Posts Tagged ‘purged’

It’s Not Just That Hillary Clinton Doesn’t Belong In The White House; She Belongs In The BIG HOUSE. She Is A DISHONEST CORRUPT CRIMINAL.

August 18, 2015

As big of a clown show as the Republican nomination process is with Donald Chump blabbermouthing all over the place, the Democrat process is actually an even BIGGER joke.

Donald Trump is a reality television-trained clown; Hillary Clinton is a Clinton Incorporated-trained crook.

At least under a Trump the Chump we wouldn’t have the unending cancer of an “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is” presidency.

This is a politician who insists that her emails on her private server that she installed are “my personal property.”  You know, EXACTLY the same way Richard Nixon installed a voice recorder system in his office and claimed the Watergate tapes were HIS personal property.  The problem is that history proves this is an argument for a fascist thug rather than a true leader.  If you compare these two incredibly secretive, paranoid, vindictive and dishonest thugs to one another, you will see parallel after parallel.  I suppose this is the Democrat Party’s way of humbly apologizing to Nixon: because they  clearly want his reincarnation back.

One of our greatest modern-day war heroes who saved thousands of American lives and literally figured out a way to win unwinnable wars and a Marine intelligence officer who desperately tried to save American servicemen’s lives by sending an email warning that an Afghan security chief was a terrorist ended up being destroyed over their not-completely perfect treatment of classified material.  Hillary Clinton is a criminal and Barack Obama is a criminal for not treating her like a criminal the way he treated David Petraeus like a perp-walked criminal.  But this is trageically the most dishonest and partisan administration in the entire history of the world’s oldest republic.

As I understand it, that Marine officer ended up in prison for just ONE improperly handled email.  Hillary Clinton is ALREADY in worse shape – and it’s going to get a hell of a lot worse than that as they keep finding more and more emails.  If Hillary Clinton does NOT END UP IN PRISON, it is ONLY because the Democrat Party has become the institutional party of political crony fascism and corruption.

I pointed out months ago that Hillary Clinton’s secret email system was grounds for her automatic disqualification: To wit, the obvious question to ask her and to ask every Democrat who supports her is whether every single Republican or Republican political appointee ought to be able to install their own private servers, selectively purge their communications, and be completely above all law and all transparency the way Hillary Clinton has been.  If they say no, then Hillary Clinton isn’t fit to be president; if they say yes, then call them the fascist they are right to their face.  And I wrote that before it was revealed that she was treating top secret emails like soup recipes over the internet.

If the media had any credibility whatsoever, every single question that every single reporter or journalist asked her would be about what kind of paranoid fascist autocratic dictatorial walking-talking sociopathic narcissistic personality disorder which her emails prove that she clearly is.

You need to understand how much of a LIAR Hillary Clinton’s current email scandals have with crystal clarity already revealed her to be (with MANY more shoes or fascist jackboots to drop).  She has been one – the historical record proves – over the course of her entire LIFE.  I want you to see Hillary Clinton’s email scandal for what it is – the longstanding continuation of the lies of a pathological liar.  I want you to first see the dishonest and frankly evil woman who is basically saying, “Everyone needs to implicitly trust me.  Even AFTER I wiped my server clean to purge the evidence.”

So let’s start with some history of the pathological liar a.k.a. Hillary Rodham Clinton before pointing out that the following “lying, unethical, dishonest lawyer” who has “conspired to violate the Constitution” all her life.  Then we’ll move on to her current scandal where she has proven still further what a by-nature pathological corrupt fascist political Jezebel she truly is:

As a 27-year old lawyer Hillary Clinton was fired from her position during the Watergate investigation for “lying, unethical behavior.” And worse. And you already see the pathologically twisted mindset.  Let me set this up for you:  You have a LIFELONG Democrat supervising Hillary.  But this supervisor came to realize that Hillary Clinton was playing a game with an incredibly dishonest and unethical agenda.  This was supposed to be a process about JUSTICE, but Hillary Clinton was, is and always will be a pure political vicious animal.  Her agenda was to KEEP Nixon in the White House so her political patron Ted Kennedy would have a clearer shot at the White House; and at the same time to cynically abuse the process of justice to protect Kennedy from the record of history “that would have made Watergate look like a day at the beach.”  In short, Hillary Clinton from the very start of her career revealed herself to be “an unethical, dishonest lawyer” who “violated the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”  Hillary Clinton is a dishonest piece of fascist trash, and she always HAS BEEN a dishonest piece of fascist trash:

Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, supervised the work of 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the committee. Hillary got a job working on the investigation at the behest of her former law professor, Burke Marshall, who was also Sen. Ted Kennedy’s chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick affair. When the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation … one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman’s 17-year career.

Why?

“Because she was a liar,” Zeifman said in an interview last week. “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”

How could a 27-year-old House staff member do all that? She couldn’t do it by herself, but Zeifman said she was one of several individuals … including Marshall, special counsel John Doar and senior associate special counsel (and future Clinton White House Counsel) Bernard Nussbaum … who engaged in a seemingly implausible scheme to deny Richard Nixon the right to counsel during the investigation.

Why would they want to do that? Because, according to Zeifman, they feared putting Watergate break-in mastermind E. Howard Hunt on the stand to be cross-examined by counsel to the president. Hunt, Zeifman said, had the goods on nefarious activities in the Kennedy Administration that would have made Watergate look like a day at the beach… including Kennedy’s purported complicity in the attempted assassination of Fidel Castro.

The actions of Hillary and her cohorts went directly against the judgment of top Democrats, up to and including then-House Majority Leader Tip O’Neill, that Nixon clearly had the right to counsel. Zeifman says that Hillary, along with Marshall, Nussbaum and Doar, was determined to gain enough votes on the Judiciary Committee to change House rules and deny counsel to Nixon. And in order to pull this off, Zeifman says Hillary wrote a fraudulent legal brief, and confiscated public documents to hide her deception.

The brief involved precedent for representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding. When Hillary endeavored to write a legal brief arguing there is no right to representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding, Zeifman says, he told Hillary about the case of Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, who faced an impeachment attempt in 1970.

“As soon as the impeachment resolutions were introduced by (then-House Minority Leader Gerald) Ford, and they were referred to the House Judiciary Committee, the first thing Douglas did was hire himself a lawyer,” Zeifman said.

The Judiciary Committee allowed Douglas to keep counsel, thus establishing the precedent. Zeifman says he told Hillary that all the documents establishing this fact were in the Judiciary Committee’s public files.

So what did Hillary do?

“Hillary then removed all the Douglas files to the offices where she was located, which at that time was secured and inaccessible to the public,”Zeifman said. Hillary then proceeded to write a legal brief arguing there was no precedent for the right to representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding … as if the Douglas case had never occurred.

The brief was so fraudulent and ridiculous, Zeifman believes Hillary would have been disbarred if she had submitted it to a judge.

How was this ethical fiasco “resolved”?

Zeifman says that if Hillary, Marshall, Nussbaum and Doar had succeeded, members of the House Judiciary Committee would have also been denied the right to cross-examine witnesses, and denied the opportunity to even participate in the drafting of articles of impeachment against Nixon.

Of course, Nixon’s resignation rendered the entire issue moot, ending Hillary’s career on the Judiciary Committee staff in a most undistinguished manner. Zeifman says he was urged by top committee members to keep a diary of everything that was happening. He did so, and still has the diary if anyone wants to check the veracity of his story. Certainly, he could not have known in 1974 that diary entries about a young lawyer named Hillary Rodham would be of interest to anyone 34 years later.

But they show that the pattern of lies, deceit, fabrications and unethical behavior was established long ago – long before the Bosnia lie, and indeed, even before cattle futures, Travelgate and Whitewater – for the woman who is still asking us to make her president of the United States.

So someone might read the full account and say, well, Zeifman didn’t remember every single fact completely clearly and blah blah blah.  But let’s continue to check Hillary Clinton’s honesty:

There was William Safire’s 1996 article that documented Hillary Clinton as a “congenital liar.” Which was being nice.  He concluded she was “congenital” for stuff like this:

Remember the story she told about studying The Wall Street Journal to explain her 10,000 percent profit in 1979 commodity trading? We now know that was a lie told to turn aside accusations that as the Governor’s wife she profited corruptly, her account being run by a lawyer for state poultry interests through a disreputable broker.

She lied for good reason: To admit otherwise would be to confess taking, and paying taxes on, what some think amounted to a $100,000 bribe

We could look at TravelGate and Hillary Clinton’s determination that “We need those people out and we need our people in.”  We could look at how even liberal newspapers like the Los Angeles Times acknowledge that Hillary Clinton lied under oath in that particular scandal.  We could likewise look at the long lists of other Clinton scandals that were pretty much all over everywhere in those days.  But there are literally just way too many lies to even wave a stick at.

But I mean, it has just gone on and on.

There was Hillary Clinton telling the bogus story that she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary.  When in fact she was born six years AFTER anyone heard of the man.

There was Hillary Clinton falsely claiming that ALL of her grandparents were immigrants.  When only one actually was.  In other occasions, Hillary Clinton specifically lied about the grandparents who WERE NOT immigrants.  Why lie?  Because she is a compulsive, serial liar who just can’t help herself.

There was Hillary Clinton who when running for president told the fake story that she had “dodged” sniper fire in Bosnia. When the record shows her walking placidly down the ramp of an Air Force plane and an 8-year old Bosnian girl giving her flowers.

There was Hillary Clinton who boasted that she was “instrumental” in the Northern Ireland peace process. Which would have been like awesome if she’d actually even BEEN there or had anything whatsoever to do with it. But she lied.

Don’t think that anyone can-out 9/11 victim Hillary Clinton.  On September 17th 2001, Hillary told Jane Pauley on NBC’s dateline that Chelsea had gone on “what she thought would be a great jog” and that she was going to go around the towers of the World Trade Center.   “And then the plane hit,” Hillary stated.

Senator HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: She’d gone what she thought would be a great jog. She was going down to the Battery Park, she was going to go around the towers. She went to get a cup of coffee and–and that’s when the plane hit.

PAULEY: She was close enough to hear the rumble.

Sen. CLINTON: She did hear it. She did.

PAULEY: And to see the smoke…

But wait: it turned out that none of that was true: Chelsea did NOT go for a jog around the towers – great or otherwise – she did NOT get a cup of coffee, she did NOT hear the rumble and she did not see the smoke.  In fact, Chelsea was safely watching the attack on television from her Union Square apartment.  The left can try to spin it into some subtle nuance, but this was just another episode of Hillary Clinton pulling a Brian Williams and falsely and routinely imposing herself or her family into events of history.

These were simply transparent, easily falsifiable lies.  Hillary has lied like this her entire life.  The only reason she hasn’t been completely destroyed by her dishonesty is her place (by marriage) in the Democrat Party, the protection from her political cronies and the fact that Democrats are simply dishonest people as a whole who frankly as dishonest liars don’t CARE that Hillary is a dishonest liar.  When you add the fact that the media has become every bit as partisan and as ideological and as propagandistic as any communist country, you have the very class that is supposed to EXPOSE a Hillary Clinton actively trying to PROTECT her.

You want another angle of Hillary Clinton?  Hillary Clinton is the kind of hypocrite monster who plays up some “war on women” the same way she played up the “vast, rightwing conspiracy” that somehow managed to insinuate her husband’s semen on an intern’s blue dress.  But she is the very monster who WARS on women, at least according to the pedophile rape victim who testified that “Hillary Clinton took me through hell.”  Among other things Hillary Clinton did to destroy a female child rape victim was to SMEAR her with her vicious lies.  And so the victim says on the record, “she lied like a dog to me.”  Hillary Clinton’s strategy was in fact quite literally to “war on women” as she viciously attacked the credibility of her innocent 12-year-old victim.  Hillary Clinton absolutely KNEW her client was completely guilty. She said among numerous other stunning admissions: “‘I had him take a polygraph, which he passed – which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs,’ she says with a laugh.”

I’m just going to put it bluntly here and now.  Anyone whose faith is not forever destroyed in Hillary Clinton is simply a venal, vile, wicked demoniac.  She has been a vile, morally obscene creature all her life and she is more of all of the above now than ever.

It’s not enough for me to say I wouldn’t trust Hillary Clinton with my child or even that I wouldn’t trust her with my dog.  No freaking way.  But I wouldn’t even trust Hillary Clinton with a rabid rat, because she’d torture it just for laughs and then let it go to hopefully bite people.  She’s proven that all her life.

But let’s continue.

There was the Hillary Clinton who assured us all that she and Bill were “dead broke when we left the White House.”  She’s just like YOU.  Hillary KNOWS what it’s like to be poor.  Mind you, she also knows what it’s like to cynically exploit her crony-fascist ties to spin her political connections into pure gold and make $12 million that year.

Hillary tells us she’s just like YOU.  Oh, yes, because who among us doesn’t “earn” half a million dollars for a speech that was arranged on the basis of a crony fascist corrupt deal that Hillary exploited her State Department job to arrange?  I mean, who among us hasn’t sold America out to a Swiss bank?  Who among us hasn’t sold America’s stockpile of uranium to our most deadly enemy Russia?  Who among us hasn’t had a taxpayer-funded chauffeur and hasn’t driven a car in 20 years?  Who among us isn’t currently worth something on the order of a quarter billion dollars?

But then there were all of Hillary Clinton’s godawful lies surrounding Benghazi.  The reason her private server became an issue was that one singular event.  It began when Hillary and her boss Barry Hussein decided to cover their incompetent asses with the lie that an obvious terrorist attack in which Americans heroically died striving to save the life of a United States ambassador was in fact merely a protest over what? the free-speech of an American.  It wasn’t anybody’s fault, it was just one of those things that happened.  And the fact that it happened on the anniversary of 9/11, the fact that a trained mortar crew happened to have brought their heavy mortar with them, the fact that this aforementioned trained mortar crew that happened to bring their heavy mortar had also happened to calculate the firing coordinates of key locations in advance of the mortar attack, was nothing but the result of a peaceful protest taken too far.

Well, actually it began weeks before that.  It began when Hillary Clinton first started turning a totally deaf ear to the murdered ambassador as he pleaded with her for additional security that Hillary Clinton couldn’t have bothered to give a flying damn about.  In fact rather than provide greater security Hillary Clinton’s State Department actually REDUCED securityPleas for additional security were coming from the professional staff as well.  Hillary was too busy purging her private server, I guess.

