrorist Threat

April 15, 2016

If you listen to a liberal, the West and in particular the United States deserves to be destroyed.

If you listen to a radical Muslim, they completely agree with the liberal and in fact justify their jihad by citing liberal “experts” to justify their hatred and their violence.

Osama bin Laden was a huge Noam Chomsky fan.  Both of these men shared the same passionate hatred.  And the latter was ideological fodder to the former.

Noam Chomsky claimed he didn’t view the killing of bin Laden any different than he would have viewed the killing of George W. Bush:

We might ask ourselves how we would be reacting if Iraqi commandos landed at George W. Bush’s compound, assassinated him, and dumped his body in the Atlantic.

One of the interesting things you might ask yourself as you read this venomous bile is, why did Chomsky cite George Bush’s name when Barack Obama was the one who ordered the “assassination” and has publicly praised himself for it over and over and over again?  And the answer is that to be a liberal is to be a hypocrite without shame and without honesty and without virtue of any kind.  And so to the poisonous, toxic, vile soul of a liberal, it frankly doesn’t even MATTER if Obama did it and took credit for it, it’s STILL Bush’s fault and Bush should pay for the crime.

America is a wicked, evil place.  Just ask the man Obama made his mentor and spiritual leader for 23 years:

“The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing ‘God Bless America.’ No, no, no, God damn America, that’s in the Bible for killing innocent people,” he said in a 2003 sermon. “God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme.” — Jeremiah Wright

Barack Obama has a long history both with radical Islam and the Noam Chomsky-types who fuel their already poisonous ideology into “righteous hatred.”  He would be IMPEACHED if the Los Angeles Times were to ever release the video of an event Obama willingly attended featuring radical Islamist and PLO operative, Rashid Khalidi.  The same newspaper that sent reporters digging through the trash to find every email they could from Sarah Palin and published 24,000 of them has refused for the entire presidency of Barack Obama to release the video of Obama toasting a known terrorist murderer.

Liberals and Democrats will protect Barack Obama from being exposed by the truth to the very bitter end.

That is the truly wicked heart of the man who is now the president of the United States.  Obama falsely and dishonestly promised that he would transcend the political divide and”unite” America.  And in every other way he failed but this: we can now all agree that the United States of America is an evil place that truly deserves complete and utter destruction.  Barack Obama spent 23 years stockpiling his soul with that belief; and if it had bothered him in the slightest, he wouldn’t have stayed in that hellish place.

Barack Obama has spent his entire life believing that the United States and Israel should be wiped off the map for their moral crimes.

So I came across this article and it is absolutely spot on.  I love the title, a play on “radical Islam” given the fact that it is NOT merely “Islam” that has become “RADICAL”:

Islam and the Radical West
The political orthodoxy of the left is the gateway drug to jihad.
By Bret Stephens
April 11, 2016 7:18 p.m. ET

Years ago I had a chat with three young Muslim men as we waited in a Heathrow airport lounge to board a flight to Islamabad. I was going to Pakistan to report on the fallout from a devastating earthquake in Kashmir. They were going there to do what they vaguely described as “charitable work.” They dressed in white shalwar kameez, wore their beards in salafist style and spoke in south London accents.

I tried to steer the conversation to the earthquake. They wanted to talk about politics. Had I seen  Michael Moore’s “Fahrenheit 9/11”? I avoided furnishing an opinion about a film they plainly revered. The unvarnished truth about Amerika—from an American. Authority and authenticity rolled into one.

I think of that exchange whenever the subject of Islamist radicalization comes up. There’s a great deal of literature about how young Muslim men—often born in the West to middle-class and not particularly religious households—get turned on to jihad. Think of  Mohammed Emwazi, the University of Westminster graduate later known as Jihadi John. Or Maj.  Nidal Malik Hasan, of Fort Hood infamy. Or Najim Laachraoui, who studied electrical engineering at the prestigious Catholic University of Louvain before blowing himself up last month in Brussels. Or Boston’s Tsarnaev brothers and San Bernardino’s Syed Farook.

It’s a long list. And in many cases investigators are able to identify an agent of radicalization. Maj. Hasan corresponded with extremist cleric  Anwar al-Awlaki. Laachraoui seems to have come under the spell of a Molenbeek preacher named  Khalid Zerkani. The Tsarnaevs took their bomb-building tips from “Inspire,” an online English-language magazine published by al Qaeda’s branch in Yemen.

But the influence of the Awlakis of the world can’t fully account for the mind-set of these jihadists. They are also sons of the West—educated in the schools of multiculturalism, reared on the works of  Noam Chomsky and perhaps Frantz Fanon, consumers of a news diet heavy with reports of perfidy by American or British or Israeli soldiers. If Islamism is their ideological drug of choice, the political orthodoxies of the modern left are their gateway to it.

Take the most recent issue of Inspire. Mixed in with step-by-step photos on how to build a timed hand grenade and an analysis of the Charlie Hebdo massacre, there’s a long article on the oppression of blacks in America, starting with the killing of Ferguson’s  Michael Brown. The Spring 2013 issue contains a “message to the American nation” from al Qaeda Commander  Qassim Ar-Reimy in which he asks whether “meddling in our affairs and installing whomever tyrant agents and lackeys you want who kill and oppress [is] forgivable?”

“Leave us with our religion, land and nations and mind your own internal affairs,” the commander—now Emir—writes. “Save your economy, look after your concerns, for it is better than what you currently are.”

This isn’t the language of Islam, with its impressive tradition of conquest. It’s the language of the progressive left, of what  Jeane Kirkpatrick at the 1984 Republican convention called the “Blame America First” crowd. It fits the left’s view of the West as the perennial sinner and the rest of the world as its perpetual victim. It is the language of turning the page on a decade of war, of focusing on nation building at home.

It strikes us as radical only because it comes from the pen of a terrorist. If it had appeared as an op-ed in the Guardian, it would elicit nodding approval from many readers, a dismissive shrug from others, but no big whoop either way.

In the early 1990s my former columnist colleague  Thomas Frank came up with the clever phrase “commodification of dissent” to explain how capitalism turned all kinds of countercultural beliefs and radical ideas into just another product in a box, to be sold and distributed through the usual channels. “Fahrenheit 9/11” might have been a political revelation or even a call to arms for some impressionable young Muslims from Tower Hamlets, but to Hollywood it was $222.5 million of box office gold. That made it a winner in the marketplace of ideas, and who can quarrel with that?

The commodification of dissent may have the effect of blunting the impact of all kinds of extreme notions. But it can dull us to their extremism, leaving us astonished when someone turns notion into action. The catharsis of violence seems like an interesting idea in the pages of “The Wretched of the Earth.” In practice, it’s scores of young men and women gunned down in a Paris concert hall.

We’ve become lazy in our thinking about Islam and the West. Whether the Islam practiced by al Qaeda or ISIS is “radical” or merely traditional isn’t the question. It’s whether the West can recognize that the moral nihilism of today’s Jihadi Johns is the logical outgrowth of the moral relativism that is the default religion of today’s West.

I’ve been trying to describe this direct ideological connection between radical Islam and American liberal progressivism for some time.  As some examples:

In May of last year I wrote: Progressive Liberalism Is Responsible For The Spread Of Islamic State Among U.S. Youth

Back in February 2015 I wrote this: Why Do Liberals Hate ‘Intolerant’ Christianity But Embrace Viciously Intolerant Islam? Liberals Just Hate Jesus, Just As Jesus Said They Would.

If that doesn’t go back far enough, let’s try February of 2011 when I wrote this: Crisis In Egypt Underscores The Problem Of Islam – AND LIBERALISM.  I also wrote this the same month: Liberals Seeking To Bring Chaos Of Islamic World To America

Maybe you want to go back to June 2009 when I made a rather bold, prophetic prediction that I submit to you has CLEARLY come to pass to any with eyes to see and ears to hear when I wrote this:Islamist Anti-U.S. Terrorism Rejuvenated Under Obama Weakness

Or let’s go back all the way to just before Obama got elected president when I wrote this in October 2008: Why Islamic Extremists Support Democrats and Obama

History has proven me right.  History has utterly and savagely refuted the moral idiocy otherwise known as “liberalism” or “Democrat Party policies.”  Terrorism has UTTERLY EXPLODED under our Terrorist-in-Chief, Barack Obama.  And it doesn’t matter if we elect Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton, they are both joined to the hip and the neck to “I’m with Stupid” when it comes to foreign policy.

