Of the sons of Issachar, men who understood the times, with knowledge of what Israel should do, their chiefs were two hundred; and all their kinsmen were at their command — 1 Chronicles 12:32
Interesting timeline: Kathy Griffin shows that yes, liberals actually ARE terrorist wannabes by giving us an ISIS -style-holding-victim’s-decapitated-head-money-shot. But instead of Nicholas Berg, liberals dream bigger and fantasize about sawing off the head of a US president. Which is to say that Democrats dream more evil than ISIS these days.
Compare and contrast:
You guys are on the same damn beyond-Nazi page now.
Okay, so then Hillary Clinton goes on her whackjob victimhood tour and in her first interview (the one before she finally returns to her victory “glass ceiling” November 8th venue where she stiffed her own supporters on election night) and provides 24 separate reasons why she lost the election (even blaming the DNC which she all but owned with her friend and supporter Debblie Blabbermouth Schultz running it and which literally CHEATED to get her the nomination from Bernie Sanders):
You liberals love saying Trump is crazy. Well, your witch just cited every crazy conspiracy theory about Trump and actually managed to even invent a few more herself. If alien abduction, bigfoot and Chupacabras aren’t in Hillary’s 24 theories, they’ll be her 25th, 26th and 27th reasons she’s a loser. That’s not normal, kids. That’s very, very Abbynormal. Just like Democrat whackjob behavior since the election has been.
Now, other than the fact that Hillary Clinton would have happily done the same terrorist photoshoot as Griffin given the chance, it turns out these two demonic witch shrews have a lot in common:
“I’m not afraid of Trump,” she said. “He’s a bully. I’ve dealt with older white guys trying to keep me down my whole career.”
You’re so BRAVE. Such a role model! So like Hillary! She stands up to bullies too!!!
But let’s forget to ask the question, “When you hold up the bloody, severed head of someone you claim is a “bully,” doesn’t that kind of mean you’re an atomic Nazi bully on steroids??? But please remember not to even consider asking such a stupid question.
I watched the video of her press conference where she is asked, “Do you have a fear for your career after this storm dies down?”
And here’s what our left-wing heroine begins to whine:
“I don’t think I’ll have a career after this. I think he … I think he … I think he … I’m going to be honest: he broke me. He broke me. He broke me. He broke… and then I was like, no this isn’t right. It’s just not right. And then I apologized because it was the right thing to do and I meant it. And then I saw the tide turning and I saw what they were doing and I went, ‘Oh, okay, they’re trying to spin this so they’re making it about Baron and, obviously that was never my intent. I would never want to hurt anyone, much less a child. But I started to see what was really happening. And then it was a mob-mentality pile on. And so many people have expressed to me personally across the country on my shows … they’re scared. so yeah. I don’t know.”
I mean, the left SHOULD be scared: they can’t even post pictures of themselves holding the severed head of the President of the United States of America without being criticized??? I mean, what the hell kind of place IS America if there is any kind of a moral boundary that only a damn BUG would ever cross???
Which amounts to a slightly different version of the left’s constant whackjob Russia hacking conspiracy: Kathy Griffin – much the same way that Hillary failed to have any kind of damn security on her illegal and corrupt secret private email server through which she could totally bypass pretty much all transparency laws and pretty much any law of any kind before purging it when it was under congressional subpoena and “wiping it, like with a cloth” – just accidentally forgot to wear her tinfoil hat one day. And we all know what happened: Trump’s Russian masters used their brain-hacking machines to force her to do a photo shoot acting out Islamic State’s wet dream fantasy. I mean, it wasn’t Griffin’s fault. It was Trump’s fault. Which means it had to be RUSSIA! Don’t you understand???
And, I mean, we all know that nobody would have ever done a story and no Democrat would have even mentioned it and the Obama White House wouldn’t have come down from their heights of Mt. Olympus had Ted Nugent done a photo shoot holding an image of Obama’s bloody severed head. I mean, right???
I mean, you won’t be able to find a single article about Ted Nugent being evil. Because when Ted Nugent mouthed off sans any visceral images whatsoever nobody cared at all.
So wearing a Halloween mask of a Democrat president, evil; holding the severed head of a Republican president, good. How does that not seem like psychotic hypocrisy?
And so Kathy Griffin needs to be utterly banned for life. If anybody anywhere pays her so much as one dime for her “performance,” they are acknowledging that liberalism equals terrorism. And we can hold up what THEY THEMSELVES demanded for a WHOLE HELL OF A LOT LESS as the proof in the hypocrite liberal roach-ridden pudding.
I’d say something like, “Let’s talk about this, because we’re all adults here. But we’re NOT all adults here: because some of us are liberals, and liberals are spoiled rotten little Nazi entitlement thug-brats. Liberals are people who use rhetorical jiu-jitsu to make themselves the victim in every single situation under the sun no matter what they hell they do – including murder sixty million innocent babies in their abortion mills. Which is why I call Democrats “cockroaches” fwiw: because you’ve got to be a damn vermin BUG to kill your own like that. Liberals are people who use twisted logic to distort themselves into some kind of victim status. And using their same twisted immoral logic, once they are the victims they win the game and are therefore entitled to everything they want no matter how psychotically unreasonable it is.
So Kathy Griffin plays the tough-but-somehow-still-whining liberal victim that Hillary had just played. But being liberals, needing to be victims so badly, both women lose all moral personal self-introspection and become victimhood machines. Hillary blames the DNC and even Obama because SHE is a liberal and therefore is she-who-cannot-accept-responsibility for her crappy campaign and her illegal actions the exposure which helped doom her crappy campaign.
But now Trump canceled the meaningless Paris environmentalist accord that wasn’t a treaty because nobody would ever have signed on to it that allowed the world’s worst polluter China to increase its pollution even more for another fifteen years. Liberals whine why it was canceled, claiming that it had no enforcement mechanism so why kill what was useless even as they say by killing it Trump just murdered planet earth. And as always they are going absolutely rabid batpoop over it. I woke up and put on my gas mask, because Trump poisoned our environment didn’t he?
Oh wait a minute. Beachfront property is STILL the most valuable real estate because every sane person knows liberals have breathed the gasses from their own spleens for too long; and also consider that the DOW, the Nasdaq and the S&P 500 ALL posted records today the day after liberals declared that Trump just murdered the planet. You have to listen to these nuts to see how nutty they are.
Kathy Griffin is right: liberals ARE scared. They are also neurotic and fragile and paranoid. They are not mentally stable people. They need to all be college students so they can establish their fascist safe-bubble-zone cocoons where only they are allowed to speak or to think. But this point the most mentally healthy liberal is merely boderline personality disorder versus full-fledge schizophrenic. Please don’t hold them responsible for all their violent riots. They can’t help themselves any more than the roach in your house can help itself. And when you turn on the light that roach is apologizing the whole time it’s scurrying to get under the refrigerator. Please don’t “break it” by stomping on it. It’s not its fault it’s pure unadulterated vermin. And it’s not Kathy Giffin’s fault that she’s one, either.
There are a lot of damn good reasons Donald Trump handed Hillary Clinton her head during the election, with only ONE reason being she was emailing her staff shrilly demanding that they invent some kind of message that Americans could actually support because the only reason she could offer was her own sense of entitlement. The sooner she stops leading disgraceful people into further acts of psychotic butthurt disgrace, the better off the rest of us will be.
I marvel at the hate and hypocrisy of the pseudo-tolerant left. There are hundrefs if not thousands of Christians who have faced genocidal martydom at the hands of ISIS. And leftist hater Kathy Griffin chooses to depict their favorite execution tactic. Meanwhile on the ABC program “The View,” the liberal women were dirctly comparing Christians to the Taliban who murder Christians. Because we feel that we have the right to vote our conscience where rabid liberal haters like Whoopie Goldberg and Joy Behar believe we have the right to hold our own severed heads.
“I will gather all the nations And bring them down to the valley of Jehoshaphat. Then I will enter into judgment with them there On behalf of My people and My inheritance, Israel, Whom they have scattered among the nations; And they have divided up My land.” — The Word of the LORD as declared in Joel 3:2,12
“Let the nations be wakened, and come up to the Valley of Jehoshaphat; for there I will sit to judge all the surrounding nations. Put in the sickle, for the harvest is ripe. Come, go down; for the winepress is full, the vats overflow– for their wickedness is great.” Multitudes, multitudes in the valley of decision! For the day of the Lord is near in the valley of decision. The sun and moon will grow dark, and the stars will diminish their brightness. The Lord also will roar from Zion, and utter His voice from Jerusalem; the heavens and earth will shake; But the Lord will be a shelter for His people, and the strength of the children of Israel. “So you shall know that I am the Lord your God, dwelling in Zion My holy mountain. Then Jerusalem shall be holy, and no aliens shall ever pass through her again.” (Joel 3:12-17)
‘A clamor has come to the end of the earth, Because the LORD has a controversy with the nations. He is entering into judgment with all flesh; As for the wicked, He has given them to the sword,’ declares the LORD. — Jeremiah 25:31
“For I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem to battle, and the city will be captured, the houses plundered, the women ravished and half of the city exiled, but the rest of the people will not be cut off from the city. Then the LORD will go forth and fight against those nations, as when He fights on a day of battle.” — Zechariah 14:2,3
At this point, I think it is beyond obvious: “all the nations” is prophetically speaking about the UNITED NATIONS that Barack Obama and John Kerry and their Democratic Party just used as a weapon against Israel.
Allow me to be crystal clear at the very outset: Israel – yes, Israel with its capital as Jerusalem – has a right to exist. It is the United Nations that has no right to exist. It is the Palestinian Authority and the terrorist organization Hamas that has no right to exist. It is Barack Hussein Obama, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton who have no right to exist.
The Democratic Party – the party of the murder of sixty million of God’s innocent babies as clearly stated according to Psalm 139:13-16, the party of defiant moral perversion according to Romans 1:18-32, the party that deifies the godless State above the LORD in the mold of 1 Samuel 8:4-22 – is with crystal clarity the party of Lucifer in his rabid hate for God’s nation of Israel.
It is simply a FACT that the United States has veto power of all U.N. Security Council Resolutions as a Permanent Member. And therefore, Barack Obama, John Kerry, and the Democratic Party are ENTIRELY RESPONSIBLE for the hateful, anti-Semitic, poisonous stab in the back that directly laid ALL the blame for the lack of peace in the Middle East upon Israel; and it declared that Israel literally has no right whatsoever to “occupy” it’s own holiest city of Jerusalem.