Those pleas for help that never came continued hour after agonizing hour as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama ignored Americans under fire and dying trying to protect American soil.  And what did this “lying, unethical, dishonest lawyer” Hillary Clinton do?  She deceitfully manufactured a cover-up story, she blamed the attack not on terrorists and on her own pathetic and apathetic incompetence to prevent what the specialists on the ground TOLD her was coming, but on an AMERICAN and on FREE SPEECH itselfShe falsely blamed a terrorist attack on a Youtube video and continued to hold to that line along with her equally corrupt and dishonest and fascist president.  Everything including all the witnesses from BOTH sides of the terror attack confirm that the attack had NOTHING whatsoever to do with that damn video, contrary to Hillary Clinton’s fallacious lies.  Our people say it, their people say itOur intelligence that conservative organizations had to fight to get released from Obama’s and Hillary’s cover-up proves that the Administration KNEW the attack was planned IN ADVANCE rather than being the “spontaneous demonstration” over a video they dishonestly claimed.

You consider the timeline of what Hillary Clinton in her capacity as Secretary of State did and did not do prior to that terrorist attack that resulted in a U.S. Ambassador being murdered like a rat and Hillary Clinton should be in prison for that alone.  Now the same woman who said, “What difference does it make?” says she won’t “dishonor the memories of those we lost.”  And you can understand why she doesn’t want to talk about them because she as much as killed them herself with her gross if not malicious incompetence.

We know that Hillary Clinton not only lied but lied UNDER OATH about numerous facts surrounding Benghazi.  We know she manifestly LIED UNDER OATH about the United State’s involvement in procuring and transferring weapons out of Libya to Turkey.  Her lie is a matter of factual public record.

We know that Hillary Clinton, while running for president last time back in 2007 (on June 20, 2007, to be precise) “We know our Constitution is being shredded. We know about the secret wiretaps. We know about the secret military tribunals, the secret White House email accounts. It is a stunning record of secrecy and corruption, of cronyism run-amok. It is everything our founders were afraid of, everything our Constitution was designed to prevent.”

This from the woman who the very first moment she got power, she had a super-secret personal email system installed in her home to bypass all security and all accountability and all transparency so she could purge any communications that proved her to be the lifelong criminal that she is.  And how can anyone not see what a pathologically dishonest hypocrite of the very worst and lowest sort Hillary Clinton truly is?

And to just add to that, this is a woman who is now claiming that all the criticisms of her OWN “stunning record of secrecy and corruption, of cronyism run-amok” that is “everything our founders were afraid of, everything our Constitution was designed to prevent” is all somehow merely what?  “The same old partisan games.”  You know, the same way it was a “vast, rightwing conspiracy” for Bill Clinton to receive blow jobs in the Oval Office from an intern.

Well, obviously you know what “the same old partisan games” look like, don’t you, Hillary Clinton, you political Jezebel if there ever has been one since the wicked original?  BECAUSE YOU’VE PLAYED THOSE COCKROACH GAMES ALL YOUR MISERABLE LIFE.  And in fact you played them against the very last Republican administration that wasn’t guilty of a tiny fraction of the very same crimes you’re trying to deflect NOW.  And now people are supposed to rise to your defense because you’re hanging from your own petard.  So Hillary Clinton now shrilly yells, “I won’t get down in the mud with them. I won’t play politics with national security.”  You mean the same way YOU climbed into that same mud like the obscene political pig you are and wallowed in it the last time a Republican was in office???  Hillary Clinton is an insult to integrity and an insult to intelligence and the only question to ask of anyone who supports her is whether he or she is more wicked than stupid or more stupid than wicked.  An d that is a proven fact according to Hillary Clinton’s own current dishonest rhetoric vis-à-vis her own previous dishonest rhetoric.

Now we finally get to her current fiasco with her emails.  You know, the private server she installed under the mindbogglingly transparent lie that she did so so she wouldn’t have to carry multiple devices:

the Associated Press has obtained documents conclusive proving that “Hillary Rodham Clinton emailed her staff on an iPad as well as a BlackBerry while secretary of state, despite her explanation she exclusively used a personal email address on a homebrew server so that she could carry a single device.”

This same Hillary Clinton who said “I won’t play politics with national security”?  Yeah, she played politics with national security to such an astonishing degree that she is the VERY FIRST American public official to do all of her national security business ENTIRELY through a private email server that had no encryption whatsoever.

You see, one of Hillary Clinton’s ocean of trillions of lies is that the private server was installed for her husband Bill and had Secret Service safeguards.  That is manifestly untrue.  That server was in fact SPECIFICALLY installed for HER and had ZERO Secret Service safeguards.  It had absolutely NO encryption for the first three months whatsoever:

Venafi, a Salt Lake City computer security firm, has conducted an analysis of clintonemail.com and determined that “for the first three months of Secretary Clinton’s term, access to the server was not encrypted or authenticated with a digital certificate.” In other words: For three months, Clinton’s server lay vulnerable to snooping, hacking, and spoofing.

In other words, it was completely open to foreign intelligence services and was undoubtedly penetrated.  Bob Gourley, former chief technology officer at the Defense Intelligence Agency, states that “I have no doubt in my mind that this thing was penetrated by multiple foreign powers, to assume otherwise is to put blinders on.”

Hillary designed her server with privacy and the ability to purge evidence of her criminality rather than security:

A week before becoming secretary of state, Hillary Clinton set up a private e-mail system that gave her a high level of control over communications, including the ability to erase messages completely, according to security experts who have examined Internet records.

“You erase it and everything’s gone,” Matt Devost, a security expert who has had his own private e-mail for years. Commercial services like those from Google Inc. and Yahoo! Inc. retain copies even after users erase them from their in-box.

We are now finding out that Hillary Clinton’s email firm – a firm she chose out of political ideology rather than either competence, qualification or even the lawful right to in any way handle, possess or manage classified information – kept its own servers in a bathroom closet.

This is an abject disgrace and Hillary Clinton BELONGS IN A PRISON CELL doing hard time.

When Hillary finally got around to bothering to install any security whatsoever, she screwed the pooch and ended up with a “misconfigured encryption system.”  I mean, it was kind of like her criminal incompetence with Benghazi, only with her own damn server that she installed so she could delete the evidence of her crimes and make her Orwellian disappearances of the factual record permanent.  And just like Orwell’s Oceania, Hillary couldn’t have cared less what the rival global power Eurasia and Eastasia that Oceania was at constant war with knew: her cover up was only against her OWN people.

But, no, this shrew Jezebel would NEVER “play politics with national security,” would she?  No politics with a secret private server that she installed specifically for her ability to control and purge any and all communications that she didn’t want anyone but FOREIGN FREAKING GOVERNMENTS to see.

So let’s get real here: my argument is that Hillary’s installation of a private server in her own home -WHICH NO NEITHER COLIN POWELL OR CONDOLEEZA RICE EVER DID AND ANY CLAIM TO THE CONTRARY IS SIMPLY A LIE – is a demonstration of the manifestation of Hillary Clinton’s pathological fascism and narcissism.  The simple fact of the matter is that we have NEVER seen ANY top public official abuse the email system the way Hillary Clinton did.

Previous top officials used the government secure system for their business and a private email account – BUT NOT A PERSONAL SERVER MEANING THAT THEY COULD NOT WIPE AND PURGE THEIR EMAILS – for private communications.  Hillary Clinton is the FIRST and ONLY top public official to use an entirely private server to send and receive top secret classified intelligence as well as emails from her husband.  Oh, wait a minute: her husband exposed that last one as yet another Hillary Clinton lie:

Hillary said she emailed with Bill, but the thing is …
By Ashe Schow • 3/10/15 4:02 PM

Bill Clinton doesn’t use email.

At a press conference on Tuesday, Hillary Clinton said the server that housed her emails while she was secretary of state (that was reportedly housed at her home in New York) was set up for President Bill Clinton. She also said that some of the “personal” emails she deleted were between her and her husband.

But just before Hillary began the press conference at the United Nations building, the Wall Street Journal reported that Bill Clinton does not use email.

“The former president, who does regularly use Twitter, has sent a grand total of two emails during his entire life, both as president, says Matt McKenna, his spokesman,” WSJ reported. “After leaving office, Mr. Clinton established his own domain that staff use — @presidentclinton.com. But Mr. Clinton still doesn’t use email himself, Mr. McKenna said.”

One of Bill’s emails was to astronaut and former Sen. John Glenn, the other was to U.S. troops.

But Hillary said during her press conference that her email server “contains personal communications from my husband and me.”

Hey, it’s understandable that Hillary Clinton would believe there were just all kinds of personal communications from her husband when in fact there wasn’t so much as a single one.  Just like it’s understandable that she had no idea where her daughter was on 9/11 or that no her grandparents WEREN’T all immigrants or that no she actually was NOT named after Sir Edmund Hillary or that gosh it sure seemed like explosions were rocking her as she raced across the tarmac frantically clutching her daughter’s little hand when in fact the only “sniper” was an 8-year-old girl holding flowers rather than a rifle.  And that it seemed like we were dead broke because we only had millions of dollars with hundreds of millions more hanging on the vine.  All honest mistakes, I’m telling ya.  Every single one.

Why on earth would anyone EVER believe ANYTHING this liar says???  I mean, okay, we know that there were in fact ZERO emails between Hillary Clinton and her husband.  So the only reason that she purged and wiped her server is because what?  Her “yoga routines” got a little too hot and heavy???  Who tries to wipe a server WHILE IT WAS UNDER A SUBPOENA claiming her yoga schedule had to be protected?

It takes a giant set of extra-hairy brass elephant balls to wipe your server clean AFTER being subpoenaed and being so pathologically dishonest she even lied about having BEEN subpoenaed and then claim you’re a victim of a political attack.  So private server aside, let’s just stipulate for the record that we do NOT EVER want to look at what Hillary Clinton is hiding in her pantsuits.  Because it would instill an episode of Cyclic Vomiting Syndrome that the world would still be appalled over millennia from now.

Hillary Clinton’s lies just over her server and her emails are now LEGION.  She claimed (falsely) that all of her emails were being “immediately captured and preserved” to State Department archives.  That was flat-out stated by the State Department NOT to be true.  In fact the State Department didn’t even have the means to do that until AFTER Hillary Clinton left.  And it’s easy to understand WHY a pathologically dishonest and secretive Hillary Clinton would not have such a system installed during her tenure.

She claimed (falsely) that ALL of her work-related emails had been turned over.  Until a man she’d hired in spite of being specifically ORDERED not to hire by the Obama White House – because Sidney Blumenthal is a vicious, rabid rat even by Obama standards – turned over his emails which proved Hillary Clinton had lied when she claimed she’d turned over all of hers.  Again, Hillary Clinton was caught red-handed in a manifest LIE.

Mind you, this incredibly fascist and dishonest woman had refused to be bothered with following the law or White House guidelines from day one.  The White House had given “very specific guidance” that members of the Obama administration use government e-mail accounts to carry out official business.  Not that rules or laws matter to a pathologically dishonest lying crook like Hillary Clinton.

Hillary began by claiming that she most certainly had never used her private email server – you know, the one that she dishonestly said she installed so she wouldn’t have to use multiple devices and which she dishonestly and unethically purged because of her lie that it contained private communications between her and her husband – to EVER send or receive ANY classified material whatsoever:

“I did not e-mail any classified material to anyone on my e-mail. There is no classified material,” Clinton declared at her March press conference.

But holy crap, what an unholy lie that proved to be.  Keep in mind, Hillary PURGED or aborted 32,000 emails from her server without ANY third party being allowed to see them so that everyone would have to trust ENTIRELY on the word of honor of a proven LIAR and graciously allowed 30,00 of her email babies to survive the womb of her private server system.  But of those:

Among the 30,490 e-mails that Clinton handed the State Department last December, the inspector general for the intelligence community (ICIG) sampled 40 and discovered that four (or 10 percent) were classified. Of these, two (or 5 percent) “when originated” were designated “TOP SECRET//SI//TK//NOFORN.”

So out of a random sample of forty emails that were examined, it turned out that two or five percent were not only classified but classified at the very highest level of classification.

And holy MOSES, just that five percent of truly TOP SECRET emails alone amounts to FIFTEEN THOUSAND TWO-HUNDRED AND FORTY-FIVE EMAILS of top secret emails if that five percent figure were to be a representative sample.  Hillary Clinton doesn’t play political games with national security???  Seriously????

So Hillary’s bait-and-switch lie now baits-and-switches to this disingenuous version:

“Most importantly I never sent classified material on my email and I never received any that was marked classified,” Clinton said at one point in her press conference.

“The State Department has confirmed that I did not send nor receive material marked classified or send material marked classified,” she said a moment later.

“I am repeating the facts and the facts are I did not send nor did I receive material marked classified,” she then said.

But why is that?  Because Hillary somehow had all the classification markers stripped from the emails for sake of her plausible deniability.  Consider how the hardly conservative-friendly Los Angeles Times put it:

The Department of Justice said it is weighing whether to launch its own investigation after the inspector general for intelligence agencies notified the agency that classified information that went through the account appeared to have been mishandled. Administration officials and investigators declined to share details about the emails. But in a separate memo to lawmakers, the inspector general said that a review of just 40 of the 30,000 emails from the Clinton server found that four had information that should have been marked and handled as classified.

Clinton has made many assurances in recent months that she did not send or receive classified information on her personal server. Her campaign says the material in question had not been specifically marked as classified and, thus, Clinton broke no rules. The inspector general disputed that characterization in a statement late Friday, saying that the information in the emails was classified at the time, even if it wasn’t marked as such, and shouldn’t have been transmitted on a personal email system.

Even so, the revelation was an uncomfortable one for the candidate. And national security experts said the disclosure that that material that should have been marked classified made its way to Clinton’s personal email account at the very least fuels legitimate speculation about how the server was used.

“It tells us why this was such a bad idea,” said Stewart A. Baker, a former general counsel to the National Security Agency now in private practice. “It raises questions.”

Among them, Baker said, was whether staffers deliberately avoided marking sensitive emails to Clinton as classified so they could sidestep the bureaucrats who handle transmission of such material.

“She skipped the government circles and nobody was overseeing this and nobody was saying, ‘This info should not be on this system,’” Baker said. “If anything, there was an incentive for people to cross the line without making clear they were doing so.”

In other words, what Hillary Clinton did was set up a system to DELIBERATELY SIDESTEP THE CLASSIFICATION BUREAUCRACY and strip the classification markers from the emails she sent and receive so she could later walk out and claim that there was nothing marked classified.  Which is full-lawyer-mode given her proven lie that she never had any classified material to begin with.  But she’s the Jezebel shrew who set up the bypassing system in the first place.