I recently laid out the only hope for reform within Islam: Islam’s ONLY Hope For True Reform Comes From A Surprising Source. And What Of America’s Only Hope For Reform?  In that article, I go into detail and explain the reason that Islam has an inseparable connection with VIOLENCE that Christianity does not have and never has had.

But to be a Democrat is to be a true moral idiot who cannot and will not see truth.  Which is why Barack Hussein Obama demonized Christianity for a false narrative of something that happened a thousand years ago while absolving Islam today: Obama Newsflash: Terrorism Has NOTHING To Do With Islam, Folks. But, Hey, Let’s Blame Christianity For Crusades A THOUSAND Years Ago

It comes down to the mindset of self-destruction that the prophets described far longer than a thousand years ago which fits the Democrat Party and liberalism to a “T”:

You boast, “We have struck a bargain to cheat death and have made a deal to dodge the grave. The coming destruction can never touch us, for we have built a strong refuge made of lies and deception.” — Isaiah 28:15

It doesn’t matter how many times liberalism and Democrats are refuted by reality: because they hate truth and they hate the One who came to testify to the truth.

The God Of Liberalism And Ben Carson’s Unpardonable Sin In His Response, ‘I Would Not Just Stand There And Let Him Shoot Me.’

October 9, 2015

The most hateful words ever uttered, based on the mainstream media’s outright hate poured over Dr. Ben Carson when he said the following in answer to a question:

Question from reporter: “But Dr. Carson, if a gunman walks up and puts a gun at you and says, ‘What religion are you?’  That is the ultimate test of your faith.”

Dr. Cason: “I’m glad you asked that question, because, not only would I probably not cooperate with him, I would not just stand there and let him shoot me.  I would say, ‘Hey, guys, everybody attack him. He may shoot me, but he can’t get us all.'”

I want you to notice that I took these words from the video in which Huffington Post says in bold typeface, “Skip to 0:25 in the video above to hear Carson describe what he would have done if he’d been present at the shooting.”  In other words, skip PAST the part where the reporter asks, “What would you do?”  And Dr. Carson responds with what he would do.

It’s frankly amazing on one level.  I mean, what in the hell is controversial about that?  The argument to this side is literally, I WILL stand there and let him shoot me.”  And of course, “I will stand there and let him shoot me until my Savior and Lord, the State, kicks down every single door in America and goes over every square inch of land with metal detectors and confiscates until it can account for every single one of the more than 300 million guns in this country.  And PISS on the Constitution in the process.

Remember those three American heroes who were so honored in France for saving that trainload of passive French people from that terrorist?  WHAT BEN CARSON SAID HE ASPIRED TO DO WAS EXACTLY WHAT THEY DID.

Let me tell you why what Ben Carson said is such a horrifying sin in the religion of liberalism: because liberalism is a religion of radical submission and radical helplessness.  You are to be helpless and submissive in your role as a member of “the State.”  And liberalism is a MISSIONARY religion in that every liberal must force the rest of us to be as helpless and as submissive in the face of “the State” as they seek to be.

If you so much as BELIEVE or FEEL that you ought to have a right to protect or defend yourself, you are a blasphemer and a heretic.

I guess that’s quite possibly why Spencer Stone – one of those heroes on that train in France who did not “cooperate” with the terrorist because they ddn’t want to “just stand there and let him shoot” them, was stabled – and fittingly stabled in the back by some coward – in the liberal bastion of Sacramento, California.

Somebody got this point in their title parodying the leftist piece of truly lousy toilet paper known as GQ: “F*CK Ben Carson For Preaching Self-Defense.”  Because we’re getting to the very core essence of what truly separates a liberal from a conservative.

The Bible frequently uses the metaphor of “sheep” to describe believers before their God.  And yes, apart from the wisdom of God, which we should therefore seek, humans are described as helpless and stupid, like sheep.

If you are a liberal, don’t sneeringly tell me you don’t have a religious faith.  Because YES YOU DO.  Liberalism is a religion following secular humanism that replaces “God” with “Government,” with human government.  And the priests of this religion are bureaucrats, and to them the words of Isaiah 53 – “all we like sheep have gone astray” – ring like music.  We are poor, stupid, helpless sheep under liberalism.  And Government is our God, our Savior, to whom we ought to helplessly submit.

And when it comes to weapons, the biblical metaphor couldn’t be more apt in describing what liberals’ want: the SHEEP don’t get to carry weapons.  They are far too stupid and they would clearly only hurt themselves or one another.  No, only the shepherd, only the bureaucrat’s designated force-bearer, can carry weapons.

Probably the most famous passage in the Bible, Psalm 23, the Shepherd’s Psalm, sums it up: “Thy rod and Thy staff, they comfort me.”  God is the One who carries the rod and the staff, not the sheep.  And liberalism is a rabid religion that keeps shrieking, “There is no God but Government, and Obama is His Prophet!”

AND THEY MUST STRIP YOU OF YOUR GUNS AND LEAVE YOU UTTERLY HELPLESS, BECAUSE YOU ARE A SHEEP AND IT IS BLASPHEMY AGAINST THE ONE TRUE GOD THE STATE TO THINK ANYTHING ELSE ABOUT YOURSELF.

You have the right to religious freedom if and ONLY If you are a liberal.  But every other religion is blasphemy before liberalism and its One True God, the human State.  And every other religion must ultimately be forced to SUBMIT and be HELPLESS.  Like a good sheep.

This doesn’t just apply to guns; it is all encompassing.  Allow me to give you another example of God vs. Government and the side liberalism takes:

The silver is mine and the gold is mine,’ declares the LORD Almighty.  — Haggai 2:8

WHO does all the wealth belong to?  Well, I think we all understand those words very easily: the LORD Almighty.  GOVERNMENT.  OBAMA.

Liberals are the faithful demanding that all wealth go to the One True God, the State.  It’s not that liberals disagree with the Bible as much as they disagree on who “God” is.

I’ve written about this stuff before, of course.  I wrote about 1 Samuel 8:10-22 and how a wicked people refused God as their king and wanted giant, powerful human government instead.  I wrote about Daniel 2:31-35 and how Democrats have picked the absolutely WRONG side of history to be on as they side with the human government that will utterly perish before the coming Christ who as the Rock will destroy it.

These people worship human Government in place of God, and human government will ultimately burn in hell right along with them.

Sheep are helpless.  Just as liberals want those whom they dole out welfare to for literally generation after generation after generation to be helpless sheep who cannot take care of themselves.  And all you have to do to guarantee that you will be poor for life, that your children will be poor for all of their lives, that their children will be trapped in poverty all of their lives, and so on, ad nauseam, is to vote Democrat.  Because they seek to trap you in a vicious cycle that you will never get out of and you will therefore always need to keep voting for them to keep you in.

Liberals take money from one group and dole it out to keep another group dependent and helpless.  Like sheep.

Liberalism is the confiscation of wealth and the offering of that wealth to the One True God, the State.  And the priests of this religion, the bureaucrats, distribute it according to their theology.

There’s more, of course: who says what life is and who gets to live?  God, of course, and ONLY God:

13You made all the delicate, inner parts of my body
    and knit me together in my mother’s womb.
14 Thank you for making me so wonderfully complex!
    Your workmanship is marvelous—how well I know it.
15 You watched me as I was being formed in utter seclusion,
    as I was woven together in the dark of the womb.
16 You saw me before I was born.
    Every day of my life was recorded in your book.
Every moment was laid out
    before a single day had passed. — Psalm 139:13-16

And who gets to decide these weighty questions of what is life, what is sacred, who gets to live and who should die?  God, of course.  The State.  The Black-Robed High Priests of Liberalism.