Famous Harvard Law professor and attorney Alan Dershowitz is livid with President Obama for allegedly deceiving him in an Oval Office meeting.
The White House’s decision Friday to refuse to rebuke a United Nations Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlement construction drew the ire of longtime Israel supporter Mr. Dershowitz, who told Fox News Monday that in a private meeting with the president prior to Election Day, Mr. Obama vowed to “have Israel’s back.”
The council approved the resolution with 14 votes after a U.S. abstention.
“He called me into the Oval Office before the election and he said to me, ‘Alan, I want your support. And I have to tell you, I will always have Israel’s back,’” Mr. Dershowitz said of the president. “I didn’t realize that what he meant was that he would have their back to stab them in the back. He just stabbed them in the back.”
The lawyer said complicating such matters for a successor during a lame-duck period is the “most undemocratic thing a president can do.”
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has long had a cool relationship with President Barack Obama, has called the resolution “shameful” and accused the U.S. of playing a leading role in its passage.
On Tuesday, his spokesman went even further.
“We have ironclad information that emanates from sources in the Arab world and that shows the Obama administration helped craft this resolution and pushed hard for its eventual passage,” David Keyes said.
“We’re not just going to be a punching bag and go quietly into the night as the Obama administration helps push such a grave resolution,” he said.
He did not identify the Arab sources or say how Israel obtained the information. Israel has close security ties with Egypt, an original sponsor of last week’s resolution. Under heavy Israeli pressure, Egypt delayed the resolution last week before other council members presented it for a vote a day later. Egypt ended up voting in favor of the measure.
Keyes claim mirrors that of his boss Netanyahu, who told his Cabinet on Sunday: “From the information that we have, we have no doubt that the Obama Administration initiated it, stood behind it, coordinated on the wording and demanded that it be passed.”
There is no point giving evidence to the administration that illegally and treasonously weaponized the Internal Revenue Service into the Internal Revenge Service and targeted conservatives and then refused to allow the evidence of their crime to emerge; there is no point giving evidence to the administration that illegally and treasonously allowed then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to build an illegal secret server and then helped her to conceal the evidences of her crime; there is no point giving evidence to the administration that actually – in proof of their gigantic hypocrisy given their outcry over Russia interfering in the U.S. elections – conspired with the political enemies of the Prime Minister of Israel in the Israeli election (see here and here).
If Russia did anything wrong, then Obama belongs in a prison cell. Because he even MORE directly tried to interfere in the democratic election of a sovereign government.
Furthermore, if what Obama has now done – both with Israel and with Russia as Obama tries to impose sanctions on Putin for something that yes Obama YOU did WORSE – then every single Democrat in America just gave Donald Trump unilateral authority to do ANYTHING he damn well wants the day before a Democrat President takes office to poison the waters for the next Democrat. And this is nothing more than one more of a billion evidences as to what stinking piles of hypocrite FILTH Democrats truly are. Because every single morally sentient being on planet earth knows for a FACT how Democrats would howl if one of ours did to one of theirs what they are right now doing to us.
Russia RIGHTLY mocks Obama. They have said of his pathetic and way-WAY-too-late posturing that his actions were “the death throes of political corpses,” and even better yet, calling the Obama administration “a group of embittered and dim-witted foreign policy losers.” Both descriptions are ENTIRELY appropriate to Barack Obama, who has revealed himself to be the most petty and pathetic loser in American presidential history. Under Obama’s failed presidency, his party lost MASSIVELY: a net loss of 1,042 state and federal Democratic posts, including congressional and state legislative seats, governorships and the presidency. Yet the fool vainly boasts that he would have won were the Constitution that he has proven for eight years he despises was not in place. And as bad as Obama was for his political party, he was even WORSE for his nation’s standing in the world: under Obama, our military became a broken machine; our national credibility has been destroyed both in terms of the trust of our allies and in terms of the fear inspired in our enemies – Russia’s as well as China’s constant intimidation of Obama KNOWING he would do NOTHING is proof of that. And under Obama, the world went mad as we suffered a beyond-staggering one-thousand, nine-hundred percent increase in deaths by terrorism since the disgraced fool assumed office in 2009. Under Obama, the United States of America attacked Israel for building homes while more than half a MILLION human beings were butchered and as a direct result of Obama’s failure to LEAD untold millions are now refugees disrupting and destabilizing every nation on earth.
Any human being capable of possessing so much as a scintilla of wisdom would be humble had he failed as much as Obama has failed. But Obama is a unique species of self-righteously arrogant pathological fool. He is like the gambler who has already lost everything, but simply cannot stop himself from one more stupid attempt to win it all back.
Israel says it will wait until Obama’s stink is vacuumed and scrubbed out of the Oval Office before it brings its case proving his guilt in their betrayal at the United Nations. There is no point giving evidence of the devil’s guilt to the devil. Israel will wait for a president who doesn’t hate and despise their very existence and give the evidence of Obama’s and Kerry’s guilt to President Donald Trump.
What Obama did was to poison the water for ANY future peace between Israel and the Islamic nations that surround her like rabid, hungry wolves.
Consider the Oslo Accords that the Palestinians betrayed:
In August 1993, the delegations had reached an agreement, which was signed in secrecy by Peres while visiting Oslo. In the Letters of Mutual Recognition, the PLO acknowledged the State of Israel and pledged to reject violence, and Israel recognized the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people and as partner in negotiations. Yasser Arafat was allowed to return to the Occupied Palestinian Territories. In 1995, the Oslo I Accord was followed by Oslo II. Neither promised Palestinian statehood.
It certainly also didn’t say anything about Israel retreating to a 1967 border.
And that is PRECISELY what Obama’s and John Kerry’s United Nation resolution does: demand Israel return to pre-1967 borders just before the Arabs attacked Israel with Egypt, Syria, Jordan and the Palestinian terrorist group the PLO trying to exterminate them.
On Wednesday, US Secretary of State John Kerry urged ‘Israel’ and Palestine to agree on two-state borders based on 1967 lines.
The only problem with pre-1967 lines is that they are utterly indefensible:
A return to those lines would leave Israel with a waistline just nine miles (15 kilometers) wide at its narrowest point, Jerusalem surrounded on three sides by Palestinian land and the country’s main international airport just a few miles (kilometers) away from the border. If hostilities break out, Israel’s largest cities could be vulnerable to rocket fire and other attacks.
There is NO NATION ON EARTH that would place itself in such a strategically exposed position. And it is nothing less than an official act of hate for Obama and John Kerry to demand that Israel do what no nation on earth would ever be foolish enough to do. Further, Israel has more right to the land it “occupies” than the United States has to the land that IT occupies. Maybe after we’ve given all of the land we possess back to the Indians and to the Mexicans, we may have some right to scold Israel. But not until then.
One of the things seized by Israel was the strategically critical Golan Heights. Given what Syria has already done to more than half a million of their OWN people, just how morally evil do you have to be to demand Israel give this vital piece of defense to mass murderers who hate them with an ancient, rabid hatred beyond any reason???
We have already seen that every time Israel has given up an inch of territory, that territory was merely used as a point to launch rocket attacks against the citizens of Israel. And to make it even more obscene, every single time Israel has been forced to respond to those massive rocket attacks against their civilian population – no matter how careful the Israelis were to avoid killing Palestinian women and children – they have been rabidly excoriated by a United Nations whose goal is to help the Arabs drive Israel into the Red Sea to their national extermination.
When Israel not only gave up settlements, but literally gave up the entire Gaza Strip to the Palestinians, what did they get in return? They got the Palestinians electing a TERRORIST ORGANIZATION that is STILL listed as a terrorist organization by both the Hillary Clinton and John Kerry State Departments; they got an even MORE rabid determination to refuse to recognize Israel’s right to exist and wipe her off the map; they got more attacks and more violence.
And yet thanks to a wicked Barack Obama, a wicked John Kerry, and a wicked and demon-possessed Democratic Party, what is a totally acceptable non-starter for Israel will be the basis for the Palestinians JUST FOR STARTERS.
In the business world, what Obama and Kerry did is known as a poison pill tactic. And it was nothing short of an act of savage, demonic hatred for Obama and Kerry who turned their back on the murders of more than half a million human beings and turned their back on untold millions of refugees; but have the naked, evil hypocrisy to condemn Israel.
There now can NEVER be peace until the Antichrist comes in fulfillment of Daniel 9:27 and imposes a seven year covenant that the Book of Revelation describes as the horrifying “Tribulation.” Israel will ultimately be DRIVEN to the Antichrist because the existence of Democrats means that the United States can NEVER be deemed trustworthy again. America under any Democratic administration just officially became a Jew-hating entity that cannot be trusted. Where will Israel turn? Ultimately to the beast.
If that’s not evil enough, John Kerry also foolishly and wickedly said:
“Israel Can Either Be Jewish or Democratic — It Cannot Be Both.”
Yes, Obama, yes, Kerry: let the Arabs have a democratic election and vote on the question, “Should we murder all the Jews here and take all of their stuff for ourselves?” And the result will be “Hell YES!” THAT’S “democracy” to Barack Obama and John Kerry!!!
And we have already seen how Democrats react to “democracy” when the people vote for Trump – the answer being “poorly.”
I tell you what: name ONE Arab state, or ONE Islamic nation, where the Arab citizens have more rights and more freedoms than in ISRAEL, you pathologically morally-idiotic, demon-owned Democrat fools. Because there isn’t one and there never was one and frankly there never WILL be one.
Name a time when a “nation of Palestine” every existed in the history of the human race. Because it never HAS existed.
We live in an “asymmetric world,” with one side – including the State of Israel – abiding by civilized standards and the other side – including the Palestinian Authority and Hamas – that are pure savages that have no morality, no decency, no values other than the values of hatred and murder and extermination of those they hate who are different from them.
As I said, Hamas is STILL officially a “terrorist organization” even according to John Kerry’s own State Department. But because to be a Democrat today is to be a pathological liar, Kerry wickedly refused to say that, instead claiming Hamas is merely a “militant group.” Meanwhile, the so-called “good” side of the Palestinian government, the Palestinian Authority that used to be the terrorist Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) prior to whitewashing itself in the Oslo Accords the Arabs benefited from and then dishonestly unilaterally abandoned, pays a stipend to families of terrorists who murder Jews and even names streets after terrorists who kill Jews. All the while teaching Palestinian children on state television how to hate and murder Jews.
And the Democratic Party is part of this act of satanic hate.