So Hillary Clinton is no different from the murderous thug-punk who viciously wipes out her entire family and then claims she shouldn’t be prosecuted because after all, she’s an orphan, isn’t she?  And in this age of “the war on women” that Hillary Clinton viciously waged against a 12-year-old girl who was raped by pedophiles, I mean, have you no heart at all?

And, I mean, which Secretary of State HASN’T sold the office to foreign entities such as nation-state enemies like Russia or foreign corporations like UBS???  You can’t PROVE she did anything!!!  At least not without all those tens of thousands of emails she deleted or that server she wiped clean AFTER having been subpoenaed with the proven-false excuse that they contained private communications with her husband that they in actual fact did not contain.

Truly, there has never breathed a soul more dead than Hillary Rodham Clinton.

And there has never breathed an American more historically proven to be unfit for president.

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

Why Hillary Clinton Installed A Private Server And Purged Half Her Emails

May 20, 2015

This line from CNN’s coverage of Obama being “funny” says a lot:

“Think about how things have changed since 2008. Back then, I was the young tech-savvy candidate of the future,” Obama said. “Now I’m yesterday’s news and Hillary has got a server in her house.”

“I didn’t even know you could have one of those in your house,” he continued. “I am so far behind. Did you know that? I would have gotten one.”

As Obama’s joke rather crystal-clearly demonstrates, it’s not NORMAL to have a private server in your home.  It’s way, WAY, WAY beyond abnormal.  It takes world-class chutzpah to do something like this when you’re masquerading as a senor-level “public servant” (which under Obama means another way to say “lord and master”).

Hillary Clinton isn’t “tech-savvy.”  She’s just an old pathologically dishonest and corrupt political shrew with a multi-multiMULTI-million dollar slush fund to buy tech-savvy people to pull this crap for her so she can wheel and deal with your money using the very latest in criminal thug technology.

Of course, what this also proves is that as corrupt and as dishonest as Barack Obama has proven himself to be, even our current resident Liar-in-Chief is just no Slick Willy.  As giant of a liar and cheat as Barack Obama’s cancerous presidency has been, even HE can only dream of attaining the level of corruption that the Clinton’s have degenerated into in their forty-plus years as political whores.

You can’t blame Obama for not ever thinking of installing a private server to hide your internet tracks.  I mean, How many of us ever thought of that?  Because in the entire history of the republic, NO public official has EVER had their own email server in his/her home before.  Rather, previous Secretary’s of State have used private email accounts such as provided by Yahoo or AOL.  Which of course had control over and preserved all emails.  Simply far too much transparency for a pathologically dishonest shrew like Hillary Clinton.

The Democrat Party are to dishonesty, deceit, corruption, and crony-capitalist fascist quid pro quos what the Wright Brothers are to flying.  I mean, maybe they didn’t invent political corruption in the same manner that the Wright Brothers didn’t really invent the first airplane, but they sure somehow ended up owning all the rights to political corruption on a level that no human being has ever seen before.

A recent article shows us why Hillary installed her very own personal email server and then purged a massive percentage of her emails and ONLY released the rest after YEARS of vetting by her handpicked staff of priestesses.  The following article ran in the print edition of the California Section of the Los Angeles Times under the title, “Emails tie Sony, Ridley-Thomas” (for the official record, Ridley-Thomas is a career Democrat).  Hillary Clinton set up her own private server and purged tens of thousands of her emails so she wouldn’t open the newspaper to see this sort of story about HER criminality:

LACMA expansion, Ridley-Thomas, ‘super PAC’ intersect in email trail
By Robert Faturechi and Jack Dolan  contact the reporters
▼ LACMA Director Michael Govan needed Mark Ridley-Thomas’ support for LACMA expansion
▼ Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas sought help from Sony Chairman Michael Lynton for a PAC
May 20, 2015, 3:00 AM

When Michael Lynton, chairman and chief executive of Sony Pictures Entertainment, sat down for lunch last July with L.A. County Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas, each wanted something.

Lynton is a trustee of the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, which needed Ridley-Thomas’ support to secure $125 million in county funding for a major expansion.

Ridley-Thomas wanted Sony to donate to a “super PAC” he had founded, which was supporting an aide’s campaign for a seat on the Los Angeles school board.

In September, Sony wrote a check to the PAC for $25,000. Two months later, Ridley-Thomas joined in a unanimous vote by the county supervisors to fund the LACMA expansion.

The lunch meeting, the PAC donation and discussions surrounding them are described in internal Sony emails, which were stolen by hackers and recently posted online by WikiLeaks. The Times reviewed the emails in collaboration with ProPublica, the nonprofit investigative newsroom.

The messages show how LACMA’s leadership courted Ridley-Thomas and how Sony, concerned about appearances, delayed the PAC contribution until a few weeks after the school board election.

A Sony official, Ridley-Thomas’ top aide and LACMA Director Michael Govan all said there was no connection between the contribution and the vote on county funding.

“We would never conduct ourselves in such a manner,” said Keith Weaver, Sony’s executive vice president for worldwide government affairs.

At the time, the museum was lobbying county officials for $125 million to help pay for a $600-million renovation and expansion of its Mid-Wilshire campus.

Govan, in an interview, recalled that in the months before the vote, he was confident he had the support of one county supervisor, Zev Yaroslavsky, but said he was “nervous” about the other four.

Among those, Ridley-Thomas was considered critical, Govan said. Other supervisors could be expected to defer to him because the new building would jut into his district.

Lynton also had a role to play in promoting the museum project. Sony’s studio complex in Culver City is in Ridley-Thomas’ district, and Lynton is “the only person on my board who had regular dealings with the supervisor,” Govan said.

According to the emails, Lynton held a meeting on May 21, 2014, with Weaver and Govan. The subject was Ridley-Thomas; the emails provide no further detail on the meeting.

Weeks later, Sony gave $5,000 to the PAC founded by the supervisor, campaign records show. Sony had made five previous contributions in the same amount since 2007.

In July, Lynton, Ridley-Thomas and two of their aides scheduled a lunch.

When Govan learned of the lunch, he sent two emails to Sony urging Lynton to press the LACMA matter.

The first message, sent to Weaver on July 16, the day before the lunch, and forwarded to Lynton, listed points to be made in support of the museum expansion and said that “this won’t happen if the Supervisor doesn’t support it.”

In the second message, Govan said the timing of the lunch was “perfect and critical.”

In separate emails to Lynton, Weaver noted that the Ridley-Thomas-founded PAC was spending heavily in support of the supervisor’s education advisor, Alex Johnson, in the Los Angeles school board race.

The PAC — the African American Voter Registration, Education and Participation Project — spent nearly $600,000 in support of Johnson’s campaign, according to state records. Johnson was seeking to represent District 1 on the L.A. Unified School District board.

There are no dollar limits on contributions to super PACs as there are for direct donations to candidates.

Vincent Harris, Ridley-Thomas’ chief deputy, said in an interview that the supervisor asked Lynton for a PAC contribution during the July 17 lunch. Harris said the LACMA funding was not discussed, adding that Ridley-Thomas knows better than to “mix fundraising with any public policy-related work.”

Weaver said he wasn’t sure if the group discussed the museum expansion.

After the lunch, Lynton had reservations about making another contribution to the PAC. According to emails between Lynton and Weaver, the Sony chief executive worried that a donation might create the appearance of a conflict because his wife, Jamie Alter Lynton, is executive editor of LA School Report, a news website that covers L.A. Unified.

Weaver wrote that he had talked with Ridley-Thomas’ office and asked for “options” for addressing Lynton’s concern. A few hours later, Weaver wrote Lynton outlining how to make “a direct contribution in a way that helps the effort, but avoids the perception/conflict issues.”

“You could contribute $25k AFTER the election,” he wrote in a message dated July 31.

That’s what Sony did, writing a $25,000 check that landed in the PAC’s coffers on Sept. 10, nearly a month after a school board runoff, which Johnson lost.

Campaign finance experts said that promising to make a donation and then timing it to delay public disclosure until after an election could be illegal, if there was an enforceable agreement between the two sides.

Stephen Kaufman, an attorney for the PAC, said that there was no such agreement, and that the PAC did not increase its spending during the school board race in anticipation of receiving a donation from Sony later.

Jim Sutton, a San Francisco-based attorney who has represented a number of prominent California politicians, said that even if the contribution doesn’t violate the letter of the law, it appears to violate the spirit of state statutes. “The purpose of the law is giving voters information about supporters before the election,” Sutton said.

Weaver declined to comment on the timing of the donation.

Asked why Sony gave the PAC more money than usual last fall, Weaver said: “There’s always a push for a year-over-year increase. This year we felt inclined to do so.”

Govan said he doesn’t believe there was any connection between the contribution and the supervisor’s support: “I know I’m being romantic, but I believe in politicians.”

In November, two days before the county supervisors were scheduled to vote on the LACMA project, Govan emailed Lynton with some good news.

“Just got an email from MRT,” he wrote, referring to Ridley-Thomas. “I think we’re good! Thank you Michael.”

jack.dolan@latimes.com

Twitter: @jackdolanLAT

This article was prepared in collaboration with ProPublica, where Faturechi is a reporter. Dolan is a Los Angeles Times staff writer

You see, Hillary avoided the mistake of Sony.  She 1) installed her own personal server in her home; 2) purged all the emails that would have criminally convicted her; 3) had THE most dishonest and secretive and frankly thuggish administration in history run constant interference for her wrongdoing.  I mean, there’s “not a shred of evidence” if all the actual evidence has been shredded.  Which is EXACTLY what Hillary Clinton did with HER incriminating emails that she set up to have complete control over in spite of every rule of government accountability and oversight and appearance of wrongdoing and appearance of conflict of interests to the contrary.

We just had four cancer charities that are easily documented to be abject scams.  James T. Reynolds II, the leader of one of these along with his scumbag dad, issued the following statement that really reminds of the Clinton excuse:

[…]

While the organization, its officers and directors have not been found guilty of any allegations of wrong doing, and the government has not proven otherwise, our Board of Directors has decided that it does not help those who we seek to serve, and those who remain in need, for us to engage in a highly publicized, expensive, and distracting legal battle around our fundraising practices.

The silver lining in all of this is that the organization has the ability to continue operating our most valued and popular program, the Hope Supply. Our Board will work tirelessly to maintain the Hope Supply program services that have benefitted our many patients for years – initially under the TBCS banner as it transitions under a different organization – all with the goal of seamlessly providing services to you. I take solace in the fact that this wonderful program has the chance to continue operating.

I have loved leading TBCS and being part of a team that engaged heart and soul in helping to serve the mission of the charity selflessly, tirelessly, and honorably.

On behalf of TBCS, I want to thank you for allowing us to be a part of your lives. It is my hope that you will continue to find the resources and assistance you need through the soon-to-be revamped Hope Supply Program.

Giving back to the community is a mission that drives me. You will forever and always been in our hearts.

This from a guy who from all accounts only gave 2.7% of the millions he took in to the actual cancer patients.  The rest went to himself, his family, his friends, and those he paid off to keep playing his games.

Excuse me while I fill the toilet bowl up to the rim with puke.

The Clinton, Inc. denials are about as hollow.

Here are some facts about the Clinton Foundation as a “charity” that Hillary Clinton was full-time pimping while simultaneously falsely serving America as Secretary of State:

Charity watchdog: Clinton Foundation a ‘slush fund’
By Isabel Vincent
April 26, 2015 | 7:47am

The Clinton Foundation’s finances are so messy that the nation’s most influential charity watchdog put it on its “watch list” of problematic nonprofits last month.

The Clinton family’s mega-charity took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013 but spent just $9 million on direct aid.

The group spent the bulk of its windfall on administration, travel, and salaries and bonuses, with the fattest payouts going to family friends.

On its 2013 tax forms, the most recent available, the foundation claimed it spent $30 million on payroll and employee benefits; $8.7 million in rent and office expenses; $9.2 million on “conferences, conventions and meetings”; $8 million on fundraising; and nearly $8.5 million on travel. None of the Clintons is on the payroll, but they do enjoy first-class flights paid for by the foundation.

In all, the group reported $84.6 million in “functional expenses” on its 2013 tax return and had more than $64 million left over — money the organization has said represents pledges rather than actual cash on hand.

Some of the tens of millions in administrative costs finance more than 2,000 employees, including aid workers and health professionals around the world.

But that’s still far below the 75 percent rate of spending that nonprofit experts say a good charity should spend on its mission.

Charity Navigator, which rates nonprofits, recently refused to rate the Clinton Foundation because its “atypical business model . . . doesn’t meet our criteria.”

Charity Navigator put the foundation on its “watch list,” which warns potential donors about investing in problematic charities. The 23 charities on the list include the Rev. Al Sharpton’s troubled National Action Network, which is cited for failing to pay payroll taxes for several years.

Other nonprofit experts are asking hard questions about the Clinton Foundation’s tax filings in the wake of recent reports that the Clintons traded influence for donations.

“It seems like the Clinton Foundation operates as a slush fund for the Clintons,” said Bill Allison, a senior fellow at the Sunlight Foundation, a government watchdog group where progressive Democrat and Fordham Law professor Zephyr Teachout was once an organizing director.

Gosh, the Clinton Foundation is exactly the same as the above cancer “charities.”  The Clinton Foundation exists to benefit the Clintons, their family members (example, their daughter Chelsea and Hillary’s low-life brother), their friends (such as long-term Clinton crony Sidney Blumenthal), and those they paid off in exchange for more influence.

Well over a thousand foreign donors weren’t even LISTED as having given to this slush fund that, among other things, sold America’s uranium to our historically worst enemy in exchange for $500,000 for a Bill Clinton speech (paid directly to the Clintons) and a $2.35 million “donation” (read “kickback”) to the Clinton Foundation Slush Fund that was never disclosed by the Clintons in spite of their agreement with the Obama Administration when Hillary took her job as Secretary of Swindle.

And there are literally DOZENS of corrupt deals like this that Hillary purged the details of from her private server.

We are just now learning that Hillary Clinton failed to report $26 MILLION is speaking fees that came from banks and foreign governments and leftist universities (you know, the kind of “free-thinking institutions” that purge all conservative speakers or shout them down if they’re invited).

At best, this woman wants to be president and run the economy of the nation and the planet and she’s clearly not even competent to run a damn foundation.  That if she’s NOT an outright criminal – which she sure is – who belongs in THE BIG HOUSE rather than the White House for her crimes.