Which is why the doctrine of abortion and the support for that doctrine is tantamount to an act of religious devotion.  It is an act of religious faith, for I the LORD your God gave you Roe v. Wade.  And let all other gods be forced to bow down before Me, and let all who oppose my rule be torn limb-from-limb or burned with acid in the very womb in which I, Obama, formed him.

What is marriage?  Who decides?  Only God, of course.  That’s obvious.  We all agree with that.  Jesus, the divine Messiah of the God of the Bible, summed up God’s way according to Genesis 2:22-24 when He described biblical marriage:

“Haven’t you read,” [Jesus] replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?  So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.” — Matthew 19:4-6

Well, liberals rabidly and utterly reject that God.  They have their own God, the State.  And so we now have Obama, the divine Messiah of the God of the State, providing a radically different view of “marriage.”

Atheism is a religion. It has been ruled so by the same Supreme Court that gave us Roe v. Wade and gay marriage.  Just as secular humanism has been defined as a religion.  It is now an amply documented scientific FACT that the human brain is hard-WIRED for religion and religious experience.  It is literally now ANTI-SCIENCE to claim that humans aren’t intrinsically religious beings.  You can put it in the most atheistic, physicalist, materialistic terms you want: but the human brain is hard-wired for religious experience and it’s only a question of what you worship, not whether you worship.  Let me take a moment to deal with this part about our religious instincts being genetically or evolutionarily “hard-wired” into our brains: atheists have kind of GOT to say something like that to explain the fact that atheists are an incredibly tiny minority of the world’s population; “Adherents.com, estimates that the proportion of the world’s people who are “secular, non-religious, agnostics and atheists” at about 14%.”  With about one-fifth of that 14% – or 2.8% – categorically stating themselves as “atheist” rather than some form of agnostic or secular.  2.8% of the world’s population is atheist.  So here’s the question: since religion is hard-wired into our brains, who the hell do these people think they are telling us that we don’t need something that their very own precious evolution very clearly put in us because we need it?  Their claim is tantamount to saying, “I evolved to no longer need evolution.”  There’s an awful lot of problems with consistent atheism, but this is one of those contradictions that needs to be exposed.

Atheists can play their rhetorical word games and say, “If atheism is a religion, then off is a TV channel.”  Here’s the problem with it: the very word “atheism” means, “no god.”  Let’s acknowledge and then move beyond the problem with atheism as expressed by G.K. Chesterton: “When a man stops believing in God he doesn’t then believe in nothing, he believes anything.”  Which corresponds with the admonition in Colossians 2:8 which says, “Don’t let anyone capture you with empty philosophies and high-sounding nonsense that come from human thinking and from the spiritual powers of this world, rather than from Christ.”  I am making a different point here that strictly relates to the TV channel analogy; namely that atheism is espoused as a belief in the denial of something, but the very thing they are denying is such a quintessential part of who they are that the very word “theist” is the most prominent part of their own self-description.  To wit: in the analogy that the atheist provides, “GOD is the TV. Religions are the channels. If it is off, maybe he’s dead or disengaged, but at least you admit there’s a TV.”  .  Just for the record, I can cite you MILLION of Christians who can easily use the same “logic” to rationalize that Christianity is NOT a religion.  I googled the phrase, Christianity is not a religion, and got 86,000,000 hits.  Their point is that “Religion is man’s way to reach God.  Christianity is God’s way to reach man.”  That many atheists don’t consider themselves “religious” is no more an accurate part of their perspective than that many Christians don’t consider themselves “religious.”  The simple fact boils down to this: whether you are talking about atheism not being a religion, or Christianity not being a religion, the only way the proponents of either view are correct is if their belief (i.e., atheism or Christianity) is correct.  If there is in fact a God, atheism is merely one of many false religious systems.  And belief in God is NOT an essential part of a religious system, for the record, given that many Buddhists are actually atheists.  Finally,  the author of this actually quite-good article I cite above points out that the rabidness of the atheist and the tendency of the atheist to hate theists is every bit as fervent as it is the other way around.  She points out, “Let me tell you: The angriest ones can be as malicious as a coven of Westboro Baptists at a veteran’s funeral.”  In case anybody actually has the foolishness to doubt that, let me just point out that the very shooting that Ben Carson is the target of so much hate for describing how he would react was an ATHEIST who TARGETED CHRISTIANS.

I say this because of the incredibly dishonest, deceitful, disingenuous way that liberals and their counterparts who dominate the mainstream media constantly frame any and basically all religious debate in America.  Religious people are constantly told that we have no right to impose our religion on others.  From the very same people who even as they are saying that are exploiting it as an incredibly cynical device to impose their damn religion on me.  As an example, an atheist decided to get offended over students being allowed to pray and rabidly determined to impose HIS religion of refusing to pray on every student whose religion encouraged them to pray.  Every single court or every single bureaucracy that seeks to remove prayer from school is NOT removing religion; they are DICTATING which religion that students will be forced to practice, namely the religion of atheism/secular humanism.

My point is that liberals ARE worshipers.  They are RABID worshipers.  They merely choose to worship a very different God from the God of Christianity.  And to the extent that they don’t worship the State, they worship themselves and their religion is about selfishly and self-centeredly obtaining their lusts and their desires through the power of the State and forcing others to provide these things for them.

I am beyond sick of liberals imposing their religion on me while they smarmily tell me that I don’t have a right to impose my religion on them.  I’m sick of liberals perverting the Word of God and constantly seeking to turn me a sheep, as the Bible says I am, but a sheep of their God the State.  I’m sick and tired of liberals telling me that I should be helpless, and that as a stupid, helpless sheep the only thing I’d do if I were allowed to have a weapon is hurt myself or some other innocent.  So only the Shepherd of the religion of the State ought to be allowed to have weapons.  I’m sick and tired of being told that I don’t have a right to impose my view of marriage on people as the people who tell me that impose their view of marriage on me with in-your-face-hypocrisy.  I’m sick of liberals telling me that I’m crazy to believe that human life begins in the womb when they can’t produce a single example of a single human who didn’t begin in the womb.  If their mothers had aborted those liberals, those liberals would have been killed.  A child in the womb is human by virtue of the taxonomy of her parents, she is a being by virtue of the fact that she is a living thing: she is a HUMAN BEING.  Let’s go through the taxonomic system that classifies every single living thing with our unborn baby: That “fetus” (which is Latin for “unborn child” by the way) is classified from the moment of conception as Kingdom-Animal; Phylum-chordata; Class-Mammalia; Order-Primate; Family-Hominid; Genus-Homo; and Species-Sapiens.  Just like every human being whose life is precious unless you are describing human value in the hateful religious system of liberalism.  These things are simply facts, but the religion of liberalism doesn’t give a damn about facts; it is a rabid religious faith.  It is in fact a totalitarian religious faith that is missionary in its determined intent to impose itself on heretic unbelievers in Government.

We’re watching the Middle East and the world melt down due to President Barack Obama’s morally idiotic foreign policy.  Right now we’ve got five million refugees fleeing Obama’s collapse, and millions more are going to come behind them.  And where the hell are they going to go?  And we’re ultimately going to see why Obama’s epic fail in the Middle East will result in America’s epic fail.  We’re watching the complete vacuum of any kind of moral or military leadership being filled not by the United States but by Russia and now Iran.  But there’s something in the strategy of the only man who actually HAS a strategy – Vladimir Putin – that I want to close this piece on the religion of liberalism with.  Marco Rubio – the man WHO PREDICTED the invasion of Syria by Russia which so stunned and caught Obama off guard – NAILED Putin’s strategy:

“Vladimir Putin is deliberately targeting the non-ISIS rebels,” Rubio explains. “And here’s why: If he’s going to wipe out all the non-ISIS elements on the ground in Syria, then they can say: ISIS or Assad, there are no other options. We killed all the non-ISIS people.”

