Posts Tagged ‘sharia’

Was Muslim Brotherhood Cheated By Democracy? As A California Prop 8 Voter, Join The Club (BTW: I Didn’t Start Rioting)

July 9, 2013

I have a confession to make that always makes me rather ashamed: I subscribe to the LA Times.

The paper is a piece of trash.  They routinely substitute their liberal opinions where the NEWS ought to be.  But BECAUSE it is a complete piece of trash, they have t sell it for virtually nothing.  The last two years, I literally received a larger gift card (this year was for Target stores) than what I paid for the subscription.  And as worthless as the “newspaper” is, there are quite  few valuable coupons.

Anyway, it has been rather interesting to read liberals whining about the Egyptian military and it’s “coup” to remove the Muslim Brotherhood president, Morsi.

I kind of read the Declaration of Independence, you know, the part that says this:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.  — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,  — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

And I kind of figure that, yes, you’re damn right they had a right to remove that fascist Islamic terrorist turd, Morsi after he tried to impose sharia law on an Egyptian people who very clearly did not want it.  And thank God for the Egyptian military for helping the Egyptian people alter or abolish their godawful terrorist sharia law Muslim government.

But let’s deal with this line of reasoning that declares that the Muslim Brotherhood put aside its terrorism long enough to become good democrats and won an election among a disorganized and factionalized people.  And that therefore the Muslim Brotherhood and Morsi ought to be able to remain in power, you know, because of the popular vote.

I remember thinking that way myself.  After all, I went to the ballot box and I voted for Proposition 8.  And it won with a clear majority of the people.  And so according to “democracy” marriage in California is the union between one man and one woman.

Well, until a homosexual militant judge decided he didn’t like what the people had declared and decided that one man ought to overrule millions of voters.

And then until the Supreme Court – now nothing more than a political body of black robed masters – decided that the California people who had voted for Prop 8 had no legal standing.  Whatsoever.

So don’t tell me that it sucks that democracy gets abrogated.  I know damn well how it feels.  In fact, Proposition 8 was the SECOND attempt by California voters to define marriage as the union between one man and one woman: we’d voted the same damn way for Proposition 22.  It was overturned by the same genre of homosexual militant black robed masters on some incredibly trivial legal grounds, too.

But let me get back to Prop 8 as it relates to Obama.  Obama was elected in November 2008 with 52% of the vote.  He seemed to think it was a mandate.  You know, the way voters like me probably felt that the 61% vote for Prop 22 made that a “mandate.”  But of course it wasn’t, was it?  Obama was re-elected in November 2012 with, again, 52% of the vote.  And this time he declared that it was very clearly a mandate.  But, of course, when Prop 8 passed with 52% of the vote, that most definitely was NOT a mandate at all.

What is “democracy”?  It is whatever liberal fascists say it is, that’s what it is.  You have a right to vote the way the Nazi “Democrat” Party wants you to vote or your vote gets thrown into the toilet bowl and flushed.

So I know damn well what it’s like to live in a third world banana republic where you get to vote as long as you vote for your dictator and his dictator regime.

What’s the difference between the people who voted for Proposition 22 and Proposition 8 and the Muslim Brotherhood?  We don’t resort to rioting in the streets and murdering women and children when we don’t get our way, that’s the difference.

I suppose I should point out another difference between people like me and people like the Muslim Brotherhood – and yes, the “Democrat” Party: it is that as a conservative and a Republican and very much a Christian, I worship GOD rather than the state.  Muslims, on the other hand, worship a political system masquerading as a religion, which seeks to impose a totalitarian sharia state on everyone it possibly can.  And “Democrats” pretty much do the same damn fascist thing.  Modern liberalism is MARXISM.  Marxism is an anti-Christian blasphemy that replaces God with the State.  Their Lord and Savior is the State, not Jesus Christ.  They worship big government and the power of the state rather than the God of the Bible.  And they are utterly wicked as a result.  When you worship God, you demand a limited government to make room for a big God; when you worship the State, you demand a massive government to diminish God and usurp His place as Savior and as Lord.

The difference is the peaceful Tea Party versus the violent, out-of-control fascist liberal mob known as “Occupy.”

That, of course, is the real crux of the issue.  It’s how fascist turds like Morsi and our own fascist turd Obama believe that they can win an election with a bare majority and somehow have a “mandate” to abrogate whatever previous law they didn’t like and install dictatorial bullcrap in its place (like DOMA, like immigration law, like NSA mass eavesdropping, like ObamaCare for that matter).  In that last case, the “law” says that ObamaCare “shall apply to months beginning after December 31, 2013.”  As the article I linked to points out, “the law” very much does NOT say that “the Administration can impose the mandate whenever it feels it is politically convenient.”  In this case, Obama damn well knows that ObamaCare is so disastrous and so profoundly unpopular that if it were to be implemented according to what the “law” says it must, it would be an absolute bloodbath for Democrats in November 2014.  And so Obama once again decided to just ignore the damn law – even though it is his very own damn law.

Allow me to quote a prominent Democrat: “This is the law.  How can they change the law?”  Well, they can change the damn law if and only if they are damn fascists – which is exactly what they are.

That’s on top of the law being very clearly written as a “fee” and NOT a tax, which made it blatantly unconstitutional – until the Supreme Court decided to ignore “the law” and turn the “fee” into a “tax.”  Even though that meant ignoring the “law.”

And even though key swing “Justice” Kennedy (yes, there’s those quotes again) observed that ObamaCare “changes the relationship of the Federal Government to the individual in the very fundamental way.”  Because who needs that damn Constitution, anyway?  When it keeps getting in “Democrats'” way?

Obama DID promise to “fundamentally transform America.”  Constitution and all.  So I guess we got what we “voted” for the same way Egypt got what they “voted” for when they elected terrorist turd Morsi.

Just what is “sharia law” anyway?  At its most fundamental level, it is the forced imposition of a worldview upon a culture.  In the case of Obama and his conversion to sodomy from promising the American people that he opposed it when he ran for president in 2008, his version of sharia is homosexual marriage – which had never existed before not only in America but in all of human civilization prior to the year 2001.  Literally, the iPod is older than homosexual marriage!  Liberals try to tell me I’m the one whose all about sharia because I want to preserve the understanding of marriage as it has existed from the time that the very first human being began to walk upright.  They forget the fact that they are the radical ideologues who are out imposing themselves and their warped and depraved worldview onto culture that is already more than warped and depraved enough, thank you very much.

But I’m branded as “intolerant” because I agree with what the “world’s most tolerant man” promised America how he felt about marriage in 2008.

