Posts Tagged ‘Michael Moore’

‘I Can’t Take My Midterms, I Wanna Go Cry And Whine And Riot.’ The Dark Side Of The BUTTHURT Is Strong In These Liberal Padawan

November 11, 2016

It is Veterans Day, and decent Americans are honoring veterans who have protected their freedom.

But the problem is, too many liberals are NOT decent Americans and frankly aren’t even Americans at all.  So they are out rioting and burning the flag because they have no regard for democracy whatsoever and if these fascists don’t get their way, they riot.

We can put our reality into Star Wars-terms now: it’s the light side of the force against the dark side; the dark side being characterized by anger and hate and rage.  “The dark side of the force is strong in them.”  Only in this case the “force” is the toxic power of BUTTHURT.

We are vividly seeing which side is characterized by the dark side of the force today.

Take a look at two pictures which vividly display the pathologically hypocritical mutual self-contradiction that is liberalism:

trump-protest-riot

trump-protest-riot2

The people who say, “We’re the loving, tolerant folks” are in actual point-of-fact the HATEFUL, INTOLERANT folks.  And we’ve seen this all along: from the first moments where Democrat mobs began physically attacking Trump supporters to the discovery that a man who worked for Hillary’s campaign and who had visited the Obama White House nearly 400 times was orchestrating violence as a political tactic, to the despicable vicious political-racist attack by two black men against a white Trump voter while a mocking crowd yelled “You voted for Trump?  You gonna pay for that sh*t!” to now as we watch butthut liberals embrace the violence that they’ve actually been embracing ALL ALONG.

There is no question whatsoever which side is ACTUALLY the dark side, the side of hate and anger and rabid racist anti-democratic values.

Hey, I remember the feeling: back when Obama was elected in 2008 – and Obama was EVERY FREAKING BIT as absolutely unacceptable to me and to those who believed like me as Trump is to Democrats now – how I and my fellow Republicans started violent riots across America and…

Oh, wait.  NO WE DIDN’T.

Because unlike liberals, we are not pathologically rabid, vile, butthurt fascists.

But not so the left.

Portland, Oregon is only one of the many cities across America in flames as thousands of Democrats burn and destroy in “protest” of the United States and its Constitution and its free elections.  Los Angeles, Oakland, New York, it’s all over the place this fascist disease otherwise known as liberal progressivism.  How in the world will they get their “boot stamping on a human face, forever” future if people won’t VOTE for it? they whine.  And so they riot.

So we’ve got liberal puke professors excusing liberal puke college students from taking the midterms because they’re too whiny after Trump popped the bubble of their shallow world.

Cornell University staged a “cry-in” for their students because being a liberal means being a mentally-fragile, unhinged, pathetic little puke.

Other universities brought in therapy dogs because Democrat students are broken by reality.

Do you realize how pathetic these people are?

Oh, and they call for people to DIE.  A Hillary supporter told CNN this as she joined her fellow rioters against our entire democratic system:

“There will be casualties on both sides. There will be, because people have to die to make a change in this world.”

Just take a moment and imagine if Hillary Clinton had been elected and you had statements galore coming out from Trump supporters like that.  We would have been depicted by the mainstream media as people who needed to be mowed down with tanks by the thousands and crushed and killed.  But how is the media framing this?  You can’t say it’s ALL Democrats!  And how DARE you try to lay the blame on Hillary or Obama and liberals the way we would have surely lain the blame on Trump and conservatives.

And the hypocrite formulation for “racism” is beyond amazing.

These horrible, awful Democrats who regularly and ROUTINELY encourage blacks and Hispanics to vote as a race from a racial perspective on behalf of their race are so hypocrite BUTTHURT that white people would do the SAME DAMN THING they’ve done for thirty years that it’s unreal.

It’s wonderful that black people vote like black people and Hispanic people vote like Hispanic people because they vote for the part that worships the State.  But for white people to vote like white people?  That is as close to absolute EVIL as you can get!  Because to be a liberal is to be THE worst species of hypocrite who ever existed.

Even Michael Moore understands this where – just like Chris Matthews in a MSNBC panel I reported election night – Michael Moore was actually the sole voice of reason on an insane network:

Filmmaker Michael Moore pushed back today against the notion that Americans who voted for Donald Trump did so based on racism.

Moore, who warned fellow liberals that Trump was going to win the election, said Trump voters were motivated by economic pain and lost jobs more than anything else.