It took Hillary Clinton TWO YEARS after leaving as Secretary of State to comply with ANY release of her emails from her private server.  Because it took that long for her acolytes to purge all the thousands of criminal emails.  If there’s not a shred of evidence, it is ONLY because she SHREDDED all the evidence.

And all the while, as she was serving as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton’s Temple Priestesses kept a fascistically Nazi-tight reign over public documents that should have been required to be released by law.

While we now learn that the Clinton Foundation has played fast and loose with the law and concealed foreign donations to the tune of MILLIONS that they are now having to acknowledge by amending previous tax returns.

Hillary Clinton has been exposed as a liar for her pathetic “reason” why she elected to go with a private server-grounded private email account so she would only need to use one device (she regularly used at least four).

She’s been caught lying about the fact that she actually used AT LEAST TWO private email accounts rather than what she first claimed through her liars I mean lawyers.

But what can we do?  Our national media is dominated by obvious propagandist hacks like George Stephanopoulos, incredibly a.k.a. ABC News’ chief political anchor when it was beyond obvious twenty freaking years ago that this guy was a biased turd rather than any kind of legitimate journalist.  As one example all the media are falling all over themselves like a dozen puppies all trying to get to the food bowl at once whether Republicans would have still gone to war in Iraq “knowing what we know now.”  How about asking every Democrat, “Would you still have cut-and-ran from Iraq and abandoned everything our troops sacrificed so much to win the way Obama did “knowing what you know now” about Islamic State now OWNING what we surrendered to them???

Maybe James T. Reynolds, Sr. or his corrupt kid should run for president and vice president on the Democrat ticket, given the Democrats love of fascist crooks.

Here’s the thing: just because Obama is keeping the American people from seeing what kind of a crook his successor-thug is doesn’t mean that foreign governments won’t be able to blackmail a President Hillary Clinton.  The fact of the matter is that foreign governments – including all of our very most dangerous enemies – were able to easily penetrate Hillary Clinton’s private server upon which she stored so many vital American national secrets, says the CIA.  And says the Defense Intelligence Agency.  And they’ve got the dirty laundry on Hillary that Obama and his lawthugs like Eric Holder have been doing their best to keep from the American people.

So if you vote for Hillary in 2016 and later wonder why your Traitor-in-Chief betrayed you for the obvious interests of a foreign government, well, you just should have known, fool.

As You Survey The Mess Our Culture Is In, You’ve Got To Ask: ‘How Did It Come To This?’

January 31, 2013

There was a scene in the Lord of the Rings in which King Theoden – finally realizing that a vast horde of darkness is coming against him and that his people’s situation is now all but hopeless – asks:

Where is the horse and the rider? Where is the horn that was blowing? They have passed like rain on the mountain, like wind in the meadow. The days have gone down in the West behind the hills into shadow. How did it come to this?

I ask that question of America.  The days have gone down in the West behind the hills into shadow.  In the Middle Earth of Sauron and in the America of Obama.  And the only “Return of the King” to complete the LotR trilogy will be the physical return of Christ Jesus as King of kings and Lord of lords.  And that will occur only after the world has gone through seven literal years of hell on earth otherwise known as the Tribulation.

How did it come to this?

First, liberals are the most intolerant people in America.  As you read this article, realize that our crisis stems from profound liberal intolerance.  And the worst thing of all about them is the way they continually demonize their opponents as “intolerant” for the speck of intolerance in the conservatives’ eyes when there’s a giant log of intolerance in the liberals’ eyes.

Liberals are hypocrites, period.  The quintessential ingredient to liberalism is abject moral and intellectual hypocrisy.  It’s why Al Gore sells his television station to a pro-terrorist entity owned by a filthy oil emirate.  It’s why Al Gore tried to structure the deal so he wouldn’t have to pay the higher tax rate that Obama wanted and he publicly campaigned for.  And it is most certainly why liberals continually depict themselves as the most tolerant people when in reality they are by far and away the most intolerant people of all.

Pew: Liberals most intolerant online
posted at 11:00 am on March 13, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

It’s a well-known fact that liberals are more tolerant than conservatives or moderates.  Superior liberal tolerance is such a fact that they will scream at you if you dare to disagree or debate them, demand that your advertisers bail on you, and pressure the FCC to get you banned from the airwaves.  Does that sound like tolerance to you?  A new survey from Pew confirms that liberals are the least tolerant of differing opinions, at least on line (emphasis mine):

Politics can be a sensitive subject and a number of SNS [social networking sites] users have decided to block, unfriend, or hide someone because of their politics or posting activities. In all, 18% of social networking site users have taken one of those steps by doing at least one of the following:

  • 10% of SNS users have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone on the site because that person posted too frequently about political subjects
  • 9% of SNS users have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone on the site because they posted something about politics or issues that they disagreed with or found offensive
  • 8% of SNS users have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone on the site because they argued about political issues on the site with the user or someone the user knows
  • 5% of SNS users have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone on the site because they posted something about politics that the user worried would offend other friends
  • 4% of SNS users have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone on the site because they disagreed with something the user posted about politics

Of course, that means that 82% of SNS users have not taken any steps to ignore or disconnect from someone whose views are different – or have not encountered any views that would prompt such a move.

Liberals are the most likely to have taken each of these steps to block, unfriend, or hide. In all, 28% of liberals have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone on SNS because of one of these reasons, compared with 16% of conservatives and 14% of moderates.

It’s not even all that close, as their chart shows:

Andrew Malcolm has some fun with the implications:

Not exactly shocking news for those exposed to them for years, but the respected Pew Research Center has determined that political liberals are far less tolerant of opposing views than regular Americans.

In a new study, the Pew Center for the Internet and American Life Project confirmed what most intelligent Americans had long sensed. That is, whenever they are challenged or confronted on the hollow falsity of their orthodoxy  — such as, say, uniting diverse Americans — liberals tend to respond defensively with anger, even trying to shut off or silence critics. (i.e. photo above of President Obama reacting to Boston hecklers.)

The new research found that instead of engaging in civil discourse or debate, fully 16% of liberals admitted to blocking, unfriending or overtly hiding someone on a social networking site because that person expressed views they disagreed with. That’s double the percentage of conservatives and more than twice the percentage of political moderates who behaved like that.

For some full disclosure, I’ve blocked more than a few people on Twitter.  I didn’t do it for disagreements, but for being unpleasant about disagreements.  I consider Twitter to be a true social network; I don’t hang out with unpleasant people in real life, and so I see no need to do so in virtual life.  Twitter is my water cooler, my hangout in slack time between bursts of writing.  I’m happy to have a debate, but when it gets insulting, unpleasant, and intellectually dishonest, I take a pass.

Even if that counts in the Pew poll (and I’d argue that it doesn’t), I’d be in a small minority among conservatives — and to be fair, it’s a small minority among liberals too.  It’s just that it’s a statistically significant larger minority among liberals.  While Gloria Steinem and Jane Fonda demand that the government act to silence Rush Limbaugh for challenging their orthodoxy, Forbes’ Dave Serchuk points out the irony, the hypocrisy — and the unintended consequences:

Imagine this scenario: you are a lifelong liberal. You pretty much hate everything Rush Limbaugh stands for, and says. You are really glad that the times have finally seemed to have caught up to him, and that people are outraged by his callous, gross comments. So what do you do next? You do theone thing that will make him a sympathetic figure. You call on the FCC to remove him.

Think this is just not-very-good satire? If only. Nope, I draw from this example because in an opinion piece just published on CNN.com Jane Fonda, Gloria Steinem, and Robin Morgan did exactly this. In the process they seem to have played into the exact stereotype of the thin-skinned, hypocritical liberal. One who supports the First Amendment and freedom of speech … except for when they don’t.

Here is the lame excuse they offered for why the heavy hand of government sponsored censorship should come down on Limbaugh, a guy who seemed to be doing a pretty good imitation of a man hoist on his own petard anyway.

“Radio broadcasters are obligated to act in the public interest and serve their respective communities of license. In keeping with this obligation, individual radio listeners may complain to the FCC that Limbaugh’s radio station (and those syndicating his show) are not acting in the public interest or serving their respective communities of license by permitting such dehumanizing speech.”

Umm, okay. But isn’t there something called ratings that are a truer indication of what these respective communities already want? And shouldn’t that count the most? Don’t ratings (i.e. “popularity”) in fact tell the FCC just whom the public thinks serves their interest? Whether we like it or not?

Why do they go for the block rather than provide an alternative?  Michael Medved says they can’t compete — and need government to intervene:

Limbaugh’s critics seem unable to accept the fact that many of their fellow citizens actually appreciate the opportunity to listen to his opinions on a regular basis, so rather than persuade those poor benighted souls to listen to something else, they mean to take away the broadcast that they enjoy.

Why not try to build an eager new audience for liberal opinion leaders and steal listeners from Rush and the rest of us who host right-leaning shows? How about recruiting the most outrageous and opinionated voices on the left, syndicating their shows in major markets, and promoting these fresh, progressive voices with a catchy moniker like “Air America”?

Oh wait, that’s been tried, starting in 2004 and proceeding (intermittently) till 2010 when chronically low ratings and bankruptcy court performed a belated mercy killing on the ill-fated experiment. It’s true that some of the Air America “stars” ultimately found their way to other opportunities—with Rachel Maddow hosting a successful TV program on MSNBC, and the insufferable Al Franken enjoying an unlikely career in the U.S. Senate.

But attempts to create viable radio alternatives to Rush and other right wingers have never gained traction, so rather than continuing to compete in the open market place, lefties merely yearn to shut down the other side with sponsor boycotts, public pressure or, most obnoxiously, the so-called Fairness Doctrine. Fortunately, Barack Obama has consistently opposed the Fairness Doctrine, but many of the Democratic colleagues have promoted it for years, with Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, and—most adamantly—that heroic public servant John Edwards providing support.

Well, it’s not exactly news that the Intolerant Tolerance Hysterics are all about choices that they want to dictate to people, too, even if (or especially if) it involved the use of “an oppressive, invidious authoritarian relic” like the Fairness doctrine.  Don’t expect them to understand that irony, Mssrs. Serchuk and Medved, but thank you for pointing it out.  They can unfriend and block all they want on social networking, because those are personal choices not to listen to differing opinions, and every American has that choice.  The problem is when they want government to unfriend and block so that no one has that choice — and that’s the kind of intolerance that’s much more dangerous than humorous.

Don’t worry, kids at home.  Liberals say that conservatives are intolerant; and if anybody else disagrees with liberals, well, those people are all intolerant, too.  And according to liberals – who are the high priests of tolerance – it is perfectly okay to be tolerant and even fascist to intolerant people.

You need to understand how we got to be in such a cultural mess, where 88% of Americans think one way but the 12% who think practically opposite the majority have been able to pretty much make up all the rules.  And our society is about to collapse because their rules are evil and frankly fascist to go along with failed.

Let us return to the main point: the secret for the collapse that will plunge us into a collapse unlike ever seen in history is liberal fascist intolerance.

I have come to believe that we are in the last days before the Tribulation and the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.  Based on that view, I understand that God prophetically warned man in His Word that as we neared the end, man would increasingly turn away from God and fall into the errors that He warned us about.  I also understand that the same God who told us it would happen 2,000 years ago and beyond is in control, and is allowing the last days to finally come upon the world.  I’ll say that from the outset.

I’m talking to a lot of Christians who have used the word “despair” to describe how they feel about the way America is going.  They somehow felt the world would just keep getting better and better and of course the exact opposite is happening.  And I want you to understand that, for me, Bible prophecy is a great comfort.  Again, I see so many signs that God predicted as a sign the last days were coming to pass and it makes me all the more certain and confident in my faith in God.  The U.S. is now over $225 trillion in actual debt when you add in the unfunded mandates of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.  It is growing by about one trillion dollars every single month.  And you ought to be able to see the signs that if we fall down we will NEVER get back on our feet the way we did in the years following the Great Depression (recognizing that FDR stalled that recovery by seven years according to economists) with his failed liberal policies.  We were the most productive nation on earth at that time in terms of manufacturing; we were a creditor nation rather than a debtor nation at that time; our citizens were NOT consuming mass welfare the way we overwhelmingly are now, nor would they have stood for the kind of sloth that passes for normalcy today; and we had just won a world war and were frankly the only economy on earth that hadn’t been destroyed.  When we fall now – and we WILL fall in the next twenty years – we will shatter into pieces and those pieces will never be reconstituted.  America will be a relatively insignificant banana republic or group of banana republics.  The day our economy crashes we will lose the status that has allowed us to accumulate such a super massive debt – our status as the world’s reserve currency – and it will all be over for us.

America isn’t mentioned in Bible prophecy.  All the other major nations and regions – such as Russia, Europe and Asia ARE mentioned.  America has largely already guaranteed that it simply will not matter in the coming years.  We had a vote and literally determined to follow the path of the Dodo bird to certain extinction.  There are famously nine stages of civilization.  Last year we were in the seventh, but this election put us over the top of number eight – we voted for entitlements and to become a dependency-based society.  In our final age, bondage will mean bondage of the very worst kind: bondage to the coming Antichrist.

I neither take comfort nor rejoice in that sad, tragic and pathetic end for America.  I rejoice and take comfort in the fact that God has a plan for His people – and I am one of His people.  I need neither weep nor worry.  My treasure is in heaven and I don’t have to fear how much Obama or the beast who will succeed him will take away on earth.

I have another home to go to – and it will be a far grander land than this one ever was even in its brightest day of promise.  And frankly, my faith in the next land (Heaven) grows stronger even as this one (America) grows weaker and weaker.

But why does it happen?  How did we sink this low?

Our modern media descended from the propaganda of World Wars One And Two.  Walter Lippmann and Edward Bernays were men who believed that people could and frankly SHOULD be manipulated.  They believed that a class of cultural elites should anoint themselves to serve as gatekeepers and ensure that their secular humanist worldview and values would be advanced and rival worldviews and values would be defeated.  You simply cannot read the writings of these fathers of journalism and media elitism and not see that common thread in their work.

What I’m saying is that when it comes to journalism and modern media, you cannot say that conservatives ever “lost control” over these institutions – because we never had any control over them to begin with.  They were never anything other than secular humanist and liberal progressive in orientation.  And all it took was for the technology to become sufficiently powerful and all-encompassing that their domination of the media would translate to their being able to dictate to mass culture what to think and what to believe.  And here we are.