You want another example of the fact that liberals practice their own version of sharia law?  Well, do you know how it is a crime according to sharia law to say something bad about Muhammad?  Try going to any number of liberal-owned countries like the U.K. or Holland and try saying something bad about homosexuality.  People are now being ARRESTED for saying homosexuality is a sin, as the Bible overwhelmingly declares that it is.  A man went to jail for saying a police officer’s HORSE looked gay, for crying out loud.  A student was told by a liberal to remove her cross at a liberal university.  During the presidential campaign, liberal teachers attacked students for wearing Romney t-shirts (but never Obama t-shirts, of course).  And of course liberals love to force us to quit drinking soda or force us to eat the foods they want us to eat.  We just had liberals try to outlaw fires in fire pits on California beaches  because of their global warming crap.  Liberals are now literally trying to outlaw human behavior dating back to freaking CAVE MEN.  Because liberalism equals fascism equals their own weird version of sharia.  And one is as intolerant as the other.

You don’t have ANY examples of conservatives doing crap like this.  Other than the fact that they stood up for the view of marriage that every civilization IN THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF THE PLANET HELD.  And of course which Bill Clinton and Barack Obama falsely and dishonestly claimed that THEY supported until they had the chance to impose their fascism on society.

Liberalism is fascism, and fascism imposes itself on society by force of raw government power.

Murdering babies was wrong until it suddenly became “a right.”  Sodomy was wrong until it suddenly became “a right.”  Homosexual marriage was wrong until it suddenly became “a right.”  And murder and rape and child molestation are next on the docket, have no doubt.  Because morality is a constantly evolving thing, a spinning merry-go-round that just like “democracy” means whatever liberals say it means at any given moment.

Maybe decent people should have turned violent and started rioting and murdering people, after all?  Because as our democracy is stolen by liberals one giant chunk at a time, that pretty much seems like our only recourse, doesn’t it?  That was pretty much the condition our founding fathers found themselves in – having to deal with a tyrant king – and that is basically the state of affairs we find ourselves in today in this the age of Pharaoh-god-king Obama and his constant torrent of lies and abuse of his Internal Revenge Service to persecute the people on his enemies list.

In these last days, as “America” is “fundamentally transformed” into “God damn America, we’re going to increasingly begin to race toward Sodom and Gomorrah until we get the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah that we deserve.  And then we’ll worship the beast and take his mark just as Revelation chapter 13 promises that we will.  What will increasingly happen in the last days is that evil will so prevail and so contaminate and encompass everything that there is no “right way” but only various shades of evil.  Violence will become the state of affairs because nothing else will work.  But of course violence only works until the next violent group comes along as violence begets more violence.

I hope you noticed that I kept putting “Democrat” in quotes.  That’s because it is a word that fascist “Democrats” intended to hearken to the term “democracy.”  Only it very clearly doesn’t.  Rather, it is a “homophone” – which refers to a word that sounds the same as another word but means a very different thing.  “Homos” seem to be a recurring theme with the “Democrat” Party.

Advertisements

Blame Barack Obama And Failed Democrat Policies For North Korea

April 5, 2013

Let’s see.  Under the Obama presidency and under his regime, North Korea has had two nuclear tests, repeatedly tested ballistic missiles, threatened America more times than in ANY previous administration, and just moved missiles to threaten South Korea.  Right after re-starting a nuclear plant that they had shut down under Bush.

Generals and foreign policy experts are saying that North Korea – under the Obama regime’s handling, mind you – is a greater threat than it has EVER been.

Meanwhile, under Obama’s failed presidency, we had the meltdown that the mainstream media liberals so idiotically called “the Arab Spring.”  We had violent revolutions across the Arab world as the governments of vital U.S. allies were toppled by terrorist organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.  With Egypt now instituting sharia law to complete the insult.  We have incredible bloodbaths under Obama with Syria’s death toll now numbering over 70,000.   We have Iran on the verge of getting their nukes and their ballistic missiles and their Armageddon.  And where are the hypocrite Democrats now who teed off so viciously on George W. Bush???  Where are they in decrying Obama for a far, far worse and more unstable world?

Let’s get in our memory trains and take a little ride, when Obama’s future Secretary of State was demagoguing Bush in the most savage way imaginable:

Democrats blew it on North Korea
Now they should join Republicans to force changes in the country’s behavior
October 15, 2006 12:00 am
By Jack Kelly / Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

If Democrats went after America’s enemies with the ruthlessness with which  they attack Republicans, the Axis of Evil would be toast.

No sooner had North Korea completed its (botched or faked) nuclear bomb test  last weekend than Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid and Sen. Hillary Clinton,  D-N.Y., were blaming it on “the failed policies of the Bush administration.”

That annoyed Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.:

“I would remind Sen. Clinton . . . that the framework agreement her husband’s  administration negotiated was a failure,” he said. “Every single time the  Clinton administration warned the Koreans not to do something — not to kick out  the IAEA inspectors, not to remove the fuel rods from their reactor — they did  it. And they were rewarded every single time by the Clinton administration with  further talks.”

Media commentators spun Mr. McCain’s remarks as jockeying with Ms. Clinton  for the presidency in 2008, but in fact Mr. McCain had been speaking out against  her husband’s Agreed Framework deal with North Korea since May of 1994.

Here is the history Democrats would like you to forget: The CIA began  worrying in the late 1980s that North Korea was trying to build an atomic bomb.  President Clinton attempted to head them off by offering a massive bribe. If the  North Koreans would forgo their nuke plans, the United States would provide them  with 500,000 tons of free fuel oil each year, massive food aid and build for  them two $2 billion nuclear power plants. The deal made North Korea the largest  recipient of U.S. foreign aid in Asia.

Mr. McCain was against the deal from the get-go, because it was all carrots  and no sticks, and there were no safeguards against North Korean cheating.

North Korea took the bribes President Clinton offered, and kept working on  its bomb.

Two experts told a House committee in April of 2000 that North Korea was  producing enough highly radioactive material then to build a dozen bombs a year,  but it is unclear when the North actually built a bomb (if yet) because our  intelligence on the reclusive regime there is so poor.

Most experts think North Korea restarted its nuclear weapons program between  1997 and 1999, said Paul Kerr of the Arms Control Association. But the  Congressional Research Service thinks the North began cheating in 1995.

Signs of cheating were abundant by 2000. Secretary of State Madeleine  Albright flew to Pyongyang that October to put lipstick on the pig. She offered  dictator Kim Jong Il a relaxation of economic sanctions if he’d limit North  Korea’s missile development. Kim took those carrots too, but kept building  missiles.