“You have to accept that millions of people who voted for Barack Obama – some of them once, some of them twice – changed their minds this time. They’re not racists. They twice voted for a man whose middle name is Hussein. That’s the America we live in,” said Moore, explaining that younger white voters turned out in record numbers for Barack Obama.

“But if you put people through another eight years [where] there’s no middle-class jobs, they’re struggling to get by, the basic things like the price of a box of cereal doubles … these are the things that are important to people because they’re living from paycheck to paycheck,” he said on MSNBC this morning.

These liberal college pukes in particular get in other people’s faces and decry their “white privilege.”  To the extent that the polls weren’t so damn wrong because liberals administered the polls and liberals are pathologically dishonest vermin, the polls were wrong because these little Nazis had so intimidated voters that they were afraid to say who they were going to vote for.  And the amazing thing about it is NOBODY IS MORE PRIVILEGED ON EARTH THAN THESE PAMPERED LITTLE BUTTHURT FASCIST COLLEGE PUKES.

As the cry-ins and the therapy dogs and the cancelled- and take-home midterms over Trump’s win proves.

We’ve got massive riots where people are literally protesting because they can’t understand why anyone other than them should get to vote for who leads this country.  They are burning cars because the American people elected Donald Trump.  They are smashing the windows of small businesses because the American people elected Donald Trump.  They are throwing bricks at police because the American people elected Donald Trump.  They are burning the American flag because the American people elected Donald Trump.

They want our system destroyed.  They want our Constitution destroyed.  They want our way of life destroyed.

And they don’t give a flying DAMN about democracy or the will of the people.

These are Democrats.  Which is another way of saying that these are the very lowest form of slime this country has.

I pointed out before the election that there are only one group that is employing violence as a political tactic.  And guess what?  It’s the same damn Democrats who are employing violence as a political tactic now.

Just imagine the damn headlines if Hillary had won and there was ONE protest by Trump supporters that turned even a LITTLE violent!!!  The papers would have breathlessly characterized it as a white, racist, misogynist KKK Nazi movement.  Remember the Tea Party that got viciously slandered and demonized by the media that never was responsible for one single act of violence but it didn’t even MATTER to the “journalists” making up lies?  And so of course it’s the same Democrat media covering the violence of their fellow fascist Democrats, so nothing to see here, folks!

 

Advertisements

My Big Fat Greek Bailout – And What It Means For America

February 10, 2010

So Greece is going to get its big fat bailout.

The “Too big to fail” mindset wins yet again.  First it was big union-dominated automakers and high-risk lending institutions.  And now it’s entire countries, starting with Greece.  And after Greece comes Spain and Portugal, and then will come California and a bunch of other mostly decades-long liberal-progressive states like New York and New Jersey.  High taxation and out-of-control spending equal fiscal disaster as states and countries rack up enormous debts that they can never hope to repay.

Here are a couple of headlines for you:

California will go bankrupt

Is California Too Big To Fail?

And you know damn well it is.  California all by itself is the sixth largest economy on the planet.  And the inescapable logic of redistributionism means that the other 49 states are going to have to redistribute their wealth to bail out the People’s Republic of Pelosistan.

Beware Greeks bearing IOUs.  Hell, beware ANYBODY bearing IOUs.

In contrast to everything liberals believe, the higher the tax rates, the lower the revenues that are being collected as businesses relocate to states that DON’T hate them.  This has been proven throughout American economic history, and it is certainly being proven now: the states with the highest taxes are facing the largest revenue shortfalls.

Their understanding of free market capitalist economics comes primarily through the straw man created by Karl Marx, and so they fundamentally misunderstand and distrust the economic system that made America the greatest nation on earth.  They want redistributionism, and someone has to pay for my right to be a nonproductive bon-bon-eating couch potato.  That “someone” ends up being the only people with the resources to invest and create jobs.  But the rich aren’t stupid, and so they shelter their money to avoid the higher taxes.

I mean, even Oprah Winfrey does everything she can to avoid high taxes.  Even MICHAEL MOORE does everything he can to avoid paying more taxes.

And what do we do when the disaster these people created finally comes home to roost?  We bail them out, so they can do it all over again.  It’s called “moral hazard.”  Somebody in power should look it up and then quit doing it.

We keep making this giant ball of stink bigger and bigger and bigger, and we’re all wading through it now, and everything is going to sh*t all around us because our leaders don’t have the courage to simply let losers lose.  We’ve become bailout nation, where the people who had discipline and did things right prop up the reckless so they can continue being reckless until the system crashes.  Or to put it more precisely, until the system crashes bigger and badder the next time around.

