How The Mainstream Media Has ‘Fundamentally Transformed’ Even The TRUTH Into ‘Fake News’ By Weaponizing The Truth

I watch the White House press corp. do its thing every now and then, and I regularly read the Los Angeles Times and USA Today scan a number of other news sources.  And overall, for Donald Trump, it’s “Damned if he does, but also damned if he doesn’t.”  If he follows through with his campaign promises, they attack him as rigidly inflexible, but if he compromises in any way they attack him for compromising in any way.  In the press briefing yesterday, for example, a reporter fixated on “wall” such that ANY kind of wall that contained ANY kind of fencing whatsoever – including on structures that have always been CALLED walls such as “bollard walls” and “levy walls” are in face “fences” and not hypertechnically “walls” even though the federal government engineers have always CALLED them “walls.”  And therefore President Trump would be breaking his word to build a “wall.”  I’m not kidding.  They did that.  Look at the briefing transcript.  So on the one hand they are rabidly dead set against Trump building a wall and will demonize and slander him as a racist and every other hateful thing if he does so, but if he in any way, shape or form tries to negotiate or compromise, they’ll frame him as a liar.  They will not allow him to be “flexible.”  They just will not.

This is every single day on every single issue.  I’ve seen numerous mainstream media outlets questioning Trump’s motives on being willing to talk, for example, with North Korea’s Kim Jong-un for “appeasing” and “coddling” dictators.   CNN’s opening salvo on May 1 was this:

The President has made a habit of praising the leaders of some of the most oppressive regimes, calling Kim Jong-Un a pretty smart cookie issuing a surprise White House invite to the Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte who was – has bragged about personally killing suspected criminals when he was a mayor. And famously defending Vladimir Putin again and again and again and planning to speak to the Russian president in just hours. We will talk about that in a moment. So, is this a deliberate strategy or is the President just not up to speed?

The editorial board of the LA Times hurled an article at Trump titled “Schmoozing with a killer” on May 2.  And you go back to the pure, rabid hate and contempt that the Lost Angeles Slimes threw at Trump in their six-series by the same editorial board titled “Our Dishonest President” that begins, “It was no secret during the campaign that Donald Trump was a narcissist and a demagogue who used fear and dishonesty to appeal to the worst in American voters.”  And just realize that these are people pathologically incapable of anything remotely close to “fair and balanced.”  They are unfair and unhinged.

Now, when Barack Obama declared that he would be willing to talk with dictators including pretty much all the players that they are now viciously attacking Trump for being willing to talk to now, the same mainstream media heralded it as the greatest vapor of fresh air the universe had ever breathed.  When Obama gave $400 million in unmarked bills packed in crates in a secret flight to the world’s worst supporter of terrorism, the mainstream media yawned.  When Obama basically gave that same world’s worst sponsor of hate and violence on earth $33.6 billion which they could use to finance their ballistic missile system which is necessary for them for when they break Obama’s stupid nuclear treaty that was dishonestly presented to the American people and in which Obama openly pardoned the worst terrorist murderers on the face of the earth if you want to talk about schmoozing with killers – the mainstream media yawned.  Or we could talk about all the lies surrounding Obama’s decision to schmooze with killers when he traded five terrorist generals with the blood of American servicemen on their hands for a confirmed traitor named Bergdahl and Susan Rice declared that acts of treason was synonymous with “serving with honor and distinction.”  I could literally go on and on about Obama schmoozing with killers.  Obama watched a baseball game with a hard-core murderous dictator named Raul Castro.  CNN called it “baseball diplomacy.”

You would get very filthy rich if you had a chance to accept a high-stakes bet that CNN wouldn’t call it that if Trump did the same exact thing with dictator Putin that Obama did with dictator Castro.  The Philippines have been one of America’s staunchest allies in Southeast Asia since before World War II; Cuba was a steadfast enemy of the United States until Obama unilaterally decided they were our friends and allies.  So the same mainstream media that demonizes Trump for befriending the dictator of one of our very best friends since World War II is the same media that praised Obama for befriending the dictator of one of our worst enemies since World War II.  You have to be a LIBERAL to be that kind of a moral hypocrite.

The mainstream media is as dishonest as the sun is hot.  And hot damn is that sun ever hot.  Not that the sun has anything whatsoever to do with global warming, which is entirely caused by humans, mind you.

So, again, if Trump actually takes a strong stand against the dictators, this media will brand him as a “warmonger.”  And you’ll see all kinds of stories trying to – in the LA Times’ words – be demagogues who use fear and dishonesty to appeal to the worst in American voters by hyping up images of nuclear war and world war three as they try to frame Trump as they’ve already done.

So he’s damned if he takes a stand; damned if he tries to use diplomacy.  Damned if he does but every damned bit as damned if he doesn’t.

And since these matters are ALWAYS and INVARIABLY subject to interpretation and perception, they will ALWAYS interpret and perceive in a way hostile to Trump and to any kind of traditional American value system.  They will ALWAYS be biased and unfair and yes, therefore dishonest.

It was the Los Angles Times that had Barack Obama dead to rights in having in their possession a video of Senator Barack Obama honoring and glorifying a rabidly anti-Israel TERRORIST propagandist named Rasheed Khalidi.  The LA Times has refused to publish the truth about Obama because it not only would have destroyed any chance whatsoever that he had of ever becoming president, but it would destroy any legacy that he still has today.  They were all too willing to release video about Donald Trump that was literally illegal to release, necessitating a run-around where the video was given by one “journalist” from one network to another “journalist” so the hit could take place with no one going to jail for it.  But when it came to Obama, it was high-gear hoity-toity self-righteous indignation about journalistic ethics.  It is literally a fact that Barack Obama spent eight cancerous years as president because the Los Angeles Times refused to have anything whatsoever to do with legitimate news.

The Lost Angeles Slimes is a fake news organization if there is such a thing.

Let’s look at some of the numbers.  In a recent study of ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN, 89% of the coverage of Donald Trump was NEGATIVE during his first hundred days as president.  In a thousand stories, with nineteen hundred minutes of total airtime, only 186 minutes could be viewed as “positive” in either content or tone.  The Washington Times declared that “It would be hard for biased, negative news coverage of President Trump to get any worse.”

I used to think that way.  Now I realize that the mainstream media can ALWAYS get worse and more biased; what they CAN’T do is get any better.  Journalists will one day scream in the hottest part of hell for their crimes against truth because they had a sacred obligation to report the truth and they instead perverted it on a daily basis.

The mainstream media has weaponized the truth.

What do I mean by that?  They will tell the unvarnished truth – if and only if the unvarnished truth at a particular moment happens to correspond to their ideological and political agenda.  Otherwise they will pervert the truth, they will adulterate the truth, they will prejudice the truth.  They will play games with the truth and manipulate the truth and massage the truth until “the truth lies.”

The truth when Obama’s stooge Hillary Clinton was running against Donald Trump is an interesting matter.  The New York Times reported the “truth” that Hillary had an 85% chance of winning the presidency on election day.  The actual reality was that she got her ass handed to her.  Before that, these same “truth-tellers” assured us that the Brexit vote would go the way the internationalists liberals wanted it to.  I wrote an article about that titled, “Brexit: Democrats, You Ought To Wake Up SCARED, Because Your Vile Failures Have Caught Up With You.”  But these people who today love so much to attack anything favorable to Trump as “fake news” had no freaking clue what the actual true news was.

I watched part of the White House Press Correspondents Dinner.  The one that President Trump blew off as a waste of time and which was rightly described as “an extended middle finger to Trump.”  Tucker Carlson pointed out that the nearly unanimous liberalism in the media amounts to as blatant a form of extremist bigotry as exist anywhere on earth today.

Even New York Times reporters are admitting that Donald Trump is FAR more tolerant of the 1st Amendment than Barack Obama ever was.  Trump is giving press briefings that Obama refused to give; whereas Obama was the worst enemy in American history of Freedom of Information Act requests, and literally labelled legitimate journalists like James Rosen and legitimate news organizations like the Associated Press as criminals so he could place them under surveillance.  And Hillary was even WORSE than Obama!

But you’d never know that listening to that White House Correspondents dinner, because while journalists are literally being assassinated in Mexico, American “journalists” are decrying the nosedive into Stalinism that Trump represents.

Even though he is measurably better in every imaginable front than Obama was or than Hillary would have been.

And you could see it coming: because when Hillary staffers told “journalists” they would have to follow along like sheep behind rope lines, they like sheep obliged.  Versus the snarling, barking, vicious, rabid wolves they become whenever they hear the name Trump.

I literally do not care what the media says anymore.

When you will only tell your biased and distorted and perverted version of “the truth” about your enemies while sheltering your friends and fellow ideological travelers, your “truth” doesn’t matter.  That’s what I mean by “weaponizing the truth.”

The same media that illegally and criminally released Donald Trump’s tax records and his horrifying slip on a hot mic for Access Hollywood have steadfastly refused to release Obama’s college records in addition to his praise for an anti-Semitic terrorist propagandist.  There is no question whatsoever that Obama filed for college as a foreign exchange student.  In his own autobiography Obama acknowledged that he was an indifferent student who had poor grades and used drugs.  How the hell did he get into the most prestigious universities in America?  Because foreign exchange students don’t have to perform the way American students do to gain admittance.  But the media didn’t want you to do that and to this day they refuse to report that.  In regards to the Access Hollywood footage, California law makes it a CRIME to do what “journalists” did by releasing a recording of someone without their knowledge or consent.  Just as it is a federal crime to do what Susan Rice did to Mike Flynn by releasing his eavesdropped conversations and it is a federal crime to release someone’s tax records.  But standards and laws don’t mean anything to these people, who know how to sidestep the law or their ethics whenever they want to sidestep them.  But at the same time somehow prevent them from reporting the truth when that truth would destroy their candidate.

Today, the Los Angeles Times has an incredibly smarmy bold-face and all-caps title to their main-page print edition article on health care: “A REPUBLICAN WIN, FOR NOW.”  Rest assured that wasn’t the same spirit this fake news outlet took when the epic Titanic disaster a.k.a. ObamaCare was passed by the same one-party vote.  I remember reading the shock of the mainstream media that for the first time, the U.S. death rate rose with that rise incredibly coincidentally coinciding with ObamaCare running like the death-panel-machine that it was always guaranteed to be.  Not only is ObamaCare not saving lives; it is actively KILLING AMERICANS.  ObamaCare premiums rose a nationwide average of 25% this year over last and the deductibles one has to pay just for the cheapest ObamaCare product are an incredibly high $6,000 with the average family enrolled in the plan paying an average of $12,393 before their ObamaCare “insurance” kicks in.  How in the ehll can anyone legitimately claim that ObamaCare provides “coverage” when it has made actual health care so expensive that people cannot actually afford it?  What do you call a health care law that creates a higher death rate?  A grotesque and frankly evil euphemistic oxymoron, is what I call it.

The ObamaCare death rate surge is a “surprise” to the same experts who month after month were astonished by the “unexpected” disappointments that occurred month after month after month in Obama’s failed economy.  Because liberal “experts” are biblical in their foolishness: “always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth.”  Because “Claiming to be wise, they instead became utter fools.”  That is what they are; it is what they always have been; it is what they always will remain.

When Sarah Palin RIGHTLY predicted that ObamaCare was a giant “death panel,” she was not only mocked, she was viciously and hatefully attacked for saying such an ugly “fearmongering” thing about major legislation.  That we can now document was RIGHT.  But the same Democratic Party that is inciting VIOLENT RIOTS to undermine Trump are saying even WORSE and MORE fearmongering things about the GOP legislation.  Just like when Obama was president, it was an ugly, hateful and racist thing to attack him and it was even MORE unheard of to attack his wife and his children; but now Democrats are gleefully the most vicious hate to do those very things.  And the same mainstream media that demonized those who said anything negative about Obama and family are ENCOURAGING hate against Trump and his family.

The Democrat Party comes out and lies, LIES, LIES and slanders, SLANDERS, SLANDERS.  And the mainstream media “reports” their lies and their slanders as if they were the truth.  Every intent of the GOP plan is to do the vitally important thing that ObamaCare very painfully obviously did not do: lower the actual cost of health care.  And while insurers are bailing out of ObamaCare because this demonic turd is very clearly in its death spiral, the GOP plan will both give Americans more control over their health care and create the completion that has always been the source of American marketplace success such that insurance companies can create across state lines and provide more streamlined products at lower costs whereas ObamaCare created fiefdoms.  But the same mainstream media that mocked the GOP when they RIGHTLY called out ObamaCare as a death panel are now fixing their dishonest slander-guns at the GOP plan; the same mainstream media that steadfastly refused to tell the actual TRUTH about how terrible ObamaCare was are now viciously attacking every aspect of the GOP plan.  The Democratic Party and the mainstream media that serve as their propagandists literally have blood on their hands, but that doesn’t stop them from continuing to hurt the American people as they keep sucking the life out of this nation and the citizens who inhabit it.

The stories from the media are characterizing the world as on the brink of world war three: but who put us in this dilemma?  Maybe it was Obama who disastrously set forth a “red line” that was crossed dozens and dozens of times with Obama doing NOTHING such that even Obama’s fiercest apologists such as John Kerry were forced to concede that it “cost us significantly by leading other nations to see America as WEAK.”  Maybe it was Obama who emboldened Russia by doing NOTHING when they were seizing countries and taking over the Middle East that every previous president had successfully shut them out of.  Maybe it was Obama who allowed China to militarily occupy the South China Sea – THE most commercially vital sea lane on planet earth – and allowing China to push America out and push us around.  Maybe it was Obama who did NOTHING to stop or even slow down North Korea from obtaining ballistic missiles; and maybe simultaneously it was Obama rewarding Iran for being the largest sponsor of terrorism on earth by giving them $33.6 billion to perfect their own ballistic missile technology so they could return to developing their nuclear weapons which are useless without the ballistic missile system to deliver those weapons on another country.  Maybe it’s the fact that under Obama and because of Obama, terrorist deaths rose by an eyeball-popping one-thousand, nine-hundred percent.  And yet the same media that kept allowing Obama to blame Bush for every failure are now pretending that Trump is the one who did all these things to erode American credibility, influence and power???

How can people who profess to be “intelligent” fail to understand that a “nuclear deal” that gives a rogue nation BILLIONS to develop ballistic missile technology ONLY guarantees that that rogue nation will have nuclear weapons PLUS the means to deliver them to our cities???

The mainstream media keep focusing on “Russian interference in our election.”  They fail to point out that it was OBAMA who stood back incompetently and uselessly while Russia did it, just as he did nothing all the other times they bullied Obama and pushed America around.  They also conveniently (for Obama) fail to mention that if what Russia did was wrong, then Obama needs to go to prison for doing the same damn thing to Israel that Russia did to us.  And lastly, they fail to mention that all Russia did was reveal the damn TRUTH that Hillary Clinton was a pathologically dishonest and secretive shrew who illegally installed a secret server to bypass American transparency laws under Obama’s watch.  In other words, the Russians told the American people THE TRUTH that our own dishonest fake news media refused to report until it was thrown in their faces and they were FORCED to report it.

If there is any conceivable way the mainstream media can frame a total failure as some kind of “success” when Democrats are in office, they will do so; if on the other hand there is any conceivable way they can frame an amazing success as an unmitigated failure when Republicans are running things, they will do so.  And since these stories are ALWAYS a matter of “perception” or “interpretation,” they will always perceive or interpret exactly the way their ideology prompts them to.  And so Obama presided over the worst economic “wreckovery” in American history, and the media “perceived” it to be a success; and so far Trump has added over $3 trillion to the economy in a record-short time since becoming president due to the optimism that Obama’s economy-eroding dictates would be undone, and the same media “perceives” it to be a failure.

There has NEVER been a law that made EVERYBODY happy and there never will be.  Take ObamaCare.  PLEASE, as the comic says.  There were MILLIONS of Americans who were HURT by ObamaCare from the very getgo, such as my own parents who lost their Medicare Advantage plans that Obama promised them they could keep.  But we never really saw that coverage, did we?  Just like every day when the mainstream media find “victims” of Trump’s policy to actually follow the damn LAW when it comes to ILLEGAL immigrants and do “victim” stories on how hard their lives are because Trump is so mean.  They don’t give one flying DAMN about all the Kate Steinles out there.  They simply don’t matter because the victim hurts rather than helps their ideological narrative.  Put it this way: say TrumpCare helped 97% of Americans and was by any legitimate measure an overwhelming success.  What would the media do?  They would place 97% of their coverage on the 3% who weren’t happy.  Because that’s what they do when it’s a Republican or conservative policy.  The same damn way they do the exact opposite and ignore the negatives no matter how large that negative crowd is when it’s some crap that Obama put his stamp on.