The Bush administration called North Korea on its cheating and suspended fuel  aid pending an improvement in its behavior. North Korea declared (in 2002) it  had the bomb, and the United States organized the six-party talks to try to  persuade it to give up its nuclear ambitions.

Like Mr. McCain, I thought the Agreed Framework was a bad idea from the  get-go. But I don’t blame the Clinton administration (very much) for trying.  Massive bribery hadn’t been tried before, and if it had worked, it certainly  would have been preferable to war. And, since as far as we know, serious  cheating didn’t begin until 1997 or 1998, it can be argued the deal did buy us a  little time.

But even though the ultimate failure of the Clinton policy of appeasement is  excusable, the refusal of Democrats to acknowledge that failure is not.

Democrats tend to view foreign policy crises through the narrow prism of  their impact on domestic politics. But the villain here isn’t Bill Clinton or  George Bush. It’s Kim Jong Il. And what’s important here is not which party  controls the House of Representatives. It’s whether we can prevent a second  Korean War.

Democrats ordinarily make a fetish of “multilateralism,” which is what  President Bush has been pursuing through the six-party talks, the only format  that offers hope of reining in North Korea short of war, because only China is  in a position to force North Korea to behave.

Kim wants direct negotiations with the United States, both to undermine the  six-party talks, and because he wants to return to the good old days when the  Clinton administration was providing him with aid in exchange for, in effect,  nothing. Democrats, astoundingly, want to give him exactly what he wants,  without first insisting upon a change in his behavior. They would rather restore  a failed policy than admit a mistake.

If tragedy is to be avoided, Democrats must stop putting their partisan  ambitions ahead of the security of the United States.

And, of course, to this day, if Obama were to attack North Korea with as much vile as he has repeatedly attacked Republicans, the Axis of Evil “toast” would be a pile of burnt ash.

I contemplate Kim Jong-Un’s fearmongering rhetoric and have a hard time telling the difference from Obama’s rhetoric on issues such as the sequester.  Both men seem to very much have in common a complete lack of grasp on reality when they are dealing with their political foes.  Just as both men’s national press corps’ seem to have the same determination to present whatever the hell their “dear leaders” are saying with as much deceit.

Democrats, who were of course nearly completely responsible for North Korea’s nuclear weapons program, attacked, backbit, undermined, slandered and demonized George Bush at every turn in his attempt to hold talks that would include China as the ONLY country that could reign in North Korea.

Let’s go back and remind ourselves of that, as well:

The radioactive glow had barely worn off Kim Jong Il’s face when liberals began to lay the blame for North Korea’s detonation of a small nuclear device (maybe) at George W. Bush’s feet. But their criticisms have left many of us downright confused.

On North Korea, Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid complained, “the Bush administration … [has] made America less secure.” His remedy? “Speak directly with the North Koreans so they understand we will not continue to stand on the sidelines.” Sen. Joe Biden (D.-Del.), the senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, concurred that “the strategy must include direct engagement with the North [Koreans].”

Potential Democratic presidential aspirants also want the U.S. to assume the lead role in this unfolding drama. Sen. Russ Feingold (D.-Wisc.) demanded that the Bush administration jettison its “hands-off approach to North Korea,” because “the stakes are too high to rely on others.” And Sen. John Kerry (D.-Mass.) noted that “for five years, I have been calling for the United States to engage in direct talks with North Korea” and “for five years this administration has ignored them.”

But, rather than ignore the metastasizing cancer in North Korea, the United States has expended considerable diplomatic capital on the so-called six-party talks — the long-running effort by the U.S., China, Russia, South Korea and Japan to convince Kim Jong Il to abandon his nuclear program. This multilateral process, moreover, grew out of the failed Clinton-era effort to engage the North Koreans directly. Sen. John McCain (R.-Ariz.) recently described that process in scathing terms: “Every single time the Clinton administration warned the Koreans not to do something –not to kick out the IAEA inspectors, not to remove the fuel rods from the reactor — they did it. And they were rewarded every single time by the Clinton administration with further talks.”

President Bush abandoned the one-on-one approach when he learned that the North Koreans violated their agreement not to enrich uranium (in exchange for a cool $350 million in fuel), opting instead to invite China and the other regional powers into the process. Thus began three years and five frustrating rounds of six-party talks. At first North Korea participated. Then in February 2005 it withdrew in a huff, only to re-engage a few months later for two more grueling rounds. Finally, Kim Jong Il sent a clear message about these talks when he launched two short-range missiles into the Sea of Japan in March of this year, then seven more over the 4th of July weekend.
Kerry and his allies dismiss this aggressive form of multilateral diplomacy as nothing more than “cover for the administration to avoid direct discussions.”

Hence the confusion. We thought that one of the major foreign policy fault lines separating liberals from conservatives has been whether the United States should reserve the right to act unilaterally to protect its national interests (the conservative position favored by Bush) or whether we should act only after securing the support of our allies (the liberal position embraced by Kerry and virtually all Democrats).

As a presidential candidate, John Kerry summed up the multilateral approach: “Alliances matter. We can’t simply go it alone.” We must exhaust all avenues of diplomacy, persuade rather than bully, and “assemble a team.” The Bush administration’s “blustering unilateralism,” he concluded, is “wrong, and even dangerous, for our country.” And nowhere, Kerry said, is the need for multilateral action more “clear or urgent” than when it comes to preventing the proliferation of nuclear materials and weapons of mass destruction.

And that leads us to North Korea. It appears Kerry favored the multilateral approach before he opposed it. In a major foreign policy address at Georgetown University in 2003, he actually praised Bush’s engagement in the six-party talks: “Finally, the administration is rightly working with allies in the region — acting multilaterally — to put pressure on Pyongyang.” And, he added, “the question is why you’d ever want to be so committed to unilateralist dogma that you’d get on [that merry go round] in the first place.”

So what gives? Isn’t it time for lawmakers to transcend the finger-pointing and focus on the real issue?

Let’s give Sen, Mitch McConnell (R.-Ky.) the last word: “The president’s political opponents attack him for a ‘unilateral’ approach to Iraq. Now they attack him over a multilateral approach to North Korea. Listening to some Democrats, you’d think the enemy was George Bush, not Kim Jong Il.”

Mike Franc, who has held a number of positions on Capitol Hill, is vice president of Government Relations at The Heritage Foundation.

North Korea is now a more psychotic threat than ever before.  But where’s all the denunciations of Obama from the ideologues who used to reign blame down on George Bush???