The power of media was used against Christianity in 1960 with an incredibly dishonest piece of propaganda titled Inherit the Wind (see also here).  And the order of magnitude in terms of media manipulation has grown by giant leaps and bounds in the over fifty years since.  Most people – the 88 percent above – understand that they are being routinely lied to with outright propaganda.  The problem is that even though they know they’re being brainwashed, they’re STILL being brainwashed.  The media is altering people’s perceptions much the way the constant ocean tide wears away even the rocks let alone the sand; it is the inevitable result of being washed over with lies again and again and again and again, ad infinitum.

How did the secular humanist left gain control over academia?  Christians unwittingly played a giant part in that.  Do you know how many of the first universities in America were founded by Christians?  How about pretty much ALL of them.  Of the first 108 universities founded in America, 106 were distinctly Christian.  That trend continued long into America’s journey as a nation: I just got through reading an excellent article about the incredibly enormous role Christian churches and denominations played in the establishment of virtually all of the schools, universities and hospitals in the American West.  Education was almost ENTIRELY up to Christian churches and denominations.

Then what turned out to be a Faustian bargain was struck.  Government took over the education system, ostensibly allowing the churches and denominations to pursue other noble work such as the mission fields.  It didn’t take long for the same government that had protected human slavery and created the Trail of Tears to begin systematically removing Scripture, God and prayer from the classrooms and thus from the children of each successive generation’s minds.

Christians stepped away from the work of education that they had historically devoted themselves to and began to put the overwhelming majority of their funds into their churches and their missionaries.  Meanwhile, liberals began to place virtually all of their funds into the universities and thus began to increasingly shape the curricula.

Ultimately, as a result, the Christians who began the universities and schools found themselves completely shut out of their own progeny.

Look what’s happened.  Liberals have purged out conservatives.  The snootiest, most hoity toity, most sanctimonious lecturers about “tolerance” are THE most intolerant people of all:

College faculties, long assumed to be a liberal bastion, lean further to the left than even the most conspiratorial conservatives might have imagined, a new study says.

By their own description, 72 percent of those teaching at American universities and colleges are liberal and 15 percent are conservative, says the study being published this week. The imbalance is almost as striking in partisan terms, with 50 percent of the faculty members surveyed identifying themselves as Democrats and 11 percent as Republicans.

The disparity is even more pronounced at the most elite schools, where, according to the study, 87 percent of faculty are liberal and 13 percent are conservative.

“What’s most striking is how few conservatives there are in any field,” said Robert Lichter, a professor at George Mason University and a co-author of the study. “There was no field we studied in which there were more conservatives than liberals or more Republicans than Democrats. It’s a very homogenous environment, not just in the places you’d expect to be dominated by liberals.” […]

Rothman sees the findings as evidence of “possible discrimination” against conservatives in hiring and promotion. Even after factoring in levels of achievement, as measured by published work and organization memberships, “the most likely conclusion” is that “being conservative counts against you,” he said. “It doesn’t surprise me, because I’ve observed it happening.” The study, however, describes this finding as “preliminary.”

By the way, I’m “possibly” liberal by that standard of measurement.  Yeah, being conservative or being a Christian (and recall that it was the Democrat Party that voted to remove “God” from its party platform until God was illegally put back into the platform amid a chorus of boos) most definitely “counts against you” in the stacked deck that liberalism has created to benefit itself and punish its enemies.  As Professor Guillermo Gonzalez found out the hard way when liberals denied him tenure because he had the gall to write a book expressing his belief in an intelligent designer of the universe.  And after denying him tenure because he believed in God and they are fascists, they fired a professor who should by all rights have been celebrated.

Because liberals are in fact the most intolerant people.  Once they took over the universities, they made very certain that they would never lose that control by making certain that conservative faculty would be systematically denied tenure and purged out.

That was our strike two for us.  Liberals got into the education system and then barricaded the door behind them.

By the way, the two fields of academia liberals most hijacked were the fields of education and law.  They trained up the teachers and the lawyers who would be able to indoctrinate their students and more lawyers who would be able to basically make the Constitution an infinitely malleable document that basically means whatever liberals think it means.  By taking over education, liberals were able to introduce increasingly and frankly wildly failed teaching methodologies that brainwashed kids into liberalism without bothering to teach them reading, writing, arithmetic and history.  Our government school system has completely broken down and failed because liberals turned education into indoctrination.  And what is even worse, the more liberal teaching methodologies fail, the more liberals exploit their failure to usher in even WORSE methodologies.  It has become a vicious circle.

Strike three for conservatives and for the United States of America was when liberals seized control of the government.  They didn’t do it by winning elections; they did it by stacking the government employees with leftwing union thuggery.

FDR said that government employee unions were unAmerican.  And of course he was right.  But as far to the left as FDR was in the 1930s and 1940s, he didn’t even begin to hold a candle to just how radically far the Democrat Party would go to to undermine the United States of America.  FDR said:

“All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. … Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable.”

Unions are completely dead in America in the private sector, where they have killed jobs and crushed entire industries.  But they dominate government employees.  And if Mitt Romney and Republicans were to have won the election, they would not have been able to significantly change the way government “works” (in quotes because in the vast majority of respects, government doesn’t “work” at all).  That is because virtually every level and layer of government “service” is as dominate by liberals as the kitchen floor of a filthy house is dominated by cockroaches.

You’ve got the government as an entity unto itself whose primary purpose is to create more government, more government jobs and more government workers with more lavish government pensions and benefits that are borne on the backs of the taxpayer.

The aim of the Democrat Party and the aim of the government unions is identical: to explode the size and power of government and to make government employees an elite, privileged class of masters over the rest of society.  Their collective goal is to attain government power that allows them to dominate forever by being able to be able to pick the winners and losers and the victims and villains of society.

And they have largely attained that power.  Once a government bureaucracy is created, it can never be undone; the liberals who own government by what FDR said was an immoral tactic have never allowed it and WILL never allow it.

There’s a reason for this that goes to what I said above about how Christians trained their people to go into the mission field and liberals trained their people to go into government: and that is, for liberals, serving government is tantamount and in fact even greater than serving God.  Liberals have simply flooded government and there is no practical way to purge the influence that even FDR said was illegitimately obtained.

There are other reasons that our culture became toxic and doomed, of course.

“Political correctness” is a huge factor.

Political correctness is not just an attempt to make people feel better. It’s a vast, coordinated effort on the part of the secular humanist, socialist left to change Western culture as we know it by  using rhetoric to redefine it. Early Marxists in Russia designed this game plan long ago and liberals continue to execute the tactic today: to control the argument by controlling the “acceptable” language. Those with radical agendas understand the game plan and are taking advantage of an oversensitive and frankly overly gullible public.

With the “news” media, with academia and with government at their beck and call, to go along with liberal Hollywood culture, it was easy to tell people what to think.

Liberals have used boycotts to devastating effect; while conservatives say boycotts are wrong and refuse to call for them.  The result of this disparity is that our businesses are vulnerable and exposed to incredible pressure from the left, while liberal businesses are completely safe.

I think of two recent examples of how the difference between liberalism and conservatism works in the form of two athletes.

Phil Mickelson “sinned” by saying that the tax burden that Democrats were demanding he pay – basically 63 percent of everything he makes – was far too high, and that he was fleeing the Socialist Republic of California as a result.  Do you think it’s unreasonable for Mickelson to say that he disagrees that Obama is 63 percent responsible for his success and that he’s only at most 37 percent responsible for his success?  This gets us right back to Obama’s, “you didn’t build that, government did” argument.  Mickelson was so viciously demonized that he went out something like four times to mea culpa and say he was terribly wrong to say stuff like that.  On my count he came out four separate times begging people to please quit hating him for believing he had a right to express his views in Amerikkka.

The second recent example is San Francisco 49er player Chris Culliver, who expressed his opinion that he would not personally feel comfortable having an open homosexual player on the team.  And of course, he was quickly broken as liberals demanded he literally be fired for expressing his views.

How many celebrities have been celebrated and adored by the liberal media culture for saying that celebrities should “pay their fair share” with high taxes and that homosexuality is so wonderful it’s even better than sliced bread?  Were they forced to do a perp walk and apologize for their remarks?  Not a chance.

You see, here’s the difference between liberals and conservatives.  Conservatives believe that people – even liberals – have a right to express their views and beliefs.  Conservatives believe that our nation with its freedoms and liberty should not persecute people merely for expressing a viewpoint that they disagree with.  Liberals, on the other hand, are fascists who brutally and viciously attack anyone who doesn’t bow down to their agenda.  You do NOT have the freedom of self-expression if you use that freedom to say something that liberals don’t like.  They will come after you with stunning hatred if you try to do so.

Liberals are people who routinely shout down everyone with whom they disagree.  You do not have the right to say anything that offends them.  They will simply come after you in full-fledged fascisti mode.

Genuine tolerance is a weapon that liberals have turned against conservatives.  As liberal activist Saul Alinsky – who devoted his book to Satan – said:

“Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.”

And of course liberals like Al Gore have no “book of rules” to have to live up to.  They can preach radical environmentalism and demonize oil for years.  They can say that people ought to pay their “fair share” of taxes.  And then – like Al Gore – they can sell out to a terrorist “journalism” network funded entirely by oil money and try to structure the deal so they don’t have to pay Obama’s sky-high tax rates.  But because they always parroted the liberal vision – no matter how hypocritically – they’re on hallowed ground with the vast majority of the propaganda machine a.k.a. journalism in America.

Liberals are currently decrying guns, because everybody knows that human beings are merely farm animals incapable of exercising personal responsibility or self-restraint.  Guns must be taken away from the law-abiding even if it makes them utterly helpless in a deteriorating society because that’s the only solution that liberals will allow.  I submit that there aren’t too many guns; there are too many abortions.  There aren’t to many guns; there’s too much pornography.  There aren’t too many guns; there’s too little respect for the dignity of human life that the abortion culture and the pornography culture that liberals fought so hard to institute guarantees.  There aren’t too many guns; there’s too much lawless disregard for justice that liberals (the ACLU being your classic example) have produced throughout our legal culture.

We kicked God’s butt right out of our schools, banned prayer, banned the Ten Commandments with its “Thou shalt not murder” and we’re just astonished that the children who grew up godless in liberal indocrination facilities a.k.a. our public school system would actualize the disgusting hatred of life that liberalism produced in their empty souls.

And now liberals are exploiting the gun violence that their policies produced in the first place to implement their next step in the Stalinist takeover of America.

And that’s why we’ve lost.  And why the America we stood for is now basically eradicated.

And those three strikes plus are why America is going to go down and go down hard.  King Theoden ultimately won; America is ultimately going to lose and then the beast will come just as God told us would happen.  Theoden’s enemies were outside the walls; America’s enemies are very much within.

Dishonest American Flag-Trampling Obama Purges His ‘Obama States Of America’ Flag From His Website (Good Thing I Took A Screenshot)

September 24, 2012

It wasn’t enough to merely update my previous article on this outrage.  Some things need to be remembered and outraged over even MORE.

Obama purged his narcissistic and flagrantly un-American “Obama States of America” flag from his website:

Obama Campaign Flag Poster Quietly Yanked From Website…

Via BuzzFeed:

The item, known as “Our Strips: Flag Poster” redesigned the American flag using the Obama for America logo. The print was the target of conservative backlash last week.

A page where the flag was now returns as error page. A cached version of the website still shows the product but returns a error page when attempting to add the item to the cart.

Of course the fact that it was widely ridiculed and looked eerily similar to the aftermath of the attack on our consulate in Benghazi had nothing to do with the decision.

HT: Tammy Bruce

I had a feeling this would be rightly viewed as treasonous and that the dishonest Obama would try to purge this outrage like it never happened.  Which is why I took a screen shot in the article below:

Seriously: ‘I Pledge Allegiance To The Flag Of The Obama States Of America, And To The Messiah For Which It Stands…’

Wrong flag for the wrong man for president:

Okay, children, let’s pledge allegiance to our magnificent messiah Obama:

[In unison]: “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the Obama States of America, and to the Messiah for which it stands, one Nation divided by race, class and gender, with redistribution and Marxist fairness for all.”

This is the “American flag” that the Obama campaign is selling on its website:

Just barf me. Everyone who votes for this narcissist is a traitor to America.

Just to make sure the image remains I took a screen shot of this despicable outrage to a once great nation available on the BarackObama.com store:

Show me George Bush doing vile crap like that. Show me John McCain doing crap like that. Show me Mitt Romney doing vile crap like that.

Adolf Hitler of course was a deluded narcissist who cast himself as messiah, too. But as arrogant as that vile turd was, even HE didn’t have the chutzpah to make HIMSELF his country’s flag:

I’ve written about Obama’s casual contempt for the American flag – which he just surpassed here – before. Part of that article tells a story of what love for your America flag that Obama just pissed on looks like:

One writer recounts his memories of an ancestor at the Battles of Chattanooga and Chicamauga while growing up:

I had heard the story often growing up. Men took the flag much more seriously during the Civil War era. To see one’s flag fall in battle was a demoralizing event, and therefore an act much desired by the opposing side. This resulted in many a Flag Bearer feeling as if he had a huge target painted on his chest. It was a dangerous occupation.

“He was in the war at Chattanooga, Chickamauga,” related my mother, “ … his flag bearer was running in front of him, and he got shot and he went down and the flag was falling … and in those days you would never let your flag touch the ground … and he grabbed the flag, pulled it off the [pole], and he shoved it in his tunic.” Charles then promptly got shot himself, and bayoneted, with the blades and musket balls ripping though the flag as well as the flesh.

This Civil War site records the words of William H. Carney, who received the Medal of Honor for his actions during the 54th Massachusetts Regiment’s legendary assault on Fort Wagner:

He was struck with one shot, but not being felled he continued, and then was struck with a second shot. On his struggle to cross the beach to the rear he met a member of the 100th New York Regiment who started to assist him, when Carney was struck with another shot in the head. The other soldier asked Carney to let him carrier the colors so he could more easily walk, but Carney refused, saying that no one other than a member of the 54th Massachusetts should carry the colors.

Finally, after an unlikely arrival alive at the rear guard hospital area, he saw his wounded and dying comrades who saw him carrying their colors and cheered him. He was able to tell them “Boys, the old flag never touched the ground.”

People whose boots you aren’t fit to lick have died for the American flag, Obama, you toxic Marxist traitor. How dare you defile it with your image. In fact there are STILL men dying for the American flag that you just desecrated.

There are also enemies and haters of America burning the American flag all over the world right now, you turd – not that you give a damn.

Does this outrage to everything that used to be America show all 58 states???

When I say you God damn Democrats, I mean it. Not just because you have as your president the PRESIDENT OF GOD DAMN AMERICA, but because you roaches are fascist, messiah-worshiping vermin.