And I for one am beyond sick of the 89% rabid bias that is literally the defining characteristic of the mainstream media today.  I’m beyond sick of the unrelenting double-standard whereby it was a horrible thing to do to attack a presidents wife and children until and unless that president was named Donald and his wife was named Melania and his daughter was named Ivanka: and then it’s open-damn-season on the hate-machine from the “tolerant” crowd.

The media is on the warpath against Trump and they are taking sides and they are out to get him.  And I am ignoring them the way they ignored every single ignominious failure that characterized the entire Obama degenerate presidency.

So “report” whatever the hell you want to, media.  I know the truth about YOU and I know the truth about those whom you have been in the business of protecting for decades.  And I simply refuse to play your game where only your adversaries are to be held accountable to “the truth.”

 

The Leftist Hypocrite Train Continues Chugging Along, Destination Fiery, Agonizing Hell.

Rest assured I will get to the Ben Carson story that is all over the place.  Let me warm up to it.

So Carly Fiorina appeared on the View to hold the liberal witches on that program accountable for their shrill attacks against the Republican woman running for president in which, among other things, her face was attacked as a “demented Halloween mask.”

Here was how the View characterized the vicious personal attack against a Republican woman by shrews who have made it abundantly clear that they rabidly hate Republicans:

Co-host Joy Behar was visibly upset that her comments about Fiorina’s face were offensive to the female Republican presidential candidate.

“I don’t get why any candidate is exempt from my comedic jokes,” Behar.

Well, here’s what I don’t get, Behar: why do YOU believe that YOU should be exempt from your awful partisan ideologically rabid attacks???

I don’t have a transcript, but I can accurately sum up Behar’s position thus: she’s a COMEDIAN, you see.  And while Donald Trump should be viciously attacked for saying the SAME EXACT THING that the View said, he’s NOT a comedian.

We call this a double-standard.  We also call it a fascist passive-aggressive tyranny trip by a loathsome jug of fecal matter.

The same View that believes – you know, because they believe they’re “funny” and the rapidly shrinking audience of “the toxic environment” that is The View agree with them – believes that Donald Trump should be shouted down.  I mean, he’s had his own television program that was a hell of a lot more successful than The Poo, but Whoopie Cushion Goldberg and Joyless Behar have decreed that they are funnier than him regardless of what a far larger audience than theirs thinks.  So off with his head.

Do I have the right to speak out about the wickedness of homosexuality?

What if I speak what they call my hatred in a “funny” way.  Do I then?

NO! they shriek.  Absolutely NOT.  This “comedic exemption” where only true “comics” (as defined by the ideological left) means that you’ve got to be funny only in the politically correct manner.

There is no comedic exemption to your fascist views against actual free speech, ye cast of feminist warthogs.  Either we ALL have the right to say what we want to without being attacked for it, or NONE of us do, most especially if you sit on a show that should have been cancelled five years ago.

For the record, Donald Trump is a “comedian” too.  He’s supposed to host the comedy program Saturday Night Live, which proves it.  One of the reasons his attacks against the other Republican candidates work so well is that he pulls them off with a comical flair and brilliant comedic timing.

Donald Trump is a better comic than Whoopie Cushion Goldberg or Joyless Behar have EVER been: his enormous wealth proves it.

But when Donald Trump espouses what he considers “The View,” does he get to say his spiel without criticism?  Not from ideological liberals and not from YOU, Joy Behar, you rabid hypocrite.  Where’s his comedic exemption to the left’s criticism the way you propose you ought to be exempt from the right’s criticism?

But of course, that’s just one of the many examples of stops the Rabid Hypocrite Liberal Choo-Choo makes.  Here’s another one:

The media is going after allegedly false statements that Ben Carson has made about his life the way a type-A personality terrier who thinks it smells a gopher digs holes in the back yard.  The gleeful report from Reuters is “Carson LIED.”

The reality is much more nuanced than the story reveals.  In fact, Ben Carson was “the top ROTC student in the City of Detroit.”  He met with General William Westmoreland, who was one of if not THE most powerful general in the Army, having just returned from command of all US forces in Vietnam.  And according to Carson, Westmoreland promised “the top ROTC student” that if he applied, his application would most certainly be granted.

So the headlines trumpeting Carson “admits fabricating” kind of skip a lot of facts that kind of at least help you understand why Ben Carson would say that he was “accepted” at West Point when all he had to do to have that status was turn in an application that he decided to pass on.

Politico demonstrated to any objective follower of media that it is blatantly partisan in its hithobs.  It walked the story back without every having the decency to admit it got the story wrong or even WAS walking it back.

It’s called “Gotcha.”  And the media plays it best against conservatives, and rarely ever plays it at all against liberals.

Now even Politifact – and you need to understand that while Politifact DOES do good work, it generally “fact checks” from a leftist perspective – acknowledges that Ben Carson is the honest one and Politico is the dishonest one.  They rank his defense as “mostly true” which means that Politico has to be at LEAST “mostly false.”

You find that Politico and much of the left-wing media that reported this story flat-out LIED about what Ben Carson said in order to dishonestly frame him as a liar.  Carson never SAID he’d been admitted to West Point; he never said that he’d been accepted at West Point; what he said was that he was “offered” a full scholarship and the dishonesty the media used to slander him is amazing.

The same Reuters that joyfully trumpeted the “Carson Lied” article called Hillary Clinton’s Benghazi very real pile of dishonesty and lies “the zombie scandal.”  Which is precisely why Marco Rubio in that leftist assassination attempt also known as the CNBC debate caricatured the mainstream media as “the biggest and most powerful super PAC of all” working for the Democrat Party.

I’ll give a couple of examples of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton NEVER being similarly scrutinized for FAR WORSE deceit in their academic careers.  But let me work on another aspect of Hillary Clinton and the mainstream media caught covering for her first.

Hillary Clinton got caught dead-to-rights, red-bloody-handed, smoking-gun-in-her-gunpowder-residue-tested-hands LIE over Benghazi.  There is absolute NO QUESTION AT ALL that Hillary Clinton said one thing to the victims over the caskets containing the murdered bodies of their loved ones one thing and her own daughter and the foreign minister of Egypt another thing.  As part of an overall incredibly cynically dishonest campaign strategy of the Obama administration to lie about what was very clearly a TERRORIST ATTACK AGAINST THE UNITED STATES by “fundamentally transforming” it into a “spontaneous demonstration.”

Let’s look at the timeline:

At the day and time of the attack in Benghazi, literally AS the TERRORIST attack was underway against the US compound, Hillary wrote:

Hillary Clinton’s exact words the day of the attack, literally as the attack was underway:

“…there is a gun battle ongoing, which I understand Ansar as-Sharia [sic] is claiming responsibility for.”

The very next day after the attack, Hillary wrote to the Egyptian foreign minister and categorically stated:

Again, Hillary Clinton’s EXACT WORDS: “We know that the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film.  It was a planned attack — not a protest.”

And later that same day, Hillary wrote to her daughter and said:

Her exact words again: “Two of our officers were killed in Benghazi by an Al Qaeda-like group.”

So what did Hillary say to the families of the victims literally over the victims’ dead bodies when they returned to America on September 14, 2015:

Tyrone Woods’ father (who took notes about their meeting): “I gave Hillary a hug and shook her hand. And she said we are going to have the film maker arrested who was responsible for the death of my son…’She said — the filmmaker who was responsible for the death of your son’…”

Sean Smith’s mother: “She’s absolutely lying. She told me something entirely different at the casket ceremony. She said it was because of the video.”

Sean Smith’s uncle: “Mrs. Clinton really has a problem embracing the truth.”

Glen Doherty’s sister: “When I think back now to that day and what she knew, it shows me a lot about her character that she would choose in that moment to basically perpetuate what she knew was untrue.”

THREE FAMILIES out of the four murdered men specifically claim and have consistently claimed from DAY ONE that Hillary Clinton told them that it was a damn Youtube video and NOT the terrorist attack that it is now documented as FACT that she KNEW was the truth.

Now let’s look at some more emails from the State Department the same damn DAY that Hillary Clinton was saying what she KNEW to be an incredibly cynical and depraved LIE to the murdered victims’ families literally over their dead bodies:

It turns out, three days after the Benghazi attack, on Sept. 14, 2012, the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli specifically warned the State Department in an email not to promote the idea that an anti-Muslim YouTube video was the cause of the attack.

The embassy issued this warning for two reasons: one, it was not true. And two, by calling continued attention to the video, anti-American sentiment in Libya was inflamed, where the video had not been a factor to any significant extent.

“[O]ur view at Embassy Tripoli is that we must be cautious in our local messaging with regard to the inflammatory film trailer, adapting it to Libyan conditions,” wrote an embassy official whose name was redacted from the Sept. 14, 2012 email.

“[I]f we post messaging about the video specifically, we may draw unwanted attention to it,” the official said. “And it is becoming increasingly clear that the series of events in Benghazi was much more terrorist attack than a protest which escalated into violence.”

Let’s continue with the unraveling White House timeline and the fact of the most wicked lie imaginable as it unfolded:

In this light, it is worth recalling how many times members of the Obama administration promoted a narrative that was not only apparently a concoction, but also potentially a match set to a tinderbox of anti-American hatred.

September 12: Clinton and President Obama issue statements condemning both the video and the attacks.

September 13: Press Secretary Jay Carney condemns video and violence at a news conference.

September 14: The bodies of slain Americans return to Andrews Air Force Base. Obama again blames the YouTube video.

September 16: U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice appears on Sunday talk shows and says the attacks were provoked by the video, exclusively.

September 25: Obama appears at the United Nations, denouncing “a crude and disgusting video that sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world.”

September 27: The “Innocence of Muslims” film-maker Mark Basseley Youseff is arrested and denied bail for a “probation violation.”

Why did the administration go to all this trouble? A memo, sent by Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes said that one of the “goals” of Rice’s appearances was “to underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not in a broader failure of policy.”

Yet, as noted by Pete Hoekstra, former chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, in his new book, “Architects of Disaster: The Destruction of Libya,” the attack in Benghazi was “the culmination of a foreign policy on Islamic terrorism that was grounded in wishful thinking and self-delusion.”

With every revelation, this tragic policy failure is becoming ever clearer.

It is frankly EVIL the way the mainstream media has flocked around Hilary Clinton and said that the day of her testimony before Congress in which her greatest ignominy was factually established was “actually” the greatest day of her political career.  And it is EVIL that the Washington Post subsequently did a quibbling “fact check” about Marco Rubio’s claim that “Hillary Clinton lied” when it is in FACT a FACT that she DID lie.  As it is easy to demonstrate as I just did above.

Hillary Clinton lied and directly participated in a campaign of lies by the most dishonest administration in the history of the republic.

I submit that Marco Rubio’s claim not only exposed the vicious dishonesty of Hillary Clinton but also the vicious ideological propaganda that masquerades as the face of “journalism” today when he said during the vile media hitjob “debate” (there’s NO debate that the CNBC debate was unfair).  Rubio pointed out during that communist show-trial masquerading as a “debate”:

“I know the Democrats have the ultimate Super PAC, it’s called the mainstream media,” Rubio said. “Last week, Hillary Clinton admitted she sent emails to her family saying ‘Hey, this attack in Benghazi was caused by Al qaeda-like elements.’ She spent over a week telling the families of those victims and the American people that it was because of a video. And yet, the mainstream media is saying it was the greatest week in Hillary Clinton’s campaign. It was the week she got exposed as a liar. […] But she has her super PAC helping her out: the American mainstream media.”

Rubio declared the mainstream media the ultimate Super PAC.  And thank you, Washington Post, thank you, Reuters, thank you, CNBC for proving it is true.

But Ben Carson’s so-called “lie” matters to these LIARS????  Again, to put it in credit-card offer terms, from Ben Carson’s perspective, had he turned in an application, he was already pre-approved for an appointment to West Point based on his ROTC-award status and based on a four-star general’s assurances.  So a brilliant young black man who had already shown his stuff in the military universe through ROTC would certainly get.  But he decided not to go, so he didn’t fill out the application.  But he “lied” or “fabricated” because what he said wasn’t completely technically true, screamed the mainstream media.  Even though it turned out that in actual fact Ben Carson HAD NEVER ACTUALLY claimed that he had been admitted to West Point – he merely claimed that he had been offered a full scholarship (which any appointment automatically would have essentially been). And any unbiased reader can readily understand why he would have explained it in that common parlance of “offered a scholarship” versus “offered an appointment.”  It was the MEDIA that lied about this story; not Ben Carson.  But Hillary Clinton’s outright lies about coming under sniper fire when it is a FACT that she lied about that, her outright lies about her family history that all four of her grandparents were immigrants when in FACT only one was, her lie about being named after Sir Edmund Hillary when there is simply no way that could have been true given that when Hillary Clinton was born/named, Sir Edmund Hillary was a nobody, her lie about her daughter being at ground zero on 9/11 when it is a FACT that she was not, etc, none of those lies matter to our elite media class.

How about this one given the fact that supposedly Ben Carson’s “scholarship” is such a travesty of truth: Hillary Clinton actually claimed that she had tried to enlist in the Marines.  And then with NOTHING TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT SHE HAD EVER TRIED TO DO SO, Team Clinton switched the story from Marines to Army.  But there’s no reason to buy that load of manure, either.  But so what if Hillary lies on a far more egregious basis in the span of a single afternoon than Ben Carson ever has in his entire life combined?

What about Barack Obama’s college days?  What about the fact that there is no possible way that a stoner like Obama says he was with the poor grades Obama said he had NEVER would have got into Ivy League schools such as Columbia and Harvard without some kind of serious shenanigans.  And we’re talking about ILLEGAL shenanigans.  What about the fact that Obama’s time at Occidental took place during an incredibly awful grade-inflation scandal?  What about the fact that Obama’s college records are STILL sealed and the media has refused to investigate any of it???

Why is it the same damn leftist propaganda media that is going tooth and claw after Ben Carson has steadfastly stood against any attempt by any body to see or hear the tape of Obama at an incredibly controversial event where PRO-TERRORIST CAUSES were clearly espoused???  The Lost Angeles Slimes has repeatedly now said that we would only find out the truth about Obama over their dead bodies.

How can this same media that is so rabid to protect Obama against the truth being revealed be so rabid to destroy Carson by fabricating their story?

I’ve documented this before, and so only need to copy-and-paste, but leftwing journalists of today come from a very uber-defined belief that they are NOT charged with merely reporting the facts – because they’ve been taught to believe that the unwashed masses are far too stupid to be trusted with the facts – but that their role is to shape mass culture and mass opinion with their superior perspective as our masters:

As icon of leftwing journalists Walter Lippmann put it:

“News and truth are not the same thing and must be clearly distinguished.”

Which of course allows the mainstream media to misrepresent the truth in the guise of reporting “the news” in order to stimulate the public to act “responsibly” NOT out of truth and any true “picture of reality,” but rather out of the journalists’ opinion of what we need to know in order to think or do what the journalist believes the public ought to think or do.

As Walter Lippmann believed:

Walter Lippmann described a “revolution” in “the practice of democracy” as “the manufacture of consent” has become “a self-conscious art and a regular organ of popular government.” This is a natural development when public opinion cannot be trusted: “In the absence of institutions and education by which the environment is so successfully reported that the realities of public life stand out very sharply against self-centered opinion, the common interests very largely elude public opinion entirely, and can be managed only by a specialized class whose personal interests reach beyond the locality,” and are thus able to perceive “the realities.” These are the men of best quality, who alone are capable of social and economic management.

Which gives the mainstream media elite who stand above the rest of us mere mortals the right to serve as “gatekeepers,” and prevent the people from learning anything that might otherwise cause them to discover that conservatives have it right and liberals have it dead wrong.

And as fellow member of the leftwing journalist hall of fame Edward Bernays put it:

“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society.  Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.”

Because what is power if you can’t even manipulate the truth and shape it to serve your agenda?  And if you’re a leftwing liberal progressive journalist – as basically 90 percent of journalists are today – what could be better than being one of the people “who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society” so you can “constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country”???