Remember how the president of the United States was responsible for absolutely everything that went wrong when Bush was that president?  Now we have a president who absolves himself as being responsible for ANYTHING while we’ve got a media that has actively covered up for his failures.  And where are we now?

Our greatest statesman today seems to be Dennis Rodman.

We are watching rogue nation after rogue nation rearing its ugly head and rising to threaten the world because they know that a weakling and a coward is the pathetic failed leader of once-great America.

We are also watching the United States of America degenerate into a banana republic under this failed presidency.  Our welfare roles are rising even faster than the nuclear-armed dictators who shake their fists at us.

Here’s one for you: if Republicans were even a FRACTION as treasonous and willing to undermine America’s national security for cynical political advantage as Democrats have been, they would be demanding that Obama hold one-to-one talks with Kim Jong-Un the way Democrats did when Bush was president.

You probably wouldn’t want me as president: what I would have done – whether in 2006 or today – would be to arm Taiwan with nuclear weapons (to the frothing and rabid outrage of China, which claims that Taiwan is part of China).  And I would simply tell China: “North Korea’s nuclear weapons are every bit as unacceptable to the United States as Taiwan’s having nuclear weapons is to you.  Disarm North Korea’s nukes and we’ll disarm Taiwan’s nukes.”

Obama Throws Jesus Under Bus, Says To UN, ‘The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam’

September 28, 2012

That turning the other cheek stuff and not living by the sword stuff is great for a peaceful religion and all, but true cynical political weasels like Barack Obama will throw that crap out if the “other religion” rises up in a spirit of hate and murder at the drop of a hat.

I call it the “Neville Chamberlain Syndrome.”  It is the spirit of appeasement and weakness and raw cowardice.

I can now officially rename it the “Barack Obama Syndrome”:

President Obama Declares The Future Must Not Belong to Practicing Christians
By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  September 25th, 2012 at 11:20 AM

In his speech to the United Nations General Assembly today the President of the United States declared that the future does not belong to practicing Christians. Already, the media and the left are in full denial, probably based on their general lack of understanding of theology. This would have been a gaffe had Mitt Romney said it. But with Barack Obama, he’s just speaking bold truths. His bold truth declares that the future does not belong to practicing Christians.

Pay careful attention to what he says.

The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. Yet to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see when the image of Jesus Christ is desecrated, churches are destroyed, or the Holocaust is denied. Let us condemn incitement against Sufi Muslims, and Shiite pilgrims. It is time to heed the words of Gandhi: “Intolerance is itself a form of violence and an obstacle to the growth of a true democratic spirit.” Together, we must work towards a world where we are strengthened by our differences, and not defined by them. That is what America embodies, and that is the vision we will support.

Now, that’s the full paragraph so no one can claim I took him out of context.

But consider this.

It is an orthodox Christian belief that Mohammed is not a prophet. Actual Christians, as opposed to many of the supposed Christians put up by the mainstream media, believe that Christ is the only way to salvation. Believing that is slandering Mohammed. That’s just a fact. If you don’t believe me, you go into the Middle East and proclaim Christ is the way, the truth, and the life and see what happens to your life.

Then Barack Obama went on to say “Yet to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see when the image of Jesus Christ is desecrated, churches are destroyed, or the Holocaust is denied.” Note he says we cannot “slander the prophet of Islam” but it’s only the image of Christ in the next sentence — not actually Christ himself desecrated. If this is so, why does Barack Obama’s government continue funding the National Endowment for the Arts, which funded Christ in piss, the Virgin Mary painted in dung, etc.?

Now, in point of fact, this is a major difference between Islam and Christianity. Christ came to this world as an enemy of the world and expected to be impugned. He also tells his followers that they should expect to be impugned. There is joy in being persecuted for following the Risen Lord. In Islam, if you impugn Mohammed, you get a fatwa on your butt.

And then there is the first amendment. The President of the United States tried to have it both ways in his speech.

I know there are some who ask why we don’t just ban such a video. The answer is enshrined in our laws: our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech. Here in the United States, countless publications provoke offense. Like me, the majority of Americans are Christian, and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs. Moreover, as President of our country, and Commander-in-Chief of our military, I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day, and I will always defend their right to do so. Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views – even views that we disagree with.

We do so not because we support hateful speech, but because our Founders understood that without such protections, the capacity of each individual to express their own views, and practice their own faith, may be threatened. We do so because in a diverse society, efforts to restrict speech can become a tool to silence critics, or oppress minorities. We do so because given the power of faith in our lives, and the passion that religious differences can inflame, the strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression, it is more speech – the voices of tolerance that rally against bigotry and blasphemy, and lift up the values of understanding and mutual respect.

I know that not all countries in this body share this understanding of the protection of free speech. Yet in 2012, at a time when anyone with a cell phone can spread offensive views around the world with the click of a button, the notion that we can control the flow of information is obsolete. The question, then, is how we respond. And on this we must agree: there is no speech that justifies mindless violence.

Just words, Mr. President? You say “there is no speech that justifies mindless violence,” but all last week you condemned a ridiculous video trailer for a movie that does not exist. Your government ran advertisements in Pakistan denouncing the video. What of free speech, Mr. President? Last week you were saying the violence was understandable given the offensive film and this week you are trying to claim it was mindless.

Oh wait, you did it again in the same speech where you said “there is no speech that justifies mindless violence”:

At times, the conflicts arise along the fault lines of faith, race or tribe; and often they arise from the difficulties of reconciling tradition and faith with the diversity and interdependence of the modern world. In every country, there are those who find different religious beliefs threatening; in every culture, those who love freedom for themselves must ask how much they are willing to tolerate freedom for others.

That is what we saw play out the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world.

Time and again the President of the United States tries to have it both ways.

But are they just words?

The fact is, many religions do not recognize Mohammed as a prophet. In the widest swath of Islam, that denial is, in and of itself, slander. So what exactly are you saying Mr. President?

As an exit point, with all of President Obama’s statements on tolerance in his speech, we should remember that tolerance is really not a Christian virtue. As Archbishop Chaput of Philadelphia noted, “We need to remember that tolerance is not a Christian virtue. Charity, justice, mercy, prudence, honesty — these are Christian virtues. And obviously, in a diverse community, tolerance is an important working principle. But it’s never an end itself.” The Archbishop also noted that evil preaches tolerance until it is dominate and then it seeks to silence good. That’s not a statement that the President is evil in any way, shape, or form, but we should be mindful when the secular world demands tolerance for all, tolerance for all means we cannot have standards of faith to live by, because those standards obviously require we be intolerant of sins this world has embraced.