The time is coming when every single Democrat will 1) worship the beast and his false prophet and 2) scream in hell for all eternity for their wickedness and their crimes.
You just brought us massively closer to Armageddon, Democrats. That’s what those verses I cited at the top describe in the Valley of Jehoshaphat. YOU, PERSONALLY, Democrat, are responsible for all nations gathering against Israel because YOU are responsible for that wicked U.N. Resolution that your elected roach Obama and your appointed filth Kerry enabled. And the day is coming when you will PAY for your crimes against life and against Israel and against your Creator.
What we are seeing is racist hate at the very highest level, hatred that has been legitimized and fanned and exploited by Democrats including Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
Obama’s response throughout this and numerous previous acts of the black racist hate he’s helped incite has been to order his Justice Department to treat police officers and police departments as the problem. His response to the obvious massive division he’s stirred up in this country has been to immediately politicize the Dallas shooting tragedy (in which one of HIS murdered five cops and left 7 others wounded) and call for more Democrat attacks on the 2nd Amendment and force everyone to go to their political corners and come out swinging.
And it is ALL the most wicked kind of lawlessness. [End update]
When I wake up these days, I’m getting used to being greeted with a punch in my gut.
Five Dallas police officers murdered. Seven terribly injured.
This morning, I woke up to find that one or more blacks suspects, participating in a “protest” against police – gunned down twelve police officers who were there to maintain law, order and safety. One of the shooters made it clear he wanted to murder white people, especially white cops.
The flags are at half mast in mourning. No surprise; the flags are at half mast a LOT these days. Barack Obama is the half mast president. And frankly we ought to have the flags at half mast all the time, because we have a wicked president who has inspired wickedness and violence throughout the land.
Race relations in this country are SO much worse than they were before Obama’s toxic presidency that it is beyond unreal. His modus operandi from the beginning has been to incite division and chaos in order to foment unrest in order to exploit the next crisis as the means that justify the end of his “fundamental transformation” of the United States of America. In the same way, violence has skyrocketed in cities across America because of Barack Obama. In the same way, terrorism is up 800 percent since 2010 under Obama; and by the time this depraved man leaves office, it will be up more than 1,700 percent under the watch of this wicked fool.
That’s the worst thing about this latest half-mast gut punch: it’s that, in Obama’s America, the America that Obama “fundamentally transformed” for us, it’s just not unusual. You know in that sagging feeling in your heart that there’s a lot more of this coming.
The problem with the thinking of the racist left and their idiotic foolish slogans that they mindlessly chant is that cops aren’t white; they are blue. When you become a police officer, you become part of a culture that is bigger than yourself, and even bigger than whatever race you happen to be. And that is because you become part of a very special community, a brotherhood.
When a white police officer hears over the radio that an officer he happens to know is black is under fire, he puts on his lights and siren and he drives a hundred miles an hour to go come to the aid of his brother. And he will take a bullet for his brother. Because he knows that brother will take one for him.
That brotherhood is under direct attack these days.
In a bizarre twist, the left has actually guaranteed MORE of the results that they claim they so hate: because thanks to the left, police are more frightened than they have ever been. And frightened people make mistakes.
And the Black Lives Matter movement, that was spawned a) by a now-provably false narrative about what happened between Officer Darren Wilson and a brutal thug named Michael Brown; and b) by Barack Obama and the Democratic Party. Just as we watched Democrats create a false narrative based on an ocean of lies in Baltimore.
Somebody on the left is going to accuse me of politicizing this horrible terrorist attack against our police. My response is not to worry; Obama already beat me to it when he exploited it for every one of his pet political projects. Obama SHOULD have spoken out and decried ANY movement or philosophy or agenda that in any way, any shape or any form undermines law enforcement as an institution. That was virtually irrelevant to Obama. “Never let a serious crisis go to waste” is an adage that came out of the Obama Administration very early on; and this was another opportunity for Obama to exploit crisis.
Obama SPAWNED the Black Lives Matter bowel movement. It’s another thug political weapon in a thug politician’s arsenal.
I saw that Hillary Clinton is tweeting and ending her messages with “Black Lives Matter.”
And what does that mean? If you actually believe the crap that Black Lives Matter is spewing, that black people are being murdered by cops and that police are institutionally racist, what should a black person do? Would he not fight his executioners? And the ugly answer becomes rather obvious: start killing cops, that’s what he’d do.
Liberals may want to pooh-pooh me and say it was just one nutjob. But first of all it was THEIR nutjob who believed THEIR stories and THEIR values. And second of all, at the moment the first shots began to ring out as this killer carried out his desire to kill white people, what was the entire mass of protesters chanting? “No justice, NO PEACE!” What if you actually BELIEVED that crap that the left has fed you full of, and BELIEVED their was no justice and there should therefore be no peace??? Would you fight back against those who had usurped justice from you???
And it comes down to radical Islam: if you believe the crap the Prophet of the left feeds you, you ought to get violent and wage yourself some liberal jihad so you can impose your liberal sharia state on the wicked infidels who oppressed you.
Loretta Lynch came out on TV and I heard her give total absolution to the Black Lives Matter movement. She said, “Don’t you let what one of your own did throw any cold water on your Black Lives Matter mojo. You keep out there and you keep putting pressure on the cops I’M SUPPOSED to represent.” She blathered something about building trust, when HER Justice Department under Obama has done everything imaginable to open the divide of trust and then drive wedges to split it further and further open.
Lynch has opened up all kinds of investigations wherever black people were shot by white cops no matter HOW legitimate those shootings were. Where was she today in announcing that her Justice Department was going to investigate the civil rights violations against those white officers given that this racist black homicidal maniac broadcast that his motive was pure racism???
Black Lives Matter is the bowel movement that chanted, “Pigs in a blanket, fry ’em like bacon!” This terrorist attack against our police officers is right out of the cockroach soul of this sewer movement.
When Democrats booed a candidate who literally experienced his political career go down the toilet because he said, “All lives matter,” you know how ugly and how racist the Democrat Party has truly become.
Today I heard Obama demonize the shooting, without demonizing the motive behind it. Again, to Obama, guns are the real murderers. And on his warped view, if we took away guns we’d take away hate; when the truth is that if we took away guns, we would take away everything America stands for and then we would leave the righteous and innocent helpless before the hate of the wicked and the criminals who want to prey on us, want to hurt us.
As a result of this mass murder of cops, many police departments are doubling up so that two officers are riding in the same squad car. They just halved their effectiveness in order to protect themselves. They CAN’T protect the public; they don’t even know if they can protect themselves anymore.
We’ve already seen the Ferguson Effect that Democrats deny undermining law enforcement across the nation as cops are literally afraid to get out of their cars because if they don’t shoot they’ll be killed and if they do shoot Obama will prosecute them.
I was pointing that out last year. But Obama’s “transformation” truly WAS “fundamental.” It aint going to get better any more than a radiation meltdown heading toward the China Syndrome is going to get better.
Now rest assured that the Democratic Party, being pathological liars, will continue to deny the reality of the Ferguson Effect that is their monstrous creation, even as what USED to be two police squad cars becomes ONE police squad car directly because of the Ferguson Effect, the Black Lives Matter movement Obama spawned out of the Ferguson Effect, and the hate and the division that bowel movement has fomented in dozens if not hundreds of cities across America.
The 2nd Amendment made this nation different from any other that had come before it or would come after it; that’s why Democrats despise it so much. The 2nd Amendment guarantees that a government must always fear its people, rather than a people fearing their government. The 2nd Amendment guarantees that true tyranny will never come here because we are a people who can fight back. The 2nd Amendment means that decent people are entrusted with the ability to defend themselves and their property from any who would come to take it away.
And the Party that wants to take it away via the “redistribution of wealth,” the Party that wants to impose tyranny by exploiting the democratic process to incite race and divide people by gender, by religion, by income and by everything else they can divide us by, hate that.
The most fascinating thing about these Black Lives Matter scum is that what they want is to delegitimize all local and state law enforcement. What they want is a national police force that an Obama or a Hillary Clinton can control and exploit the way Obama exploited the IRS and “fundamentally transformed” it into the Internal Revenge Service against his political opponents and used it as a weapon against conservatives. After the left took the guns away first in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics that had once been Russia, and then in the National Socialist German Workers Party that had once been Germany, they created just such national police forces that became jus such a political weapon. And now we have the beginnings of a National Socialist American Workers Party that used to be the America birthed by our founding fathers but now “fundamentally transformed” by Barack Obama and if we allow it by Hillary Clinton.
Black Lives Matter is a vehicle, just as the ACLU has been a vehicle for the left and their TRUE ideology and their TRUE end. Liberals say the ACLU represents this or that, but the man who founded the ACLU told us with crystal clarity: “Communism is the goal.” And it still IS. And they are closer to their goal than they have ever BEEN. And the goal of Black Lives Matter is even more readily apparent to any who has eyes to see and ears to hear: to brand our police as an institution as racist and to delegitimize our police and make it impossible for them to do their jobs. So that what comes next becomes possible.
You’ve got to undermine and collapse the old law to impose the new law.
And the very premise of a true police force is to enforce the law, to represent the law and the order and the righteousness that holds cities and states and nations together and enables communities to come together because we are all united under the same laws that apply to all.
The left doesn’t have that stop. Allow me to explain why: because the Christian faith stands on the Word of God, the Holy Bible. And the solid Rock on which I stand is for the left nothing but shifting sand.
What I know about God, about Jesus the divine Son of God, about godly morality, about God and His ways, I know as a result of the Bible. And the Bible as God’s Self-revealed Word stands or falls as a whole, the whole counsel of God.
But what the left did to the Constitution as a “living, breathing document that constantly evolves and changes with the times,” they do to the Bible. I wrote about this way back in 2008, and it is more true today than ever before. They radically misinterpret the Bible by refusing to accept the literal, historical hermeneutic principle EXACTLY the same way they had previously done to the Constitution. That’s the perverted way you get to sanctify homosexual perversion and abortion on the one hand which is very clearly against the former, and sanctify gun control which is clearly against the latter. All you need to do is read the documents with a determination that they will yield whatever results you wish to impose upon them.
God says He does not change (see Numbers 23:19; see James 1:17), that Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever. God doesn’t change; morality doesn’t shift. What was wrong yesterday is just as wrong today. But the left has a completely different god who CONSTANTLY changes and evolves, such that what was immoral and unlawful yesterday is now moral and lawful today. When no it is NOT.