“And at that point, he’ll be able to force the world to support Assad, and that is what he is doing.”

Vladimir Putin is crushing all the non-Islamic State rebels, leaving only Assad’s regime and Islamic State.  And his plan is then to force America to support Assad’s regime as the only viable alternative.

That is precisely what is happening with Christianity.  We know damn well what it feels like to be a “non-ISIS rebel” in America right now.  Whether it’s the Little Sisters of the Poor, whether it’s the Christian baker, or the Christian florist – whom a judge demanded the “personal ruin” of – or Kim Davis, the millions of Christians around the world who are being exterminated under the Obama presidency in numbers that have NEVER BEFORE IN ALL OF HUMAN HISTORY BEEN WITNESSED, Christians are being systematically wiped out more than any other group of people on earthThere’s a new Holocaust going on right now.  And Obama and liberals are participating as much as the bystander of any vile event who does NOTHING participates in the horror they are standing by and allowing to happen.

By commission and by omission, Barack Obama is the world’s leading persecutor of Christians in the history of the world in terms of the sheer, mass numbers of Christians whom have suffered under him and as a result of his colossal failure.

Obama has said he is a Christian.  He also said that “as a Christian” he was opposed to gay marriage.  The latter statement turned out to be an outright lie, and the first one about Obama being a Christian is a lie as well.  I have pointed out and documented how Obama’s theology has NOTHING whatsoever to do with biblical Christianity.  He can go into a church and call himself a “Christian.”  Just like I can lay down in my garage and call myself a “car.”  But both statements are equally false.

You shall have no other gods before me, says liberalism.  And every Christian who says or believes otherwise shall be devoted to destruction.  Because liberalism is a rabid, religious faith.  And all we like sheep have gone astray and need to be brought under the Stalinist boot heel for our own good and for the good, for the praise and for the glory, of the State.

That’s Ben Carson’s real sin.  He’s “the Coon of the Year” to them.  At least that’s what a liberal professor in a liberal Ivy League university with the liberal system of tenure protecting her says.  She helps us get back to the God of the Bible – whom she calls “a white racist” – versus the liberal God also known as the State.

As The Veterans Administration Or ANYTHING Goes The Way Of Liberalism, It Goes Down The Toilet

March 12, 2015

I am a service-connected disabled veteran and use the Veterans Administration as my primary source of health care.

For the most part, the VA has done me well.  I have mostly had excellent physicians and health care professionals attending to me.  And I have been grateful to the VA for the care I have received.

But I have also been watching my level of care deteriorate.

And it is deteriorating because of liberalism.

This week is a marvelous example.

As a service-connected veteran with injuries to both knees and both shoulders, I have a significant level of pain to deal with.  I am prescribed oxycodone for my pain.  And of course that is a Schedule II drug that requires extra-level monitoring.

I have never ONCE been convicted for any kind of substance abuse.  I have never ONCE been arrested for any kind of substance abuse.  I have never ONCE ever even been ACCUSED of any kind of substance abuse.

But, you know, some people have abused their oxycodone.

So let’s treat EVERYONE like a drug abuser.

I got a phone call this week and was commanded to submit a urine sample for a drug test within two weeks of receiving the call.  I’m going in today and I am pissed off about it.

Oh, if I were a welfare-sucking parasite, I wouldn’t have to submit to a drug test.  I mean, they tried to do that in one state and the unholy rabid frothing-at-the-mouth fury on the part of liberals squashed that pretty fast.  I mean, how DARE you insinuate that people might not be getting jobs because they’re abusing drugs, you RACIST!

But it’s perfectly okay to accuse us veterans who fought for your right to be a depraved jackass of being a drug abuser, isn’t it, Democrat?

Thanks to Führer Obama, I get to deal with that insinuation about four times a year.   I was tested in November.  The fact that there wasn’t so much as a trace of a contraband cream puff in my system doesn’t absolve me.  Because where Democrats are involved, the last thing that matters is “facts.”

But I’m not done.

I just had shoulder surgery for my left shoulder.  And I’ve been having physical therapy on a schedule of three times a week, followed by two times a week, followed by three times a week, followed by two times a week, etc.  Well, I had a setback when I strained myself.  The physical therapist and the surgeon saw me and told me I needed to miss about a week plus and heal up.

So I just came back, and during that week plus I’d missed, the physical therapy department changed their scheduling policy.  You see, some veterans aren’t showing up for their appointments, and it cost the system money when people don’t show up for their appointments and leave medical professionals twiddling their thumbs when they could be treating patients.

So does the VA go after the patients who aren’t showing up for their appointments?  Of course not.  That would make as much sense as going after the actual MUSLIMS who are doing all the actual TERRORISM.  So instead, they have to treat EVERYONE like a terrorist, or in this case an appointment-abusing no-shower.

It doesn’t matter that I have NEVER missed a VA appointment in my entire life.

Now I have to get ONE appointment per visit.  The therapist has to spend one-fifth of each appointment writing the paperwork so I can get my next appointment.  And now suddenly I can’t GET two or three appointments a week anymore; nope, I’m lucky to get ONE.  And my recovery is going to suffer as a result.

So because Democrats are running the bureaucracies, we ALL get treated like terrorists.  Whether we’re 95 year-old nuns in our walkers slowly making our way through the airport or service-connected veterans who never once missed an appointment (or abused drugs).  We ALL get treated like terrorists who did something wrong by these power-grabbing dictators.

What is liberalism?  Liberalism is the belief that everybody is “good” while society is “evil” and must be reformed and then “fundamentally transformed,” and so on the one hand they refuse to hold perpetrators responsible for their crimes or their behavior because it’s SOCIETY that is to blame, right?  So we ALL get treated like farm animals while your Hillary Clintons are running around exempting themselves from the laws and regulations and policies that they impose on everybody else.

It would make sense to single out the abusers – whether the drug abusers or the appointment abusers – but Democrats are vile, wicked, depraved people who won’t be held accountable and won’t allow anyone else to be held accountable.  And add to that that Democrats are fascists who want to have total dictatorial control of every system of government.  And you get the perfect storm of me having my health care ruined because the system won’t hold the people who are screwing up accountable for being the ones who are actually screwing up.

Especially if they’re welfare-sucking parasites, for the record.

It’s the same thing with guns, and that’s going on right now, too.  Obama just tried to do one of his innumerable end-runs around the Constitution by banning ammunition for certain types of guns he doesn’t like.  It doesn’t matter if we have a right to those guns because Obama is a fascist and we have the rights Obama says we have and we’re racist if we think we have the rights the Constitution says we have.  In California and other states, Democrats are releasing criminals from prison at a record rate much the way Obama has released terrorists from Gitmo at a record rate (because the fact that I should be treated like a terrorist in any airport in America doesn’t apparently mean that actual TERRORISTS should be treated like terrorist, right?).  And this goes back decades, when during the 1960s Democrats declared that it was wrong to commit crazy people against their will and that the nutjobs who voted Democrat had RIGHTS, dammit.  And so Democrats made it impossible to deal with mentally ill people in America.

And now they demand that we ALL be treated like criminals and nutjobs as a result, and that we ALL have our right to keep and bear arms stripped away from us.

“Democrat” stands for “DEpraved deMOnic bureauCRAT.”  And they have “fundamentally transformed the United States of America” into something truly pathetic and truly despicable.

Now, excuse me.  I’ve got to go pee in a cup.  I’d have a Democrat take the test for me, but you know I’d fail my drug test given the fact that these same hypocrite liberals who are making me take this damn drug test are trying to get the very drugs that I’m being tested for legalized in state after state.

Especially if they’re welfare sucking parasites.

Why Do Liberals Like Obama Embrace And Defend Islam?

February 9, 2015

We’ve seen it over and over and over again: Barack Obama defending Islam and saying this religion – founded by a man who had fought in over thirty military campaigns of conquest and had another thirty planned at the time of his death, a man who owned slaves, a man who by today’s standards was without any question a pedophile, a man of violence who ordered genocide – has nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.