Now, the above isn’t funny at all, but it still reminds me of a joke:

When Obama died, George Washington met him at the Pearly Gates. He slapped him across the face and yelled,  “How dare you try to destroy the Nation I helped conceive?”

Patrick Henry approached, punched him in the nose and shouted, “You wanted to end our liberties but you failed.”

James Madison followed, kicked him in the groin and said, “This is why I allowed our government to provide for the common defense!”

Thomas Jefferson was next, beat Obama with a long cane and snarled, “It was evil men like you who inspired me to write the Declaration of Independence.”

The beatings and thrashings continued as James Monroe and 66 other early Americans unleashed their anger on the radical, socialist, leader.

As Obama lay bleeding and in pain, an Angel appeared. Obama wept and said, “This is not what you promised me.”

The Angel replied, “I told you there would be 72 VIRGINIANS waiting for you in Heaven. What did you think I said? You really need to listen when someone is trying to tell you something!”

Muslim leaders and Islamic global organizations are demanding that the West and the United States impose the blasphemy laws that are a major part of sharia law.  And that very much includes Muslims in America.

We used to be a nation that was under the Constitution and protected by the 1st Amendment’s guarantee of free speech, but we’ve now got an administration that has REPEATEDLY apologized for some stupid video that we now know had absolutely nothing to do with the riots and particularly nothing to do with the TERRORIST ATTACK that every key member of the Obama administration spent a week denying was a terrorist attack.  We now know that the administration lied and covered up that terrorist attack for a full week and is STILL engaged in trying to cover upABC News now reports that some administration officials were concerned over the stream of lies that were coming out of Obama’s mouth, out of Hillary Clinton’s mouth, out of Susan Rice’s mouth and out of Jay Carney’s mouth.  But the lies kept coming anyway.  The Obama regime’s actions since the US Consulate in Libya was destroyed and our ambassador was murdered in a TERRORIST ATTACK has been nothing short of astonishing.  And even Democrats are demanding answers for Obama’s lies and cover ups.

This is turning into something not short of Benghazi-gate.

But let me get back to Obama’s hostility toward Jesus.

There is something in the Bible that we see in the process of happening right before out eyes.  Daniel 9:27 prophesies a seven-year covenant that Israel will sign with the coming Antichrist who is called the beast in the Book of Revelation (a simpler explanation is provided here).  Basically, the seven-year Tribulation will be officially kicked off with Israel signing this seven-year peace treaty with the soon-coming beast.

There was a time when Israel could count on the United States to stand by her even if every single nation on earth was against her regardless of whether Republicans or Democrats were running the country.  That time is OVER.

Israelis have long understood that Barack Obama was not their friend.  That is a documented fact.

An Israeli official just wrote:

“President Clinton made us feel like he had our back [at Camp David]. When we made concessions that were greater than anything an Israeli government had ever offered, we felt he’d be there if things went bad. Would he have been there? I don’t know. But it felt that way, and it put us in a different frame of mind. President Obama doesn’t give us the same sense that he’d be there.”

We know from Scripture that Israel will sign a 7-year covenant with the Antichrist and we know that the day that happens the world will officially enter the worst seven year period in the entire history of the human race.

And as we watch Obama refusing to meet with an Israeli Prime Minister who is becoming increasingly frightened by the fact that Obama has allowed Israel’s mortal enemy Iran to massively advance toward nuclear weapons, and as we see Israel feeling increasingly isolated from its historic protector the United States, I can assure you that it will be no surprise when Israel tries to take refuge in a promise of protection from the Antichrist.

The beast of Revelation is coming.  And Barack Obama has done more to usher in his arrival than any human being who has ever lived.

Just remember that Obama says you don’t dare “slander the prophet of Islam.”  You can literally piss on Jesus all you want, though.

I’m with this guy:

Crisis In Egypt Underscores The Problem Of Islam – AND LIBERALISM

February 2, 2011

It has rightly been said that Islam is a murderous totalitarian political ideology masquerading as a religion.

That fact makes an “Islamic democracy” a contradiction in terms.  You simply cannot have both.  If you want a democracy, you cannot have Islam; if you want Islam, you cannot have a democracy.

If you have a large population of Muslims living in a country, there are only two alternatives for governing that state: a totalitarian dictatorship, which is what we essentially have seen in Egypt under Hosni Mubarak, or a religious theocracy such as we see in Iran today.

Even alleged counterexamples, such as Turkey, are transforming.  Turkey is steadily becoming “less Europe, and more Islam.”  And I believe – primarily as a student of Bible prophecy – that Turkey will ultimately end up in the Islamic column.  It will ultimately be one of the Islamic nations that attacks Israel in the last days.

Jordan, which is at least less thuggish than most other Islamic countries, is reaping the whirlwind of Islamic unrest just as Egypt, Yemen, Tunisia and Algeria.

Democracy becomes nothing but a tool for radical Islam – which itself utterly despises democracy.  Tayyip Erdogan compared democracy to a bus, saying, “You ride it to your destination, and then you step off.”

Other Muslims are even more crystal clear: Tarek Ramadan states:

“We must exploit the so-called democracy and freedom of speech here in the West to reach our goals.  Our Prophet Muhammad … and the Quran teach us that we must use every conceivable means and opportunity to defeat the enemies of Allah.  Tell the infidels in public, we respect your laws and your constitutions, which we Muslims believe that these are as worthless as the paper they are written on.  The only law we must respect and apply is the Sharia’s.”

Imams in England say, “You have to live like a state within a state until you take over.”  And Mohamed Akram says of America, Muslims “must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within.”  While Omar Ahmad says, “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant … The Quran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.”

For the record, I found all the above quotes from Tulsaworld.com.  And of course there are a million more where those came from.

We have a problem.  We want the world to benefit from democracy.  We want to spread the superiority of democracy as a political system.  We want to benefit from the fact that no democracy has ever once attacked another democracy.

But Muslims take our democracy, pervert it and exploit it for their own ideological advantage with a very radically different political system in mind.  And we tolerate this why?

One of the things that makes Islam so dangerous is that it puts itself and it’s prophet Muhammad above and beyond questioning or criticism.  As a case in point, the Danish cartoons revealed that the entire Muslim world will go berserk and literally become murderous over even the slightest “slights.”  Compare the Danish cartoons to the routine insults suffered by Christianity, such as placing a crucifix bearing an image of Christ in a jar of urine and calling it “art.”  That mindset represents the death of even the possibility of a free society.