For the left, the end justifies the means. They claim these ends are good; but God’s Word declares that they are wicked. And God’s Word declares, “Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!” (Isaiah 5:20). And I know from God’s moral commands and laws that no, the ends do NOT justify the means; especially when those means are themselves wicked.
And that is why the left practices what God in His Word says is lawlessness. And that is why they have no restrint, including nothing to restrain them from vicious violence. Those who twist the Bible to make what is wrong become a right and what is right become a wrong have no problem whatsoever twisting anything to whatever shape or form they want it to be.
I am beyond sick of the morally idiotic and intellectually disgraceful charge that Israel is somehow in the wrong in its fight to defend itself and its people against a DELCARED TERRORIST ENTITTY.
Israel is being accused being “disproportionate.” Why? Because Hamas wants its own people murdered and has found a way – by firing thousands of rockets at Israel, by using concrete that Israel gave Hamas to build homes to instead build dozens of tunnels located directly underneath hospitals, schools, mosques and crowded apartment buildings, by using their own people as human shields, by demanding that civilians sacrifice themselves and become martyrs when Israel warns them that an attack is coming while the terrorists who give the orders run away – to secure the deaths of their own people so they can blame Israel in their propaganda.
Here is what Israel would do if they were to actually BE “proportional” in their war with Muslim jihadist Hamas:
1) Israel would amend it’s constitution to include the following:
‘Palestine will exist and will continue to exist until Israel will obliterate it.’
‘Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.’
If Israel were “proportional” they would also have the equivalent of this part of Hamas’ charter –
‘[Peace] initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement… Those conferences are no more than a means to appoint the infidels as arbitrators in the lands of Islam… There is no solution for the Palestinian problem except by Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are but a waste of time, an exercise in futility.’ (Article 13)
– and so renounce any and all attempt at peace and give themselves the right to violate any true or peace accord whenever they wanted.
Israel would amend its constitution to include something “proportional” to what Hamas says in its charter:
‘The Day of Judgment will not come about until Moslems fight Jews and kill them. Then, the Jews will hide behind rocks and trees, and the rocks and trees will cry out: ‘O Moslem, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him.’ (Article 7)
So let’s reword that into a “proportional” statement that would become official Israeli policy in a “proportional” Israel:
“The Day of Judgment will not come about until Jews fight Muslims and kill them. Then, the Muslims will hide behind rocks and trees, and the rocks and trees will cry out: ‘O Jew, there is a Muslim hiding behind me, come and kill him.”
That’s how EVIL the United Nations is today. fwiw.
If you want a “proportional” Israel, you United Nations demoniac, then you demand that Israel amend their constitution to call for the murder of every single Muslim the way Hamas has done to Jews in its charter. Otherwise, kindly shut the hell up and realize that you are a sick, twisted, evil, diseased soul that belongs to the devil for your calls for “proportionality.”
2) A proportional Israel would have fired over 3,000 rockets into Palestinian areas and indiscriminately killed tens if not hundreds of thousands of Muslims. And if Hamas hadn’t spent billions of dollars trying to defend their citizens against Israeli rocket attacks the way Israel spent billions defending themselves against Palestinian rocket attacks, that would just be too damn bad, would it?
I wouldn’t be surprised if a “proportional” Israel would have killed a million Palestinians by now.
If you truly demand a “proportional” Israel and you are NOT a demon-possessed hypocrite cockroach, then you have called for Israel to send at least 3,000 rockets into Palestinian civilian-populated areas.
But you ARE a demon-possessed hypocrite cockroach, aren’t you, United Nations???
3) A “proportional” Israel would use humanitarian aid sites such as Temples, schools and hospitals to locate weapons and dig tunnels with which they could enter Palestinian territory and murder and kidnap Palestinians. Because that would be the obviously “proportional” thing for Israel to do, wouldn’t it??? At least unless you are so completely demon-possessed you don’t have a freaking clue what the real world actually looks like, it would be.
I pointed out in a recent article how the fact that the world condemns Israel for doing what it absolutely MUST against the most wicked terrorist entity on earth proves that there is a personal devil. I said that because God created men and women in His own image and He simply did not make us to be this stupid, this blind and this depraved to be so incapable of so much as a shred of moral intelligence.
There has to be a Satan and an army of demons to blind wicked fools such that they cannot see what is OBVIOUS to any soul created by God. Humanity simply cannot be this STUPID and EVIL on their own.
Satan is alive and well, and the United Nations and the existence of liberals proves it.
Democrats are amazing in their determination to be utterly hostile to the truth and to simple decency.
The world has been outraged at the incredible hate and contempt displayed in the Muslim group Boko Haram’s abduction (and I have no doubt gang-raping) of nearly 300 innocent girls (some of whom escaped on their own, thank God) whose crime was 1) being Christians and 2) trying to go to school.
The leader of Boko Haram (Abubakar Shekau) released this message:
“I abducted your girls…There is a market for selling humans. Allah says I should sell. He commands me to sell. I will sell women.”
Who do we have to blame for this outrage?
Start with Hillary Rodham Clinton, future Democrat candidate for president:
The State Department under Hillary Clinton fought hard against placing the al Qaeda-linked militant group Boko Haram on its official list of foreign terrorist organizations for two years. And now, lawmakers and former U.S. officials are saying that the decision may have hampered the American government’s ability to confront the Nigerian group that shocked the world by abducting hundreds of innocent girls.In the past week, Clinton, who made protecting women and girls a key pillar of her tenure at the State Department, has been a vocal advocate for the 200 Nigerian girls kidnapped by Boko Haram, the loosely organized group of militants terrorizing northern Nigeria. Her May 4 tweet about the girls, using the hashtag #BringBackOurGirls, was cited across the media and widely credited for raising awareness of their plight.What Clinton didn’t mention was that her own State Department refused to place Boko Haram on the list of foreign terrorist organizations in 2011, after the group bombed the U.N. headquarters in Abuja. The refusal came despite the urging of the Justice Department, the FBI, the CIA, and over a dozen senators and congressmen.“The one thing she could have done, the one tool she had at her disposal, she didn’t use. And nobody can say she wasn’t urged to do it. It’s gross hypocrisy,” said a former senior U.S. official who was involved in the debate. “The FBI, the CIA, and the Justice Department really wanted Boko Haram designated, they wanted the authorities that would provide to go after them, and they voiced that repeatedly to elected officials.”In May 2012, then-Justice Department official Lisa Monaco (now at the White House) wrote to the State Department to urge Clinton to designate Boko Haram as a terrorist organization. The following month, Gen. Carter Ham, the chief of U.S. Africa Command, said that Boko Haram “are likely sharing funds, training, and explosive materials” with al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb. And yet, Hillary Clinton’s State Department still declined to place Boko Haram on its official terrorist roster.
Secretary of State John Kerry eventually added Boko Haram and its splinter group Ansaru to the list of foreign terrorist organizations in November 2013, following a spate of church bombings and other acts that demonstrated the group’s escalating abilities to wreak havoc.
Being placed on the State Department’s list of foreign terrorist organizations allows U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies to use certain tools and authorities, including several found in the Patriot Act. The designation makes it illegal for any U.S. entities to do business with the group in question. It cuts off access to the U.S. financial system for the organization and anyone associating with it. And the designation also serves to stigmatize and isolate foreign organizations by encouraging other nations to take similar measures.
The State Department’s refusal to designate Boko Haram as a terrorist organization prevented U.S. law enforcement agencies from fully addressing the growing Boko Haram threat in those crucial two years, multiple GOP lawmakers told The Daily Beast.
“The one thing she could have done, the one tool she had at her disposal, she didn’t use. And nobody can say she wasn’t urged to do it. It’s gross hypocrisy.”
“For years, Boko Haram has terrorized Nigeria and Western interests in the region with few consequences,” Sen. James Risch told The Daily Beast on Wednesday. “The U.S. government should have moved more quickly to list them as a terrorist organization and brought U.S. resources to track and disrupt their activities. The failure to act swiftly has had consequences.”
Risch and seven other GOP senators introduced legislation in early 2013 that would have forced Clinton to designate the group or explain why she thought it was a bad idea. The State Department lobbied against the legislation at the time, according to internal State Department emails obtained by The Daily Beast.
In the House, leading intelligence-minded lawmakers wrote letter after letter to Clinton urging her to designate Boko Haram as terrorists. The effort in the House was led by then-Homeland Security Committee Chairman Peter King and Patrick Meehan, chairman of the Subcommittee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence.
Meehan and his Democratic counterpart Jackie Speier put out a lengthy report in 2011 laying out the evidentiary basis for naming Boko Haram a terrorist organization, including the group’s ties to al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and to Somalia’s al-Shabab terrorist organization.
In an interview Wednesday, Meehan told The Daily Beast that if Clinton had placed Boko Haram on the terrorism list in 2011, U.S. law enforcement agencies now being deployed to Nigeria to help search for the girls might have been in a better position.
“We lost two years of increased scrutiny. The kind of support that is taking place now would have been in place two years ago,” he said. The designation would have “enhanced the capacity of our agencies to do the work that was necessary. We were very frustrated, it was a long delay.”
Moreover, Meehan and others believe that the Clinton State Department underestimated the pace of Boko Haram’s growth and the group’s intention to plan operations that could harm U.S. critical interests abroad.
“At the time, the sentiment that was expressed by the administration was this was a local grievance and therefore not a threat to the United States or its interests,” he said. “They were saying al Qaeda was on the run and our argument was contrary to that. It has metastasized and it is actually in many ways a growing threat and this is a stark example of that.”
Not everyone agrees that Clinton’s failure to act had significant negative effects. A former senior U.S. counterterrorism official told The Daily Beast that despite the State Department’s refusal to put Boko Haram on the terrorism list, there were several other efforts to work with the Nigerian government on countering the extremist group, mainly through diplomatic and military intelligence channels.
“Designation is an important tool, it’s not the only tool,” this official said. “There are a lot of other things you can do in counterterrorism that doesn’t require a designation.”
Had Clinton designated Boko Haram as a foreign terrorist organization, that wouldn’t have authorized any increased assistance to the Nigerian security forces; such assistance is complicated by the Leahy Law, a provision that prevents the U.S. from giving weapons to foreign military and police units guilty of human rights violations.
“The utility was limited, the symbolism was perhaps significant, but the more important issue was how we were dealing with the Nigerians,” this official said, noting that three Boko Haram-related individuals were personally sanctioned during Clinton’s time at State.