We live in an age just before the coming of the beast where a spirit of fascism is determined to use the unholy power of wicked government to take over and dominate our lives.  And there are a lot of people who are functioning as priests of this new unholy religion of Government as Savior and Lord and Master.

There are only two paths that this nation can now take: the Auschwitz train ride to hell on earth as we follow the media to Democrat Party fascism and totalitarianism, or literally to hunt down every single Democrat down with dogs and burn them alive.  We’re most definitely not going to do the latter, and so therefore the former is ultimately going to be our fate and the cause of our national doom.  We can’t rid our nation of the living disease that Democrats are, and so like a virus they will continue to infect the host organism of America with cancer until that host collapses and dies an awful death.

The beast is coming.  The beast, a.k.a. the Antichrist, is identified both in Old Testament prophecy (Ezekiel and Daniel) as well as in the New Testament.  There are things going on RIGHT NOW that tell anyone with wisdom that we are truly IN the very last days that these Books prophetically and staggeringly described.  We are in the time just before the War of Gog and Magog described in the last days prophecy of Ezekiel 38.  The two nations described as leading this demonic end-times attack against Israel have NEVER both been where the Book of Ezekiel said they would be – until TODAY as both Russia AND Iran are in Syria to the north of Israel.  I’m not playing games with renamed nations: When Russia was Scythia and when Iran was Persia, these nations were never where they are right now before in all of human history.  But they’re both there together now.  Just as the Bible said would happen in the very last days when it prophesied that these two nations in the last days would lead an all-out attack against Israel leading a host of nations that today are ALL Islamic republics.

The Antichrist will be a “master of dark sentences,” “a master of intrigue.”   This according to the Book of Daniel that prophesied the coming of Alexander the Great a full 200 years before his birth in such terrifyingly accurate prophetic description that skeptics are forced to say that the Book had to have been written after the fact when there is NO evidence that it was and great evidence that it wasn’t.  As just one example, the record of antiquity documents that Alexander somehow read the very prophecies that the skeptics claim weren’t written until after his conquest.  Alexander became a friend to the Jews whose prophecies had inspired him and given him the confidence that he would in fact succeed in the most grandiose conquest in all of human history, and invited them to Alexandria when he built that city in 331BC.  It was in that very city that the Septuagint – the translation into Alexander’s Greek of the Hebrew Old Testament – was completed.  Getting back to the coming Antichrist, he WILL be the ultimate big-government tyrant that Democrats are so eagerly seeking; he will be the fulfillment of all of their dreams.  Because he – like all liberals – will believe the end justifies the means, he will be the ultimate craftsman of lies and deception.

I actually believe that Ben Carson – who has been one of the three Republicans I have most hoped would emerge as our eventual nominee along with Carly Fiorina and Ted Cruz – will probably be destroyed by this revelation of his less-than-perfect honesty.  Even though, when you look at the whole story, you ought to be able to understand why he said it the way he said it.  The reason is not merely the unholy attack by the mainstream media, but ultimately because Republicans care about honesty and integrity and the truth the way that no Democrat has in very nearly my entire lifetime.  Conservatives don’t put up with dishonest people the way liberals do.  Democrats at this point in this incredibly degenerate party’s history not only don’t mind liars, they DEMAND them.  Their is no honesty or integrity or virtue or decency in their shriveled souls whatsoever.  They have no God; they have only Government to worship.  Jesus said He came to testify to the truth, and everyone who was of the truth listened to Him; Democrats responded with Piss Christ  –

And they are STILL responding that way as they piss on The Word of God that Jesus as the Word revered and commissioned.  If Jesus believed it, Democrats believe the exact opposite; if Jesus stood for it, they stand against it.  They are as determined to advance their god – the State – as much as the Islamic radicals are determined to advance their god Allah.  And both gods are the one and same unholy person: the devil.

Hell is coming.  And if you’re a Democrat, if you’re a mass-murdering sodomy worshiper, you’re on the train taking you right to it and right through its gates.

In An Age Of Blatant Propaganda, The Lengths You’ve Got To Go To Find How DEMOCRATS Are The Party Of Racism

Julian Bond, the civil rights leader, died recently.  I saw it in my paper.  Something stirred in my mind as I read the part about his life where:

When he was elected to the Georgia House of Representatives in 1965, along with seven other black members, furious white members of the House refused to let him take his seat, accusing him of disloyalty. He was already well known because of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee’s stand against the United States’ involvement in the Vietnam War.

I immediately smelled a rat.  Do you know why?  Because I have learned through a life of being forced to live through liberal-ideologue propaganda masquerading as “journalism” that if those “furious white members” had been Republican, they would have been exposed and named.

It was a matter of finding out just who these “furious white members of the House” who “refused to let [great black civil rights leader Bond] take his seat” were.  I KNEW they were Democrats.  Because I know the media is pathologically corrupt and dishonest.  But it wasn’t easy.  Because I had to keep sifting through all the press accounts that simply stated that “white members” refused to let Julian Bond take his seat.  With the obvious implication being, “white” because they were RACIST and this was about RACISM.

I went through a good twenty articles and all I could find was that the members of the House who refused to let Julian Bond take his seat were “white.”  NEVER a mention of the political party those racist “white members” belonged to.

But I found one tiny little nugget in the one I cite above.  It pointed out that the case went all the way to the Supreme Court.  And it told me the year: 1966.

So I entered “Bond” and “Supreme Court” and “v.” and “1966” to find who was fighting Bond to take his seat.

I discovered this way – and ONLY this roundabout way given a media culture that pathologically protects Democrats – that it was “Bond v. Floyd” in 1966.

Okay, so who is this “Floyd” guy?

Well, I did more searching.  And discovered that we were talking about one “Rep. James “Sloppy” Floyd.”  And discovered the following in the first link that came up for the turd:

James H. Floyd State Park is a 561 acre (2.27 km²) Georgia State Park located near Summerville at the base of Taylor Ridge (Georgia). The park is named after Democrat James H. “Sloppy” Floyd who served in the Georgia House of Representatives from 1953 until 1974 and was from the area. Surrounded by rural countryside and the Chattahoochee National Forest, the park offers many activities, including camping, hiking and fishing. In addition, the park contains two lakes that total 51 acres (0.21 km²) and a children’s playground. The Pinhoti Trail is accessible through the park.

And, of course, yeah, this Democrat who is so esteemed other Democrats named a park after him is a DEMOCRAT.

It was DEMOCRATS who were the “furious white members” who were so pathologically racist they wouldn’t let a black civil rights hero take his seat.  But of course that fact refutes the entire dishonest liberal narrative, so no “journalist” would ever bother to report it.  Facts only matter if they confirm or can be twisted into appearing to confirm a liberal narrative.  So in this case “white members” appears to confirm the liberal narrative of racism so they report “white members” but refuse to report which party the “white racists” belonged to because it would amount to the finger pointers pointing their fingers at THEMSELVES.

It wasn’t just James Floyd who tried to screw Julian Bond.  There were plenty of other politicians in the process.  For instance, another account of Julian Bond’s life [that I found AFTER finally discovering the name James Floyd] says:

Georgia Governor Carl Sanders declared Bond’s seat vacant. The voters elected him again. The House excluded him again. Bond appealed directly to the Supreme Court.

The Atlantic doesn’t mention which political party is to blame, of course.

Hmm. Wonder which party Carl Sanders belongs to?  The mainstream media will never tell you if it’s a damn Democrat, so you can either just figure or you can go to the lengths they don’t want you to go to and be your OWN journalist and look it up.  So I looked the name up and:

In the 1962 Democratic gubernatorial primary, Sanders defeated former Governor Marvin Griffin. Sanders received 494,978 votes (58.7 percent) to Griffin’s 332,746 (39 percent).^[1] Thereafter, Griffin largely retired from politics. Sanders was the first Georgia governor from an urban area since the 1920s. He was the first modern Georgia governor nominated in the Democratic primary by the popular vote after the abolition of the County Unit System, a kind of electoral college formerly used to elect Georgia governors.

Yep.

We just had the same garbage with the Confederate flag, the South’s symbol of pathological racism according to the news accounts.  What they never bothered to tell you was that the “Confederates” were DEMOCRATS who went to war because the first REPUBLICAN and therefore ANTI-SLAVERY President was elected.  They never bothered to tell anyone that the governor who reinstated the Confederate flag (which had been banned by Republicans) was a DEMOCRAT.  A Republican governor named Nikki Haley finally banned the flag again.  As I point out, “Let’s see how many DEMOCRAT governors could have done so before her. Since the beginning of the Civil War, 41 of the Governors of the State of South Carolina – including the ENTIRE period of segregation and “separate but equal” status – were DEMOCRATS. Versus eight Republican governors – one of whom finally took down that damned Democrat Party symbol of hate.  And just to continue on the Confederate flag thing, “How about this one: guess which president as governor signed into law an act to add a Confederate star on his state flag “to commemorate the Confederate States of America.””

Yep.  Democrats.  But you’d never think so when you read the mainstream media, would you?

I point out some of the long, sordid history of the Democrat Party in another article that proves how hypocrite the Democrat Party is on a regular basis about “racism”:

The same is even MORE true on race.  The Democrat Party was the Party that waged a brutal Civil War to continue black slavery with a United States led by Republican President named Lincoln.  The Democrat Party was the Party that spawned the Ku Klux Klan as its terrorist wing of the Democrat Party.  The Democrat Party under Woodrow Wilson actually RE-segregated the US Military and government service (after Republicans had de-segregated them and allowed blacks to serve).  The Democrat Party in 1924 was SO completely dominated by the Ku Klux Klan that the Democrat National Convention was called “Klanbake.”    The Democrat Party under FDR and their New Deal was rife with racism and unions and Democrats used it to prevent blacks from getting jobs.  The Democrat Party continued to be THE Party of hard-core racism for the entire history of the republic.  The racist horror story of “Mississippi Burning“ was OWNED by Democrats from the Governor right on down.  In fact, the state Democrat Party in Mississippi was limited to whites only.  And the fact is that a FAR higher percentage of Republican Congressmen and Senators voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act than Democrats.  Democrats were the Party of keeping the black man down until they cynically – incredibly cynically – saw that there was another way to keep exploiting black people to keep them on their plantation and keep them down.

There’s the myth and there’s the reality, there’s the Big Lie and there’s the truth.  But you always have to dig more for the latter because liberals always lie and always slander.

The media simply WILL NOT be fair.  They will NOT be honest.  And the media’s dishonesty as agents of the left is part and parcel of the dishonesty that characterizes the left in all of its ways.

No One On EARTH More Responsible For Rise In Islamic Terrorism Than Our Own Terrorist-in-Chief, Barack Hussein Obama

It is a fascinating thing to watch the left as America and the world are viciously attacked by Islamic terrorism and in their war against the West, against Christendom, against Judeo-Christian Western Civilization, against freedom, against democracy and against our entire way of life.  Barack Obama, the Democrat Party, the leftist pseudo-intellectuals and the mainstream media have fabricated this narrative of “us against them,” whereby Christians and conservatives are illegitimately attacking this peaceful religion called Islam.  The reality is so different it is beyond belief; it is NOT “us against them” but rather it is “THEM against us” while we stand by and get slaughtered because it is politically incorrect for us to stand up for our values or fight for our own lives and the lives of our children.

At least – because I have no doubt this percentage has GROWN given the recent attacks we’re seeing –  27% of young French Muslims support the vicious terrorist army called the Islamic State.  And TWICE as many British Muslims are fighting for Islamic State as are fighting for the UK armed forces.  Don’t you DARE try to argue with me that “Islam” and “terrorism” aren’t mutually interwoven and linked.

Obama campaigned for president in 2007 and 2008 demonizing George Bush, conservatives and Republicans for their war on terror and over and over again blamed them – and yes, blamed America – for the entire problem of terrorism.  It wasn’t that these vicious Muslims hate us and want to kill us and destroy everything we stand for and force us to do what “Islam” really means and SUBMIT to Allah and to sharia law; it was that we built a prison facility at Guantanamo Bay that was inciting otherwise peaceful, happy wonderful people to saw off the heads of people who never hurt anyone.

Obama promised us that when he was president, he would “fundamentally transform” the world and solve all of our problems and end the war on Islamic terror by first of all denying it was either Islamic or terror and secondly denying there was a war.

It is my contention that as a direct result of his presidency and his policies, terrorism has exploded into a force that is rapidly growing into a terrifying new reality.

I point out for simple history’s sake that terrorists inspired by Islam massively attacked the United States on September 11, 2001.  It was most definitely NOT as a result of any Bush policies; the man had been in office for less than eight months and the attack on the World Trade Center, on the Pentagon and on Congress had been planned for years.  Every single terrorist was already in America and trained and funded prior to George W. Bush taking office.  And in fact there had been an incredibly disturbing pattern of terrorist attacks against United States territory during the eight preceding years that one William Jefferson Clinton was in office.

So we were attacked and George Bush led America’s massive response.  And liberal Democrats such as Barack Obama ridiculously blamed that response as the cause of the terror that the response was actually a response TO.

But as ridiculous as Obama’s and the Democrat Party’s insane claims were on their face, we had a question to resolve: would their policies do a better job???  Or would our terrorist enemies, inspired and incited by the Islam that our liberal leaders refuse to acknowledge, sense our indecision, our naivety and our weakness and build themselves stronger for more and more frequent attacks?

And the facts demonstrate for all human history to witness that the latter is precisely what happened as the world is now melting down into terror even as Obama says, “please don’t use force to deal with these monsters.”  His own words were, “It’s important for Europe not to simply respond with a hammer and law enforcement and military approaches to these problems.”  By all means, let’s not; because terrorists’ hearts melt when we lay down our arms and surrender to them.

History has given us the results of the Obama experiment.  And Obama has wildly failed.

Let’s consider what is happening under our leader of the free world and his insanely immoral and foolish policies:

Increase in Jihadist Threat Calls for New U.S. Strategy to Combat Terrorism
FOR RELEASE
Wednesday
June 4, 2014

There is a growing terrorist threat to the United States from a rising number of Salafi-jihadist groups overseas, according to a RAND Corporation study.

Since 2010, there has been a 58 percent increase in the number of jihadist groups, a doubling of jihadist fighters and a tripling of attacks by al Qaeda affiliates. The most significant threat to the United States, the report concludes, comes from terrorist groups operating in Yemen, Syria, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

“Based on these threats, the United States cannot afford to withdraw or remain disengaged from key parts of North Africa, the Middle East and South Asia,” said Seth Jones, author of the study and associate director of the International Security and Defense Policy Center at RAND, a nonprofit research organization. “After more than a decade of war in Afghanistan and Iraq, it may be tempting for the U.S. to turn its attention elsewhere and scale back on counterterrorism efforts. But this research indicates that the struggle is far from over.”

For the RAND study, Jones examined thousands of unclassified and declassified primary source documents, including public statements and internal memorandums of al Qaeda and other Salafi-jihadist leaders. The study also includes a database of information such as the number of Salafi-jihadist groups, their approximate size and their activity — attacks, fatalities and other casualties. […]

Now, one of the interesting things is that this article highlights YEMEN as a major source of Islamic terrorism.  Any sane, rational, leader would focus the war effort on such a country.  But let’s say that instead of being a sane, rational leader, our leader is indwelt by so many demons that it would dwarfs the number of demons in the demoniac named “Legion, for we are many” whom Jesus confronted in the Gospels?

Such a pathologically demon-indwelt leader would do this:

“This counterterrorism campaign will be waged through a steady, relentless effort … using our air power and our support for partner forces on the ground,” said Obama. “This strategy of taking out terrorists who threaten us, while supporting partners on the front lines, is one that we have successfully pursued in Yemen and Somalia for years.”

Yes, our demoniac-in-chief actually cited YEMEN as his success model!!!  You simply cannot get more insane or more wicked than that.  This goes even beyond Neville Chamberlain praising Hitler for “peace in our time.”  You don’t GET this stupid or this wicked unless there are so many demons screaming inside your brain that you wouldn’t be able to know truth if it smacked you right in the mouth.

We just had a massive Islamic terrorist attack in France which directly targeted democracy and freedom of speech.  Set aside the fact that Barack Obama refuses to say we’re in any kind of “war,” or that our enemies are in any way motivated by the Islam which clearly motivates them.  Just consider the sub-headline which screams in your face at the top of page A4 in the print version of the Los Angeles Times:

Al Qaeda Thrives in Yemen chaos.  Those are the words in giant bold face printed on January 15.  Contrast those words with the demon-possessed moral idiocy of our Fool-in-Chief, Barack Hussein Obama.