Liberalism and secular humanism merely weakens our own society and makes us more ripe for the picking: to begin with, liberals react through their cultural relativism (e.g., “pluralism,” “multiculturalism”) by essentially saying, “We must not offend.”  And they proceed to actually help the radical Muslim extremists impose their system.  Liberal media routinely attack Jesus Christ and Christianity, but they are only all too willing to self-censor themselves when it comes to Muhammad and Islam.

And yet Christianity brought us the democracy liberals claim to love, while Islam is antithetical to it.  Liberals are literally helping radical Muslims poison the tree of democracy and freedom.

There’s more.  One of the reasons we so frequently see liberals enabling radical Islam is because it turns out that liberals and the sorts of radical Muslims I have already introduced share the same tactics.

Case in point: three quotes from Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals:

  • The tenth rule of the ethics of rules and means is that you do what you can with what you have and clothe it in moral arguments. …the essence of Lenin’s speeches during this period was “They have the guns and therefore we are for peace and for reformation through the ballot. When we have the guns then it will be through the bullet.” And it was. — P.36-37
  • …The third rule is: Wherever possible go outside the experience of the enemy.  Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.
  • …the fourth rule is: Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.

You look at what the Muslims are saying above, and you look at what liberal Saul Alinsky is saying here, and they are advocating identical tactics, with basically the same goal in mind: Muslims want sharia, with total power over a government that itself has total power; and liberals want control over a big government system which extends over every sphere of life.  And both say, “make the enemy live up to their own rules.”  Let’s take advantage of their morality and use it against them as a weapon.

And, of course, when Muhammad was weak (e.g., his Mecca phase), Islam was tolerant and peaceful; when Muhammad’s forces became strong (his Medina phase), Islam suddenly became profoundly intolerant, determined to impose itself and determined to use as much force as was necessary to attain its ends.  That is exactly what the American political left says.  And the only thing that that American liberals are truly intolerant of is Christianity and political conservatism.

And what is even more frightening is that America today actually has a president who actually lectured and taught from Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals as a community organizer.  As Discover The Networks points out, “For several years, Obama himself taught workshops on the Alinsky method. Also, beginning in the mid-1980s, Obama worked with ACORN, the Alinskyite grassroots political organization that grew out of George Wiley‘s National Welfare Rights Organization (NWRO).”

Part of this idea of using your opponent’s own morality against them turns into the strength of radical Islam and the weakness of liberalism when the two confront one another.  As one example, think of Jimmy Carter undermining the Shah of Iran – who clearly was a dictator, but a pro-American dictator.  Carter allowed the Shah to be deposed, and got as his reward the Ayatollah and an Iranian theocratic regime that undermined and ultimately deposed Carter via the hostage crisis that played out day after day through the Carter presidency.

And here Obama is apparently doing much the same thing: we find out that Obama has secretly been backing rebels of the Mubarak regime from the Wikileaks papers.

Barack Obama invited the terrorist organization known as the Muslim Brotherhood when he gave his speech in Cairo – the very same group that is poised to wreak havoc in that same city today.  And Obama – who is on the record siding with the Egyptian demonstrators against secular tyrant Mubarak – was pointedly absent from siding with the Iranian demonstrators against theocratic tyrant Ahmadinejad.  That contrasted with Obama making statements against Mubarak’s regime such that the Egyptian foreign ministry says  Obama’s words actually “inflame the internal situation in Egypt”  as the situation turns increasingly deadly and more and more signs are being written in English for American media consumption.  Bizarrely, it is almost as if liberals prefer Islamic theocratic tyrants over secular Muslim leaders.

It’s very easy to pooh-pooh thugs like Mubarak or the Shah and denounce their despotism.  But if you take away the thug, what else is there to control a people who will ultimately insist upon an Islamic theocracy?  You roll the dice and take your chances.  And in Islam, the “chances” have a pronounced historic tendency to become anti-American theocracies.  Which become even worse dictatorships then the ones that bleeding-heart liberals decried in the first place.

Liberals decry religion as being anti-democratic, never realizing that it is they – rather than religion – who are profoundly anti-democratic.  A few quotes from the founding fathers whose vision created the first sustained democracy:

“We have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and true religion. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

“…And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion…reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”
– George Washington, Farewell Address, Sept 17, 1796

“Religion and good morals are the only solid foundations of public liberty and happiness.”
– Samuel Adams, Letter to John Trumbull, October 16, 1778

“The great pillars of all government and of social life [are] virtue, morality, and religion. This is the armor…and this alone, that renders us invincible.”
– Patrick Henry, Letter to Archibald Blair, January 8, 1789

“Without morals, a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion…are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments.”
– Charles Carroll (signer of the Constitution), Letter to James McHenry, November 4, 1800

“Religion is the only solid basis of good morals; therefore education should teach the precepts of religion, and the duties of man towards God.”
– Life of Gouverneur Morris, Vol III

The Egyptian crisis reveals the problem of Islam:  You cannot have a nation of Muslims without tyranny.  It is only a matter of which form of tyranny you prefer.  Conversely, the same crisis is also revealing the problem of liberalism.  Because as they weaken our Christian religious foundations, the same liberals who would undermine Hosni Mubarak also undermine the very pillars that would enable us to resist the conquest of democracy by Islam.  And they further erode our once great democratic system by employing the very same tactics that our Muslim enemies are using against us.

Katie Couric Demonstrates How Moral Idiot Left Will Surrender America To Sharia

January 6, 2011

Glenn Beck (and yes, I know I’ve already lost most liberals, who believe that no matter how factually true something is, if it comes from Fox News or a Glenn Beck, it can be demonized and disregarded) had the following to say about renowned profoundly progressive journalist Walter Lippmann from his book Phantom Public:

In fact, the media is engaged in open propaganda for this administration. Not merely bias — what are you, nuts? They’re following a proud heritage of propagandists before them that began, as you might expect, if you’re a regular watcher of the show, around the time of — oh, I don’t know — what is his name? Woodrow Wilson.

One of Wilson’s close advisors was this guy, Walter Lippmann. He is a journalist who considered himself an icon among the liberal media, and the liberal media agrees. His methods and ideas are taught in college to our journalism students to this today.

You should read some of his books. I wonder if the people in his college that love him so much have actually read — oh, I don’t know — this is an original. This one is “Phantom Public.” You should read it. Spooky!

But what they teach in college is public opinion. These are things that these journalists are taught as a good thing. Quote, “News and truth are not the same thing.”

And quote, “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.”

In other words, you’re just too stupid. You don’t know it’s bad for you so we need a group of guys like this. Who has a big head and he can explain everything so we know it’s all for our own good.