In case you want to understand why I call Democrats the party of hypocrisy, you can look at the OTHER article I’ve got out today or you can click on this link in which an outraged liberal froths over Bush signing people’s tiny little flags that usually end up in the trash can after whatever event.

Now please excuse me while I vomit like I’ve never vomited before.

As I have said many times, my primary purpose for getting into political blogging was TO PRESERVE A RECORD of this incredibly dishonest presidency.

The Democrat Party Surpasses Itself For Total Lack Of Leadership And Chaos And Deceit On Vote To Add God, Jerusalem Back Into Party Platform

September 5, 2012

One wit in Wisconsin said it best: The Democrats voted against God before they voted for Him.  Not that they actually DID vote for God, as you will see.

Yesterday the Democrat Party took a vote to adopt a new party platform that specifically purged language of God and Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

After that vote, Brett Bair, anchor of Fox News Special Report, had a bizarre interview with Dick Durbin.

I have seen the same look that was on Dick Durbin’s face three times in my life.  Once was when I was a soldier and inadvertently cornered a large nasty rat during a training exercise; once was when I lived in Oregon and inadvertently cornered a possum when I was trying to take the trash to the curb; and once was when I was looking at trapped, cornered, vicious Dick Durbin trying to explain why Democrats had just purged language about God and Jerusalem as Israel’s capitol from its platform:

Notice that Brett Bair is merely trying to ask a VERY legitimate question: why did you remove that language from your platform? And notice that the rabid freaking rodent in Durbin comes out and he not only refuses to EVER answer the question in spite of being REPEATEDLY asked, but demonizes Fox News and Brett Bair personally merely for daring to ASK the question.

But it quickly became apparent to anyone who WASN’T crawling with demons that what the Democrats had just done to purge God and kick Israel to the curb was a mega-giant loser.

In a bizarre display of deceit and total inability to exercise anything even remotely CLOSE to leadership, the Democrat National Convention gave us the following utterly pathetic display:

I loved it when Antonio Villaraigosa said, “The chair recognizes…” and “In the opinion of the chair two-thirds have voted in the affirmative, the motion is adopted…”  Because it reminded me of Clint Eastwood and his conversation with the EMPTY damn chair.   Because if there’s anybody sitting in the “chair” of the Democrat Party, it is a fat, bloated damn demon.

Did it sound to you in the video like the “ayes” won by the required two-thirds margin?  If it did I’ve got four words for you: “Stupid Idiot Deaf Liar.”  If anything, the “no” vote was LOUDER and there was no freaking way the voice vote carried.  But the Democrats have always been a party of fascists masquerading as populists and so the leadership just did whatever the hell it wanted to do – which was try to sweep a real disgrace under the rug as quickly as possible.

This was just bizarre on every single level under the sun.  This is the party you want leading America?  Seriously?  The party of evil clueless clowns and rabid fools?

Now, I couldn’t tell you whether Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is a clueless clown or a rabid fool if I had to pick just one, but here is what the chair of the Democratic National Convention said:

CNN White House correspondent Brianna Keilar, on the floor of the convention with Wasserman Schultz, asked about the process of changing the platform, the three voice votes, and the “discord.”

Wasserman Schultz amazingly replied, “There wasn’t any discord.”

Keilar responded that it seemed like people on the floor didn’t feel it was a two-thirds vote.

Wasserman Schultz again amazingly replied, “It absolutely was two-thirds.”

Continuing to press, Keilar noted that this seemed to be a change in policy from yesterday by the Obama campaign because they made it clear Tuesday that they stood by the platform with the controversial language regarding Jerusalem and the word “God” left out.

“No, no, it’s not actually,” Wasserman Schultz again amazingly replied.

At the end of the interview, the segment switched back to CNN’s booth at the convention where Anderson Cooper said, “I just got to go to the panel with this. I mean, Debbie Wasserman Schultz said it wasn’t a change of language, there was no discord that we saw, and it was a two-thirds vote.

“And it was a technical oversight,” added David Gergen.

“I mean, that’s an alternate universe,” replied Cooper. […]

Cooper added a few moments later, “I just think from a reality standpoint, you can defend it as the head of the DNC, but to say flat out there was no discord is just not true.”
 
At that point, John King fabulously said, “If I had a follow-up question, it would be did she ever get away with the dog ate my homework?”
 
That led to laughter from all present making it clear that this panel was not buying the DNC chair’s explanation.

The question remains: if the Democrats AREN’T the Party of godless communism and hostility toward God’s chosen nation Israel, then why the hell did they remove it from the platform to begin with?  I think you can tell by the vote that the answer is pretty straightforward: because most Democrats ARE “Democrats” – by which I mean, “Demonic Bureaucrats“.

The other – and just as dangerous to America – reason is because the platform had merely been adopted and passed to reflect the OBAMA ADMINISTRATION POLICY, as abundant evidence documents.

Obama was trying to throw Israel under the bus in 2008 but – I suppose fortunately lacking courage – he cut and ran from his statement that Jerusalem was merely one of many issues to be bargained away:

“Well, obviously, it’s going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of these issues. And Jerusalem will be part of those negotiations,” Obama told CNN when asked whether Palestinians had no future claim to the city.

Obama has absolutely no regard for Israel or Jerusalem, and history proves it.  If Obama gets reelected, you can count on him to force Israel to give up Jerusalem for the pseudo-peace he will force Israel to accept so we can have Armageddon just like the God the Democrats purged from their platform told us we would have.

Obama is no friend of Israel.  That is a fact.

His call for Israel to be forced to return to its indefensible 1967 borders is more than proof enough of that all by itself.

At least ABC had the integrity to reveal the abject hypocrisy of the Democrat Party on this.  Charlie Rose repeatedly asked Senator Charles Schumer – who is THE Democrat authority on Israel and the Middle East – “What is the president’s position on Jerusalem?”  And Schumer refused to answer (because the American people would not LIKE Obama’s answer):

The new platform has still purged the language denying the “right of return” and the rejection of the terrorist group Hamas as well as the issue of the 1967 borders.  Any Israel-loving Jew or American who votes for the Democrat Party is an idiot or worse.

The Democrat Party is an evil, rabid, radical party.  It is the party of God damn America.  It has nothing to do with the Democrat Party that existed prior to the 1968 Democrat National Convention when the very radicals who now dominate it violently took it over.

Update: For the record, it was being circulated that Obama was the hero who courageously demanded that the God and Jerusalem language be put back into the DNC platform.  The only problem with that is that it is an utter fabrication.  In fact Obama saw the new language prior to its being put into the platform.  So the real question becomes, “Why did Obama allow and approve the language to be taken out to begin with?”

Snow A Real Damper For Global Warming, But True Believers Are Insulated In A Leftwing Cocoon Of Lies

May 27, 2011

I got a response to an article I wrote titled “Global Warming ‘Scientists’ Admit Purging Their Raw Data” from someone referring to himself as “Mechanical Engineer.”  Here’s how he lectured me:

The data that was thrown out was not the only data that was collected around the world.

Take some time and rather than read some idiot’s opinion, do your own research. If you have any intelligence, there is only one conclusion – the atmospher [sic] is geating [sic] warmer. WAKE UP AMERICA. Scientist [sic] are scientist, not lying politicians and not ignorant columnist [sic].

Corporations do not care about you or the environment, so the last thing they would want is for the people to have knowledge.

“The ten warmest years on record have all occured [sic] since 1995″

For starters, you can visit NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmopsheric [sic] Administration). I’m trying to teach you to fish!! let’s see if you starve America ?!!!

And here is my response:

Mechanical Mind,

You might be great at teaching people to fish. If so, please stick with it. You’re sure not good at teaching people to think.  All you can do is recite the pseudo-scientific propaganda that someone poured into your head.

Your “science” is ideology, and whenever the science gets in the way of your ideology, so much the worse for your “science.”

We went from “global warming” to “climate change” because we clearly WEREN’T warming, and “climate change” provided the left with the rhetorical device to entirely deny their previous arguments and to essentially actually argue that it’s so damn cold because it’s so damn hot. And it was “justified” “scientifically” by “researchers” who were saying to one another stuff like:

“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”

Then you find out that the “trick” of “hiding the decline” was even more insidious than merely camouflaging the fact that it’s not getting warmer, but rather the very heart of their case in terms of proxy reconstructions of data.

So much for your “Scientist are scientist [sic], not lying politicians and not ignorant columnist [sic]” remark.

And with all due respect for your “science” and your sneering contempt to conceal the fact that you have been disproven time and time again, it is all complete BULLCRAP:

In 2000, global warmers shrilly assured us that “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”

The problem with that “scientific” prediction based on the “fact” of global warming is that it turned out to be completely FALSE:

Ski resorts’ woe: Too much snow
Fierce storms that closed roads on key weekends prevented many potential visitors from driving to the slopes this season
May 21, 2011 | Hugo Martin

California ski operators often complain that they don’t have enough snow. This year, they’re complaining that they had too much.

Mountain resorts saw a 12% decline in skiers and snowboarders this season compared with the previous one, with attendance falling to about 7.1 million, according to the California Ski Industry Assn., the nonprofit trade group for the state’s major winter sports areas.

Your mantra that “corporations do not care about you or the environment” reveals your real problem: you are a socialist. You might be some hybrid consisting in part fascist, part Marxist, and pure distilled fool.

Socialists do not care about you, the environment, or anything but their total power and control over the masses. And they use naked indoctrination to GET that control.

As for the mainstream media that have bought the global warming lie hook, line and sinker – because pseudo-scientists like YOU taught them how to “fish” – I pointed out in a comment just yesterday:

A Soviet correspondent once said of the American mainstream media, “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.”

And it is a rather easy thing to document that those “experts” are entirely leftwing:

Walter Lippmann – who shaped progressive “journalism,” said, “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.” He referred to democracy as “the manufacture of consent” and said citizens “are mentally children.” He said:

“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…”

Meanwhile his progressive pal Edward Bernays said things like:

“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.”

It is the LEFT that wants to erect an elite class that rules the lives of the rest of the people. By whatever means necessary, including propaganda and lies. It is the LEFT that wants to erect a giant omnipotent state that replaces God. It is the LEFT that wants to create a world in which everyone has to come to THEM to get the basic essentials for existence and thus control those existences.

It is the left that is telling all the lies.

For the record, mechanically clueless, you just parroted one of those lies that were passed from global warming alarmist “scientists” to their parrots in the mainstream media which has since been entirely refuted. It is a LIE that “the ten warmest years on record have all occured [sic] since 1995.” And thank God for the “idiots” – as you would have called them – who forced the correction after “science” bowed down before leftist ideology.

1934 is now the hottest, and 3 others from the 1930’s are in the top 10. Furthermore, only 3 (not 9) took place since 1995 (1998, 1999, and 2006). The years 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004 are now below the year 1900 and no longer even in the top 20.

Sorry, Mr. Sneering Ignorant Liberal, but your “facts” just got flushed down the toilet with the rest of the fecal matter.

I am increasingly alarmed by the stupidity and ignorance that is coming out of our university system.

The power of the university used to be to teach students how to think.  Students learned a diverse range of subjects that not only broadened their academic range, but forced them to apply what they learned and forced them to research and express their ideas about what they had learned.

It was too tempting for liberals – who progressively purged conservatives from academia via tactics that were frankly Stalinist.  So nowadays professors simply tell students what to think, require them to fill their minds with blatant propaganda, and then force them to spit that propaganda back out in order to get the approval of a decent grade.

It’s just no wonder that we end up with minds and thinking like “Mechanical Engineer’s.”

Global Warming Out In Cold – Save For Leftist Ideologues Keeping Fire Burning

February 3, 2011

Poor Al Gore.  If it weren’t for the fact that he is a genuinely evil man – not to mention a hypocrite of gargantuan proportions – who has personally benefited to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars by hyping a bogus agenda, I’d feel sorry for the guy.

As it is….

Cold is back.  And it’s back with a vengeance.  And the funny thing about this title – from MSNBC to make it even better – is that it simultaneously mocks both the left’s rabid global warming ideology and it’s rabid anti-oil ideology at the same time:

Dozens spent night in blizzard as cars ran low on gas
Storm also tied to bridge plunge that kills 3; Midwest left freezing
msnbc.com staff and news service reports
updated

The enormous winter storm that left Midwesterners shivering and crushed snow-laden buildings in the Northeast wouldn’t let go Thursday, with dozens of people trapped in a blizzard overnight on a South Dakota highway and three deaths reported when a pickup truck plunged off an icy bridge in Oklahoma.

In South Dakota, people in more than 150 vehicles were stranded overnight on Interstate 29, KELO-TV reported on its website.

Some travelers reported dire conditions. “Mothers with 9-month-old babes, young couples with children running on red or out of gas, vehicles stalled,” Codington County Search and Rescue spokesman Pat Culhane told KWAT radio. “There’s five-foot drifts with vehicles stuck in them, mostly semis.”

By morning, some 70 people had been rescued, with others deciding to stay in their vehicles, which were stuck between the towns of Summit and Sisseton.

Truck driver Randy Sanders said he’d been stuck since 10:30 p.m. and still couldn’t see much from his stranded truck Thursday morning.

In Oklahoma, a pickup truck jumped a guard rail on Interstate 44 near the town of Miami and fell into the Spring River. At least three people died, and several others were rescued.
Story: 3 die when truck plunges over snow-covered bridge

In parts of the nation’s midsection, wind chills dipped to nearly 30 below early Thursday as the region began dealing with the storm’s aftermath. The sprawling system unloaded as much as 2 feet of snow, crippled airports and stranded drivers in downtown Chicago as if in a prairie blizzard.

Even the Southwest wasn’t spared: Freezing temperatures led to school closures in parts of New Mexico when school buses wouldn’t start and delayed the Phoenix Open golf tourney in Scottsdale, Ariz.

More bad weather was on the way for some places. Parts of the southern United States, including Texas, Louisiana and Alabama, are forecast to get snow and ice late on Thursday.

Officials in the Northeast had warned homeowners and businesses for days of the dangers of leaving snow piled up on rooftops. As the 2,100-mile-long storm cloaked the region in ice and added inches to the piles of snow already settled across the landscape, the predictions came true.

The National Weather Service issued special advisories about “black ice” for New York and Boston. Wednesday’s standing water on many streets and sidewalks froze overnight, making driving and walking treacherous in spots.

In Middletown, Conn., the entire third floor of a building failed, littering the street with bricks and snapping two trees. Acting Fire Marshal Al Santostefano said two workers fled when they heard a cracking sound.