So what did Obama do after the massive terrorist attack in France was discovered to have been planned and funded by al Qaeda in Yemen?

He released five more deadly terrorists from Guantanamo Bay who had come from, yes, YEMEN.  Obama literally rewarded al Qaeda in Yemen for it’s brilliant and daring attack against freedom in France.

So what did Obama do?  In spite of all rationality and all decency, Obama falsely claimed that he had “decimated” al Qaeda even AFTER they murdered our ambassador in an outrageous attack in Benghazi, Libya.  In that attack, Obama sent out his administration stooges such as Susan Rice and Hillary Clinton but also himself claimed that it was NOT a terrorist attack but rather free speech (and PLEASE see here) that was our problem (the Youtube lie that everyone now knows beyond any shred of a doubt was nothing but a pure political cover-up that ought to have got Obama impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors).

And even AFTER the Benghazi attack, Obama went on to claim the demise of al Qaeda at least THIRTY-TWO times while doing NOTHING to stop the spread of the terrorist groups he falsely and dishonestly claimed he had defeated.

I have painstakingly documented how Obama is ENTIRELY responsible for the rise of the gigantic Islamic Caliphate across Iraq and Syria that Osama bin Laden dreamed of and Obama made a reality.

Iraq: Bush’s Victory, Obama’s Despicable Defeat

Obama’s Utterly Failed Policy With Syria, Egypt, Iran, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan And The Entire Middle East Is A Clear And Present Danger

Obama’s Disinformation, Deception, Deceit Led To Disarray And Defeat In Iraq. And It Will Happen In Afghanistan As History Repeats.

The Blame Game Masters: Iran’s Plan B Has Always Been Obama’s Plan A-Z. Consider How Obama Blames Bush For His Iraq Failure.

Obama’s ‘300’ In Iraq: It Won’t Be Like Thermopylae Because We Aint Sparta And Obama Definitely Aint Leonidas

The Tide Of War Is Receding’: Barack Obama Is ENTIRELY Responsible For The Disastrous Meltdown In Iraq And Across The Middle East

Obama Presidency ‘Bogus And Wrong’ As He Dishonestly Claims It’s Not His Fault He Abandoned Iraq After Bush Secured Victory There

I document the following: that the Obama administration declared victory in the Iraq War (as won by George W. Bush).  That Barack Obama planned from the very beginning unilaterally withdraw US forces from Iraq and abandon Iraq to its fate while promising a new dawn in “an Iraq that is sovereign, stable and self reliant.”  After his Vice President had boasted of the Iraq victory (that Bush won), “I am very optimistic about — about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You’re going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You’re going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government.”  Yes, Obama planned to abandon Iraq from the VERY BEGINNING of his presidency and even when he was a CANDIDATE for president, the facts prove.  Obama’s cut-and-run from Iraq had NOTHING to do with any “status of forces” nonsense; it had to do with the nonsense in his demon-possessed ideology.  Yes, the generals predicted DISASTER for Obama’s demonic and foolish Iraq withdrawal that led to the terrorists retaking IN SPADES everything our troops had fought and died to win.

When Obama declared his “red line” policy with Syria – only to have Obama cower and back down from his threat while Syria REPEATEDLY used chemical weapons to kill their own people – Obama assured the forces of evil that he was a spineless punk who wouldn’t have the courage or the balls to stand up to them and fight unless he could do so remotely with a drone; they were assured that Obama would NEVER seriously commit Americans to fight evil as that evil metastasized into a fatal cancer given his own party’s rabid refusal to do so.

And look what’s happened as a result.

Let’s look at the explosion in terrorism in 2012 from 2011 under our leader of the free world, Barack Hussein Obama:

Terrorist attacks and deaths hit record high, report shows
By Daniel Burke, CNN Belief Blog co-editor
October 28th, 2013
03:56 PM ET

Washington (CNN) – As terrorism increasingly becomes a tactic of warfare, the number of attacks and fatalities soared to a record high in 2012, according to a new report obtained exclusively by CNN.

More than 8,500 terrorist attacks killed nearly 15,500 people last year as violence tore through Africa, Asia and the Middle East, according to the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism.

That’s a 69% rise in attacks and an 89% jump in fatalities from 2011, said START, one of the world’s leading terrorism-trackers.

Six of the seven most deadly groups are affiliated with al Qaeda, according to START, and most of the violence was committed in Muslim-majority countries.

The previous record for attacks was set in 2011 with more than 5,000 incidents; for fatalities the previous high was 2007 with more than 12,800 deaths. […]

Note: the PREVIOUS record had been set under Barack Hussein Obama in 2011.  We’re exploding from the explosion.

Now let’s consider the explosion in 2014 from 2013.

Also, in this article I want to highlight two salient facts: 1) the shocking rise of actual terrorist attacks and 2) the direct correlation between the Nazism that the left has always insanely blamed on Christianity and the political right – when “Nazi” stood for “National Socialist German Workers Party,” glorified giant, totalitarian government and never had ANYTHING whatsoever to do with either Christianity Or the right – and the Islamic jihadists that the left ardently protects by refusing to allow the West to do what is needed and FIGHT these cockroaches (to wit, who is protecting the Nazis of today?  Leftist/socialist governments, Barack Obama and the American Democrat Party, that’s who):

Anti-Semitic Attacks Skyrocket in Europe
September 12, 2014 Rachel Molschky

Anti-Semitic attacks have increased by 400% in the UK and have doubled in France. Attacks in Europe overall have increased by 436%, and 383% in the world. People are becoming more brazen since the leftwing atmosphere and liberal groups, together with the growing Muslim community in the West, have joined forces to promote anti-Israel propaganda, a politically correct version of anti-Semitism.

People have reverted back to using Jews as a scapegoat, blaming their own problems on Jews, something which has always existed but that once again has the stamp of approval via certain political groups which focus on the victimization of the aggressors and on increasing their voting pool with virtually uncontrolled immigration. This has led to a jump in the Muslim population in the West, and Muslims have brought over the anti-Semitism that is preached in their mosques, on their TVs and in their schools.

It is important to note that a recent Anti-Defamation League (ADL) survey found that 70% of anti-Semites have never met a Jew.

Arutz Sheva reports:

A total of 529 anti-Semitic actions or threats were registered up to the end of July, against 276 for the same period last year, the Council of Jewish Institutions in France (CRIF) said, citing figures gleaned from the French Interior Ministry.

The acts included violence against individuals, arson and vandalism, and “exacerbate the growing unease that oppresses Jews in France each day and overshadows their future”, CRIF said in a statement.

Yet more worrying, the group added, is the appearance of new forms of violence against Jews – including attacks by organized gangs and the targeting of synagogues, as well as acts of vandalism against Jewish businesses and planned terrorist attacks.

Meanwhile in the UK, the Community Security Trust (CST) anti-Semitism watchdog group reports 302 anti-Semitic incidents in July alone, making a whopping 400% increase over the same month last year.

Read on…

A third thing would be the insane hatred of Jews that Satan has ALWAYS had for Jews and which the Bible prophesied would happen in the last days in both the Old and New Testament of God’s Word.  And again, the direct correlation between the hatred of God’s people and Satan and the left which shelters and protects the terrorists and the religion that inspires and motivates these terrorists in every way imaginable.

Here’s another demonstration of shocking, massive increases of terrorism under and because of Barack Hussein Obama’s massively failed “leadership” over the free world:

Terrorist-related deaths up 60%: vast majority related to Islamic terrorists
The amount of people killed by terrorists is up according to a new report:
November 18, 2014
COGwriter

The number of people killed in terrorist attacks jumped more than 60 percent from 2012 to 2013, due largely to unrest in the Middle East and Nigeria, a new report found.

Report on Rise in Terrorism – 2012 – 2013.

Deaths due to terrorism rose from 11,133 in 2012 to 17,958 in 2013, according to the Global Terrorism Index produced by the Institute for Economics and Peace, a think tank based in Australia.  […]

Here’s another thing: it is BEYOND SCANDALOUS how Barak Hussein Obama has lied about the explosion of Islamic terrorism under HIS presidency, just as it is equally scandalous how dishonestly the mainstream media has refused to cover that explosion or identify the shocking increases that have happened as a direct result of Obama’s incredibly foolish and weak and frankly wicked policies to a) refuse to even acknowledge that we are in a “war,” b) to refuse to identify our enemy so we can actually fight that enemy – as Islamist, and c) to gut our military, gut our intelligence and gut our ability to either defend ourselves or project force and influence around the globe in this out-of-control WAR THAT WE ARE RAPIDLY LOSING.

Terrorism has metastasized under Obama.  It is exploding out of control.  The number of terrorist organizations is exploding; the number of individual terrorists joining those organizations is exploding; the funding and well-organizational structure of those organizations is exploding; the ability of these organizations to recruit and train replacements is exploding; and the lone wolf attacks are exploding in murderous fury.  These are all simple facts.

And we are like stupid, helpless sheep, or worse yet, like ostriches who bury their heads in the sand because of leftist propaganda and because of the lies coming out of our wicked White House.

I think today of Liam Neesam – who insanely and hypocritically is making appearances to market his new incredibly violent propaganda piece that directly glorified gun violence – coming out and demonizing the gun culture that his movies further massively inspire!!!  That is the level and degree of abject personal hypocrisy and dishonesty coming out of the political and cultural and media left today.

Liberals are such astonishingly massive hypocrites there is simply no question that they are clearly and truly demon-possessed and incapable of seeing reality.  I see liberals flying around in private jets lecturing us on our carbon footprints while themselves leaving such giant jackboot prints themselves it’s a freaking joke.  I see liberals condemning conservatives for wanting to build a wall on the southern border to protect what’s left of their country while these same liberals build giant walls around every-damn-thing they own.  I see liberals praising public schools who would NEVER put their spoiled little punk children in the very schools that they insist “little people” should be forced to put their kids in.  And so yeah, I see liberals surrounded by armed professional security demonizing those same little people for thinking that their lives matter enough to buy a gun to protect themselves, their families and their property.

These are professional liars who take pretending to be other people to ridiculous extremes as they pump out propaganda film after propaganda film and then claim they have zero responsibility for their own work or their own behavior.

Adolf Hitler and Joseph Goebbels envied Hollywood for their incredible ability to produce first-rate propaganda movies during World War II:

Hitler was obsessive about films; he aimed to watch one a night.

He and Goebbels were also quick to recognise the persuasive power of film, and would regularly cast envious eyes over the propaganda output of their enemies

And see also here.  The United States has ALWAYS had the world’s greatest potential to deceive its own people.  And liberal culture has put their propaganda machine into high overdrive in movies and in newspapers and in every other venue there is.  And more Americans believe more lies today than we have ever seen in our nation’s history.

You know, there isn’t an American who was old enough at the time to know anything who can’t remember the footage of George H.W. Bush saying, “Read my lips, no new taxes” and knowing the backstory that he raised taxes after saying that.  Because the mainstream media endlessly ran and re-ran that footage to discredit him.  There isn’t anyone who doesn’t remember the footage of George W. Bush on that aircraft carrier under the banner “Mission Accomplished.”  Because the mainstream media endlessly ran and re-ran that footage to discredit him.  Just like they ran and re-ran Bush saying, “Heck of a job, Brownie” during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina to discredit him.  I’m simply stating as a categorical fact that had the mainstream media done to Obama anything like they did to either Bush, Obama would have been forcibly removed from office because even his own party would not have been able to not support his impeachment.

But today this nation is swamped under a deep, raging ocean of lies and propaganda and demon-possessed distortion of the truth.

So we have Obama on TV today with the British Prime Minister blathering on like the snake he is as if his policies are in any way, shape or form working when they are clearly NOT working.

And what is the cause of all this disaster according to our FOOL-in-Chief?  Gitmo is still open and that is inspiring the terrorists to fight us and somehow if we just closed it down and apologized for our values and made it a crime to insult the Prophet they wouldn’t realize our weakness and attack us; no, they would stop fighting and shake our hands.

Obama said something that ought to terrify you.  Realize that there are more than a billion Muslims, and that experts estimate that 10-15% of them are radicalized and believe in violent jihad.  Realize that we are dealing with – in terms of sheer demographic numbers – something on the order of 300 million potential terrorists.  Realize that means that we have a potential of MILLION terrorists even as we have not only well-organized, well-funded, well-trained terrorist groups attacking us but thousands and thousands and potentially millions and millions of lone wolves murdering as many innocents as they can in the name of Allah and his “Prophet.”  And realize that Obama has been claiming regarding the war against Islamic terrorism that Obama won’t call a war and won’t call Islamic terrorism that, “I do not consider this an existential threat… this is one that we will solve.”

OH MY GOD!  YES THIS IS AN EXISTENTIAL THREAT.   We faced an existential threat during the Cold War where we realized that the communists dwarfed us in numbers and military might.  And we built our arsenal to first catch up to them and ultimately to have the capacity to defeat them while Democrats screamed about it and demanded we do the exact opposite and try to appease our merciless foes.  Thank God for Ronald Reagan!  Thank GOD that Reagan pursued the strategy that John F. Kennedy tried to pursue and create a healthy economy through low taxes such that we could literally turn what would have become a shooting war into a spending war and we were able to outspend our communist threat and cause it to economically implode.  Kennedy and Reagan were Cold Warriors and their policies prevailed.

Now we have a fool who is pursuing the exact OPPOSITE of a strategy to win a war on terror.  First of all, he won’t even acknowledge it IS a war.  Second of all, he won’t recognize the nature of our enemy or the threat that they present to our culture and our way of life.  Third he won’t allow us to build our arsenal and our military to defend against that threat.  And so now what we have in the not-very-longer-free world is a tragic situation in which we are losing a war due to a “growing gap between the increasingly challenging threat and the decreasing availability of capabilities to address it.”  Because we have truly gutted our military capability under Obama as he has falsely claimed that we defeated terrorism and contained any threat even as that threat was obviously exploding all around us.

During the Cold War, we did NOT have Russians or Chinese or North Korean communists coming here and murdering our citizens in group and lone wolf attacks.  Which makes this war different and more deadly.  During the Cold War, we did NOT face a menace that believed that total war would please their god.  We actually have such a menace now.  And the population of our enemy is exploding while our leftist leaders and our leftist culture has encouraged us to murder more than sixty million of our own children.  We are losing the war on the front of demographics even as we lose the war in terms of our secular=humanist inspired unwillingness to fight to defend ourselves verses their religious motivation to fight to destroy us.

Arguably, the only existential threat facing America that is more deadly to this nation than the threat of Islamic terrorism is our president and commander-in-chief who has prevented us from fighting and who has actually aided and abetted our terrorist enemy in undermining and ultimately defeating us.

Liberals Put Yet Another Feather In Their Fascist Cap In Ouster Of Jill Abramson For The Crime Of Daring To Speak The Truth

It was only yesterday that I published the article, “America’s Enemy-in-Chief And The Pseudo-Journalist Enemies Of Truth Who Attack Any Of Their Own Who Would Expose Him.”  I pointed out in that article how journalists had been personally destroyed for trying to report the truth.  I mentioned some names, such as Sharyl Attkisson – award-winning investigative journalist who resigned in despair when CBS refused to air her stories after praising her for the same tough investigative reporting when the president happened to be a Republican.  Having resigned, she was free to speak the truth: namely, the truth that a fascist propaganda-press WILL NOT report the truth about Obama that they eagerly drooled to report about Bush.  And I mentioned a few courageous journalists – from the New York Times of all places – who dared to call a spade a spade and decry this fascist administration and its destruction on the 1st Amendment.

One of those New York Times journalists that I named  yesterday was Jill Abramson.

Abramson pointed out that Barack Obama was – despite all of his arrogant lies to the contrary – the most secretive president she had ever encountered in a career of covering presidents that dated back to the Reagan years.  She pointed out that Obama was in fact THE most destructive president of the 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States in all of American history.

And now she’s gone, purged the way ALL who in any way defy the left get purged.  Because the left is now pathologically fascist.  And the urge to purge is the hallmark of fascism.