Meehan and his Democratic counterpart Jackie Speier put out a lengthy report in 2011 laying out the evidentiary basis for naming Boko Haram a terrorist organization, including the group’s ties to al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and to Somalia’s al-Shabab terrorist organization.
In 2012, more than 20 prominent U.S. academics in African studies wrote to Clinton, urging her to not to label Bok Haram as a foreign terrorist organization. “An FTO designation would internationalize Boko Haram’s standing and enhance its status among radical organizations elsewhere,” the scholars said.
Inside the Clinton State Department, the most vocal official opposing designating Boko Haram was Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Johnnie Carson, who served in that position from 2009 to 2013. Several officials said that the Nigerian government was opposed to the designation and Carson was focused on preserving the relationship between Washington and Abuja.
Carson defended the decision to avoid naming Boko Haram a terrorist organization in a Wednesday phone call with reporters.
“There was a concern that putting Boko Haram on the foreign terrorist list would in fact raise its profile, give it greater publicity, give it greater credibility, help in its recruitment, and also probably drive more assistance in its direction,” he said.
The U.S. has plenty of ways to assist the Nigerian government with counterterrorism even without designating Boko Haram, Carson said. The problem has long been that the Nigerian government doesn’t always want or accept the help the U.S. has offered over the years.
“There always has been a reluctance to accept our analysis of what the drivers causing the problems in the North and there is sometimes a rejection of the assistance that is offered to them,” Carson said. “None of that has anything to do with putting Boko Haram on the foreign terrorist list.”
Twenty female senators wrote to President Obama Tuesday urging him to now push for Boko Haram and Ansaru to be added to the United Nations Security Council al Qaeda sanctions list. (Earlier this year, Boko Haram’s leader express solidarity with al Qaeda affiliates in Afghanistan, Iraq, North Africa, Somalia and Yemen, according to the SITE Monitoring Service, which tracks jihadist communications.)
“In the face of the brazen nature of this horrific attack, the international community must impose further sanctions on this terrorist organization. Boko Haram is a threat to innocent civilians in Nigeria, to regional security, and to U.S. national interests,” the senators wrote.
The White House declined Wednesday to say whether or not the president will push for Boko Haram to be added to the U.N. list.
“Boko Haram, the terrorist organization that kidnapped these girls, has been killing innocent people in Nigeria for some time,” National Security Council spokesman Jonathan Lalley told The Daily Beast in a statement. “We’ve identified them as one of the worst regional terrorist organizations out there. That’s why last November we designated them as a Foreign Terrorist Organization and as Specially Designated Global Terrorists. And we’re actively exploring—in partnership with Nigeria and others—broader multilateral sanctions against Boko Haram, including UN Security Council sanctions.”
Representatives for Clinton did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
The media is asking a few questions (but don’t worry, in a few months it will all blow over and the media will yawn over this and every other outrage of Hillary Clinton’s incompetence or personal viciousness). CNN had this:
Washington (CNN) — Hindsight is 20/20, they say, but some people may need backwards-looking glasses in debating whether the State Department under Hillary Clinton erred two years ago by not designating Boko Haram a terrorist group.
The question arose Thursday as part of the international focus on last month’s abduction of more than 200 schoolgirls by the jihadist group in northeast Nigeria that threatens to sell them into slavery
The CNN piece becomes more of a cover-up than an objective piece. It lists all the reasons Hillary was loathe to add Boko Haram to the FTO list. But it very quickly gleans over the fact that Republicans were demanding that the organization be added to the list as early as 2010 after a SERIES of terrorist attacks:
A few months later, amid increasing violence by Boko Haram, the top Republicans on the panel wrote Clinton to urge its immediate terrorist designation.
In a letter to the secretary, Reps. Peter King of New York and Patrick Meehan of Pennsylvania cited support by the Department of Justice and military intelligence for such a step.
State Department officials opposed the move, as did 24 academics with expertise in African affairs.
“Hindsight is 20/20,” CNN tells as us they introduce their piece. So please don’t blame the Clinton News Network’s pick for president in 2016.
But yeah, BLAME her. Had she did what was right and called a terrorist a terrorist when she and Obama were calling terrorism an “overseas contingency operation” and “man-caused disasters” this outrage could have and likely would have been avoided.
The State Department under Hillary Clinton fought hard against placing the al Qaeda-linked militant group Boko Haram on its official list of foreign terrorist organizations for two years. And now, lawmakers and former U.S. officials are saying that the decision may have hurt the American government’s ability to confront the Nigerian group that shocked the world by abducting hundreds of innocent girls.
There is a statement in the above-quoted article that directly links the present U.S. failure with Boko Haram to the gross failure of Benghazi:
“At the time, the sentiment that was expressed by the administration was this was a local grievance and therefore not a threat to the United States or its interests,” he said. “They were saying al Qaeda was on the run and our argument was contrary to that. It has metastasized and it is actually in many ways a growing threat and this is a stark example of that.”
It was the same mindset based on the same dishonest Obama political narrative: we’ve got al Qaeda on the run. And any facts that prove otherwise are to be ignored out of sheer cynical political expediency as Obama runs for re-election and Hillary awaits her turn four years later.
So let’s talk about Hillary and Benghazi:
When the murdered ambassador and the other victims were pleading for help in the weeks leading up to the fatal attack in Benghazi, where was Hillary Clinton?
When every other Western nation removed their diplomatic outposts from Benghazi prior to the fatal terrorist attack against our compound, where was Hillary Clinton?
Others, like the British government and the International Red Cross, were aware how dangerous Benghazi was and pulled their personnel out, but Clinton insisted on pursuing a diplomatic U.S. presence in Benghazi, but left them practically undefended
Here’s a good summary of what happened in Benghazi. And it is frankly stunning how the media has yawned because it proves a DEMOCRAT to be corrupt and dishonest rather than the Republican they would have rabidly torn into.
These are desperately wicked people who do not have as much as a “scintilla” (to quote Obama over his next cover-up of his ordering his IRS to persecute conservative organizations AND their donors) of integrity, decency, virtue, or honor of any kind.
What the hell – and I DO mean “hell” because hell is IN these people – is wrong with liberals?
Here’s the latest outrage in which liberals “twist” truth and reality by making the real-life villains the victims and the heroes while making the real-life victims and heroes the villains:
On Saturday, Breitbart.com reported that the villain in Liam Neeson’s new action thriller, “Non-Stop,” is a 9/11 family member who also served in the military.
“‘Non-Stop’ is a good movie,” John Nolte wrote. “Heck, it is darn near very good. But the left-wing sucker punch at the end is a new low, even for Hollywood.”
Nolte said the villain joined the military after losing a loved on in the terror attack on the World Trade Center, but became disillusioned by the ongoing wars.
So, the veteran decides to blow everyone up on a plane so the air marshal can get blamed, causing airport security to be tightened even further.
Worse yet, Nolte added, the villain’s sidekick turns out to be an American military member willing to murder 150 innocent people for money.
Moreover, Nolte said the “one passenger on the plane who is forever helpful, kind, reasonable, noble, and never under suspicion is a Muslim doctor dressed in traditional Muslim garb including a full beard.”
Glenn Beck also excoriated the movie, according to a post at The Blaze.
“It is really great, until you find out that the killer is U.S. military and a guy who believes in the Constitution,” he said sarcastically. “Oh, darn it. Did I just wreck that movie for everybody? Oh, I didn’t mean to…”
Beck said that even in liberal New York, the ending was met with groans.
“I’m not going to say anymore, except the killer is … a schoolteacher and so you completely dismiss him,” he added. “And there’s a little hole in the bathroom where they do a blow-dart, and they kill the pilot.”
The Blaze added:
Beck said the killer’s rationale was something “nonsensical” along the lines of: “It’s the government that has been putting people like you, you drunkard, on planes and allowing you to be our TSA. And that’s just wrong. So I’m going to blow everything up and take the money. I’ve got a parachute here, so I’m going to live. And I’m going to take all the money, and I’m going to get away with it. A-ha, ha-ha, ha-ha, ha-ha.”
He also said the movie shows that “no amount of research … can help these people in Hollywood,” because they simply do not understand what a “wildly, wildly insulting movie” they made.
Beck’s advise: “Don’t go see Non-Stop.”
Nolte had even harsher words: “Sc**w you, Hollywood.”
“Non-Stop” is rated PG-13 by the Motion Picture Association of America for “intense sequences of action and violence, some language, sensuality and drug references,” and was given two out of four stars by the Associated Press‘ Jake Coyle.
That’s right. It doesn’t matter if in REALITY Muslims are responsible for 99.99999% of all terrorist attacks and 9/11 victims’ families and the heroes who served are responsible for 0.0000001%. Because to be “liberal” means to think just the opposite of reality and piss on the truth.
Liberals are the people who constantly assure us that Nazis are “right-wing” because everybody apparently just knows that if there was a “National Socialist American Workers Party” the way Nazi stood for “National Socialist German Workers Party,” it would be a conservative Republican Party. Because you know how we conservatives adore “socialism” and “workers parties” and how much the left despises them.
Oh, wait. It’s the other way around. Not that lying liberals give a damn.
Liberals have managed to assure us that women who want to murder their own babies are heroes and victims and the babies they kill are worthless things that have no right to life. Babies, liberals assure us, have the duty to die for the convenience of their mommies much the same way that Jews had the duty to die for the convenience of Adolf.
Liberals have managed to assure us that homosexual men who lust after being bending over and being sodomized by another man after sucking him to orgasm are “normal” and the people who recognize that these people are depraved, unnatural perverts are the weirdos.
We didn’t come out here to play. There is to much serious business going on in your black community to be sliding through south street with white, dirty cracker whores on your arms. What’s a matter with you black man, you got a doomsday with a white woman on your arm.
……
“We keep begging white people for freedom. No wonder we’re not free. Your enemy can not make you free fool. You want freedom you’re going to have to kill some crackers. You’re going to have to kill some of their babies.
Let us get our act together. It’s time to wake up, clean up, and stand up.”
“I can’t wait for the day that they’re all dead. I won’t be completely happy until I see our people free and Whitey dead.”
“When you have 10 brothers in uniform, suited and booted and ready for war, white folks know these niggas ain’t their niggas. We kick white folks asses. We take it right to the cracker.”
“We’re going to keep putting our foot up the white man’s ass until they understand completely. We want freedom, justice and mutha[expletive]‘ equality. Period. If you ain’t gonna give it to us, mutha[expletive], we’re gonna take it, in the name of freedom.”