It’s CHRISTIANITY – according to our herald to the Antichrist – which is responsible for terrorism.  Oh, and slavery, too.

It doesn’t matter that Islam was responsible for acts of barbaric violence and slavery long before Christianity and never bothered to reform itself of its barbarity unlike Christianity most certainly did.  It doesn’t matter if the acts that Obama condemns by citing the Crusades was itself a Christian RESPONSE to Islamic jihadism and invasion and that the Inquistion he cites was primarily done by tyrant secular kings like he himself wants to be rather than “the Church.”

It’s not just Obama; it is LIBERALISM that is celebrating Islam, the world’s most profoundly and rabidly intolerant religion.  We recently saw it at liberal Duke University where the left tried to “fundamentally transform” and “redistribute” the Christian chapel of the university that was founded and established as a Christian institution into a mosque broadcasting the Muslim call to prayer.  And we’re seeing it in public schools where liberal bureaucrats and liberal school teachers are literally indoctrinating children into Islam in the name of “education.”  And you tell ME how many public school children were forced to say the Lord’s Prayer: ZERO.

There are reasons for this, and they are EVIL.  Liberalism is evil.  Liberals are doing the work of their father, the devil, on a daily basis.

It is frankly stunning how dishonest secular humanism is and always has been in its historical perversions to make Christianity the villain.  This vicious lie has been going since even before Christianity formulated the scientific method and began the Enlightenment that the enemies of Christianity subsequently hijacked and claimed for itself.  The first modern scientist and the discoverer of the scientific method upon which modern science is based was a product of Christendom and a publicly avowed Christian who described his faith in Christianity – and its influence on his approach to science – in his writings.  The discoverer of every single modern branch of science was a publicly confessed Christian.  The presuppositions necessary FOR the rise of science itself uniquely came out of the Christian worldview:

J.P. Moreland (Source: The Creation Hypothesis: Scientific Evidence for an Intelligent Designer, p. 17) listed some of the philosophical presuppositions – based on the Judeo-Christian worldview – that were necessary for the foundation of science:

1. the existence of a theory-independent, external world

2. the orderly nature of the external world

3. the knowability of the external world

4. the existence of truth

5. the laws of logic

6. the reliability of human cognitive and sensory faculties to serve as -truth-gatherers and as a source of justified beliefs in our intellectual environment

7. the adequacy of language to describe the world

8. the existence of values used in science (e.g., “test theories fairly and report test results honestly”)

9. the uniformity of nature and induction

10. the existence of numbers

Good luck in starting science without all of these assumptions – of which the assumption of God according to the Judeo-Christian worldview was necessary to provide.  Science could not verify or validate any of the list above for the reason that they already needed to be accepted in order for science to ever get off the ground in the first place.

To put it crassly, if it were up to secular humanists, we would still be living in caves and afraid of fire.  And if it left up to secular humanists, we will ultimately be living in caves and afraid of fire again.  And all you have to do to realize that society is not advancing under their standard, but degenerating, to know that.

God created the world as a habitation for the capstone of His creation, man.  And then God created man in His own image and therefore able to see and fathom the world which He had created for humanity.  That is the basis for science.

Gleason Archer framed an insurmountable intellectual contradiction for the “scientific atheist”:

“But it should be pointed out that consistent atheism, which represents itself to be the most rational and logical of all approaches to reality, is in actuality completely self defeating and incapable of logical defense. That is to say, if indeed all matter has combined by mere chance, unguided by any Higher Power of Transcendental Intelligence, then it necessarily follows that the molecules of the human brain are also the product of mere chance. In other words, we think the way we do simply because the atoms and molecules of our brain tissue happen to have combined in the way they have, totally without transcendental guidance or control. So then even the philosophies of men, their system of logic and all their approaches to reality are the result of mere fortuity. There is no absolute validity to any argument advanced by the atheist against the position of theism.

On the basis of his won presuppositions, the atheist completely cancels himself out, for on his own premises his arguments are without any absolute validity. By his own confession he thinks the way he does simply because the atoms in his brain happen to combine the way they do. If this is so, he cannot honestly say that his view is any more valid than the contrary view of his opponent. His basic postulates are self contradictory and self defeating; for when he asserts that there are no absolutes, he thereby is asserting a very dogmatic absolute. Nor can he logically disprove the existence of God without resorting to a logic that depends on the existence of God for its validity. Apart from such a transcendent guarantor of the validity of logic, any attempts at logic or argumentation are simply manifestations of the behavior of the collocation of molecules that make up the thinker’s brain.”  — Gleason Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, 1982, pp. 55-56

Basically, if the atheist is right, then “human reason” becomes a contradiction in terms and let’s just live like the beasts they say we are and be done pretending we’re something we’re not.

What secular humanists have been trying to do – frankly for generations – is to perpetuate a fraud.  It would be akin to me intercepting a great thinker’s work and trying to pass it off as my own.

But what the hey, we’ve got Obama and we have his “fundamental transformation” of America and of history itself.  And so what if he’s the most thoroughly documented liar – literally ON VIDEO – who ever lived?  So what if his most significant legislative accomplishment was based entirely on a system of deliberate lies on the view that people were Darwinian sheep who needed to be manipulated by their DNA master race superiors for their own good?

Why did the Roman Empire fall?  Christianity, the secular humanists – citing works such as Edward Gibbon’s Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire – have been dishonestly telling us.  It doesn’t matter that the Roman Empire was a massive and vicious persecutor of Christianity and murdered Christians by the hundreds of thousands.  It doesn’t matter if the so-called “global warming” that the same secular humanists are using today to try to redistribute wealth for their socialist expansion of their god the State ended and an ice age began that prompted invasion by wave after migrating wave of barbarian peoples who pressured Rome.  It doesn’t matter that the so-called “climate change” that these socialist redistributionist Government-worshipers are saying is unique to our own time due to modern pollution actually brought about the collapse of the Old Egyptian Kingdom prior to bringing down the Roman Empire.  It doesn’t matter if Rome suffered from its own massive excesses and from generations of poor emperors that culminated in civil wars and ultimately threat of defeat by these barbarian peoples who had fled from their own realm in search of warmer weather.  And it doesn’t matter that when all of this occurred Christianity was in actual fact the only institution left to provide the leadership and the moral framework necessary to keep a system that otherwise would have collapsed centuries before.

All the secular humanists – all the Obamas of this world – needed was the fact that when the Roman Empire finally truly collapsed, Christians were in charge.  And therefore it was all their fault and all of the above facts of history can be forgotten.

Obama is nothing more than one more liar in a long series of liars who have made Christianity their whipping boy.

There are three reasons for this.

The first – the true foundation for liberal and secular humanist hatred of Christianity – is very simple and it comes directly from the mouth of Jesus Himself:

“If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you.   If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you.  Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A slave is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you; if they kept My word, they will keep yours also.  But all these things they will do to you for My name’s sake, because they do not know the One who sent Me.”  — John 15:18-21

I argued that when a liberal- and secular humanist-hijacked Duke University – once a Christian-founded institution launched to advance the spread of the Christian Gospel of Jesus Christ – called upon the Christian chapel to be used to broadcast the Muslim call to prayer .  You know, the Muslim prayer that Obama claimed was one of the most beautiful sounds on earth.

It’s not very beautiful to me, because after it gets prayed, Christians and Jews tend to get murdered.  It’s kind of like the creepy psychopathic serial killer who sings with a nice voice as he’s preparing to skin you alive.  Pardon me for not appreciating the nice voice.

But it is a simple fact that has been proven over and over and over again for centuries now: Secular humanists and liberals like Obama hate Christianity and demonize the Christians who believe in Christianity in all kinds of ways as a matter of routine because it hated Jesus first.

Secular humanist liberal progressives decry Christianity as “intolerant” because it criticizes homosexuality and radical feminist doctrines such as abortion.  And in embracing Islam as they have, they refute themselves because they have embraced a rival of the Judeo-Christian worldview that is so rabidly and hatefully intolerant to the same homosexuals and women it is beyond UNREAL.