Now, before I cite the article (I read the story in USA Today) that “explains” Abramson’s ouster, allow me to reproduce the same portion of the article I cited yesterday:

Let me move on to another topic in the Obama administration. How would you grade this administration, compared to others, when it comes to its relationship with the media.

Well, I would slightly like to interpret the question as “How secretive is this White House?” which I think is the most important question. I would say it is the most secretive White House that I have ever been involved in covering, and that includes — I spent 22 years of my career in Washington and covered presidents from President Reagan on up through now, and I was Washington bureau chief of the Times during George W. Bush’s first term.

I dealt directly with the Bush White House when they had concerns that stories we were about to run put the national security under threat. But, you know, they were not pursuing criminal leak investigations. The Obama administration has had seven criminal leak investigations. That is more than twice the number of any previous administration in our history. It’s on a scale never seen before. This is the most secretive White House that, at least as a journalist, I have ever dealt with.

And do you think this comes directly from the president?

I would think that it would have to. I don’t know that, but certainly enough attention has been focused on this issue that, if he departed from the policies of his government, I think we’d know that at this point.

So it makes it more difficult for The New York Times to do its job.

Absolutely.

The White House does?

The White House does. And in the case of specific journalists, I would talk for a minute about Jim Risen, who is one of my most valued colleagues. In 2005, he is the reporter who, along with Eric Lichtblau, broke the story about the NSA’s warrantless eavesdropping, which was, in a way, the first view we had into the world of the NSA’s collection of data and communications. He has had this leak investigation hanging over his head for years now.

Allow me to simply state as a FACT that THIS is why Jill Abramson is gone.

Now read the article detailing her ouster and tell me where you see the real reason Abramson was purged:

‘NYT’ editor: Abramson out, deputy Baquet in
Roger Yu, USA TODAY 7:53 a.m. EDT May 15, 2014

The New York Times abruptly ousted its executive editor, Jill Abramson, Wednesday, citing “management” issues in the newsroom and sparking a firestorm of speculation across the media industry.

Managing editor Dean Baquet was appointed as her successor, making him the paper’s first African-American newsroom leader. Abramson and Baquet were among the top trending topics on Twitter on Wednesday afternoon, reflecting the intense interest the paper still generates among online readers.

The changes, effective immediately, came as a surprise for the rank and file and to company watchers, though there have been reports that her management style had rubbed some insiders and staffers the wrong way.

The company declined to elaborate on why Abramson, 60, left the company where she had worked for 17 years so suddenly. She was so devoted to The Times that she has a tattoo of the letter “T,” signifying her ties the paper.

In an e-mail, Times spokeswoman Eileen Murphy said Arthur Sulzberger Jr., the publisher of The Times and chairman of The New York Times Co., “made the decision because he believed that new leadership would improve some aspects of the management of the newsroom.”

“You will understand that there is nothing more that I want to say about this,” Sulzberger told the newsroom Wednesday afternoon, according to a Times report. “We had an issue with management in the newsroom. And that’s what’s at the heart of this issue.”

Widely respected for her journalistic skills, Abramson made history as the paper’s first female editor when she was promoted to the job in 2011. She has a reputation for a hard-charging, and at times, prickly personality.

Under her tenure, the paper had to deal with a series of high-profile defections by writers and editors — celebrated blogger Nate Silver to ESPN being the most cited example — who left for competitors and media start-ups.

But she is credited with guiding the organization at a time of deep changes, including the paper’s aggressive shift toward digital journalism and its decision to charge readers for digital content. Like other digital-first media organizations, its reporters are now tasked to write quickly online and update as stories develop, but they continue to produce high-quality enterprise stories and deeply reported features on multiple platforms, which allow the company to grow its circulation revenue.

“I’ve loved my run at The Times,” Abramson said in a statement. “We successfully blazed trails on the digital frontier, and we have come so far in inventing new forms of story-telling. Our masthead became half female for the first time, and so many great women hold important newsroom positions.”

Abramson was not immediately reachable for comment, and the company said she was “no longer here.”

Baquet, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist who previously worked as editor of The Los Angeles Times, has been managing editor at the Times since September 2011 and was seen as an eventual successor to Abramson.

A native New Orleanian, Baquet is well-liked in the newsroom for his engaging personality and easy rapport with staffers. “I think he’s the perfect choice,” said Jim Amoss, editor of The Times-Picayune in New Orleans, who’s been friends with Baquet for decades. “As a manager, he’s a rare combination of inspiring, empathetic and even-keeled. He know instinctively how to respond journalistically to news. The newsroom will naturally gravitate toward him.”

When he addressed the staff Wednesday afternoon, Baquet received a minute-long round of applause from employees, the Times report said.

That was where the print version ended.  The digital version I found online continued with this:

“He’d remember a conversation you had with him six months earlier,” said a newsroom employee who spoke anonymously because he wasn’t authorized speak publicly about internal matters. “He’s personable, charming.”

Citing “the confidence and support” Baquet receives from his colleagues, Sulzberger said in the company’s statement that “there is no journalist in our newsroom or elsewhere better qualified to take on the responsibilities of executive editor at this time than Dean Baquet.”

Baquet has had run-ins with Abramson, though it remains unclear if their relationship may have influenced Sulzberger’s decision.Citing people in the company briefed on the situation, The Times reported Wednesday that Abramson sought to hire Janine Gibson, editor-in-chief of the Guardian’s U.S. operation and its global website, and name her co-managing editor alongside Baquet. The move angered Baquet and the tension was brought to the attention of Sulzberger.

Gibson confirmed to the Guardian that Abramson tried to hire her: “The New York Times talked to me about the role of joint managing editor, but I said no.”

Politico also reported that Abramson and Baquet once engaged in an argument that drove Baquet to slam his hand against a wall and storm out of the newsroom. “In recent months, Abramson has become a source of widespread frustration and anxiety within the Times newsroom,” said the story, written in April 2013 by Politico media reporter Dylan Byers. “More than a dozen current and former members of the editorial staff, all of whom spoke to Politico on the condition of anonymity, described her as stubborn and condescending, saying they found her difficult to work with.” The story was widely derided at the time as sexist.

The sudden masthead changes also may be driven by shifting priorities in the fast-changing newsroom, where digital strategizing can be overwhelmed by the daily demands of story production.

Last week, the company released an internal memo, following a 6-month review of its digital strategy, that called for more urgency in the implementation of its digital goals. Among them was a recommendation to create newsroom teams that tracked audience development and formed new strategies, as well a call to prioritize digital hiring.

“The report concludes that the masthead needs to make further structural changes in the newsroom to achieve a digital-first reality,” Abramson and Baquet wrote last week in a memo.

Sulzberger noted on Wednesday that Baquet was “closely involved” with the team that produced the memo.

Whatever precipitated her departure, Abramson doesn’t have “any journalistic apologies to make,” says Alex Jones, a former Times reporter who teaches media and public policy at Harvard University and is co-author of The Trust: The Private And Powerful Family Behind The New York Times.

“She was the head of the newsroom at a difficult time,” he said. “I worked for several top editors (at the Times). Every single one of them is pushy and demanding. I don’t think she is any more difficult than others. I think, overall, that just goes with the territory. It’s a demanding, high-standards place.”

Nowhere – NOWHERE – is her recent comment about the Obama regime mentioned.  You know, the thing that ACTUALLY led to her ouster.

She delivered these remarks in a late-January interview.  But that interview was given to al Jazeera, and of course nobody heard about it for a while.  Until it was discovered and pointed out by Fox News late last week (which was how I heard about what Abramson said).  That’s when the fascist wheels at the New York Slimes started grinding – and kept grinding until Abramson was out.

You can see the clues about how rushed this “ouster” – because let’s call it the “purge” that it clearly is – was:

The changes, effective immediately, came as a surprise for the rank and file and to company watchers, though there have been reports that her management style had rubbed some insiders and staffers the wrong way.

Well, I cite that “management style” stuff in the article I wrote yesterday.  It amounted to a hit job AFTER she made her remarks about Obama’s thug presidency.

The minute-long applause was for the purging of a woman who had dared speak the truth about Messiah Obama.  You can only imagine how the doctrinaire liberals who make up the New York Times must have gnashed their teeth for two and a half months waiting for her to be forced out for her blasphemy of their god-king.

One of the claims (that doesn’t appear in the USA Today piece above but which is going around) is that Jill Abramson asked for more money:

“Several weeks ago, I’m told, Abramson discovered that her pay and her pension benefits as both executive editor and, before that, as managing editor were considerably less than the pay and pension benefits of Bill Keller, the male editor whom she replaced in both jobs. “She confronted the top brass,” one close associate said, and this may have fed into the management’s narrative that she was “pushy,” a characterization that, for many, has an inescapably gendered aspect.

But that was shortly after the New York Times ran a series spouting how working women could and should ask for more damn money.  Which means that the New York Times would be saying, “Women should ask for more money, so long as they don’t dare ask for it from US.”

The New York Times’ stock valuation DOUBLED during her three years at the helm as executive editor:

Times Co. shares extended earlier losses today, falling 4.5 percent at the close. The stock, which more than doubled during Abramson’s tenure, is still down 71 percent from a 2002 peak.

So maybe she deserved to be paid as much as the MALE who held her job and took the paper downhill was paid.  But to be a liberal is to be an abject hypocrite who calls upon other people and other people’s money to do what they themselves refuse to do.

The two quintessential ingredients of modern progressive liberalism – abject hypocrisy and rabid fascism – here go hand in hand: “Don’t do what WE do; do what we TELL you to do.”

We’ve seen this sort of hypocrisy regarding women and their pay before.  From the New York Times’ master in the White House.

I leave it up to you.  You can choose which meme you like: The New York Times, as the moral and intellectual leader in the liberal progressive world, fired Jill Abramson because they are blatant hypocrites who don’t give a flying damn about women’s equality.  Or The New York Times, as the moral and intellectual leader in the progressive world, are blatant fascists who fired Jill Abramson because they can’t tolerate any dissent whatsoever.

Of course, if you’ve been following me so far, you know I take the latter position (to the extent that I don’t point out liberals are BOTH of the above).  I submit that while Jill Abramson may have been an uppity woman whom the creators of liberals’ “war on women” hypocritically resented for wanting what liberals deceitfully claim they believe women ought to have; her real crime in their eyes was that she was an uppity woman who committed the unpardonable sin of speaking out against the fascism of the Obama regime.

What we’ve seen in both journalism and academia is a trend in which progressive liberals got their feet into the door, “progressively” and systematically began to hire more and ONLY liberals, and attained to a level of power in which they were able to dominate the agenda and shut down any and all opposition to their ideology.  And then the purges.  What worked well for Stalin works equally well for American progressive liberals.

The homosexual movement is a microcosm of the above.  Homosexuals – citing the American tradition and the constitutional freedom of speech – demanded a voice.  And Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians and Independents alike shrugged their shoulders and agreed that, yes, everybody deserves the right to speak freely and represent their cause or their view.  But the moment they were allowed in the door, they began to slam it shut on everyone who disagree with THEM.

In other words, the “free speech” crap was merely that, rhetorical jiu-jitsu by fascists as a ploy to get as much as they could before seizing the rest.

It’s really no different from Hitler – who got to power largely by the homosexual movement in pre-WWII Germany.  Hitler was quite willing to talk his way to power until he had garnered all the power he could by talking and it was time to seize complete power and then crush and exterminate his rivals (sadly for homosexuals, they ironically ended up on the wrong side of his subsequent purges).

I don’t even have to try to prove that the media is biased any more (as easy as it is to do); the American people OVERWHELMINGLY believe the media is biased to the left.  You’ve got to be a damned fool not to believe that at this point.

And of course the same exact phenomena has occurred in academia.  The doctrinaire biased ideology in the name of “free thinking” is beyond astounding.

And I submit to you that the identical phenomena has now metasticized in heavily unionized (and therefore leftist) government bureaucracy as top Obama-appointed liberals are routinely using their positions to advance their ideology –

A letter sent last year to Solis by the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, an independent agency that investigates allegations of administrative violations of fundraising rules by federal officials, said it began an inquiry after receiving a complaint that Solis had solicited a donation from a Labor Department employee. According to the letter, the complaint alleged that in March 2012, Solis “left a voicemail message on a subordinate employee’s government-issued Blackberry in which you asked the employee to contribute toward and assist with organizing others to attend a fundraiser for the President’s reelection campaign.”

Solis has declined to comment on the investigation, but a spokesman reiterated Friday that she believes she has done nothing wrong.

The January 2013 letter, which was reviewed by The Times, noted that Solis had resigned from her federal position earlier that month. As a result, the office said it was closing its inquiry into possible violations of the Hatch Act, which prohibits certain political activities by federal workers and imposes administrative penalties. The letter said the administrative inquiry could be reopened if Solis takes an executive branch job in the federal government.

– and crush all opponents of their ideology:

Despite assurances to the contrary, the IRS didn’t destroy all of the donor lists scooped up in its tea party targeting — and a check of those lists reveals that the tax agency audited 10 percent of those donors, much higher than the audit rate for average Americans, House Republicans revealed Wednesday.

Republicans argue that the Internal Revenue Servicet come clean about the full extent of its targeting, which swept up dozens of conservative groups.

“The committee uncovered new information indicating that after groups provided the information to the IRS, nearly one in 10 donors were subject to audit,” Rep. Charles W. Boustany Jr., Louisiana Republican and chairman of the Ways and Means Committee’s oversight panel, told IRS Commissioner John Koskinen at a hearing Wednesday.

And we’re now learning that in stark contrast to the Obama administrations LIES, the targeting of conservatives was NOT the result of “rogue agents out of Cincinnati,” but rather a campaign that began out of WASHINGTON as conservatives have been pointing out all along.

The quintessential fascism that is the heart of the left is emerging in every area and every arena across the board.  If you are a liberal, YOU ARE A FASCIST.  I’ve been pointing out – literally for years now – that “NAZI” stood for “National Socialist German Workers Party,” and that if there were a “National Socialist American Workers Party” there is absolutely NO QUESTION that it would be the progressive left.  To wit: the Democrat Party today is the Nazi Party in everything BUT name.  And if liberals were anything other than completely dishonest, they would call themselves what they truly are.

A few weeks ago I wrote a piece titled, “I Keep Pointing It Out: The ESSENTIAL Nature Of Homosexual Liberalism Is Pure Rabid FASCISM. And Here It Is Again…”  I described – actually allowed a couple of horrified liberals to describe – the systematic campaign of targeting and punishing free speech from the heart of the left.  I also documented the purging of the Mozilla CEO for the “crime” of exercising his free speech right to donate to the political causes of his choice.  And I preserved the incredible, galling hypocrisy of the left that views itself as being so “tolerant” – until they are confronted by “the other” and the fangs come out.

A few weeks before that I wrote an article titled, “The Inherent, Pathological Fascism Of The Left. It Took Nazism Decades To Fester In Germany And American Liberals Are Ahead Of Schedule” that featured the rabid hatred of the left for free speech that has become the quintessential essence of liberalism.

And just this morning I wrote “Just In Case You Want To Know Why Progressive Liberalism Is In Bed With Islamic Fascism. Because Basically, They’re One And The Same” to document how the progressive liberal and the Islamic fascist basically have the same ideology on four crucial areas.

It is amazing to watch in these days shortly before the Antichrist prophesied by the Bible comes to a worshiping world the self-righteous left that praises itself for “tolerance” when they define “tolerance” as: thinking and acting as we say or else we’ll destroy you.

 

 

 

Even JOURNALISTS Are Admitting It Now: The Mainstream Media Is Feverishly Working To Slant ‘News’ To Benefit The Obama Campaign

Two different observations from two different journalists says quite a bit that needs to be said:

The first came recently from Mark Halperin:

Mark Halperin: ‘The Media Is Very Susceptible to Doing What the Obama Campaign Wants’
11:57 AM, Aug 18, 2012 • By DANIEL HALPER

“The Obama folks clearly know they’ve found some traction on this tax return issue with Romney,” said NBC’s Lester Holt. “And then of course late in the week comes this challenge–‘give us a little more and we won’t complain anymore.’ Has this issue come to the point it’s jumped the shark?”
 
“I think the press still likes this story a lot, the media is very susceptible to doing what the Obama campaign wants, which is to focus on this,” said Halperin.

The mainstream media is very susceptible to doing what the Obama campaign wants.  True dat.