WASHINGTON — “Not all” Republicans are racist, said Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.) on Sunday, but “to a significant extent, the Republican base has elements that are animated by racism, and that’s unfortunate.”
Israel’s comment was in response to a question from CNN’s Candy Crowley, who asked the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee about remarks by Attorney General Eric Holder this week. In a speech to a civil rights group, Holder questioned his treatment by Republican lawmakers at a House Judiciary Committee hearing, and implied that race may have played a role.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) also suggested this past week that racism was a factor in the Republican party’s opposition to immigration reform. “I think race has something to do with the fact that they’re not bringing up an immigration bill,” Pelosi told reporters, adding, “I’ve heard them say to the Irish, if it were just you, this would be easy.”
Which of course means that the same “almost” all of the 54% of Americans who voted to have that Republican majority are clearly “racist,” too.
You need to understand why Obama was willing to lie and lie so outrageously about the terrorist attack against the US Consulate in Libya. A lot of people simply cannot understand why Obama would lie about a terrorist attack. Here’s why:
Obama had based his ENTIRE foreign policy “triumph” on just ONE event: the killing of Osama bin Laden. Everything else – EVERYTHING ELSE – amounted to Obama’s foreign policy being a disaster that was in shambles: China’s rise as a major military power that directly threatens the United States and its control over the Pacific under Obama’s nose; the asinine “Russian-reset” that proved such a debacle as Russia again and again thwarted virtually every single thing the United States tried to do in the United Nations that Obama almost exclusively relies upon; Iran now almost imminently away from nuclear weapons; the disastrous euphemistically titled “Arab Spring” that has brought violence and anti-American Islamist regimes in place of stable ones in vital Arab countries like Egypt that had been allied with the United States for decades. I mean, a terrorist organization captured the Egyptian election and is now running the country; well over 30,000 civilians have been murdered in the Syrian bloodbath while no one has done anything to even stop Iran from arming the Syrian regime. And if Obama wanted to call the intervention that removed Gaddafi from power in Libya, that is now gone as a major al Qaeda-linked terrorist attack resulted in the murder of the first US Ambassador to be murdered since Carter screwed up the universe in 1979.
What did Obama want to do? How did he want to posture? He wanted to bury his head in the sand and pretend that the killing of Osama bin Laden essentially amounted to the killing of al Qaeda. “Bin Laden is dead, al Qaeda is on the run,” Obama said over and over. As if the former event ipso facto had resulted in the latter conclusion. And Obama was desperately hoping that his total fabrication, his grand illusion, would last him past the election.
But it didn’t. Instead, a devastating terrorist attack linked closely to al Qaeda occurred on sovereign United States territory in Libya that resulted in the murder of a US Ambassador and three other Americans. And what we found out since has been an equally devastating indictment against Obama’s foreign policy leadership. We have found out that the murdered Ambassador Chris Stevens had been pleading for increased security even as the Obama administration proceeded to take away what little security he had in the most dangerous state in the world. We have found that there had been more than 230 “security incidents” in Libya prior to that withdrawing of security that cost Ambassador Stevens and three other great Americans their lives. In two incidents, an explosive device was used – and in one a giant hole had been blown in the wall protecting the Consulate. We found that both Britain had closed down its embassy and the Red Cross had closed down its presence in Libya because of that growing buildup of terrorism that Obama was so obvlivious to because he’d chosen to skip 60% of his daily intelligence briefings.
As bad as these things are, it gets worse. Because they say that the worst thing an administration can do – the very worst thing – is to try to cover-up a scandal. And the cover-up is almost always worse than the scandal itself. In this case that is debatable; Watergate, for instance, did not result in the murder of Americans and it did not result in an enemy attack against United States territory and the humiliation of the nation with terrorist flags going up around half a dozen of our embassies in addition to our ambassador being murdered. But we find that cover-up is exactly what Obama did.
Let’s look at what the Obama administration said to describe the attack first. Note they did NOT refer to it as a preplanned and coordinated “terrorist attack,” but rather as a “spontaneous” one that resulted from some stupid video.
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice said the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi last week was not premeditated, directly contradicting top Libyan officials who say the attack was planned in advance.
“Our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous – not a premeditated – response to what had transpired in Cairo,” Rice told me this morning on “This Week.”
“In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated,” Rice said, referring to protests in Egypt Tuesday over a film that depicts the Prophet Muhammad as a fraud. Protesters in Cairo breached the walls of the U.S. Embassy, tearing apart an American flag.
“We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to – or to the consulate, rather, to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo,” Rice said. “And then as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons… And it then evolved from there.”
You can start to see why Obama would demand a cover-up. And instead wanted to run on the fiction that “my messianic killing of bin Laden won the war on terror and changed the world.”
Now we find out that the CIA station chief in Libya reported within HOURS that the attack against our sovereign territory in Libya was a planned, coordinated terrorist action:
WASHINGTON — The CIA station chief in Libya reported to Washington within 24 hours of last month’s deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate that there was evidence it was carried out by militants, not a spontaneous mob upset about an American-made video ridiculing Islam’s Prophet Muhammad, U.S. officials have told The Associated Press.
It is unclear who, if anyone, saw the cable outside the CIA at that point and how high up in the agency the information went. The Obama administration maintained publicly for a week that the attack on the diplomatic mission in Benghazi that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans was a result of the mobs that staged less-deadly protests across the Muslim world around the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks on the U.S.
Those statements have become highly charged political fodder as the presidential election approaches. A Republican-led House committee questioned State Department officials for hours about what GOP lawmakers said was lax security at the consulate, given the growth of extremist Islamic militants in North Africa.
And in their debate on Tuesday, President Barack Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney argued over when Obama first said it was a terror attack. In his Rose Garden address the morning after the killings, Obama said, “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.”
But Republicans say he was speaking generally and didn’t specifically call the Benghazi attack a terror attack until weeks later, with the president and other key members of his administration referring at first to the anti-Muslim movie circulating on the Internet as a precipitating event.
Now congressional intelligence committees are demanding documents to show what the spy agencies knew and when, before, during and after the attacks.
The White House now says the attack probably was carried out by an al Qaida-linked group, with no public demonstration beforehand. Secretary of State Hillary RodhamClinton blamed the “fog of war” for the early conflicting accounts.
The officials who told the AP about the CIA cable spoke anonymously because they were not authorized to release such information publicly.
Congressional aides say they expect to get the documents by the end of this week to build a timeline of what the intelligence community knew and compare that to what the White House was telling the public about the attack. That could give Romney ammunition to use in his foreign policy debate with Obama on Monday night.
The two U.S. officials said the CIA station chief in Libya compiled intelligence reports from eyewitnesses within 24 hours of the assault on the consulate that indicated militants launched the violence, using the pretext of demonstrations against U.S. facilities in Egypt against the film to cover their intent. The report from the station chief was written late Wednesday, Sept. 12, and reached intelligence agencies in Washington the next day, intelligence officials said.
Yet, on Saturday of that week, briefing points sent by the CIA to Congress said “demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault.”
The briefing points, obtained by the AP, added: “There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations” but did not mention eyewitness accounts that blamed militants alone.
Such raw intelligence reports by the CIA on the ground would normally be sent first to analysts at the headquarters in Langley, Va., for vetting and comparing against other intelligence derived from eavesdropping drones and satellite images. Only then would such intelligence generally be shared with the White House and later, Congress, a process that can take hours, or days if the intelligence is coming from only one or two sources who may or may not be trusted.
U.S. intelligence officials say in this case the delay was due in part to the time it took to analyze various conflicting accounts. One official, speaking on condition of anonymity because he wasn’t authorized to discuss the incident publicly, explained that “it was clear a group of people gathered that evening” in Benghazi, but that the early question was “whether extremists took over a crowd or they were the crowd,” and it took until the following week to figure that out.
But that explanation has been met with concern in Congress, from both political parties.
“I think what happened was the director of intelligence, who is a very good individual, put out some speaking points on the initial intelligence assessment,” said Senate intelligence committee chair Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., in an interview with local news channel CBS 5 in California this week. “I think that was possibly a mistake.”
“The early sense from the intelligence community differs from what we are hearing now,” Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said. “It ended up being pretty far afield, so we want to figure out why … though we don’t want to deter the intelligence community from sharing their best first impressions” after such events in the future.
“The intelligence briefings we got a week to 10 days after were consistent with what the administration was saying,” said Rep. William Thornberry, R-Texas, a member of the House Intelligence and Armed Services committees. Thornberry would not confirm the existence of the early CIA report but voiced skepticism over how sure intelligence officials, including CIA Director David Petraeus, seemed of their original account when they briefed lawmakers on Capitol Hill.
“How could they be so certain immediately after such events, I just don’t know,” he said. “That raises suspicions that there was political motivation.”
National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor declined comment. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence did not respond to requests for comment.
Two officials who witnessed Petraeus‘ closed-door testimony to lawmakers in the week after the attack said that during questioning he acknowledged that there were some intelligence analysts who disagreed with the conclusion that a mob angry over the video had initiated the violence. But those officials said Petraeus did not mention the CIA’s early eyewitness reports. He did warn legislators that the account could change as more intelligence was uncovered, they said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the hearing was closed.
Beyond the question of what was known immediately after the attack, it’s also proving difficult to pinpoint those who set the fire that apparently killed Stevens and his communications aide or launched the mortars that killed two ex-Navy SEALs who were working as contract security guards at a fallback location. That delay is prompting lawmakers to question whether the intelligence community has the resources it needs to investigate this attack in particular or to wage the larger fight against al-Qaida in Libya or across Africa.
Intelligence officials say the leading suspected culprit is a local Benghazi militia, Ansar al-Shariah. The group denies responsibility for the attack but is known to have ties to a leading African terror group, al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb. Some of its leaders and fighters were spotted by Libyan locals at the consulate during the violence, and intelligence intercepts show the militants were in contact with AQIM militants before and after the attack, one U.S. intelligence official said.
But U.S. intelligence has not been able to match those reported sightings with the faces of attackers caught on security camera recordings during the attack, since many U.S. intelligence agents were pulled out of Benghazi in the aftermath of the violence, the two U.S. intelligence officials said.
Nor have they found proof to back up their suspicion that the attack was preplanned, as indicated by the military-style tactics the attackers used, setting up a perimeter of roadblocks around the consulate and the backup compounds, then attacking the main entrance to distract, while sending a larger force to assault the rear.