Thank you very much. In fact, he believes that most citizens — and you’re going to love this, quote, “are mentally children.” Did you say that? Or barbarians. I can’t imagine why the journalists don’t just think this is guy is awful.

Things are starting to make sense now, aren’t they, about why you see journalists report the things that they do and treat the American people the way they do. Yes, they needed to be guided by intellectuals such as Walter Lippmann.

And hence the origin of the mainstream media class of journalistic snobbery; they’re better than you, they’re liberal as hell (and hellish as liberals), and whatever they think is right merely because they think it.  And of course they’re better than the 80% of the country who don’t share their values.

Katie Couric And Mo Rocca Show Us Why We’re Going To Lose Our Freedom To Sharia
Posted on January 1, 2011 by John L. Work

With thanks to Doug Powers over at Michelle Malkin’s site Hey.  Want to know why we’re headed toward losing this War against the forces of Islam – the same ones that declared eternal war on the World of Infidels way back in the 7th Century?  Watch this CBS video clip, featuring Katie Couric as the host, with Mo Rocca as a guest, in a discussion on the alleged terrible bigotry and hate that Katie says America has exhibited toward Muslims (I removed their stuttering in my transcription):

http://michellemalkin.com/2010/12/31/katie-couric-maybe-we-need-a-muslim-version-of-the-cosby-show/

KC:  I also think sort of the chasm between, or the bigotry expressed against Muslims in this country has been one of the most disturbing stories to surface this year.  Of course, a lot of noise was made about the Islamic center – mosque down near the World Trade Center.  But I think there wasn’t enough sort of careful evaluation of where this bigotry toward one point five billion Muslims world-wide, and how this seething hatred many people feel for all Muslims, which I think is so misdirected and so wrong, and so disappointing.

MR:  And you know one thing, I don’t know about you or either of you guys, but I’m pretty smart, and I cannot tell you…

KC:  (interrupts) We’ll be the judge of that, Mo.

MR:  …I mean I went to really fancy schools.  I cannot tell you five things about Islam.  I know almost nothing about a major world religion that sits at the intersection of so many issues that are undeniably relevant to all of us.  And I’m embarrassed.  I mean I know nothing about Islam.

KC:  Maybe we need a Muslim version of The Cosby Show.

MR:  Interesting.

KC:  I know that sounds crazy, but the Cosby Show did so much to change attitudes about African Americans in this country and I think sometimes people are afraid of things they don’t understand.  Like you, Mo.  You know, you’re saying you don’t know that much, your not afraid of it, but that you’re sort of, don’t have enough knowledge about it, but maybe if it became more part of the popular (inaudible)…

MR:  (interrupts)  Well, I think that religion should just be taught as an academic subject in public schools…

KC:  (interrupts)  I totally agree with you.

MR:  …much more.  The fear of it, it’s so misguided and the interpretation of separation between church and state

KC:  Alright.  Let’s change the subject in something a little less heavy.

End of clip

I rest my case.  For years this is what we’ve been force-fed by our media and by our elected officials about Islam.  Mindless apologist pabulum.  Ignorance.  Abject denial of reality.  Obstinate refusal to do a little homework and study.  If these so-called media icons had any real grip on the actual doctrines and practice of Sharia in Muslim states, they’d be damned afraid of it taking over here in the U.S.A.

Better to die free than to submit to Sharia.

It doesn’t really matter what the issue is; the mainstream media is waaaayy to the left of the rest of the nation’s values in its “reporting.”

So, for example, we can take the very issue that Katie Couric is lecturing America on – the Ground Zero mosque – and we can take her own CBS network’s polling.

From CBS:

NEW YORK (CBS 2) – Most Americans are against building a controversial mosque near Ground Zero, a CBS news poll has found.

According to the poll results,  only 22 percent of Americans surveyed think it’s appropriate to build the mosque and cultural center two blocks away, on Park Place.

On the other hand, 71 percent who responded said they think it’s not appropriate for the facility to go up so close to the World Trade Center site.

But, don’t you see?  “Most Americans” are QUOTE “mentally children,” and  so your beliefs and values can be disregarded.  And if the Katie Courics of the world simply have to flat-out lie to you, well, you’re too freaking stupid to understand the truth anyway.  And, as the great progressive big government bureaucrat Pontius Pilate famously asked, “What is truth?” (John 18:38), anyway?*

And public opinion needs to be managed by that “specialized class” of liberal elites.  Because, after all, liberal progressives have replaced God with themselves and with their superior ideas.  Just ask them.

Fellow progressive elitest “god-complexer” Bill Maher put the mindset well:

MAHER: Right, right. Uh, but, yeah, I mean, you know, they’re talking about 60 votes they need. Forget this stuff, 60…. You can’t get Americans to agree on anything 60 percent. Sixty percent of people don’t believe in evolution in this country.

He just needs to drag them to it. Like I just said, they’re stupid. Just drag them to this.  Get health care done, you know, with or without them. Make the Gang of Six an offer they can’t refuse. This Max Baucus guy? He needs to wake up tomorrow with an intern’s head in his bed.

That’s the amazing thing about liberals.  They are totally fascists; but they are such complete moral idiots that they don’t KNOW they’re fascists.

It would actually be funny, if these people weren’t so dangerous, and hadn’t amassed so much power and control which has enabled them to decide who wins and who loses.

And so they constantly lecture the right even as they do the above, and even as they try repeatedly to impose their oxymoronically-named “Fairness Doctrine,” and even as they now impose their again oxymoronically-named “Net Neutrality” to gain control over the internet.

But getting back to Sharia: it’s not that the left hates religion (atheism itself is a religion, you know, and “state atheism” is the religion of communism); it’s that the left despises Judeo-Christianity and everything it stands for.  And the left agrees with radical Islam that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”  Hence the left is all but openly aligning itself with radical Islam and sheltering the movement by demonizing anyone who would criticize it.  Why?  Because Islam becomes another device by which the left can demonize their more hated enemy, Judeo-Christianity, by depicting it as “intolerant” and “hateful.”   And after Christianity is undermined, liberals believe (naively and stupidly) that they can somehow reason with or appease the Islamists.

Which, again, is something only a true moral idiot would think.

I’m certainly not the only one who has perceived a liberal love affair with radical Islam; and I’m not the only one who has seen a liberal-Muslim axis.  And while liberals are too morally moronic to see themselves in this violent power-worshiping movement, all I have to do is say things like “Weather Underground,” “Black Panthers,” “Students for a Democratic Society,” all I have to do is name liberal icons such as “Che Guevara” or Charles Manson (as I once demonstrated to a particularly rabid liberal jerk once).