The second comes from Jake Tapper, and becomes even more relevant when you consider Halperin’s observation:

Jake Tapper: Media Is Failing The Country
August 21, 2012

Truer words were never said.
 
Jake Tapper of ABC News is one of the last honest men in the business. In an interview with Laura Ingraham on her radio show today, Tapper pointed out what’s obvious to so many Americans.
 
The media was and is in the tank for Obama…

In an interview with Laura Ingraham, White House reporter Jake Tapper said that the media is failing the country.

“A lot of people are hurting out there. Unemployment is 8.3 percent. That doesn’t even take into account the underemployed,” he said, arguing that too much time has been spent not talking about the economy.
 
Tapper also criticized the media for not giving enough attention to the war in Afghanistan.
 
“We are spending a lot of time in the last few weeks, those of us in the political world, political journalists and also politicians, talking about things other than the economy,” said Tapper. “[A] lot of people are hurting out there. I’d like to see more action taken and more emphasis given to this issue.”
 
Tapper also said he relates to Mark Halperin’s recent comments about the media. Over the weekend, Halperin said, “I think the press still likes this story a lot, the media is very susceptible to doing what the Obama campaign wants, which is to focus on this.”
 
“I have said before… [that I] thought the media helped tip the scales. I didn’t think the coverage in 2008 was especially fair to either Hilary Clinton or John McCain,” Tapper said.
 
On the 2008 coverage, he noted, “Sometimes I saw with story selection, magazine covers, photos picked, [the] campaign narrative, that it wasn’t always the fairest coverage.”

 Listen to audio from Real Clear Politics…

Speaking of Hilary Clinton and 2008, it is a fact of history that the Clinton campaign and Hillary Clinton herself said that Fox News gave them fairer coverage than any other news outlet:

Hillary Clinton: “There Were A Lot Of Times When I Appreciated” Fox News During Primary
Huffington Post
First Posted: 10-14-08 12:09 PM   |   Updated: 11-14-08 05:12 AM

Hillary Clinton appeared on “Fox & Friends” Tuesday morning, where she discussed sexism with co-host Gretchen Carlson and took the opportunity to say that she “appreciated” Fox News’ balanced coverage of her campaign.

[…]

“We did call them on it at Fox, in fact I think you went on record saying that Fox was the most fair and balanced place during the time when you were running,” Carlson said.

“There were a lot of times when I appreciated the commentators and reporters on Fox who did step up and make that clear,” Clinton responded.

Clinton also said that Sarah Palin is facing the same sort of sexism that she faced.

I wish a major polling organization would do a poll on registered Democrats and ask the question, “Do you believe Hillary Clinton would have done a better job governing the country than Barack Obama has?”  I truly believe that most Democrats would respond, “Hell yes!”

Fox News was fair and balanced when all the other mainstream media “news” outlets were in the tank swooning in adoration with their legs tingling for Obama.

Barack Obama has profoundly damaged America.  And either John McCain OR Hillary Clinton would have done a HELL of a lot better job than this failed turd.  And the only network that gave either of those candidates any chance at all is the Fox News network which also happens to be the ONLY NEWS NETWORK WHOSE ANCHORS WEAR AMERICAN FLAG PINS ON THEIR LAPELS.  Because unlike ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, etc., etc., Fox News actually gives a flying damn about America rather than sanctimoniously considering themselves above America and “citizens of the world” the way all the other propaganda outlets do.  There’s a reason that a story came out that ABC banned their journalists from wearing American flag pins – because nobody the hell was WEARING ONE.  Rather, the mainstream media are following their “citizen of the world-in-chief” Barack Obama.

Fox News is different from Obama and all the other mainstream media “citizens of the world.”  They actually give a damn about their country.  Which is why they wear American flag pins when others won’t and which is why they gave fair coverage to Hillary Clinton and John McCain when others wouldn’t.

Hillary Clinton ought to finally understand what it’s like to be a Republican.  Because the mainstream media treated her like a Republican until it was time for them to swivel their guns to take aim at John McCain.

Doctrinaire liberal “journalist” Evan Thomas of Newsweek birdcage-liner fame once said this in a candid moment:

July 18th, 2008
Press worth more than fifteen points for Obama?

Query:

If, as Evan Thomas of Newsweek said in a moment of unguarded candor:

The media, I think, want [Democratic presidential candidate John F.] Kerry to win. And I think they’re going to portray Kerry and [running mate John] Edwards…as being young and dynamic and optimistic and all, there’s going to be this glow about them that is going to be worth, collectively, the two of them, that’s going to be worth maybe 15 points…”

—then how much is Obama’s press worth?

I’d say about double that.

And aren’t Evans’ remarks even more on target as a description of the Obama mystique than they ever were for Kerry/Edwards?

Keep in mind, Evan Thomas was the guy who infamously said of Obama:

Newsweek editor Evan Thomas brought adulation over President Obama’s Cairo speech to a whole new level on Friday, declaring on MSNBC: “I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God.”

So when a guy like Evan Thomas says that basically the Republican has to win by MORE than fifteen points because that’s what the media is going to give to the Democrat, you get a sense of how desperate we are in these last days of America as a Joseph Goebbels press runs amok with reality.

And, yes, as Jake Tapper indicates, there are ALL KINDS of big stories that the news media ought to be focusing on like a laser beam – which is EXACTLY what they would be doing if the incumbant were George Bush rather than Barack Hussein.

So to Jake Tapper’s big questions that the media are refusing to cover: does the Obama campaign want to talk about the economy?  How about HELL NO:

Democratic strategists Stanley Greenberg and James Carville have released a striking new report arguing in stark terms that some key voting groups now reject President Obama’s claim that the economy is improving — and may well reject Obama himself in November.

Democracy Corps, the political consulting group run by Greenberg and Carville, showed several Obama campaign commercials to focus groups in Ohio and Pennsylvania. Several of the group members, who were “all independents or weak partisans and ticket-splitters” and included both Obama and McCain voters from 2008, became irritated when shown Obama ads touting economic improvement. They don’t see that improvement in their own lives, the report says, and they don’t believe Obama when he claims things are better.

The fact of the matter is that Obama CAN’T talk about the economy because he has wildly and spectacularly failed – and in fact has wildly and spectacularly failed according to his very own rhetoric.

How about Afghanistan?  Does Obama want to talk about how he’s done in Afghanistan?  Let me quote myself from a comment I made before writing this:

It truly is stunning. If you examine the casualties in Afghanistan, you find that fully damn HALF of them occurred just during the last 27 months of the failed Obama presidency. Keep in mind, this is a war that Bush fought all eight years of his presidency … with a total of 630 American KIA during those eight years. The other 1,472 dead – seventy percent of all the casualties of the entire war – are all on Obama during less than HALF the time.

And where are all the damn liberals and the Cindy Sheehans crying over the dead soldiers when we really need them???

Do you believe that the Obama campaign wants to talk about Obama’s failure in Afghanistan and how Obama is working on being the first loser since the last Democrat war debacle in Vietnam???

THAT’S why the mainstream media isn’t talking about this stuff, Jake.  Because Obama doesn’t want them to and Obama is the mainstream media messiah as no one else has EVER been.

The Obama campaign wants to talk about Mitt Romney as a “vampire capitalist” who outsourced jobs at Bain.  So they talk about Bain the way Obama wants them to even though Mitt Romney built up 8 out of 10 of the failing businesses he rescued, even though all of the examples of “outsourcing” occurred AFTER Romney left Bain and in fact WHILE Obama’s top bundler was the head of Bain, and even though OBAMA is a FAR bigger outsourcer.  The Obama campaign wants to talk about Mitt Romney’s taxes, so the media have fixated on Mitt Romney’s taxes

The one thing you can absolutely guarantee is that the mainstream media will do ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING IT CAN DO to ensure that this campaign isn’t about the central issues facing the nation – because if it was Obama would lose in a landslide.

‘Journolist’ Soledad O’Brien Caught Red-Handed Desperately Searching Left-Wing Talking Points To Argue With Romney Adviser

For the record, no, I did not misspell “journalist,” I merely point out that a) Soledad O’Brien fails to qualify for that term and b) remind you of the disgrace in which “journalists” participated in a leftist campaign to influence the “news” while posing as “objective.”

This is kind of like me running to my Bible to argue with an opponent, only it’s Soledad O’Brien racing to her left-wing talking points.

One thing I will guarantee you – and I DEFY any liberal to show me otherwise – that Soledad O’Brien has NEVER been caught furiously and desperately searching through Rush Limbaugh transcripts to find ammo to try to refute Obama advisers.  I DEFY YOU.

Which is another way of my saying that Soledad O’Brien is a dishonest, disgraceful, lying propagandist hack:

Soledad O’Brien Caught Reading Liberal Blog During Heated Debate With Romney Adviser
By Noel Sheppard | August 13, 2012 | 22:31

Can CNN’s Soledad O’Brien make her sources any more apparent than she did Monday night?

While filling in for Anderson Cooper, O’Brien was actually caught on-screen looking at an article from the left-wing website Talking Points Memo to assist her in a heated debate with Romney campaign senior adviser Barbara Comstock (video follows with commentary):

[See site for embedded video]

Ali Akbar at Viral Read reported Monday:

During her interview with Virginia House of Delegates Republican member Barbara Comstock, O’Brien became visibly flustered and was actually caught doing finger stress exercises as she attempt [sic] to insert editorial commentary while her guest, a former skilled Republican operative, defended the House GOP budget, designed by Budget Chairman Paul Ryan.

Accidentally, a cameraman captured O’Brien furiously flipping through notes, only to cut out seconds later.

Indeed:

Once blown up, the picture told quite a story:

What she’s reading from is a TPM article titled “The Myth Of Paul Ryan The Bipartisan Leader” published Monday at 6:08 PM only a few hours before this program started.

[Editors Note: Did you know that President Obama has actually boasted about how he wants to cut Medicare and Social Security? The truth you won’t see in the media.]

It began:

Mitt Romney has been talking up Rep. Paul Ryan’s bipartisan credentials since he unveiled the congressman as his running mate early Saturday. But the mild-mannered Wisconsinite’s record reveals a near-total absence of Democratic support for his many ambitious proposals, very few of which have won enough support to become law.

Inside the piece was the very quote from Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Or.) that O’Brien read to her guest:

“I did not ‘co-lead a piece of legislation.’ I wrote a policy paper on options for Medicare. Several months after the paper came out I spoke and voted against the Medicare provisions in the Ryan budget. Governor Romney needs to learn you don’t protect seniors by makings things up, and his comments sure won’t help promote real bipartisanship.”

So, a CNN anchor with her own daily program used a far-left website for her show prep before talking to a Republican guest.

Do you need any more evidence of just how far to the left the self-described “most trusted name in news” is or why its ratings continue to tank?

Bravo, Ali! Bravo!

Amusingly enough, O’Brien got some truth to power today when Mitt Romney surrogate John Sununu told her she ought to “put an Obama bumper sticker on your forehead.” One wonders what he’d have said had he seen the photos above!

(HT @J_Murf07)

Meanwhile, the anchor Soledad O’Brien was substituting for just came out of the closet as a homosexual – which means that he is statistically almost CERTAINLY a raging liberal.

For the record, Anderson Cooper’s “fiance” just got caught french-kissing another man (don’t click on this without a barf pale because it contains close-ups of said homosexual french-kissing) to further prove the fact that homosexuality means an out-of-control addiction to depraved sex with any man who will do whatever the disgusting hell that homosexual men do for each other.  Which is another way of saying that homosexual men don’t want marriage or monogamy; homosexual men want to force people like me to morally validate their depraved “lifestyle.”  But I digress.

If you wonder why CNN is having the worst ratings in twenty freaking years, it is because CNN is a dishonest and disgraced bunch of propagandists and average people KNOW it is a network of dishonest and disgraced propagandists.  But like all fools, CNN is unable to recognize its problem and therefore concludes, “We’re not doing well because we have failed to worship our Dear Leader enough.”

You don’t have enough tinfoil on your helmets, either.

Yesterday I was at the Veterans Administration hospital and couldn’t help but get into an argument with a liberal who stated that nothing I said was valid because I got it from Fox News.  In doing this, realize, he refused to make the argument about the actual facts and instead made the argument all about Fox News after I had pointed out the fact that tax cuts increase revenues; they have ALWAYS increased revenues.  He didn’t want the conversation to be about facts; he wanted the conversation to be about his demagoguery.  Aside from that bait and switch, number one, he didn’t have a CLUE where I got my facts from; and number two his accusation is the epitome of one of the most pathetic fallacies in all of logic (you cannot refute an argument by demonizing the source – if Adolf Hitler were to say it was raining only a fool would argue that if Adolf Hitler said that it was raining it therefore could not possibly be raining).  When I pointed that fact of logic out and asked him where he got his news from, he ignored my question and said that “everybody knows that Fox News is propaganda.”  So we went from mindless demagoguery to even more mindless demagoguery.  I asked him to give me an example of Fox News spreading propaganda and he said “Sean Hannity.”  I pointed out that Sean Hannity was a person’s name, not an example of propaganda and asked him to give me one example of Fox News spreading propaganda.  This time he said, “Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity.”  So that’s two people’s names and zero examples of Fox News spreading propaganda.  I asked him if he’d ever heard of Keith Olbermann or Rachel Maddow or Chris Matthews or Andrea Mitchell (and now add Soledad O’Brien).  And pointed out that by his own stupid standard I just gave him twice as many examples of liberal propaganda as he’d given me conservative propaganda.

I didn’t bother to point out that “Fox News” – like many other news channels – consists of both NEWS and OPINION.  And the fact that Sean Hannity is an OPINION guy has nothing to do with the NEWS of Fox News.  I didn’t bother to point out to him that Fox News does a better job of keeping their opinion and news sections SEPARATE than just about any other network – as Andrea Mitchell and NBC just proved with her highly slanted op-ed commentary.  You DON’T see the journalists in the Fox News NEWS side pulling that kind of crap out of their butts.

I didn’t point out that Fox News has consistently rated as either THE most balanced or the second most balanced news network of all in study after study.  Fox News has NUMEROUS liberals on their network to provide that balance: people such as Geraldo Rivera, Tamara Holder, Alan Colmes, Julian Epstein, Ellis Henican, Leslie Marshall, Juan Williams, Marc Lamont Hill, Susan Estrich, Ellen Ratner, Bob Beckel, Michael Brown, Joe Trippi and Kirsten Powers among many others.  And in fact I defy liberals to find a news network that has as many conservatives on their payroll as Fox News has liberals.  The fact of the matter is that critics don’t hate Fox News because it’s NOT the most balanced; they hate Fox News because it IS the most balanced and allows a point of view to be aired that they hate irregardless of the fact that they allow BOTH sides to be heard.  I still vividly recall the debate I had with a different man who said that presenting the conservative viewpoint was actually inherently biased because it was tantamount to giving the viewpoint that the earth was flat credibility; such that the conservative viewpoint should be suppressed from news coverage.  And I said that was spoken like a true goose-stepping Nazi.

Anyway, I didn’t bother to do those two things because it was about this point in the argument that I realized that I was arguing with a genuine fool.  And it is a waste of time to argue with a fool.  Proverbs 26:4-5 teaches that we should refute fools so that other people realize that they are fools, but not waste too much time with fools lest those people begin to think we are fools, too.

I included the above story: 1) because it seriously pissed me off; and 2) as an example of just how inoculated much of our culture has become against the truth.  This is no longer a nation of truth and facts and reality; it is a nation of demagoguery and bias and propaganda.

In the aftermath of Joe Biden literally going before an audience that was primarily black and telling them that Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan will put you people in chains, we can just watch the same media defend Team Obama and recognize the hell these propagandists would have poured on Team Romney for using such a blatantly racist attack to see that America is drowning in propaganda.  And media propaganda is what will ultimately cause the death of this nation.

Russian Journalist Stabbed 20 Times For Insulting Islam (Which Is Precisely Why American Journalists Will Only Insult Christianity)

Poor  Sergei. If he’d only stuck with the ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, etc., etc., etc. script and only attacked Christianity, he’d be fine now.

Fox News, of course, is very much hated by Allah for playing by a different script.

Journalist Assaulted In Moscow
11:39 29/05/2012
MOSCOW, May 29 (RIA Novosti)

Famous journalist and radio presenter Sergei Aslanyan has been assaulted late Monday night, Moscow police reported.