Times are going to get harder.  China is announcing that they are dumping US securities in what appears to be an economic war declared against us.  That’s going to make it a lot more expensive for us to keep borrowing.  But the only way we can continue these insane liberal-progressive policies is to keep borrowing and borrowing.

There’s no question that we need to collect more taxes.  But raising rates isn’t the way to collect more taxes.  The Bush tax cuts stimulated an unprecedented 52-consecutive months of economic growth even as it generated MORE tax revenue.  Obama’s going back to “the failed policies of the past” from the Jimmy Carter era are going to create a lot of damage as Democrats refuse to learn the lesson of the luxury tax again and again and again.

There’s also no question we need to dramatically decrease our spending.  And along with that, we need to phase down the boondoggles we’ve created via Social Security (which is now in the red, paying out more than it collects) and Medicare/Medicaid (how does a ONE HUNDRED TRILLION DOLLAR unfunded liability strike you?).

The problem is that the federal government has expanded so far beyond its constitutional limitations that its not even funny – with the lion’s share coming from progressive-Democrat social programs.  The government which was supposed to be limited to defending the country and creating infrastructure is now involved in absolutely everything under the sun.

And Democrats will fight to the death for every single one of these programs.

There’s also the now-typical Democrat demand from the government:

Pay my mortgage.  Fill my gas tank. Buy my car.  Give me free health care.  Feed me.  Change my diapers.

Which means we can’t control our black hole-spending.  Which means we can’t reduce our never-before-seen-in-human-history debts.  Which means that we’re on the same road that Greece is on.  Only no one will be there to bail us out when we collapse.

The only question is how long it takes for us to get there.

Why Islamic Extremists Support Democrats and Obama

October 12, 2008

There is a direct relationship between American liberals and Islamic fascism.  At first glance, someone might say, “This can’t possibly be.  Islamic extremists commit all these acts of violence in the name of Islam, and liberals profess peace and secularism.  How can the one have any relationship with the other?”  Read on.

It’s one thing to realize who has most most aggressively opposed the war on terror, where even the term “terrorist” – along with “war on terror” itself – gets purged in a politically correct manner to be replaced by the more neutral term “insurgents.”  In the words of one New York Times writer:

The war over words and definitions is not a new one. The current administration has fought to maintain custody of the Iraqi conflict by defining insurgents as “terrorists” and prisoners of war as “unlawful combatants.” During Vietnam, the administration defined civilian casualties as “collateral damage.”

What Democrats and liberals have done to oppose the “war on terror” is largely a matter of history.  They opposed the Patriot Act; they opposed the monitoring of calls to the United States from identified terrorists; they opposed the ability of the United States to detain combatants fighting against United States troops; they tried to force time tables that would have resulted in the United States withdrawing in defeat; they literally proclaimed – in the case of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid – that the United States had lost. They voted for the war before they voted against it.  In large part, they have claimed that it has been American imperialism, rather than growing Islamic fascism, which caused the upsurge of violence.  In short, the view is that they are attacking us because we are killing them.  We’re the bad guys.  We’re the force for evil in the world.

The following audio quote comes from Democrat Parker Griffith via Redstate.com:

I think America’s greatest enemy is America and its imperialism.

And I think that . . . uh . . . we have nothing to fear from radical Islam. We have nothing to fear from any other religion if we are strong on our own beliefs. I don’t fear radical Islam.

It’s hard to fight and win any kind of conflict when half the country questions whether the war should even be fought in the first place and believes that we are the bad guys.

Hence we have Michael Moore – a hugely popular liberal filmmaker (though I prefer the more accurate label of “propagandist”) saying:

The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not “insurgents” or “terrorists” or “The Enemy.” They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow — and they will win.

The people Bush and his “neocons” (whatever that means) calls “terrorist murderers” who are killing American soldiers with land mines liberals like Michael Moore and many others compare to our Minutemen who won American freedom in the Revolutionary War.

For this reason alone, there is a direct relationship between the Islamic fascists and American liberals: they both agree that we shouldn’t be fighting them, and that the United States is the greater evil.

But the relationship is actually much deeper than that.  The liberal’s opposition  to the war on terror, and their de facto support for the “insurgents,” is a result of a common belief system directly linking American liberals to Islamic fascists.