Satan hates Jesus more than anything.  And so do his followers, who like their father the devil are liars.

The second reason is arrogance.

Secular humanism and liberalism arise from atheism, the belief that there is no God – and certainly no God as revealed and described by the Holy Bible – as an a priori.

They ultimately believe that “God” is a big, giant joke.  And it isn’t just that they don’t believe in God; they believe that it is ridiculous for ANYONE to believe in God.  And so ultimately no one really does believe in God and we are all just economic meat puppets as their intellectual master Karl Marx described:

The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself. [2]

Religion cannot possibly be true.  No one can actually truly believe in religion.  And economics and human government, they believe, is the ultimate human reality.

And so liberals and secular humanists believe, in their arrogance, that they can actually ultimately reason with people who put other people in cages and burn them alive.  Or behead them.  Or bury them alive.  Or crucify them.  Or you name the vile thing that they do.

As amazing as it is, it is true: liberals keep believing that if they can just deny reality, deny the real, powerful religious motivation of the terrorists, they can get to the real grounds of the human essence of atheist economics.

The third reason is that radical Islam and secular humanist progressive liberalism both have the same cherished goal: that of human-Government as having divine power.  The Government as God, able to dictate its will by executive order tyranny.  I’ve previously argued that, also.

I’ve pointed out – with examples – that radical Islam and just-as-radical secular humanist progressive liberalism employ the same basic tactics and have the same basic ultimate goal.  And the only difference is the means to that same end and the fact that the latter extremist group are bound by the fact that they have to seize total totalitarian power from within the confines of democracy that they named themselves after but ultimately despise.

Where does government power end?  Where does the power to tax end?  Where does the power of government to say, “No you DON’T have the freedom to practice your religion!’ end?  And both radical Islam and the modern Democrat Party basically say the power of Government NEVER ends and HAS no limits.  We are to do and think and believe and obey as our Ayatollahs or our Obamas dictate that we are to do and think and believe and obey.

I just thought I’d point that out to those of you who can still think.

“Don’t let anyone capture you with empty philosophies and high-sounding nonsense that come from human thinking and from the spiritual powers of this world, rather than from Christ.”  – Colossians 2:8

 

Don’t Be Captured By The Strongholds Of Human Reasoning

January 23, 2015

Obama yes we can to WHAT

Don’t let anyone capture you with empty philosophies and high-sounding nonsense that come from human thinking and from the spiritual powers of this world, rather than from Christ. – Colossians 2:8 NLT

We are human, but we don’t wage war as humans do. We use God’s mighty weapons, not worldly weapons, to knock down the strongholds of human reasoning and to destroy false arguments. We destroy every proud obstacle that keeps people from knowing God. We capture their rebellious thoughts and teach them to obey Christ. – 2 Corinthians 10:3-5 NLT

‘NFL’ = ‘NAZI Felonious Liberals.’ I Am DONE With This Dishonest League And WILL NOT Watch The Superbowl.

January 22, 2015

[Update, January 23, 2015]: We learned today that the NFL has not even BOTHERED to interview key participants in this cheating scandal, as Tom Brady stated that no one from the league had talked to him.  Which is their way of saying, “No big deal.  The chump masses will watch our broadcasts no matter HOW corrupt we are!”

How could a professional quarterback not recognize the difference between the footballs he’d just been using before the game after the league had verified proper inflation and the footballs he was using during the game which we know had been deflated?

Tom Brady has noted for the record that he picks out the balls that are at 12.5 lbs (the minimum pressure by regulation); so if he can tell the difference between balls that way, HOW COULD HE NOT HAVE KNOWN THE BALLS WERE WAY UNDER PRESSURE?

Tom Brady gave a half-hour interview in which he merely repeated, “I am such a pathologically idiotic moron that anybody who watches me do what I do on Sundays has to likewise be a pathologically idiotic moron.”  He didn’t know anything; he didn’t care about anything; he was oblivious about everything; and you’ve got to hope your Wal-Mart cash register clerk is more professional than this multi-millionaire chump.

I just want to state here something that occurred to me while I responded to a comment; namely, that somehow a the very first player on the Colts – a linebacker who intercepted a pass – touched a Patriot football and was immediately aware that the ball was not properly inflated.  And yet somehow Tom Brady, the center, the Patriot running backs, tight ends and wide receivers, AND the league referees were not aware of what that player on the other team who got his hands on a Patriot football was immediately aware of.

And that may be the key: “on the other team.”  At this point it is an open question whether this corrupt league cheated because they know that the Patriots would be a bigger box draw than the Colts – and the Patriot organization – you know, the “spygate” team that filmed other teams’ play signals and the “scoreboardgate” team that froze the scoreboard to dishonestly ice the Baltimore Ravens – went along with the league’s corruption.

Which means watching the Nazi Felonious Liberals broadcast is like watching professional wrestling.  And if you watch the NFL, shame on you, you mindless zombie.

As to Tom Brady’s “point” that this isn’t ISIS, well, neither is the torture-rape-murder of a little girl.  So let’s just not bother to investigate or punish that crime, either.  [End update].

I’ve actually been done with the NFL for several years now.  It used to be I’d watch the Saturday games and then tape the Sunday games so I could go to church and then later see both games (and watch them in order so I wouldn’t know who won the first by watching the second game and having it discussed).

Oh, I was a fan.

But when the same Nazi Felonious Liberals banned Rush Limbaugh from ownership because he was a conservative and they were dishonest liars, and THEN they reinstated a man who had tortured and brutally killed dogs he had already viciously abused by forcing them to fight other dogs, well, I was done.

So Rush Limbaugh was out and Michal Vick was in.  And the Nazi Felonious Liberals wanted to ban conservatives and install animal torturers, well, I started to realize all the better things I had to do with my time.

Of course, since then, we have seen the satanic darkness that is in the heart of every liberal documented on television through their Nazi Felonious Liberals criminal syndicate.

If you watch the NFL, you have to have a talk with your little girls about women stripping (Janet Jackson and more spectacularly Beyoncé), about repeated instances of domestic violence and abuse toward women – because why shouldn’t a big, powerful football player not punch a woman right in the face and knock her unconscious in the REAL “war on women” that liberals facilitate – and now we’ve got to have that talk with our kids that cheating really isn’t that bad, because liberals are pathologically dishonest people who will find a way to reward cheating just as they rewarded punching women in the face and knocking them out.

So what if football causes brain damage?  So does all the damn POT SMOKING THAT LIBERALS HAVE IMPOSED ON AMERICA.  It’s fine because we’re going to have generations of mentally-diseased, brain-devoid zombies voting Democrat.

We see that same heart of darkness in liberal Democrat roaches Michael Moore and Seth Rogan.  These liberals epitomize the reason why a million-billion-thousand trillion years from now, every single Democrat will STILL be burning in hell is a GOOD THING.  Every single one of the sixty million innocent babies you wicked people murdered will get his and her shot at a little payback for what you did to them when you are aborted in hell over and over and over again for all eternity.

Liberals are terrible, wicked, depraved human beings.  And I am done watching their filth and their new version of the Roman gladiatorial games “entertainment.”

So anyway, here it is beyond obvious that the New England Patriots – the professional sports team with the worst record on cheating since the Black Socks of baseball whose coach was nicknamed “Belicheat” BEFORE this present scandal for his previous documented cheating – cheated by deliberately under-inflating footballs AFTER league officials had properly inflated them.  A Colt linebacker intercepted a football and immediately noticed that it was under-inflated and reported that fact to his team and the Colts took the fact to an official.  At halftime the balls of BOTH teams were tested.  And somehow “All of the balls the Colts used met standards” but 11 of the 12 balls used by the Patriots were significantly under-inflated.  Just like Patriot quarterback Tom Brady has admitted for the record that he likes.