Clear-cut answers may prove elusive because such an attack is not hard to bring about relatively swiftly with little preplanning or coordination in a post-revolutionary country awash with weapons, where the government is so new it still relies on armed militants to keep the peace. Plus, the location of U.S. diplomat enclaves is an open secret for the locals.
How do you think the press would have covered it had George Bush essentially stated that the war on terror was over due to his policies and triumphs? How do you think the press would have covered it if an event such as the one described above had rather catastrophically proven that Bush was a lying sack of cockroach turds?
This was NOTthe result of poor intelligence, as the dishonest Obama administration is deceitfully demagoguing; this was NOT the result of a failure of intelligence, it was the failure of Obama policy. Period. The intelligence services were warning about an attack well before one actually occurred; specifically Ambassador Chris Stevens’ security team was screaming that the terrorist threat was growing and they were dangerously exposed. No. You can’t blame that on poor intelligence, unless you want to blame it on the poor intelligence of the commander-in-chief who couldn’t be bothered with such intelligence developments.
I’ve come to realize how the game is played: if a Republican is president, and says ANYTHING that isn’t the absolute unvarnished truth, he is decried as a liar by the media. If, on the other hand, a Democrat is president and tells a thousand lies wrapped in a half-truth, well, he is praised for his integrity and transparency.
What is ironic, and possibly even funny depending on the outcome of the election, is that in doing the above in the case of Libya, the media may have fatally wounded their own messiah. Because had they come out after Obama hard right away the way they would have come after Bush, they kept allowing Obama to have more and more rope to put around his neck with his lies and cover-ups – whereas Bush would have been smashed in the face with the very first appearance of deception and forced to come clean. And what is happening now is that very pissed off intelligence professionals who don’t like being slandered are going to keep a story alive just before an election that otherwise likely would have been put to bed a month ago. And by their refusal to go after Obama they have allowed him to fatally wound his own reelection.
The same thing happened with the first debate: the media sheltered Obama and Obama himself went only on friendly media territory where he would never be challenged. And as a result he suffered the most disastrous first debate performance of any sitting president in history, losing by a catastrophic fifty freaking points because he was so ridiculously unprepared.
I rather routinely call Obama the F-word. No, not that F-word (although the ability to resist doing so is dwindling); the other F-word: Fascist. Barack Obama is a fascist.
I have had quite a few liberals fixate on this word, and – while ignoring the rest of my arguments – proceed to give me a lecture about how my extremism undermines my positions and arguments (which they don’t bother to consider).
I’d like to respond to that. At length.
There are many who would argue that if a politician is not as rabid as Adolf Hitler, that one cannot use this label of “fascist” – at least not unless the target is a Republican (see below). Barack Obama is not a “dictator,” these would argue. He hasn’t launched the world into global war and he hasn’t murdered 6 million Jews (at least, he hasn’t yet). So he can’t be a “fascist.” This argument fails on two parts. First of all, by such a metric, Benito Mussolini wouldn’t be a “fascist” either (except for the “dictator” part). One of the reasons it is hard to have an easy definition of “fascist” is because fascism has taken a different character in every country and culture in which it has been embraced. Hitler is not the norm or standard of fascism; he is merely the most extreme example of its virulence and danger. Secondly, even if we were to take a Hitler as our example, let us realize that Adolf Hitler was a very cunning politician who managed to gain power in a Germany that was THE most sophisticated, educated and scientific nation and culture of its day. What I am asserting is that if an Adolf Hitler were to run for the presidency of the United States in 2012, he would run a platform that we could very easily label as “hope and change,” he would demagogue his adversaries as being the cause for the nation’s plight, he would lie both cynically and outrageously to win votes and he would then proceed to push the country as far as he possibly could toward his agenda. And so here, from the outset, I am claiming that the suggestion that either Barack Obama or anyone else does not qualify as a “fascist” simply because he or she can’t be directly compared to Adolf Hitler is nothing but a straw man.
The question thus becomes, what is fascism, and then it is what is Obama steering us toward?
THE WORD “fascism” is used broadly on the left as a term of abuse. Sometimes it is used to refer to any repressive government, whatever its political form. Most commonly on the left in the U.S., it is used to describe any Republican government–in particular, any Republican government or candidate on the eve of a presidential election.
As an experiment, I typed the words “Bush fascist” and then “Obama fascist” sans quotes. I got 3,280,000 Google hits for Bush fascist (and keep in mind an awful lot of hits would have vanished in the last 11 years as domains purged articles or simply ceased to exist) versus only 2,490,000 for Obama. That means liberals were over 45% more likely to call Bush a fascist than conservatives have been to call Obama one.
And when these liberals express their outrage that I would dare call Obama a fascist and thus lower the discourse, I invariably ask them just where the hell they were when their side was teeing off on Bush for eight unrelenting years of Bush derangement syndrome??? It was rare indeed to see a liberal excoriate his fellow liberals for demonizing the president of the United States.
With all due respect, the left started this form of “discourse.” They turned it into an art form. And how dare these hypocrites dare to tell me not to do unto Obama as they did unto Bush???
That might only be a rhetorical argument, as two wrongs clearly don’t make a right. But it remains a powerful one. Liberals have forfeited any moral right to criticize conservatives for using their own tactics against them.
But I don’t simply call Obama a fascist because liberals called Bush one. I call him one because he has exhibited all kinds of fascistic tendencies, which I shall in time describe.
But fascism has a far more precise definition. Historically, fascism is a far-right movementof the middle classes (shopkeepers, professionals, civil servants) who are economically ruined by severe economic crisis and driven to “frenzy.”
In the brilliant words of Leon Trotsky, fascism brings “to their feet those classes that are immediately above the working class and that are ever in dread of being forced down into its ranks; it organizes and militarizes them…and it directs them to the extirpation of proletarian organizations, from the most revolutionary to the most conservative.”
I have no doubt that the irony of these words were entirely lost to the “Socialist Worker” who wrote the article. But allow me to illuminate it for you: think of the most infamous fascists of all time, the Nazis. What did the word “Nazi” stand for? It was the “acronym for the ‘National Socialist German Workers Party’.” Let me try that again, just in case you missed these precious little details: “National SOCIALIST German WORKERS Party.”
But ask the “Socialist Workers” and they’ll assure you that the “Socialist Workers Party” had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Socialist Workers. Because that would certainly be awkward, wouldn’t it???
It is rather fascinating that “Socialist Worker” would cite as his authority on fascism and who should be labeled as a “fascist” the Marxist thinker . Allow me to provide one counter statement which is based not on the “brilliant words” of a Marxist, but on the plain simple facts:
“Part of the problem in recognizing fascism is the assumption that it is conservative. [Zeev] Sternhell has observed how study of the ideology has been obscured by “the official Marxist interpretation of fascism.” Marxism defines fascism as its polar opposite. If Marxism is progressive, fascism is conservative. If Marxism is left wing, fascism is right wing. If Marxism champions the proletariat, fascism champions the bourgeoisie. If Marxism is socialist, fascism is capitalist.
The influence of Marxist scholarship has severely distorted our understanding of fascism. Communism and fascism were rival brands of socialism. Whereas Marxist socialism is predicated on an international class struggle, fascist national socialism promoted a socialism centered in national unity. Both communists and fascists opposed the bourgeoisie. Both attacked the conservatives. Both were mass movements, which had special appeal for the intelligentsia, students, and artists, as well as workers. Both favored strong centralized governments and rejected the free economy and the ideals of individual liberty. Fascists saw themselves as being neither of the right nor the left. They believed that they constituted a third force synthesizing the best of both extremes” [Gene Edward Veith, Jr., Modern Fascism: Liquidating the Judeo-Christian Worldview, p. 26].
So depending on Leon Trotsky or any other Marxist-inspired academic who merely parrots “the official Marxist interpretation of fascism” has rather serious intellectual drawbacks. And yet that is largely what we get. Far too many American academics wouldn’t be so obvious as to use the phrase, “In the brilliant words of Leon Trotsky,” but they give his ideas, theories and talking points total credence, nonetheless. The term “useful idiots” was literally coined to describe these Western “intellectuals.” And their being “useful idiots” is every bit as true today as it ever was in the past.
Consider the REAL “polar opposite”: American conservatives are capitalists, not socialists. They demand a limited national/federal government, not a massive centrally planned state as does socialism, communism and fascism. They prefer the federalist idea of powerful states’ rights against a weakened federal government, not some all-powerful Führer. And to try to force conservatives into some Nazi mold invariably means either creating straw men arguments or citing irrelevant facts (such as that conservatives favor a large military just like the Nazis did, as though virtually every single communist state does not similarly favor a large military “just like the Nazis did”). If you want an all-powerful national government that gets to decide who wins and who loses, if you want to see a system where you have to come to your government for assistance and resources with all manner of strings attached rather than being allowed to depend on yourself, your family and your community, you should embrace the political left, not the right.
By the way, another favorite idiotic red herring for liberals asserting that “Nazism was right wing” was that the Nazis hated the admittedly left wing communists. But consider the fact that Coke hates Pepsi and Barbie Doll makers hate Bratz Doll makers. Are we supposed to believe that Coke is the opposite of Pepsi as opposed to water, milk or orange juice? The fact of the matter is that Nazis and Soviet Communists hated each other because both movements had a global agenda of totalitarian dominion, and both movements were competing for the same rabidly left wing converts.
Pardon me for the following insult, but the only people who believe garbage arguments like these are ignorant fools who live in a world of straw men. Even if they have the title “PhD.” after their names.
It is for that reason that I can state categorically that Marxism and fascism are not “polar opposites” at all. They are merely two potentially complementary species of socialism. That is why China has been able to easily weave blatantly fascistic (national socialist/corporatist) elements into its Maoist communism. It is also why Joseph Stalin was able to go from being an international socialist (i.e. a communist) and then appeal to nationalism (i.e., national socialism or “fascism”) when he needed to fight Hitler, only to switch back to “international socialism” after the war, as a few lines from Wikipedia on “Russian nationalism” point out:
The newborn communist republic under Vladimir Lenin proclaimed internationalism as its official ideology[4]. Russian nationalism was discouraged, as were any remnants of Imperial patriotism, such as wearing military awards received before Civil War….
The 1930s saw the evolution of the new concept of Soviet nationalism under Joseph Stalin, based on both Russian nationalism and communist internationalism. Official communist ideology always stated that Russia was the most progressive state, because it adopted socialism as its basis (which, according to the writings of Karl Marx, is the inevitable future of world socio-economic systems). Under Lenin, the USSR believed its duty to help other nations to arrange socialist revolutions (the concept of World Revolution), and made close ties with labor movements around the world[4].