One writer put it this way:

Through a Marxist lens, the world is divided into rich and poor, owner and worker, exploiter and exploited. Therefore, if a person or a nation is poor, it is always due to the oppression of the richer person or the richer nation. This simplistic view of the world is the main reason for leftist support of Palestinian terrorism… Israel is perceived to be Western and rich, while the Arabs are perceived to be poor and downtrodden; therefore the Arabs are right. Never mind that the Palestinian Arab Muslims treat women like property, use intimidation and violence against religious minorities, openly call for the rule of Sharia religious law, severely persecute gays, and generally conduct themselves in a way that liberals would find abhorrent if it were being done in their backyard. The Palestinians are poor, therefore they are justified in anything they do, including murder of “Zionist” children.

Those nasty elements that routinely characterize Islam in so much of the world are conveniently ignored in the name of “multiculturalism,” “pluralism,” and “global harmony.”  And since traditional Christianity is the real boogeyman of secular humanist liberalism, anything that is hostile to the Christian world view is regarded positively.  Bush is the real terrorist; al Qaeda and the Taliban are “insurgents,” “freedom fighters,” or even “Minutemen”-type heroes.  The forces of global jihadism are depicted as forces that we can negotiate with if only Bush were out of the picture.

Liberals, who routinely demonize the rich as evil in a clearly Marxist-inspired version of the proletariat versus the bourgeoisie, use almost the exact same language and the same arguments to attack their “neocon” opposition as the Islamic fascists use to justify their violence.  It makes it hard to disagree with their arguments and justifications when you are essentially using the identical arguments yourself.

The only real difference, then, is the use of violence as a political tool.  And it is a fact that liberal groups – such as the Weathermen, and such as one William Ayers who bombed the Pentagon and killed policemen –  have employed precisely the same sort of violence as the “insurgents” – a.k.a. the Islamic fascists – have used.  Liberals who employed violence as a political weapon went too far; but liberals who refuse to make the distinction between force and violence and embrace the weakness and non-action catastrophically championed by Neville Chamberlain go too far as well.

As Robert Heinlein once put it, the sad fact of reality is that:

“Anyone who clings to the historically untrue — and — thoroughly immoral doctrine that violence never solves anything I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler would referee. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor; and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and their freedoms.”

It is vital that we realize that the refusal to fight evil is itself evil.

Democrats initially supported the war on terror and the Iraq War.  But they turned against the war the moment that it was in their cynical political interests to do so.  Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid declared American defeat; Barack Obama still refuses to support the surge strategy even when it is clear that the surge was the only path to victory.

Many liberals and Democrats claim that the war on terror has only strengthened the terrorists.  That claim is tantamount to the argument that Hitler would have preferred a Winston Churchill to a Neville Chamberlain.  It is both contemptible and irrational.  But that is where we are.

And the fact that Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama wasn’t sufficiently troubled by the violent terrorist actions of such a man as to refuse to serve on a board with him – a board that carried out Ayer’s radical educational vision (which is frankly nearly as radical as was his violent political vision) – ought to be more than troubling itself.  Similarly he likewise isn’t so troubled with the vile actions of rogue regimes such as Iran and North Korea that he isn’t willing to boos their international profile by directly negotiating with them as President.

There is also a direct relationship between Barack Obama and pro-Muslim sources.  Barack Obama doesn’t actively embrace their support because of the political liabilities, but Muslims clearly believe that a Barack Obama presidency will be a pro-Muslim presidency.  Further, millions of dollars have poured into the Obama campaign from overseas – and been laundered by breaking it into less-than-$200 increments to avoid detection – and there is no question that a great deal of that money is coming from Islamic sources.  This, also, ought to be extremely troubling.

But most troubling of all should be the nuclear weapon-bound Iran.  Iran is clearly determined to puruse a full-fledge nuclear capability, and in spite of Barack Obama’s campaign rhetoric, it is difficult to imagine how he could possibly be willing to take his pledge of preventing the regime from developing such weapons to the point of forceful confrontation (which is clearly the only way that Iran will blink).  Obama couldn’t even bring himself to vote for a bill that labeled Iran as a terrorist organization, and in fact publicly opposed it as “excessively provocative.”  Given his grounds for opposing the Iraq War, how can he possibly support an Iran War?  We won’t be ever be certain that Iran has developed the bomb until we see the first mushroom cloud.