“It’s like a bomb scene,” Santostefano said. “Thank God they left the building when they did.”

A gas station canopy on New York’s Long Island collapsed, as did an airplane hangar near Boston, damaging aircraft. Roof cave-ins also were reported in Rhode Island. The University of Connecticut closed its hockey rink as a precaution because of the amount of ice and snow on the roof. The school hoped to have it inspected and reopened in time for a game Saturday.

A barn roof collapsed Wednesday night at an upstate New York dairy farm, trapping an unknown number of cows inside.

Clearing the snow
The cost of snow clean-up has blasted holes in the budgets of many cities, states and counties, which were already struggling with the aftermath of the severe recession.

Some places in the Northeast that have gotten more snow so far this winter than they usually get the whole season are running out of places to put it. In Portland, Maine, the downtown snow-storage area was expected to reach capacity after this week’s storm — the first time in three years that has happened.

“It’s not so much about plowing as it is about where to put it,” said Mike Schumaker, a contractor near Albany, N.Y. “We still have snow from Christmas that hasn’t melted.”

Snow totals in the Northeast hit their peak at several inches in New England, a far cry from the foot or more the region has come to expect with each passing storm in a season full of them. Meanwhile, the Midwest was reeling from the storm’s wallop as the system swept eastward.

Tens of millions of people stayed home Wednesday. The hardy few Midwesterners who ventured out faced howling winds that turned snowflakes into face-stinging needles. Chicago’s 20.2 inches of snow was the city’s third-largest amount on record.

Across the storm’s path, lonely commuters struggled against drifts 3 and 4 feet deep in eerily silent streets, some of which had not seen a plow’s blade since the snow started a day earlier. Parkas and ski goggles normally reserved for the slopes became essential for getting to work.

“This is probably the most snow I’ve seen in the last 34 years,” joked 34-year-old Chicagoan Michael George. “I saw some people cross-country skiing on my way to the train. It was pretty wild.”

The system was blamed for at least 12 deaths, including a homeless man who burned to death on Long Island as he tried to light cans of cooking fuel and a woman in Oklahoma City who was killed while being pulled behind a truck on a sled that hit a guard rail.

Airport operations slowed to a crawl nationwide, and flight cancellations reached 13,000 for the week, making this system the most disruptive so far this winter. A massive post-Christmas blizzard led to about 10,000 cancellations.

The airports with the most flight cancellations were Chicago’s O’Hare International, still feeling the impact of Wednesday’s blizzard, and Bush International in Houston, where freezing rain is forecast.

Chicago public schools canceled classes for a second straight day. The city’s iconic Lake Shore Drive reopened before dawn Thursday after 34 hours; crews had worked overnight to clear snow and stranded vehicles. Drivers had abandoned hundreds of vehicles stopped in their tracks by snow that drifted as high as the windshields late Tuesday and into Wednesday morning.
Story: Fearful, frigid night on Chicago’s Lake Shore Drive

Some motorists came away angry, frustrated that the city didn’t close the crucial thoroughfare earlier. Others were mad at themselves for going out during the storm or not using another route.

“In 31 years with the city, I haven’t experienced anything like we did at Lake Shore Drive,” said Raymond Orozco, chief of staff for Mayor Richard M. Daley. “Hundreds of people were very inconvenienced, and we apologize for that.”

Utility crews raced to restore power to thousands of homes and businesses in Ohio, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, where freezing rain and ice brought down electrical lines.

Rolling blackouts were implemented across Texas, including in Super Bowl host city Dallas, because of high demand during a rare ice storm. The outages would not affect Cowboys Stadium in suburban Arlington, said Jeamy Molina, a spokeswoman for utility provider Oncor. But other Super Bowl facilities, such as team hotels, were not exempt, she said.

The storm derived its power from the collision of cold air sweeping down from Canada and warm, moist air coming up from the South. Weather experts said La Nina, a temperature phenomenon in the Pacific Ocean, also contributed.

“The atmosphere doesn’t like that contrast in temperature. Things get mixed together and you have a storm like this,” said Gino Izzo, a National Weather Service meteorologist. “The jet stream up in the atmosphere was like the engine and the warm air was the fuel.”

Snowfall totals this winter are off the charts along parts of the Interstate 95 corridor between Boston and Philadelphia.

Newark, N.J., was hit with 62 inches of snow through Jan. 27, compared with the seasonal average of 25 inches. In New York City, 56 inches of snow has fallen on Central Park, compared to the 22-inch seasonal average.

The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report.

Al Gore is a pathologically dishonest propagandist.  He and every single other garden variety rabid leftwing ideologue (which includes much of the mainstream media, for what it’s worth) are claiming that it’s actually so damn cold because it’s so damn hot.  And they claim that they’ve been saying this for years:

The former Vice President on Monday responded to Fox News Channel host Bill O’Reilly’s on-air question last week: “Why has southern New York turned into the tundra?” O’Reilly then said he needed to call Gore.

“I appreciate the question,” Gore wrote on his website.

“As it turns out, the scientific community has been addressing this particular question for some time now and they say that increased heavy snowfalls are completely consistent with what they have been predicting as a consequence of man-made global warming.”

Gore then quoted an article by Clarence Page in the Chicago Tribune in early 2010: “In fact, scientists have been warning for at least two decades that global warming could make snowstorms more severe. Snow has two simple ingredients: cold and moisture. Warmer air collects moisture like a sponge until it hits a patch of cold air. When temperatures dip below freezing, a lot of moisture creates a lot of snow.

“A rise in global temperature can create all sorts of havoc, ranging from hotter dry spells to colder winters, along with increasingly violent storms, flooding, forest fires and loss of endangered species.”

The problem is that their claim is a complete lie.  They NEVER predicted that global warming would create record cold until AFTER the cold blew their theory right out the door.

Who does Al Gore quote?  A scientist?  Does he cite a major (or even a minor) study that shows that global warming would create more cold and worse snowfall?  Does Al Gore even refer to his own film, An Inconvenient Truth, which liars rewarded his lies with a Nobel Prize?  No.  He cites as his source a liberal newspaper reporter who is making assertions AFTER THE FACT.

This in fact is what these loathsome liars had actually predicted:

Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past
By Charles Onians
Monday, 20 March 2000

Britain’s winter ends tomorrow with further indications of a striking environmental change: snow is starting to disappear from our lives.

Sledges, snowmen, snowballs and the excitement of waking to find that the stuff has settled outside are all a rapidly diminishing part of Britain’s culture, as warmer winters – which scientists are attributing to global climate change – produce not only fewer white Christmases, but fewer white Januaries and Februaries.

The first two months of 2000 were virtually free of significant snowfall in much of lowland Britain, and December brought only moderate snowfall in the South-east. It is the continuation of a trend that has been increasingly visible in the past 15 years: in the south of England, for instance, from 1970 to 1995 snow and sleet fell for an average of 3.7 days, while from 1988 to 1995 the average was 0.7 days. London’s last substantial snowfall was in February 1991.

Global warming, the heating of the atmosphere by increased amounts of industrial gases, is now accepted as a reality by the international community. Average temperatures in Britain were nearly 0.6°C higher in the Nineties than in 1960-90, and it is estimated that they will increase by 0.2C every decade over the coming century. Eight of the 10 hottest years on record occurred in the Nineties.

However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.

“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.

The effects of snow-free winter in Britain are already becoming apparent. This year, for the first time ever, Hamleys, Britain’s biggest toyshop, had no sledges on display in its Regent Street store. “It was a bit of a first,” a spokesperson said.

Hey, kids.  Do you have any idea what all those tons of cold white stuff that keep falling out of the sky is?  Do you know what that smelly brown stuff that squirts out of the backsides of bulls is?

Watch Al Gore’s movie, in light of reality.  Tell me where you hear Al Gore’s pompous Vulcan voice explaining how warming will lead to more cold and more snow.  What we kept hearing was that global warming would cause glaciers to melt and flood coastal cities populated by millions of helpless people.

That turned out to be a whopping load of crap, just like everything else the left says.  Glaciers are GROWING, not shrinking.  And in fact they have been growing all over the world for some time now.

Global warming alarmists are playing a game with the actual facts.  In this game, they say things that completely discredit themselves.  But instead of the critics of global warming getting any points, the global warmers raise their arms in victory as a touchdown appears in their column.

You’ve got to know who these people are.  They are God-despising pagan demon-possessed ideologues, not legitimate scientists or people who are about the truth.  Global warming is a religion to them, as much as Christianity is a religion to me.

You’ve got to know who these people are.  For years they exaggerated the facts and the data to manufacture evidence supporting global warming.

You’ve got to know who these people are.  In emails to themselves they wrote about using tricks to make it appear that global warming is real.  They openly acknowledged to one another that they were concealing evidence that they were manipulating the data (see also here).

You’ve got to know who these people are.  We find out that after massaging data for years to manufacture a bogus case, that they actually purged the raw data that would have proven how corrupt and dishonest they truly were and continue to be.

The co-founder of Greenpeace says that the environmental movement was “hijacked by political and social causes of  the left.” It’s far more about the socialist redistribution of global wealth than it is about any kind of actual science.  And yet for some mysterious reason, even though all of it’s claims have been documented to be complete bunk,  it’s viewed by the mainstream media as being more legitimate than ever.

You are being lied to.  If you watch mainstream media television such as NBC or CNN, or if you read newspapers such as the Los Angeles or New York Times, you are filling your soul with lies.  And these lies have an agenda behind them.  To the degree that these people are not deliberately lying, they are themselves deluded by a completely artificial and manufactured worldview – and even if you give them that much credit, they still routinely pick and choose stories, facts and sources to “shield” you from knowing what they don’t want you to know.

Think of yourself as a sheep, constantly surprised by cold that, yes, we were told was a thing of the past.  And now you are not only stupid, you are actually stuck in freezing cold hoping that somebody saves you before you die like a frozen fool.

Now picture yourself in one of the electric cars that the left is trying to force-feed society – which makes your situation even MORE DESPERATE.

Please quit being a fool and open your eyes to all the lies.

Obama Camp Punishes RARE Reporter Who Asks Tough Questions

October 27, 2008

The Obama campaign has always had it pretty easy with the press.  It wasn’t too long ago that his extravaganza trip to Europe and Iraq were covered by the anchors of all three major networks.  John McCain couldn’t have PAID Brian Williams, Katie Couric, or Charles Gibson to accompany him on any of his trips to Iraq or Afghanistan.

The Center for Media and Public Affairs has followed the puppydog-like way the media has followed Obama:

The “big three” broadcast networks – NBC, ABC and CBS – remain captivated with Sen. Barack Obama, according to a study of campaign coverage released Tuesday by the Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University.

Numbers tell all: 61 percent of the stories that appeared on the networks between Aug. 23 and Sept. 30 were positive toward the Democratic Party. In contrast, just 39 percent of the stories covering Republicans were favorable.

“After a brief flirtation with Sarah Palin, the broadcast networks have returned to their first love: Barack Obama,” said Robert Lichter, the center’s president.

“John McCain has not been so lucky. He’s gotten bad coverage from the beginning. It has never varied from that,” Mr. Lichter added.

Unfortunately, the Washington Times decided this October 13, 2008 story titled, “Study: Big Three Networks Still Fixated On ‘First Love’ Obama” harmed “the One” more than they liked; they purged it.  But the fact of media bias for Obama remains whether stories pointing to it are purged or not.  It never ceases to amaze me how quickly articles critical of Democrats get taken down, while articles critical of Republicans stay up for years.

The Media Research Center is another media watchdog that has noticed that the media bias in favor of Barack Obama is pretty much disgusting:

A comprehensive analysis of every evening news report by the NBC, ABC and CBS television networks on Barack Obama since he came to national prominence concludes coverage of the Illinois senator has “bordered on giddy celebration of a political ‘rock star’ rather than objective newsgathering.”

The new study by the Media Research Center, which tracks bias in the media, is summarized on the organization’s website, where the full report also has been published. It reveals that positive stories about Obama over that time outnumbered negative stories 7-1, and significant controversies such as Obama’s relationship with a convicted Chicago man have been largely ignored.

Rich Noyes, the research director for the MRC, told WND Obama has “always received very positive press from the national media,” and that was a “huge boost to anyone seeking a national political career.”

That’s contrary to the normal “default position” for reporters of being slightly cynical and a little skeptical, he said. It is “not the normal professional approach you see in journalists,” he said.

And the most recent survey from the Project for Excellence in Journalism,  “Winning the Media Campaign: How the Press Reported the 2008 Presidential General Election” – Sep 6 – Oct 16, tells us that:

In short, Obama gets nearly 3 times more positive coverage than McCain, while McCain gets nearly twice as much negative coverage as Obama.  Does that sound fair to you?  How is McCain supposed to run against that?

It gets even WORSE for Sarah Palin, believe it or not; she received only 6% positive coverage, and 64% negative coverage!

Realize that John McCain has been routinely portrayed as “going negative.”  Aside from the fact that this is patently false – according to yet another media watchdog, the Wisconsin Advertising Project based at the University of Wisconsin – just what on earth is John McCain supposed to do?  The media is literally doing the lion’s share of Obama’s dirty work for him by negatively covering John McCain under the guise of “news.”  And then that same media attacks him when he goes negative!

Last week Colin Powell – in a powder puff ‘Meet the Press‘ interview – officially endorsed Barack Obama (after officially being one of his ‘advisors’ for months).  The kinds of questions I would have loved to see asked of Colin Powell, such as:

Mr. Secretary, given the fact that you were the man who made the case for war with Iraq at the United Nations – and given the fact that the man you are endorsing has called the war you supported one of the greatest foreign policy disasters in history – are you acknowledging your own personal incompetence.  Are you acknowledging that your judgment should not be trusted?

Mr. Secretary, given the fact that the man you are endorsing has opposed the surge strategy conceived of and carried out by General Petraeus as one that would fail, and which would actually INCREASE sectarian violence, are you stating for the record your belief that General Petraeus was wrong, and that Barack Obama was right?  Are you claiming that the surge has NOT been a military success? Should we take this as further evidence of your own personal incompetence and poor judgment?

Somehow never got asked.  Too bad Colin Powell got to talk with pompous liberal Tom Brokaw rather than having to deal with the likes of a Barbara West.

The amazing thing is that the Associated Press article by Nedra Pickler that acknowledged that the Obama had scrubbed his website of his criticism of the surge strategy has itself been scrubbed.  Fortunately I have preserved the article here.  Kind of reminds me of the great work done by the “Ministry of Truth” in George Orwell’s 1984.