According to police, an unknown man called Aslanyan at 11.30 pm and asked him to come out for a talk. As soon as the Aslanyan left his house the man attacked him, hitting the journalist on the head and stabbing him on the chest, neck and an arm, before disappearing.

Aslanyan himself managed to call police and was later hospitalized at a major Moscow clinic where he was operated on. “The patient was brought last night to the operating room, now he is in intensive care,” said at the hospital.

Moscow police initiated an investigation over assault and seized CCTV footage hoping to establish the identity of the attacker.

It is believed the crime may be related to Aslanyan’s work. Newspaper Izvestia suggested it may be connected with provocative remarks by the journalist on religious themes

On May 14 on a live radio show on Radio Mayak, Aslanyan discussed the question of choosing a new car, and used the expression, “from rags to riches,” in the context of a discussion about the biography of the Prophet Muhammad, in a manner which has drawn condemnation from some parts of the Muslim community, with some pro-Islamic media publishing negative articles referring to the remarks.

The imam and the congregation of Kazan Zakaban Mosque and the Tatarstan community wrote a letter to the Prosecutor General of Russia, in which they stated that they were offended by Aslanyan’s comments.

The Islamic community is sensitive about perceived attacks on Islam, and its founder. The 2005 publication in Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten of cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad led to a wave of protests and threats directed towards the newspaper.

In Russia, the November 2009 murder of Moscow priest Daniil Sysoev, who had been converting Muslims to Christianity, in St. Thomas’ church in southern Moscow has also heightened religious tensions in some sections of the community.

Sergey Aslanyan, who previously worked with liberal radio station Ekho Moskvy, has been with Radio Mayak since 2008, taking part in a range of programs. Radio Mayak confirmed that Aslanyan had been assaulted.

If 43 Muslim organizations had sued the George Bush administration, you can damn well bet that every mainstream media “journalist” in America would have “courageously” devoted their lives to making sure every voter knew what a horrible human being Bush was.

Cardinal Wuerl expressed the essence of the story the media are refusing to cover in a way that helps you to understand why the media is refusing to cove it:

WUERL: This lawsuit isn’t about contraception. It is about religious freedom. Embedded in the mandate is a radically new definition of what institutes a religious community, what constitutes religious ministry — brand new and never fortified in the federal level. That’s what we are arguing about.
 
The lawsuit said we have every right to serve in this community as we have served for decades and decades. The new definition says you are not really religious if you serve people other than your own and if you hire people other than your own. That wipes out all of the things that we have been doing, all the things that we contribute to the common good — our schools, our health care services, our Catholic charity and even parish soup kitchens and pantries. All that’s wiped out.
 
WALLACE: Let me pick up on that, because the White House says — the famous accommodation by President Obama, that they changed the mandates so that the insurance companies that you are dealing with, to provide health insurance coverage to your employees have to provide the birth control for free and that the charities and the schools and the hospitals, don’t have to do anything.
 
WUERL: This is one of the reasons why we say the accommodation didn’t change anything, because so many of our institutions, certainly the archdiocese, is self insured. We are the insurer.
 
So, when you say, don’t worry, we changed this and only the insurer has to pay. And we are the insurer, there is no accommodation.
 
WALLACE: But they’re saying, well, over the next year, we are taking public comment on this. And we will tweak that regulation so that the self insurers will not have to provide the birth control.
 
WUERL: Last time the government said we are going to hear from you, 200,000 suggestions went in and not one of them was accepted.
 
What was in the presentation before the request for suggestions was exactly what the administration reported out. By the way, it’s a law. It’s a law right now.
 
All of this conversation about we’ll find a way around it, that’s conversation. What’s law right now, is that that definition is what we are going to have to live with. And that’s why we went to court, because in the United States, if there is an impasse on the individual rights, we’re going to court and that way you scrape away all of the politics.
 
WALLACE: I don’t know if you’ve heard about this. But if you haven’t, I’ll inform you. What do you make of the fact that the broadcast network spent grand total of 19 seconds on their evening newscast — 19 seconds — covering the lawsuits by the 43 Catholic organizations; what do you make of that?
 
WUERL: Well, it is puzzling because they are focusing so much attention on the pope’s butler. It seems to me that somehow they missed the boat. And they missed the story.
 
And that’s why it is so important that we have a moment like this.
 
WALLACE: You think it’s political bias on the part of the networks?
 
 […]

 WALLACE: Meanwhile, Mitt Romney came out this week for allowing federal funds to be used by low income parents to send their kids to any public school or even to some private school and parochial schools. You support that idea, don’t you?
 
WUERL: The idea that money should follow the child, we all pay the taxes. We are all paying taxes for education. Why doesn’t that money follow the parents of the kids?
 
For example, here, if you live in the District of Columbia, if you are very wealth or have a lot of support, you can send your child to a very exclusive private school. But if you live in this inner city, if you live in some of the poorest neighborhoods, you don’t get an option.
 
That’s why the Catholic Church is there, that’s why we have our schools in the inner city saying we’ll give you a chance to get a decent education and we’ll pay for it. But wouldn’t it be fair, wouldn’t be just, wouldn’t be really honest if every child a chance at a real, true, academically excellent education. And one way to do that is to let the parents have a choice.

Archbishop Wenski put the essence of the gigantic story that the mainstream media has steadfastly refesued to cover thusly:

“As Catholics, we help people not because they’re Catholic, but because we’re Catholic. And so our schools, our universities, our Catholic charities, organizations, our hospitals admit people regardless of their faith. What the government is saying to us is that then, we’re going to have to operate hospitals for Catholics only?”

What does the mainstream media scream in place of covering such a story from such a perspective?

Of course, American “journalists” are also pretty much okay if they attack American servicemen, too.  Those bastard troops should obviously all die for protecting the Great Satan America and for supporting Mitt Romney by 24 points over the mainstream media messiah Obama.

Rapidly Worsening Labor Participation Rate Now Lowest In More Than THIRTY YEARS Under Obama’s Failed Regime. PLEASE LOOK AT HISTORY!!!

I’ve said it before: before long nobody will have a job and the mainstream media will be touting that unemployment is at zero percent.

It’s not just disappointing job numbers we’re looking at, of course; home prices, factory orders, retail sales and construction are all at godawful lows, too.  Let’s talk about Sandra Fluke and her made-up claims so Democrats can demagogue a war on women; let’s talk about Mitt Romney’s dog forty years ago; look over here at the shiny toy I’m waving; just don’t look at Obama’s economic record.

Meanwhile, the mainstream media is working overtime to somehow tease out something “positive” from disastrous economic figures.  Mind you, they were working just as hard to find every dark cloud in every silver lining when Republican Ronald Reagan was president (as I’ve written about before):

When Ronald Reagan came into office he had an awful lot of terrible policies and terrible results from those policies to overcome.  As I wrote back in October 2009:

The numbers told the sad story of the Jimmy Carter presidency: interest rates of 21%; inflation at 13.5%, and an unemployment rate of 7%. And a relatively new economic device called “the misery index” – the combination of the unemployment and inflation rates which Carter had himself used to great effect in his 1976 campaign to win election – was at a shocking 20.5%.

And those who went through those dark and difficult times may soon be looking back to that period as “the good old days.”

Welcome back, Carter.

When Ronald Reagan took office from Jimmy Carter, inflation was at a meteoric 13.3% and the country was in the throes of a fierce recession. There was a real question as to whether workers’ wages would keep up with the costs of living, which made people afraid to either spend or save. And nobody knew how to control inflation – which had risen from 1.4% in 1960 to the aforementioned 13.3% in 1980 – causing a real erosion of confidence in the future. Jimmy Carter answered a reporter’s question as to what he would do about the problem of inflation by answering, “It would be misleading for me to tell any of you that there is a solution to it.”

But Ronald Reagan had a solution. And by the time he left office, he had solved the problem of creeping inflation increases and had actually reversed the trend: he left behind a healthy inflation rate of 4.1%.

Reagan’s policies set the trajectory for growth that would last for 20 years.

[…]

I didn’t mention the labor participation rate in that article.  Frankly I’m not even sure I was that aware of the damned labor participation rate at that point.  But I’m sure aware of it now; and I am watching an employment holocaust under the most failed president in American history with growing horror.

Two years ago Tyler Durden pointed out that the labor participation rate was the lowest in 25 years:

Labor Force Participation Rate Drops To 25 Year Low, At 64.5%
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 11/05/2010 09:03 -0400

The inverse silver lining to today’s jobs report that will be lost in the shuffle of what is perceived as a good NFP (despite consistent initial jobless claims of around 450K, which means that either there is a massive data error, or the rate of job creation has somehow surged) is that labor force participation has now dropped to the lowest rate it has been since 1984, at 64.5%. Assuming a reversion to the long-term average participation rate of 66%, means that the civilian labor force is in reality 157.4 million as opposed to the disclosed 153.9 million, a delta of 3.5 million currently unaccounted for. Maybe someone can ask the president during his imminent press conference what happened to the unemployed population, which would have been 18.3 if this labor force delta was incorporated, resulting in an unemployment rate of 11.6%.

Last year Tyler Durden pointed out that the labor participation rate was the lowest since 1984 (27 years):

Labor Force Participation Rate Drops To 63.9%, Lowest Since January 1984
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 08/05/2011 08:59 -0400

While we still await for BLS.gov to finally come back up online half an hour after printing the actual NFP number, here is the one data point that we know for a fact: the labor force participation rate, and the reason why the general unemployment rate declined to 9.1%, just dropped to 63.9%, the lowest in 16 years, or matches the participation rate from January 1984.

Now, the Associated Press is pointing out that the labor participation rate – which was the worst in 25 years two years ago, and the worst in 27 years last year – IS THE WORST IN THIRTY-ONE YEARS!!!

US hiring slows sharply with just 115K jobs added
Published May 04, 2012
Associated Press

U.S. employers pulled back on hiring in April for the second straight month, a sobering reminder that the economy remains weak. The unemployment rate fell to 8.1 percent, but only because more people gave up looking for work.

The Labor Department said Friday that the economy added just 115,000 jobs in April. That’s below March’s upwardly revised 154,000 jobs and far fewer than the pace from earlier this year.

The unemployment rate has fallen a full percentage point since August to a three-year low. But last month’s decline was not due to job growth. The government only counts people as unemployed if they are actively looking for work.

In April, the percentage of adults working or looking for work fell to the lowest level in more than 30 years.

Employers added an average of 252,000 jobs per month from December through February, a burst of hiring that raised hopes the economy would accelerate. But job gains have averaged only 135,000 in the two months since then.

The slowdown will heighten fears that high gas prices and sluggish income growth are weighing on the broader economy.

Average hourly wages rose a penny in April, to $23.38. They have increased 1.8 percent over the past year, trailing the rate of inflation.

The economy must create at least 125,000 jobs a month just to keep pace with population growth. It generally takes twice that number on a consistent basis to rapidly lower the unemployment rate.

Weak job gains pose a threat to President Barack Obama’s reelection. He is likely to face voters this fall with the highest unemployment rate of any president since World War II.

Economists surveyed by the Associated Press said hiring should be sufficient to push the unemployment rate below 8 percent by Election Day. The 32 economists surveyed by the AP see steady job gains averaging 177,000 a month for the rest of this year. That should be enough to lower the unemployment rate to 7.9 percent by November.

There have been some signs that hiring will improve.

The number of people seeking unemployment benefits fell last week by the most in a year, the government said Thursday. That figure was released after the government compiled its April report. But it could bode well for hiring in May.

And earlier this week, the Institute for Supply Management, a private trade group, said factory activity grew at the fastest pace in 10 months and a gauge of manufacturing employment showed that hiring jumped.

Still, service companies expanded in April at the slowest pace in four months, according to a separate ISM survey. And the group said hiring at those companies, which employ roughly 90 percent of the work force, slowed.

The economy expanded at a 2.2 percent annual rate in the January-March quarter, down from 3 percent growth in the fourth quarter. Economists polled by the AP forecast the economy will grow 2.5 percent this year. In a healthy economy, that would be considered average. But faster growth is needed to spur greater job creation.

Obama is leading us to hell so fast it is unreal.

And he’s actually taking credit for it.  Because as thousands more Americans simply give up in abject despair of finding a job in his failed economy, it artificially reduces the unemployment rate because people who give up are no longer counted.

Which means literally that the more people Obama drives into total despair, the better – at least for Obama:

“The unemployment rate ticked down again,” Obama said during a speech

And the most dishonest, most vile media propaganda since Joseph Goebbels helped give the world the Nazi Party is helping him to do it.  One blogger contemplating the destruction of jobs as measured by labor participation underscores this fact with some quotes from 1984:

“the Times of the nineteenth of December had published the official forecasts of the output of various classes of consumption goods in the fourth quarter of 1983, which was also the sixth quarter of the Ninth Three-Year Plan. Today’s issue contained a statement of the actual output, from which it appeared that the forecasts were in every instance grossly wrong. Winston’s job was to rectify the original figures by making them agree with the later ones.”…George Orwell, “1984″

“And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed–if all records told the same tale–then the lie passed into history and became truth. “Who controls the past,” ran the Party slogan, “controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.”…George Orwell, “1984″

Eighty-eight MILLION Americans have been driven out of the workforce under this presidency.  Unemployment would be over ELEVEN PERCENT if we calcuated unemployment at the same labor partipation rate that George Bush had when he left office.  When the rate was at 65.76 not all that long ago, unemployment would have been at 10.9 percent; Obama has now driven the percentage of Americans participating in the labor force down to 63.6 percent.

“The civilian labor force participation rate declined in April to 63.6 percent, while the employment-population ratio, at 58.4 percent, changed little.” — BLS statistics, May 4, 2012

For men, the labor participation rate is now 70% – the lowest it has EVER been since records started being kept in 1948.  Democrats love to talk about “the war on women” when they have a war on men that is simply beyond unreal.

THE REAL UNEMPLOYMENT RATE UNDER THIS PRESIDENT IS 11.6 PERCENT:

Real U-3 Unemployment Rate: 11.6%
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 05/04/2012 10:02 -0400

Propaganda unemployment rate: 8.1%; Real unemployment rate: 11.6%. Reason for difference: organic growth of labor force which grows alongside the broader population. Don’t be confused by cheap explanations on TV why the labor force should be declining (especially with ZIRP meaning pre-retirement workers have to stay in the labor force ever longer to supplant their meager fixed income): the widely accepted definition of the labor pool, that used by the CBO and all other government forecasting agencies, assumes a 90,000 growth in the labor force every month as it has to keep in line with the growth of the US population! The implication is simple: using a real labor force participation rate long-term average of 65.8%, the real unemployment rate in April was 11.6%, based on the 5.4 million additional workers that should be counted as part of the U-3 which then means that the real number of unemployed is not 12.5 million but 17.9 million, which in turn implies a 11.6% unemployment rate in the US. This also means that the spread between the propaganda, and the real number is now 3.5%: the most it has been since the early 1980s.

It was said during the Great Depression that it really wasn’t so bad – as long as you had a job.

If you don’t have a job, or if you lose your job – as more Americans are losing their jobs every day now – Barack Obama is the worst enemy you ever had in your life.  If you lose your job, Barack Obama will crush you under his foot and when you give up bothering to look, Obama will tout the disaster that he has made of your life into a “success” as the bogus unemployment rate “drops.”

As I said in the title, PLEASE LOOK AT HISTORY!!!  Because since Obama touted his massisvely failed stimulus, everything he said would happen turned out to be a lie, and everything conservatives predicted turned out to be TRUE.  Here is a chart of the Obama stimulus, with lines showing what was predicted by Obama versus REALITY:

When you examine Obama’s very own predictions, he promised America that if his stimulus passed (and, uh, it did, you know) unemployment would be at 6 percent today. But if we DIDN’T pass his stumulus, things would be worse and unemployment would be higher – at about 6.7 percent today. AND EVEN BY THE MOST BOGUS CALCULATION UNEMPLOYMENT WITH OBAMA’S STIMULUS IS FAR WORSE THAN OBAMA SAID IT WOULD BE WITHOUT HIS DAMN STIMULUS.

Obama is now selling another whopping snake-oil lie by claiming that the answer to prosperity is more damn taxes on producers to punish them for daring to produce.  If we eliminated our military budget, if we eliminated all of our discretionary spending, if we added Obama’s deceitful “Buffett rule,” we STILL wouldn’t be able to overcome OBAMA’S MASSIVE FEDERAL BUDGET DEFICIT.  This truly evil man is ruining us.