The only way we will be able to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons is to state categorically that we will go to war with them if they continue in their present course.  Iran suspended its nuclear weapons program in 2003 only because we had invaded Iraq and they thought they would be next.  They began it again when they saw the U.S. effort bog down both militarily and politically.  They began it again when they saw Democrats treacherously turn against a war they had once supported the moment it was in their political advantage to do so.

If Barack Obama believes he will be able to inspire Europe to unite with America in a war against Iran, he is naive to the point of criminality.  Most of Europe depends on Russian and Iranian oil, and Russia and Iran are key allies.  And the fact of the matter is that Russia is using its UN veto to block any United Nations measure condemning Iran.  If the United States acts, it will basically be on its own – again.

The financial crisis and the massive bailout package will also force the next President to make very tough spending decisions.  John McCain promised to build the military and freeze other spending programs; Barack Obama could not identify one of his huge social spending initiatives he would actually cut.  We will not be able to confront Iran without building our military to make it even stronger than it is today.

If Iran develops nuclear weapons, along with ballistic missile delivery systems that they are likewise working on, they will be immune from any direct attack.  A regime that has called the United States “the Great Satan” and Israel “a rotting corpse” will literally be able to mount 9/11 style terrorist attacks (or should I say “insurgent” like the mainstream media?) with impunity.  It will be able to launch direct or indirect attacks against Israel with impunity unless we are willing to risk a nuclear war that could easily become global.  A nuclear-armed Iran is a looming reality too terrifying to fully contemplate – but contemplate it we must.

Another reason that terrorists regimes would want to see a Barack Obama Presidency is because he has stated that he would reduce the size, sophistication, and power of our military at the very time that we need it the most.

Mark my words: if Barack Obama is elected President, Iran WILL have nuclear weapons during his administration.  Obama supports the philosophy that links American liberalism with the justifications of Islamic fascists.  He has spoken of American soldiers as “air raiding villages and killing civilians.”  His opposition to the war in Iraq – which was based on the identical rationale that any war against Iran would have to be based upon – virtually precludes direct military confrontation.  And his belief that he will be able to persuade Western nations to join a “Gulf War”-style coalition (which his running mate Joe Biden still refused to support) is simply naive beyond belief.

A vote for Obama will become a de facto vote for a nuclear Iran.  Muslim extremists may want that, but Americans certainly shouldn’t.

The Left Wing Politics of Hurricanes Gustav and Katrina

September 1, 2008

Do hurricanes have political affiliations?  Is Hurricane Gustav a Democrat?

Some liberals clearly think so.

Take Michael Moore (PLEASE!!!):

“I was just thinking, this Gustav is proof that there is a God in heaven,” Moore said. “To just have it planned at the same time, that it would actually be on its way to New Orleans for Day One of the Republican convention, up in the Twin Cities, at the top of the Mississippi River.”

Michael Moore isn’t just some far-left loon celebrity like Barbara Streisand; liberals and Democrats throw good money away to hear what Moore says about the issues.

And it’s not just left-wing nutjob idiot propagandists.  Former Democratic National Committee Chairman (I think of current DNC chair Howard Dean and ask myself, ‘what do they put in these guys’ Kool-Aid?‘) Don Fowler thought he was ever so witty when he said:

The timing, at least as it appears now, is that it’ll be there on Monday. That just demonstrates God is on our side.”

He’s right that Hurricane Gustav will reach landfall Monday.  He’s probably wrong about every other thought he ever had in his life, but he’s right about that one.

Hurricane Katrina killed 1600 people.  Ha ha ha.  Pretty damn funny, guys.  You want another massive death toll just to put a damper on the Republican Convention, do you?

Both men apologized when they realized how evil they sounded, saying they sincerely hoped nobody got hurt.  They both failed to make note of the little detail of the $43.625 billion in damage Hurricane Katrina caused in 2005 – and the billions of dollars the storm cost taxpayers since.

Damn.  I hope the joke doesn’t sound so funny now.

You want to know the really despicable thing?  Throughout the Democratic National Convention (you know, that pile of hot air in Denver last week?), Hurricane Katrina was mentioned over and over and over again.

Natural disasters used to be viewed as, well, natural disasters.  But since the Democratic Party warped into the Demagogue Party, they have become political fodder for the herds of liberal swine to gluttonously gulp down.  The shrill, hysterical narrative: It was all Bush – and his terrible failure of leadership – that caused all this.

As usual, Democrats are either wrong, or lying, or wrong and lying.

First of all, as a Wall Street Journal article pointed out: (more…)