So, what happens when some courageous journalist – looking at the total onslaught of pro-Obama bias and downright propaganda – decides to finally ask the Obama-Biden campaign some tough but legitimate questions?

Well, it finally happened, and the Obama campaign has come unglued over it.  Here is a transcript of WFTV anchor Barbara West’s interview with Sen. Biden:

WEST: I know you’re in North Carolina trying to help get out the vote but aren’t you embarassed by the blatant attempts to register phony voters by ACORN, an organization that Barack Obama has been tied to in the past?

BIDEN: I am not embarassed by it. We are not tied to it. We have not paid them one single penny to register a single solitary voter. We have the best GOTV operation in modern history. We’ve registered the voters ourselves and so there is no relationship. So I am embarassed for anybody in ACORN who went out there and registered somebody who shouldn’t be registered. I’m not embarrassed by our campaign because we haven’t paid ACORN a single penny to register a single voter.

WEST: But in the past, Sen. Obama was a community organizer for ACORN. He was an attorney for ACORN and certainly in the Senate, he has been a benefactor for ACORN.

BIDEN: How has he been a benefactor for ACORN? He was a community organizer. John McCain stood before ACORN not long ago and complimented them on the great work they did. Does that make John McCain complicit in any mistake that ACORN made? C’mon. Let’s get real.

WEST: Okay, moving onto the next question. Sen. Obama famously told Joe the Plumber that he wanted to spread his wealth around. Gallup polls show 84% of Americans prefer government focus on improving financial conditions and creating more jobs in the U.S. as opposed to taking steps to distributing wealth. Isn’t Sen. Obama’s statement a potentially crushing political blunder?

BIDEN: Absolutely not. The only person that’s spread the wealth around has been George Bush and John McCain’s tax policy. They have devastated the middle class. For the first time since the 1920’s, the top 1% make 21% of the income in America. That isn’t the way it was before George Bush became president. All we want is the middle class to have a fighting chance. That’s why we focus all of our efforts on restoring the middle class and giving them a tax break. And John McCain doubles down on Bush’s tax cuts and gives a $300 billion in tax cuts for the largest companies in America. We don’t think that’s the way to do it. We think give the middle class a break. That’s the way to do it.

WEST: You may recognize this famous quote. From each according to his abilities to each according to his needs. That’s from Karl Marx. How is Sen. Obama not being a Marxist if he intends to spread the wealth around?

BIDEN: Are you joking? Is this a joke?

WEST: No.

BIDEN: Is that a real question?

WEST: It’s a real question.

BIDEN: He is not spreading the wealth around. He is talking about giving the middle class an opportunity to get back the tax breaks they used to have. What has happened just this year is that the people making $1.4 million a year, the wealthiest 1%, good, decent American people, are gonna get an $87 billion tax cut. A new one on top of the one from last year. We think that the people getting that tax break and not redistribute the wealth up, should be the middle class. That’s what we think. It’s a ridiculous comparison with all due respect.

WEST: Now you recently said “Mark my words. It won’t be six months before the world tests Barack Obama.” But what worries many people is your caveat asking them to stand with him because it won’t be apparent that he got it right. Are you forewarning the American people that something might not get done and that America’s days as the world’s leader might be over?

BIDEN: No, I’m not at all. I don’t know who’s writing your questions but let me make it clear to you. The fact of the matter is that everyone with knowledge, from Colin Powell on down, the next president, whether it’s John McCain or Barack Obama. The reason is our weakened position in the world. We’re stretched thin throughout the world. Our economy is in freefall right now. And they’re gonna be tested. And the point I was making is that Barack Obama is better prepared to handle any crisis than John McCain…

Here’s Obama’s response:

The Barack Obama campaign called Barbara West’s interview with Sen. Joe Biden unprofessional and combative.

The first time that someone actually asks real questions, the Obama campaign whines that the interview was combative. That’s what happens when they’re used to getting softball questions. It’s great to hear West isn’t just sitting back and taking it. Here’s her response:

“I have a great deal of respect for him. I have a great deal of respect for Sen. Obama. We are given four minutes of a satellite window for these interviews. Four precious minutes. I got right down to it and, yes, I think I asked him some pointed questions. These are questions that are rolling about right now and questions that need to be asked. I don’t think I was rude or inconsiderate to him. I think I was probing and maybe tough. I can’t believe that in all of his years in politics, and all of his campaigning and such, that he hasn’t run into some tough questions before. He’s certainly up to it in giving good answers.”

Well, apparently he isn’t.  And apparently you’re not allowed to ask the Obama campaign’s tough questions.

For one thing, he misrepresents Barack Obama’s own stated position:

“My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody. I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

So when Biden said of Barack Obama, “He’s not spreading the wealth around,” he’s pretty much lying through his dazzlingly bleached teeth.  It’s too bad that Barbara West didn’t have four more minutes.

One would have to be incredibly determined to find a better 4-word definition of Marxism than “spread the wealth around.”  Biden’s response to an incredibly legitimate question was to lie, and then express his annoyance that anyone would dare to ask him a legitimate question.

For the record, the Obama campaign paid $820,000 to ACORN for “lighting” even as they were becoming involved in voter fraud in 15 states (and counting).  Biden says the campaign didn’t “give a single penny to ACORN.”  He’s right; they gave 82 MILLION pennies to them!  And citing the fact that John McCain once gave a speech to ACORN as a dodge for Obama’s years of involvement with ACORN doesn’t merit anything but contempt.

In any event, the Obama campaign didn’t like being asked hard questions – like McCain and Palin get damn near every time they do ANY interview (including ABC’s the View), so the arrogant and imperious Obama campaign arrogantly and imperiously decided to punish WFTV for West’s transgression:

The Obama camp then killed a WFTV interview with Biden’s wife Jill, according to an Orlando Sentinel blog.

“This cancellation is non-negotiable, and further opportunities for your station to interview with this campaign are unlikely, at best for the duration of the remaining days until the election,” wrote Laura K. McGinnis, Central Florida communications director for the Obama campaign, according to the Sentinel.

Of course, given the trend, overly-specific articles of this interview will likely be shortly scrubbed by the same Ministry of Truth that has already been hard at work in this campaign, anyway…

The really funny (in a sick, twisted, ironic way) thing about the Obama campaign is that they are willing to negotiate with the leaders of rogue terrorist states without preconditions, but they aren’t willing to talk with reporters who will ask them legitimate questions.

Under a Pelosi-Reid-dominated and even filibuster proof Congress, you won’t have to worry about that kind of interview much longer.  Conservative thought will be criminalized and punished under the Fairness Doctrine.  Nancy Pelosi has already said as much.  People who wish to punish free speech under the guise of “fairness” should be frightening.  But we see just how intolerant Democrats are to free speech given knowledge of the past.

Chutzpah Incarnate: Obama Criticizes McCain on Iraq Even As He Scrubs Own Website

July 16, 2008

Barack Obama has been running as the guy who opposed the war in Iraq.

Well, if opposing the war is the personification of wisdom, then don’t vote for Barack Obama – who has hedged on the Iraq War at times – vote for Cindy Sheehan. She opposes the war WAY more than Obama.

Shoot, vote for some six-year old liberal’s kid who has opposed the war since he was born!

Obama said today:

WASHINGTON and ALBUQUERQUE – Sen. Barack Obama said Tuesday that overall U.S. interests have been hurt rather than helped by the Bush administration’s decision to increase troop strength in Iraq 18 months ago, and vowed to stick to his plan to withdraw combat troops within 16 months of becoming president.

Obama said his White House rival, Sen. John McCain, “has argued that the gains of the surge mean that I should change my commitment to end the war. But this argument misconstrues what is necessary to succeed in Iraq, and stubbornly ignores the facts of the broader strategic picture that we face.”

If John McCain “ignores the facts,” Barack Obama changes them altogether.

The absolutely crazy and hypocritical thing is that – even as Barack Obama criticized John McCain for his commitment to the war in Iraq via the “Surge” strategy, Barack Obama had the massive chutzpah to scrub his website of past comments regarding that very strategy.

My opponent is completely wrong! Oops. Pardon me while I scrub my website to hide what I USED to say.”

It’s simply amazing.

Politico writes about it with the hammer-smashing-the-nail title of “Surge Meets Purge“:

The McCain camaign is poking fun at Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) for a report in today’s New York Daily News that he had cleansed BarackObama.com of past criticism of the surge strategy in Iraq.

“BARACK OBAMA “REFINING” IRAQ POSITION ON OWN WEBSITE,” blares the McCain release, which helpfully links to the former versions of the site.

The Daily News report by James Gordon Meek says: “Barack Obama’s campaign scrubbed his presidential Web site over the weekend to remove criticism of the U.S. troop ‘surge’ in Iraq, the Daily News has learned. The presumed Democratic nominee replaced his Iraq issue Web page, which had described the surge as a ‘problem’ that had barely reduced violence. ‘The surge is not working,’ Obama’s old plan stated, citing a lack of Iraqi political cooperation but crediting Sunni sheiks – not U.S. military muscle – for quelling violence in Anbar Province.

Sean Hackbarth in an American Mind piece calls it, “Obama’s Surge Stance Goes Down Memory Hole“:

Edit a Presidential candidate’s view on the Iraq surge? “Yes we can!” At least that’s what Sen. Barack Obama’s web team did over the weekend. Instead of simply saying he was wrong about the surge Obama and his campaign pretends we won’t notice his alterations in emphasis. Events on the ground in Iraq have changed yet Obama is still adamant to pull U.S. troops out in 16 months. This causes Jim Geraghty to write,

That suggests the candidate is wedded to ideology and oblivious to the consequences of policy changes. And a candidate who has the… well, audacity to claim that he always said the surge would result in an “improvement in the security situation and a reduction of violence” when he said the opposite many times thinks that A) voters are gullible and B) the media have the attention span of an over-caffeinated ferret.

Gateway Pundit has a side-by-side before-and-after of Obama’s Iraq page.

Rick Moran goes for the jugular. Just like Obama thinks he’s better on Iraq because he possesses superior judgment it’s been wrong about the surge.

The most devastating article of the bunch is found on Powerline under the title “Obama’s Dishonest Op-ed.” The piece – after damning Obama regarding Iraq with his own words – proceeds to show that Obama has been as dishonest about Afghanistan as he has been wrong about Iraq.

Charles Krauthammer didn’t mention Obama’s reversing position on the surge, or the website purging that preceded the flip flopping. But he very clearly understands the Weasel who is Barack Obama:

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: What impresses me is his audacity. Everybody moves to the center after securing the nomination. There’s nothing new under the sun there.

He did it in a particularly spectacular way with the flips that you talked about. There are a couple of others on NAFTA and flag pins, and he does it all within about three weeks. It’s sort of unprecedented.

But he goes way beyond that. On each of these he pretends that he has never changed. He says, yes, I said the gun bill was constitutional and I supported it. And now he supports the Supreme Court decision that rules it unconstitutional, and pretends it is the same decision.

But then he goes beyond that, reaching an almost acrobatic level of cynicism here, in which he says, as you indicated, Fred, anybody who believes otherwise, anybody who believes he is not actually a flipper and he hasn’t actually changed, is himself cynical, or, as he puts it, “steeped in the old politics,” and so cynical that they can’t even believe that a politician like him would act on principle.

What non-political no-self-interested reason explains his change on campaign finance other than the fact that he has a lot of money and he would lose it otherwise if he had stuck to his principles?

What non-self-interested reason explains his flip on guns, on FISA, on the flag pins, on everything? But he thinks he–what impresses me is his intellectual arrogance. He thinks everyone is either a fool who would believe all this, or a knave who is somehow distorting his words [Italics mine].

I personally believe that Barack Obama is counting on a very supportive media to help him sanitize his previously held positions by simply refusing to give them the continued coverage that would truly hurt him. Flip flops, reversals, and website purges only hurt him if the American people know about it. And the media seems to develop a convenient pattern of amnesia where Barack Obama is concerned. A recent New York Times piece about Obama’s spirituality, for instance, didn’t even mention the name “Jeremiah Wright.”

John McCain responded to Obama’s criticisms in part with the following:

Over the last year, Senator Obama and I were part of a great debate about the war in Iraq. Both of us agreed the Bush administration had pursued a failed strategy there and that we had to change course. Where Senator Obama and I disagreed, fundamentally, was what course we should take. I called for a comprehensive new strategy – a surge of troops and counterinsurgency to win the war. Senator Obama disagreed. He opposed the surge, predicted it would increase sectarian violence, and called for our troops to retreat as quickly as possible.

Today we know Senator Obama was wrong. The surge has succeeded. And because of its success, the next President will inherit a situation in Iraq in which America’s enemies are on the run, and our soldiers are beginning to come home. Senator Obama is departing soon on a trip abroad that will include a fact-finding mission to Iraq and Afghanistan. And I note that he is speaking today about his plans for Iraq and Afghanistan before he has even left, before he has talked to General Petraeus, before he has seen the progress in Iraq, and before he has set foot in Afghanistan for the first time. In my experience, fact-finding missions usually work best the other way around: first you assess the facts on the ground, then you present a new strategy.

Although the situation in Iraq is much improved, another test awaits whoever wins this election: the war in Afghanistan. The status quo is not acceptable. Security in Afghanistan has deteriorated, and our enemies are on the offensive. From the moment the next President walks into the Oval Office, he will face critical decisions about Afghanistan.

Senator Obama will tell you we can’t win in Afghanistan without losing in Iraq. In fact, he has it exactly backwards. It is precisely the success of the surge in Iraq that shows us the way to succeed in Afghanistan. It is by applying the tried and true principles of counter-insurgency used in the surge – which Senator Obama opposed — that we will win in Afghanistan. With the right strategy and the right forces, we can succeed in both Iraq and Afghanistan. I know how to win wars. And if I’m elected President, I will turn around the war in Afghanistan, just as we have turned around the war in Iraq, with a comprehensive strategy for victory.

As for Obama’s Iraq “plan” – if you can call it that – ABC’s Martha Raddatz wrote a July 11 article titled “Obama’s Iraq Withdrawal Plan May Prove Difficult: U.S. Commanders in Iraq Warn of Security Dangers, See Logistical Nightmare.” She notes that:

Whatever nuance Barack Obama is now adding to his Iraq withdrawal strategy, the core plan on his Web site is as plain as day: Obama would “immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months.”

It is a plan that, no doubt, helped Obama get his party’s nomination, but one that may prove difficult if he is elected president.

Of course, liberals don’t let little things like facts get in the way.

And of course, we now know that Obama’s “core plans” – just like his website itself – are both subject to change without notice.