Please look at history and wake UP, damn it.  Stop being the proverbial lemming who follows his leader off the cliff!  Stop being the proverbial frog in the pot of wter who allows himself to be boiled to death.

The reality is that Obama has created a holocaust.  And just as has tragically happened in the past, and just like the book 1984 examined, the bad guys are hiding it.

Next year, if Obama gets re-elected, the labor participation rate – measuring the number of working-age Americans who actually have JOBS – will be the lowest since Carter.  And the fact that there won’t be any Ronald Reagan to fix it, combined with the true disaster Obama has compiled and will continue to compile, will be enough to bury this country.

Update, August 2, 2013: The Labor Participation Rate has plummeted another half a percent (which amounts to millions of jobs lost) since my last entry.  It stands at 63.4%, We are now even beyond the territory of failed president Jimmy Carter.  We’re now in the territory of the worst participation rate since World War II ended.  And yes, as that author notes, had this happened during the fifth year of Reagan, it would have been described in terms of a holocaust; but it’s in the fifth year of Obama, so it is being lauded.

Update: May 2, 2014 – The labor force participation rate has now declined to 62.8%, the lowest level in 36 years since 1978.

Update, September 10, 2014 – Yeah, it’s STILL 62.8%.

On The Arpaio Revelations And The Simple FACT That Russian Media Is Less Stalinist Than OURS Now

It’s really kind of funny.  There was a time when people would have heard the words, “Pravda reports…” and yawned at the expectation of hearing more propaganda.  Now we hear, “ABC reports…” and yawn at the same expectation.  We’re to a point where fewer and fewer and fewer Americans believe what they are being fed.

I recall a quote from a Soviet correspondent who had spent five years in America witnessing its “journalism”:

” I have the greatest admiration for your propaganda. Propaganda in the West is carried out by experts who have had the best training in the world — in the field of advertizing — and have mastered the techniques with exceptional proficiency … Yours are subtle and persuasive; ours are crude and obvious … I think that the fundamental difference between our worlds, with respect to propaganda, is quite simple. You tend to believe yours … and we tend to disbelieve ours. “

Given the fact that both Pew and Gallup have both recorded separately record highs in the American peoples’ distrust of their media, it seems that Americans have finally awakened to the fact that their journalism was propaganda the same way the Russians did long ago. 

So at least we finally opened our eyes at least a little bit, I suppose.

The Russian journalist was right, of course.  Modern American journalism was shaped by the likes of Walter Lippmann and by the likes of Edward Bernays.  These are giant names in liberal progressive “journalism.”  They were also masters of blending “the news” and “journalism” with outright propaganda.  Lippmann described his version of democracy and journalism as “the manufacture of consent.”  He said, “The public must be put in its place so that we may live free of the trampling and the roar of a bewildered herd.  And Lippmann wanted to deny the “herd” the responsibility of being free to choose their own course and relegate them to the role of observer.  And he deeply believed in an elite class of journalists that he called “the responsible man” who alone had “the duty” of participation.  Similarly, Edward Bernays said “The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society…  It is the intelligent minorities which need to make use of propaganda continuously and systematically.”  Bernays’ daughter Ann said that her father’s greatest recognition was “That you can tap into their deepest desires or deepest fears and use that to your own purposes.”

We are so deep in that crap it is positively unreal.

Journalists see their role as “gatekeepers of information.”  And that becomes a terrible thing when 97% of all journalists in America believe in unrestricted access to abortion – while the public is evenly split on the issue – and a 9-1 tilt of journalists toward the political left representing a hardened ideological committment to leftist thought by our “gatekeepers.”

The bottom line is that our “journalism” represents a form of fascism that was not imposed by a totalitarian regime, but which was even more reprehensibly welcomed and embraced by a class of elites who constantly claim to be champions of the very poor whose opinions they simultaneously most despise and actively manipulate.

With that introduction, it was interesting to behold the reaction to Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s law enforcement investigations into Obama’s eligibility to be president in Maricopa County, Arizona.

Consider also the wide coverage of the Arpaio investigation in the international media versus the absence of coverage in the US elite media and then think to those days when those poor Russian bastards were kept in the dark by their own “media”:

Arizona sheriff finds Obama presidential qualifications forged
07.03.2012
Dianna Cotter

A singularly remarkable event has taken place in the United States of America. This event occurred in Arizona on March 1^st and was an earth shattering revelation.

A long awaited press conference was given by Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, a five time elected Sheriff, which should have made national and international headlines. Arpaio’s credentials include serving in the United States Army from 1950 to 1953, service as a federal narcotics agent serving in countries all over the world with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), and served as the head of the Arizona DEA. Without doubt, this is a serious Law Enforcement Officer, not one to be taken in by tin-foil-hat wearing loons.

Yet, in the five days since his revelations there has been little in the way of serious reporting on the findings he presented in his presser. With 6 short videos, the Sheriff and his team presented a devastating case, one the tame US press is apparently unable to report.

On April 27, 2011, President Barack walked into the White House Press room with a Cheshire cat like grin and a “Long Form Birth Certificate” from the State of Hawaii in hand. From the podium in the press room, Mr. Obama said, “We’re not going to be able to solve our problems if we get distracted by sideshows and carnival barkers,”. Quite the barb from a man holding a forged document.

That’s right, forged.

The president himself created the scene; one filled laughter from an adoring press corp., a scene of unprecedented fanfare while holding a forged document which was later posted on the White House website. This was the news Sheriff Arpaio revealed on March 1, 2012 in Arizona.

Arpaio asserts that his investigators discovered, during a 6 month long investigation which is ongoing, not only was the “Long Form” likely a digitally created forgery, but the presidents Selective Service Card (Draft Card), allegedly filed in 1980, was also a forgery. These documents are what Barack Hussein Obama relies upon to prove his constitutional eligibility to the office of President of the United States.

Forged documents are being used to qualify a President of the United States for the office he holds. Or is usurped the more accurate term?

The silence from the main stream media in the US is deafening. It almost seems as if the press is terrified to even think the question, let alone ask it: Is the President a criminal? The press in Arpaio’s audience were certainly asking him to state precisely that, yet nowhere has the question been asked of the White House by the press. Instead the American Press is aggressively protecting the presumed President of the United States, pushing the fraud upon both America and the world, supporting a man who may well have usurped the office.

For months before Mr. Obama released the April 2011 forgery, American businessman Donald Trump had been demanding that the president show the country definitive proof that he was born in the state of Hawaii, and eligible for the Office of President. The birth certificate forgery which was presented by Mr. Obama was in response to the repeated public requests from the billionaire businessman.

One can easily imagine the reaction of the press had this scenario been about George W. Bush in 2004.

On the contrary, the press itself forged documents regarding the 43^rd President: Long term CBS newsman Dan Rather lost his credibility along with his job when he presented forged Air National Guard documents allegedly denigrating the president’s service in the 1970’s. One can imagine the glee evidence presented by law enforcement officials of a real forgery made by President Bush would have generated. The press feeding frenzy would have eclipsed that of Watergate, the most controversial political event in modern America history which led to the resignation of President Nixon in August of 1974.

The questions in the White House Press room would have been merciless to say the very least.

What has been the response from the Obama era press?

Silence.

Silence so loud it can be felt.

What has been the response from the 44^th president so far?

A tweet from Obama Campaign press secretary Ben LaBolt, containing a link to the conspiracy theory television show “The X-files” theme song: a mocking, Saul Alinsky like, retort.

High Crimes and Misdemeanors appear to have been committed by the President of the United States or his personal representatives in presenting a forged document to the press and the Nation as a legitimate document, and this information has been delivered from Law Enforcement Officials.

Arpaio refused to take the bait offered by a clearly hostile press in the conference room. He refused to accuse the president directly, instead informing the world that they had a “person of interest” in the forgery, and were continuing with the investigation.

Where is the outrage from the press??

As surreal as this is, it isn’t the main event. It’s only a part of a larger story.

Citizenship

Years before the 2008 election, Barack Obama was involved in efforts to amend the US Constitution to allowthose who were born to parents who were not citizens to become President along with those born overseas. Those efforts have occurred several times in recent history, and all have failed. It must be intelligently asked why this was a concern at all for the then Senator.

There are two reasons for Obama’s concern. The first lay in Article 2 section 1 of the constitution which states: “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,”.

Except for Barack Obama.

The second reason for Obama’s concern lies in the Supreme Court of the United States case Minor V. Happersett (88 U.S. 162) 1875 which defines Natural Born Citizen:

“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 168.

This U.S. Supreme Court case decided that Virginia Minor, the plaintiff, could not use the 14^th Amendment to claim citizenship and the right to vote because she was a Natural Born Citizen, and therefor unable to lay claim to the statutory citizenship the 14^th Amendment gave to former slaves, which included their right to vote. This is the only U.S. Supreme Court case in the history of the United States to clearly define what a Natural Born Citizen is. It has been cited in dozens of cases since.

This is an issue which cannot be brushed aside by Mr. Obama. His father, Barack Obama Sr. was a student from the British Commonwealth of Kenya, a British Citizen who never sought to become a US Citizen, and indeed was eventually forced to leave the country. Mr. Obama has only one parent who was an American Citizen. Obama clearly does not meet the requirements of Natural Born Citizen as defined by the Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett.

The Founding Fathers, the men who wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, discussed these very reasons why no person of divided loyalties, divided nationalities, should ever have command of America’s armed forces. Dozens of letters and many debates in the constitutional conventions recorded these concerns, always returning the “Law of Nations“, Emerich De Vattel’s encyclopedic record of the laws civilized nations had developed over two thousand years of which the founders were clearly aware of in their debates:

“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”

E. De Vattel 1758 Sec 212 Ch19

Vattel’s definition has been accepted since the days the United States was still a motley collection of British Colonies. It has been accepted in no less that 3 Supreme Court Cases, has been accepted in testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives. It is by no means an original source; only recently dug out of dusty tomes in 2008. Indeed, this concept is enshrined in every Nation the world over. Every nation not only accepts, but has enshrined this concept: a person born to two parents who were citizens of that nation and born on its soil was a natural born citizen of that nation.

After his rousing 2004 speech at the Democrat National Convention, Barack Obama was considered a shoe-in for running for president in 2008, and indeed his campaign began that night in Boston. Yet his citizenship was a serious obstacle to his ambitions, and the ambitions of the liberal progressive movement which supported him.

So the efforts to obfuscate Obama’s citizenship issues began in earnest. The plan was deviously simple, make certain that people focused on his Hawaiian documents, and minimize the visibility of Minor V. Happersett and Citizenship to the public.

The State of Hawaii

The state of Hawaii’s role in this cannot be neglected for several reasons. Hawaii has a couple of legal Achilles heels of its own.

It was well known at the time, that any person could register the birth of a child in the state on a late form with only the signature of a witness (Hawaii Department of Health no longer uses this form). This means of obtaining Hawaiian documents was used frequently by immigrants who needed assistance from the state (such as welfare), and Hawaii needed the federal dollars registering those births brought to the state. Second, and perhaps most importantly, Federal laws with regard to Hawaii had been written to allow a baby receiving state documents to be declared a Citizen of the United States without being subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States:

Sec. 305. [8 U.S.C. 1405] Persons born in Hawaii:

A person born in Hawaii on or after August 12, 1898, and before April 30, 1900, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900. A person born in Hawaii on or after April 30, 1900, is a citizen of the United States at birth. A person who was a citizen of the Republic of Hawaii on August 12, 1898, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900.

Missing from this US Statute is the following which appears in the 14^th Amendment:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

This disparity created a legal loophole which is specific to Hawaii: A child born in Hawaii, regardless of whether or not they were born in the state and subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States, automatically gained US Citizenship. This is the only state in the United States where this condition existed. This is why Hawaii is so vitally important to Obama, and could explain why it is important enough to forge birth documents for. It is why Obama’s birth is being alleged to have occurred there instead of somewhere like Washington State or elsewhere, and is so vitally important.

Obama, by being born in Hawaii, got automatic citizenship status in the United States without regard for whether the United States had jurisdiction over his citizenship. Otherwise, his citizenship would have legally followed his father’s, British, as Barack himself admitted on his “Fight the Smears” website during the ’08 campaign.

And it only took a witness signature to gain it. It is unknown how many children gained U.S. citizenship through this means. The real citizenship status of these individuals is similarly unknown, and now that it has been discovered that Barack Obama has put forth a forged Hawaiian Birth certificate, his own proof of birth in the state is subject to serious questions by law enforcement officials.

Months before the election of 2008 Barack Obama began deliberately directing public attention to his Hawaiian Records. The Obama campaign, before redirecting the site to “Attack Watch” maintained the “Fight the Smears” website which can still be found on archival websites. The Obama campaign posted the candidate’s “short Form” birth certificate with the following information from FactCheck.com:

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4, 1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.’s children.

Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4, 1982.”

The campaign obviously wanted public attention directed at his birth documents in Hawaii.

The campaign itself created the entire birth certificate controversy, and acted to maintain and fan the flames of that controversy for several truly simple reasons. As long as the public was wondering about what being born under “the British Nationality Act of 1948” meant, and the birth certificate “birther” controversy in general, they were not looking into laws which would have legally prevented the senator from assuming the role of candidate and then President. Legal cases such as Minor V. Happersett.

This case was, and still is, of tremendous import. Had it been found during the campaign it would have prevented his candidacy, certainly preventing him from taking the oath of office in Jan 2009.

So a campaign to hide Minor V. Happersett was undertaken at the same time.

Justia

Justia.com is a free legal internet research site with a specific, dedicated Supreme Court of the United States server containing nearly every Supreme Court case in American history. It is specifically marketed to law students, non-profit agencies, startup businesses, small businesses and private internet researchers. In short, those who cannot afford either a lawyer or the thousands of dollars a year required by subscription legal search engines such as LexisNexis and WestLaw. Justia leverages the Google Mini internal search engine, and through this, Google.com itself increasing its visibility on nearly any search of American law. Justia.com is owned by Obama supporter Tim Stanley, and began a systematic scrubbing of Minor V. Happersett in the summer of 2008, erasing the name and specific text quoted from the case, along with specific citations to it out of dozens of Supreme Court cases which cited it over 138 years of American Supreme Court History. The controversy was dubbed “JustiaGate“.

The author of this article personally documented and published the scrubbing done by Justia, documented the failure of Tim Stanley’s explanation for the “errors”, and assisted in the research which connected Justia.com to Public.Resource.Org, where Stanley is on the board of directors. Public.Resource.org is the source of Supreme Court materials in data form Justia.com receives for publication. Public.Resource.org is owned and run by Carl Malamud, and funded in part by the Center for American Progress once run by John Podesta, and funded by George Soros. This is a direct connection to the Soros Foundation, a major source of political donations to Barack Obama and the Democrat Party.

Justia erased “Minor v. Happersett” along with text quoted from the case out of its Supreme Court servers deliberately in an effort to minimize the ability of the public to find the case by searching for it, significantly reducing its apparent importance.

These two separate efforts, raising the profile of the Senator’s birth certificate in as controversial a manner as possible, while minimizing the legal role of Minor v. Happersett succeeded. Barack Obama was able to illegally win the election, and illegally take office. It was stolen right in front of the American public.

The house of cards is about to come tumbling down around Barack Obama’s ears as the momentum of evidence builds. Law enforcement has found his birth documents to be “highly suspect” as a forgery. His draft card has similarly been found by law enforcement as being “highly suspect” as a forgery. The smoke screen cover created by his birth certificate, hiding Minor v. Happersett in a shadow of false mockery, has been blown away. Leaving the Supreme Court case alone on the stage, glaringly exposing Barack Obama as an usurper, an unconstitutional President of the United States.

The American Press is deliberately hiding the evidence published on the internet about this defrauding of the American public and the deliberate evisceration of the Constitution of the United States. It is hiding Barack Obama’s Fraud as it has been revealed by a Sheriff in Arizona. The silence of the American press would be unbelievable if it weren’t so blatantly obvious.

It is nearly as egregious as the audacity of Obama’s fraud itself.

As I have said, I am neither a lawyer who has access to restricted documents nor a documents expert nor a Photoshop expert.  I can’t on my own know squat diddly on this subject with any kind of authority.

But there are a LOT of very interesting questions being asked all across the country, and not a lot of answers coming from Obama’s defenders.