It’s just a coincidence that somehow the Patriots ended up with the illegal footballs that their quarterback likes.  Just like it’s just a coincidence that Obama gives the illegal immigrants who illegally vote “Democrat” amnesty.

Massachusetts is the heart of liberalism, so it is no surprise that team Barney Frank would field the most pathologically dishonest organization in sports.

You’ve got pretty much the whole damn Nazi Felonious Liberal organization embracing homosexuality and race-baiting (oh, by the way, that cop who committed the crime of defending himself against a robber-thug who punched him in the face and bum-rushed him to finish the job was just exonerated by even Eric Holder’s kangaroo court-investigation).  And I’m done with the whole stinking lot of them.

Liberals say they won the election and that’s all that matters.  It doesn’t matter how much cheating it took to win; all that matters is that they won and shut up.  In this case the Patriots obviously did not think the outcome of the game was any cinch or why would they have cheated?  And having the confidence of cheaters who were getting an unfair advantage for cheating, the Patriots played like winners.  And the poor Colts couldn’t understand why the Patriots were catching all those [soft] footballs in the cold and rain and they couldn’t catch those hard, properly-inflated balls they had.

There are people who say the Patriots should get the same slap-on-the-wrist they got the LAST time they were caught cheating and got a slap-on-the-wrist.  Because after all, if you’re a convicted child molester and you go before a liberal judge, that liberal judge will of course give you the the same damn slap-on-the-wrist that he or she gave you the last time you destroyed a child’s innocence.

So you can damn-well bet that the Patriots will be allowed to play and be rewarded for corrupting the last appearance of integrity in the NFL.

If a professional sports organization is caught cheating, that team should be disqualified from competition.  Otherwise, let’s just disqualify the league that says lack of integrity is fine with them.  Because there is FAR too much money in sports for a “fine” to be fine enough to punish cheating and cheaters.  If you want to end cheating, ban Bill Belichick for life and force New England to forfeit the season that they ended with their own dishonesty.

I watched the real Superbowl on January 12 when the Ohio State Buckeyes defeated the Oregon Ducks.  And that was the last football game I’ve watched or will watch.

To hell with these NFL turds.

I know there are many – way, WAY TOO MANY – conservatives who believe boycotting is wrong because every business ought to be able to do what it and its ownership wants.  That would be fine – if liberals felt the same way.  But of course, liberals are FASCISTS who want to intimidate everyone into cowering to and caving before their agenda.  So the left boycotts conservative-friendly businesses and organizations like Chick-fil-A and like the Boy Scouts at every turn.  And too many of our businesses and organizations have caved in to liberal intimidation because they’re exposed to boycott while liberal businesses and organizations are exempted from it by well-meaning but naïve conservatives.

Boycott them.  Take a damn stand for once in your life.

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

TO OUR READERS:

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
SHARELINE
▼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.

If You Were REALLY A Liberal, You’d Vote Straight-Ticked Republican. Here’s Why.

October 24, 2014

There are a lot of people – and I’m one of them – who find it distasteful to have to describe my opponents as “liberals.”  They AREN’T “liberal” in the political sense.

Liberalism in the classical sense – and I’M a liberal in that sense – has nothing whatsoever to do with modern American “liberals.”

Note the definition of classical liberalism:

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. The philosophy emerged as a response to the Industrial Revolution and urbanization in the 19th century in Europe and the United States.[1] It advocates civil liberties with a limited government under the rule of law, private property rights, and belief in laissez-faire economic liberalism.[2][3][4] Classical liberalism is built on ideas that had already arisen by the end of the 18th century, including ideas of Adam Smith, John Locke, Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Malthus, and David Ricardo. It drew on a psychological understanding of individual liberty, natural law, utilitarianism, and a belief in progress.[5]

Do modern American “liberals” want limited government?  No, they want the opposite; they are the OPPOSITE of liberals.  Do they want to emphasize private property rights?  Do they believe in laissez-faire free markets?  Do they believe in individual liberty and natural law?  Absolutely not.  Do Democrats believe in “progress” in this classical sense?  No.  In fact they demonize it as evil:

This painting (circa 1872) by John Gast called American Progress, is an allegorical representation of the modernization of the new west. Here Columbia, a personification of the United States, leads civilization westward with American settlers, stringing telegraph wire as she sweeps west; she holds a school book as well. The different stages of economic activity of the pioneers are highlighted and, especially, the changing forms of transportation.[1]

So-called “liberals” don’t want ANY of the things that actual, real liberalism embraces.

What modern American “liberals” actually are is “fascist.”

The only component of “fascism” that is NOT directly embraced by the modern American left is the doctrine of racism, which of course these leftists exploit to demonize their opponents.  I submit that yes, in face, modern American “liberals” ARE racist and exploit race and race-baiting and racial politics at every turn to document their racism.  And I submit that “fascism” and “racism” do not need to be connected in any way.  As an example, while Nazi fascism was fundamentally racist, Italian fascism was NOT.

So, while I submit that modern American “liberals” are in fact even fascist in the NAZI sense – and if there were a “National Socialist American Workers Party” you’re d damn FOOL if you don’t believe it would be the Democrat Party in America today – let’s exclude that from our calculus.  Because when it comes to all the other criteria for membership as a fascist – belief in a leader with dictatorial powers, belief in the exaltation of the state, belief in the right of the state to dictate to corporations what should be produced and at what price produced goods should be sold, belief in “corporatism” in which people organize into groups a la unions that then negotiate with other groups within the dominance of the state to make “progress” in the fascist sense of “progress,” belief in the power of the state to extend its influence into every sphere of society – modern American liberals are not only fascist but enthusiastically fascist.

Let me quote a remark the Hollywood liberal actress Gwyneth Paltrow recently made at a fundraiser she hosted for our so-called “Democrat” president:

“It would be wonderful if we were able to give this man all of the power that he needs to pass the things that he needs to pass.”

That’s right.  If the Führer only had more power, he’d be a much better Führer.  And think how wonderful the world would be.

The only problem is that’s actually been tried as socialists banded together in Germany under a man to whom they gave all of the power that he needed to pass the things that he needed to pass.

Now, some liberal is going to come here and say that it’s unfair to associate liberals with this big-time major liberal who just hosted a major fundraiser for Obama.  Kind of like all the Democrats running for re-election saying its unfair to associate them with Obama after they spent the last six years voting with Obama an average of 95% of the damn time.  But in fact Gwyneth Paltrow is not some idiot bimbo here, but an informed leftist describing the mindset of intellectual leftism here.  Let me quote a great liberal of a former era – in fact the Godfather of American liberalism – H.G. Wells:

In a talk at Oxford provocatively titled “Liberal Fascism,” he called for liberalism to be “born again.” After his customary denunciation of parliamentary politics as an anachronism, he let out his frustrations, calling for fascist means to serve liberal ends by way of a liberal elite as “conceited” and as power-hungry as its rivals. “I suggest that you study the reinvigoration of Catholicism by Loyola,” Wells said. “I am asking for a Liberal Fascisti.” It was also to Communism that “we shall have to turn—we outsiders, that is, the young people with foresight for enlightened Nazis; I am proposing that you consider the formation for a greater Communist Party; a western response to Russia.”

Wells thought he had found that Western response in 1934, when he met with President Franklin D. Roosevelt and with key members of FDR’s Brains Trust. “My impression of both him and Mrs. Roosevelt,” he wrote, “is that they are unlimited people, entirely modern in the openness of their minds and the logic of their actions.” Here, for a time at least, was another political hero with whom he could identify wholeheartedly. FDR was “continually revolutionary in the new way without ever provoking a stark revolutionary crisis,” wrote the ever-certain Wells. “I do not say that the President has these revolutionary ideas in so elaborate and comprehensive a form as they have come to me, [but] unless I misjudge him, they will presently possess him altogether.” Indeed, FDR was “the most effective transmitting instrument possible for the coming of the new world order,” and in Brains Trusters Raymond Moley, Felix Frankfurter, and Rex Tugwell, Wells found the nucleus of the new elite, those who were destined to take full power in time.