The fact of the matter is that liberals love violent revolutionary movements.

It’s funny.  General Eisenhower very prominently used the term “Crusade” – that came right out of Christendom – to describe the Allies’ war with and defeat of the evil forces of socialism (Nazi = National Socialist German Workers Party).  The fact of the matter is that Christendom has been the backbone that has allowed the West to stand up and fight its enemies since the first Crusade.

Which is to say that the day “progressivism” supposedly “wins” in its war on Judeo-Christianity, it will lose itself and all the values such as individual liberty that it never deserved in the first place.  And then progressives will get the totalitarian-tyrant they have always truly deserved.

As I’ve pointed out before, the beast is coming.

When American Greatness Is Gone, And When NASA = ‘National Aeronautics and Sharia Administration’

July 6, 2010

Houston, we have a problem.  Our president is a chucklehead.

I can imagine Barry Hussein sending a helmeted American astronaut to Mecca, live on video feed, and hearing him say as he steps inside, “That’s one small step for man, one giant step for Sharia.”

Any student of history worth at least a penny should be readily able to see how our Failure-in-Chief Obama represents everything that is declining, failing, and unsustainable.

John F. Kennedy said the following involving the “foremost” mission of NASA:

We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.

It is for these reasons that I regard the decision last year to shift our efforts in space from low to high gear as among the most important decisions that will be made during my incumbency in the office of the Presidency.

One could present a powerful argument that it was as a result of that speech that the United States dominated space and dominated space-age technology for the following forty-plus years.

But NASA just got new marching orders.  From the moon to Mars?  Nope.  From the moon to anywhere?  Nope.  From the moon to mediocrity?  You’re starting to get warm.

Now we have this from the Obama-appointee heading what USED to be the National Aeronautics and Space Administration:

NASA Administrator Charles Bolden said in a recent interview that his “foremost” mission as the head of America’s space exploration agency is to improve relations with the Muslim world.

Though international diplomacy would seem well outside NASA’s orbit, Bolden said in an interview with Al Jazeera that strengthening those ties was among the top tasks President Obama assigned him. He said better interaction with the Muslim world would ultimately advance space travel.

“When I became the NASA administrator — or before I became the NASA administrator — he charged me with three things. One was he wanted me to help re-inspire children to want to get into science and math, he wanted me to expand our international relationships, and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science … and math and engineering,” Bolden said in the interview.

So Obama’s new mission for NASA is first, not to go into space, second not to go into space, and third not to go into space.

Instead he’s got the most technologically powerful agency on earth doing his useless politically-correct hopey-changey crap.

And only Barry Hussein is naive enough to actually believe that Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda and the Taliban are going to quit hating us because we tore NASA apart and pissed it away.

What a legacy of failure from the worst failure to ever occupy the White House.  One can just look at the past few weeks to see what a useless turd Obama is.  I think of Vice President Joe Biden explaining how “Yes We Can” really meant “No We Can’t” on jobs:

there’s no possibility to restore 8 million jobs lost in the Great Recession.”

I think of Kennedy boldly saying “We choose to go to the moon!”  Do you realize how incredible that statement is?  Now we’ve got failures who don’t even have the balls to predict that we’re going to be able to restore jobs right here on earth – even with their “saved or created” bullcrap.

I see a 110-consecutive-year record of American manufacturing greatness pissed away under Obama.  And do I hear a bold determination to regain our lead?  “No We Can’t.”

OBAMA:  The US economy for a long period of time was the engine of world economic growth.  We were sucking in imports from all across the world financed by huge amounts of consumer debt.  Because of the financial crisis, but also because that debt was fundamentally unsustainable, the United States is not going to be able to serve in that same capacity to that same extent.

Obama’s tax-cheat treasury secretary Timothy Geithner chimed in:

“But I think the world understands now that world growth in the future can’t depend on the United States as much as it did in the past. So, for the world to grow together, we have to see more growth in the other major economies. Not just in the emerging markets, which are very strong now, in the United States.”

Because We Are All Socialists Now and our days of greatness in the world are now behind us in the age of Obama.

Mark Levin summarized Team Obama’s mindset:

Levin said this is a sign that the president wants to “rebalance the globe.”

“We selfish, piggish Americans, and all the rest of the people out there who we abuse in other countries, we’ve got to rebalance this ladies and gentlemen and he is going to rebalance this for us,” Levin said. “Do you know what that means in the mind of a Marxist? We become poorer so the others can become richer, and then we get equality.”

He later added, “You know what our enemies must be thinking? This is cool. We don’t even have to defeat them. We’ve got Obama. Obama’s on our side. He’ll defeat his own people for us. “

I think of Ronald Regan boldly predicting the downfall of an evil empire that covered a sixth of the globe and stretched over 11 time zones.  I think of Reagan boldly going to the Brandenburg Gate and saying, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.”  And succeeding in bringing down that vast, evil empire without firing a shot.  Now we’ve got failures who don’t even have the balls to believe that we can even possibly secure our damn border from an illegal invasion:

“Even as we are committed to doing what’s necessary to secure our borders, even without passage of the new law, there are those who argue that we should not move forward with any other elements of reform until we have fully sealed our borders,” said Obama. “But our borders are just too vast for us to be able to solve the problem only with fences and border patrols. It won’t work.

“It’s just too hard.”  “It won’t work.”  “No We Can’t.”  “Wah.”

Now, I’m sure that at this point some moral idiot will eventually challenge me that Reagan urged Russia to tear down it’s wall while people like me are demanding that we build a new wall of our own.  I say “moral idiot” because such a person doesn’t have the moral reasoning capability to differentiate between the wall the Soviets built to prevent people from escaping and the wall we would build to prevent people from illegally invading our country.

Go into space where no human has ever gone before?  Defeat the largest and mightiest military power on earth?  Regain our lost jobs, or our lost manufacturing capability?  Secure borders that are being overrun every single day?  Hell.  We’re not even up to the task of plugging a damn hole anymore under this “God damn America” loser.

Well, under Obama, America believes that it is an arrogant, mediocre nation that has nothing to offer but our bared throats and our apologies for terrible things we did such as defeat Nazism and world communism.

But there are a people who now believe that they have what the world needs: global domination under Islam and totalitarian sharia law.

Obama has bowed down to these people in every way imaginable – including literally:

So by all means, let’s strip American greatness to the bone.  Let’s transform one of our greatest agencies into a politically-correct tool of ideological asininity.  Let’s give up on our economy and job creation.  Let’s abandon our global standing in the world.

Because No We Can’t.