Consider another of the great fathers of modern American liberalism, Woodrow Wilson:

“If any trait bubbles up in all one reads about Wilson,” rites the historian Walter McDougall, “it is this: he loved, craved, and in a sense glorified power.”

Wilson’s fascination with power is the leitmotif of his whole career.  It informed his understanding of theology and politics, and their intersection.  Power was God’s instrument on earth and therefore was always to be revered.  In Congressional Government he admitted, “I cannot imagine power as a thing negative and not positive.”  Such love of power can be found in many systems and men outside the orbit of fascism, but few ideologies or aesthetics are more directly concerned with the glory of might, will, strength, and action.  — Modern Fascism, by Jonah Goldberg, p. 84

Gwynet Paltrow simply stated what is necessarily true about what modern American “liberals” believe and HAVE believed.

Now with that awareness of ACTUAL American “liberal” history, consider Obama.  Consider the massive, sweeping executive orders that the man has passed by dictatorial fiat.

This is a president who has been smacked down by UNANIMOUS Supreme Court rulings condemning his totalitarian power grabs THIRTEEN TIMES.  That has NEVER happened in the entire history of our republic.

Just as a Senate Majority leader seizing more power to block amendments than all the previous Senate Majority Leaders COMBINED TIMES TWO has never happened before.

We live in an age of raw, distilled FASCISM that is coming out of the Democrat Party.

As we speak, Obama is waiting until after the election – because otherwise he would be held accountable for his raw, naked fascist power-grab – to give amnesty to as many as 34 million “future Democrat voters.”

Fascist.

I was nearing the end of my long walk two nights ago and was walking in the parking lot of a gym that I belonged to.  I was four-tenths of a mile from my home in a public place.  A police officer flashed me with his lights and demanded I show my ID.

As I gave the officer my information I gave him a piece of my mind, pointing out that I don’t have the right to walk near my house in a public area in the parking lot of an establishment that I am a member of without being required to produce identification.  But I can vote for the God damned president of the God damned United States – and I used that then as now as a technical term to denote the damnation of this president and the country he represents by the God of the Bible – without being required to produce any identification whatsoever.  And that this is a patently immoral and fascist system.

I mentioned the shenanigans that were taking place as we speak in Colorado and other states by fascists who have bought and rigged the system.

The officer said he completely agreed with me.  “What can we do?” He asked me.

I didn’t have an answer.  Democracy has been perverted by perverted, fascist people with a perverted, fascist end and a perverted, fascist means to achieve that perverted, fascist end.  Because these are the last days and the beast is coming.

As much as the left demonizes the Koch brothers, they are not even ON the list of the top fifty political donors with said list leaning overwhelmingly DEMOCRAT.

Right now, with Obama so far down in the polls and so unpopular with Democrats running for office that Chris Matthews was forced to state on MSNBC:

“It’s like Obama has ebola.”

Obama has “moral Ebola.”  He is a wicked man with a wicked ideology and a wicked means to attain his wicked ends.

But filthy rich leftist who demonize the other side for giving any money to support their values have pumped MILLIONS into the Democrat Party attack machine to try to buy elections.  The money is coming almost entirely from the uber rich because every poll is demonstrating that the Republican base is FAR more energized than the Democrat base.  So where the hell else is the damn money coming from?  Because it sure as hell isn’t coming from the rank and file.

Obama was the first major candidate in history to refuse federal matching funds as he raised over a billion dollars.  It was Barack Obama and the Democrat Party who fundamentally perverted and broke the campaign finance system.

Democrats KNOW they’re liars as they demonize Republicans as being responsible for elections being bought when THEY’RE THE ONES WHO INVENTED IT AND THEY’RE THE ONES WHO ARE DOING IT TO THE TUNE OF TWENTY-TO-ONE.  Look again at the damn list of donors, the numbers, the amounts.

You liberals say you want money out of politics.  Because you are incredibly cynical hypocrites and liars and frauds.

And if these hypocrites and  liars and frauds can’t buy their elections, they’ll do it with fraud.  Because they will stop at nothing to impose their fascist agenda on America any more than Obama will let Congress or the Constitution stop him from imposing his fascist agenda on the American people with the most sweeping and far-reaching and illegal executive order power-grabs in history.

That is why they so rabidly and so militantly oppose ANY ATTEMPT WHATSOEVER NO MATTER HOW REASONABLE IT IS to have any kind of voter identification whatsoever.

I keep hearing Democrats saying there’s no evidence of voter fraud.  WHEN YOU CAN’T CHECK IDs, HOW THE HELL CAN YOU EVER PROVE ANY KIND OF VOTER FRAUD???

Remember refusing to say whether she voted for Obama?  Remember how she punted to some higher principle of being allowed to cast your vote privately rather than admit something that would hurt her as she runs for an office in which all of her votes would necessarily be public when she herself proudly declared that she had voted for Hillary in the primary???  Democrats do the same thing when they punt to some higher principle of voting and that it is immoral to in any way suppress voter turnout.  BECAUSE THEY ARE DOING EVERYTHING THEY CAN TO SUPPRESS THE REPUBLICAN VOTE.

Democrats are on the record desperately searching for “effective messaging to degrade Republican enthusiasm” and thus keep Republicans out of the voting boothsThat from the TOP donor in American politics who by himself contributed more than the top 31 Republican donors COMBINED.

Get off your damned high-horse when you talk about voter suppression, you so-called “liberal.”

So allow me to simply state it as a bald FACT: if you want money out of politics, you vote straight-ticket REPUBLICAN.  Or you’re a hypocrite and a liar like the fascist party you support is a bunch of hypocrites and liars.

Here’s another one.  Do you want “transparency”???

Then don’t you DARE vote for a single damn Democrat.

First of all, let’s talk about the Obama administration’s “transparency.”

Oh, wait.  There ISN’T any.  As even leftist writers in “Democracy Now!” openly admit.  Barack Obama is “the least transparent president in American history.”

An Associated Press analysis called the Obama administration “the least transparent in 2013.”  You get to 2o14 and the change of year was just “One more reason why the Obama administration is the least transparent EVER.”

But let’s move beyond the fact that the Democrat Party machine is the party of opaque fascism.

Let’s move to expose “liberalism” itself as an ideology as being inherently non-transparent.

As a blogger who is openly partisan, I know what it’s like to encounter facts that are either unpleasant to me or hostile to my point-of-view.  And the tendency is to simply ignore it and refuse to talk about it.  And the more rabidly partisan you are, the more you will refuse to deal with facts that you don’t like.

Which is what the mainstream media is doing with the mid-term elections.

When Bush was unpopular, the “news” covered Bush’s unpopularity with glee.  Now that Obama’s every bit as unpopular, all we hear is the crickets chirping.

When Republicans were in danger, the media rushed in to cover the story massively in hopes of finishing Republicans off.  Now that its Democrats in trouble, SILENCE.  ABC ran 36 stories on the 2006 mid-term elections.  How many have they ran now that Democrats are in danger?  ZERO.

You find that a decidedly liberal partisan political agenda outstrips and outweighs any objective reporting of the news by a SIX-TO-ONE MARGIN – 159 stories then when Democrats were ascendant to 15 stories now when Republicans are ascendant.

The mainstream media is nothing short of a Democrat fascist propaganda machine that reports what the Democrat Party wants them to report the way the Democrat Party wants them to report it.

History overwhelmingly proves that if you want a media that will investigate and report on the activities of a presidency and a political party, you will vote to ensure that that president and those politicians are REPUBLICAN.  Because otherwise the fascist so-called “liberal” media will NOT investigate and will NOT report the facts.

So if you’re in any way an honest person and you want openness and transparency, you will NEVER vote Democrat.

Of course, the fact of the matter is that Democrats DO NOT want openness or transparency.  They most certainly do NOT want money out of politics.  They do NOT want any of the things that actual “liberals” would want and in fact they want what only FASCISTS want.  Which is why they vote the way they do for the people who do what the Democrat Party machine does.