[…]
The Soviet Union’s war against Nazi Germany became known as the Great Patriotic War, hearkening back to the previous use of the term in the Napoleonic Wars. The Soviet state called for Soviet citizens to defend the ‘Motherland’, a matrilineal term used to describe Russia in the past.
[…]
In 1944, the Soviet Union abandoned its communist anthem, The International, and adopted a new national anthem which citizens of the Soviet Union could identify with.
And then, with the victory secured over fascism, the Stalinist “national socialism” (a.k.a. “fascism”) suddenly became international socialism again. The Nazis’ very name was Nationalsozialistische.
One can be a “Marxist-fascist” and combine and blend elements of both totalitarian socialist systems quite easily, as both the Russian and then the Chinese communists proved. Communism and fascism have far more in common with one another than they have in opposition; especially when you examine the fact that both political systems invariably end up becoming the same big-government totalitarian police state.
So for my first two points – namely that 1) the left has routinely demagogically labeled the right “fascist” even when 2) it is clearly the left that owes far and away the most to fascistic elements – I am going to continue to shout from the rooftops who are the real fascists in America.
That said, it is still not enough to merely point out the FACT that American liberalism has much in common with fascism. And there is a lot more yet to say.
Before I begin spouting particular examples, I therefore need to further approach just what it is that would constitute a “fascist.” And then see who and how the label fits. From The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics:
The best example of a fascist economy is the regime of Italian dictator Benito Mussolini. Holding that liberalism (by which he meant freedom and free markets) had “reached the end of its historical function,” Mussolini wrote: “To Fascism the world is not this material world, as it appears on the surface, where Man is an individual separated from all others and left to himself…. Fascism affirms the State as the true reality of the individual.”
This collectivism is captured in the word fascism, which comes from the Latin fasces, meaning a bundle of rods with an axe in it. In economics, fascism was seen as a third way between laissez-faire capitalism and communism. Fascist thought acknowledged the roles of private property and the profit motive as legitimate incentives for productivity—provided that they did not conflict with the interests of the state.
[…]
Mussolini’s fascism took another step at this time with the advent of the Corporative State, a supposedly pragmatic arrangement under which economic decisions were made by councils composed of workers and employers who represented trades and industries. By this device the presumed economic rivalry between employers and employees was to be resolved, preventing the class struggle from undermining the national struggle. In the Corporative State, for example, strikes would be illegal and labor disputes would be mediated by a state agency.
Theoretically, the fascist economy was to be guided by a complex network of employer, worker, and jointly run organizations representing crafts and industries at the local, provincial, and national levels. At the summit of this network was the National Council of Corporations. But although syndicalism and corporativism had a place in fascist ideology and were critical to building a consensus in support of the regime, the council did little to steer the economy. The real decisions were made by state agencies such as the Institute for Industrial Reconstruction (Istituto per la Ricosstruzione Industriale, or IRI), mediating among interest groups.
[…]
Mussolini also eliminated the ability of business to make independent decisions: the government controlled all prices and wages, and firms in any industry could be forced into a cartel when the majority voted for it. The well-connected heads of big business had a hand in making policy, but most smaller businessmen were effectively turned into state employees contending with corrupt bureaucracies. They acquiesced, hoping that the restrictions would be temporary. Land being fundamental to the nation, the fascist state regimented agriculture even more fully, dictating crops, breaking up farms, and threatening expropriation to enforce its commands.
Banking also came under extraordinary control. As Italy’s industrial and banking system sank under the weight of depression and regulation, and as unemployment rose, the government set up public works programs and took control over decisions about building and expanding factories. The government created the Istituto Mobiliare in 1931 to control credit, and the IRI later acquired all shares held by banks in industrial, agricultural, and real estate enterprises.
The image of a strong leader taking direct charge of an economy during hard times fascinated observers abroad. Italy was one of the places that Franklin Roosevelt looked to for ideas in 1933…
Fascism is all about the “community,” not the individual. Its message is about the good of the nation, or the people (or the Volk), or the community, rather than the good of a nation’s individual citizens. It is about distributing and then redistributing the wealth and returning it to “its rightful owners” under the guise of an all-powerful state rather than recognizing and rewarding individual achievement. In short, when Hillary Clinton explained that, “It takes a village,” an educated Nazi would have snapped his fingers and excitedly shouted, “Ja! JA! Das ist ES!”
For Obama, the collectivism, community or “village” thing is such a profound part of him that he has literally made it an integral part of his very heretical form of “Christianity,” which very much stresses individual salvation and individual responsibility. Obama has on several occasions put it this way:
For example, in 1995, Obama said, “my individual salvation is not going to come about without a collective salvation for the country…” and again in May of 2008, “our individual salvation depends of collective salvation.”
In the Christian faith, there is no such thing as collective salvation. Salvation is an individual choice. It is personal acceptance of Jesus as savior, Son of the living God.
Obama’s is a wildly perverted view of orthodox Christianity. It so distorts true Christianity at such a fundamental level, in fact, that one literally has to go to Hitler to find a suitable similar parallel from a “Christian” national leader. The great Protestant Reformer Martin Luther – the most famous German prior to Hitler – had written the most monumental text of German culture prior to Hitler’s Mein Kampf. It was called “The Bondage of the Will,” which was considered THE manifesto of the Reformation. According to Luther, the human will was in bondage to sin. The fallen will, if left to itself, will choose what is evil. The human will has been perversely set against the righteous will of God. For sinful human beings, the will is not in a state of liberty but is in bondage to its worst impulses. Luther wrote in this work, “When our liberty is lost we are compelled to serve sin: that is, we will sin and evil, we speak sin and evil, we do sin and evil.” Adolf Hitler infamously turned that key doctrine of Christianity on its head in his “The Triumph of the Will,” in which he exalted depraved human will to an altogether different level of human depravity. Which is to say that Hitler was so profoundly wrong that he proved Luther right.
But getting back to Obama’s profoundly anti-Christian concept of “collective salvation,” the Nazis would have been all over that, enthusiastically shouting their agreement, “Ja! JA! Das ist ES!” Recall the encyclopedia entry on fascism stating that, “Fascism affirms the State as the true reality of the individual,” which was then further defined as “collectivism.” And the Nazis repeatedly called upon loyal Germans to make horrendous sacrifices in the name of that collective.
What the Nazis pursued was a form of anti-capitalist anti-conservative communitarianism encapsulated in the concept of Volksgemeinschaft, or “people’s community.”
From the Nazi Party Platform:
– The first obligation of every citizen must be to work both spiritually and physically. The activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the universality, but must have its result within the framework of the whole for the benefit of all Consequently we demand:
– Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of rent-slavery.
– In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
– We demand the nationalization of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).
– We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.
– We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.
– We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality.
– We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land.
– We demand struggle without consideration against those whose activity is injurious to the general interest. Common national criminals, usurers, Schieber and so forth are to be punished with death, without consideration of confession or race.
– We demand substitution of a German common law in place of the Roman Law serving a materialistic world-order.
– The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program, to enable every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education and subsequently introduction into leading positions. The plans of instruction of all educational institutions are to conform with the experiences of practical life. The comprehension of the concept of the State must be striven for by the school [Staatsbuergerkunde] as early as the beginning of understanding. We demand the education at the expense of the State of outstanding intellectually gifted children of poor parents without consideration of position or profession.
– The State is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young.
– We demand abolition of the mercenary troops and formation of a national army.
– We demand legal opposition to known lies and their promulgation through the press. In order to enable the provision of a German press, we demand, that: a. All writers and employees of the newspapers appearing in the German language be members of the race: b. Non-German newspapers be required to have the express permission of the State to be published. They may not be printed in the German language: c. Non-Germans are forbidden by law any financial interest in German publications, or any influence on them, and as punishment for violations the closing of such a publication as well as the immediate expulsion from the Reich of the non-German concerned. Publications which are counter to the general good are to be forbidden. We demand legal prosecution of artistic and literary forms which exert a destructive influence on our national life, and the closure of organizations opposing the above made demands.
Ah, yes, the Nazis had their “Fairness Doctrine” long before this current generation of liberals had theirs.
You read that Nazi Party Platform carefully, and you tell me if you see small government conservative Republicans or big government liberal Democrats written all over it.
Now, you read the Nazi Party Platform, and given what American liberals want and what American conservatism opposes, it is so obvious which party is “fascist” that it isn’t even silly. Then you ADD to that the fact that fascism and American progressivism (which is liberalism) were so similar that the great fascists of the age couldn’t tell the damn difference.
Since you point out Nazism was fascist, let’s look at some history as to WHO was recognized as fascist in America.
Fascism sought to eliminate class differences and to destroy/replace capitalism and laissez-faire economics.
H.G. Wells, a great admirer of FDR and an extremely close personal friend of his, was also a great progressive of his day. He summed it up this way in a major speech at Oxford to the YOUNG LIBERALS organization under the banner of “Liberal Fascism”: “I am asking for a Liberal Fascisti, for enlightened Nazis.” He said, “And do not let me leave you in the slightest doubt as to the scope and ambition of what I am putting before you” and then said:
These new organizations are not merely organizations for the spread of defined opinions…the days of that sort of amateurism are over – they are organizations to replace the dilatory indecisiveness of democracy. The world is sick of parliamentary politics…The Fascist Party, to the best of its ability, is Italy now. The Communist Party, to the best of its ability, is Russia. Obviously the Fascists of Liberalism must carry out a parallel ambition on still a vaster scale…They must begin as a disciplined sect, but must end as the sustaining organization of a reconstituted mankind.”
H.G. Wells pronounced FDR “the most effective transmitting instrument possible for the coming of the new world order.” And of course, we easily see that the new world order Wells wanted was a fascist one. In 1941, George Orwell concluded, “Much of what Wells has imagined and worked for is physically there in Nazi Germany.”
It was from the lips of liberal progressive H.G. Wells that Jonah Goldberg got the title of his book, Liberal Fascism. Goldberg didn’t just invent this connection: H.G. Wells flagrantly admitted it and George Orwell called him on it. All Goldberg did was rediscover history that liberals buried and have used every trick imaginable to keep buried.
And as a tie-in to our modern day, who more than Barack Obama has been more associated with said FDR?
But let me move on to some real red meat. In just what specific, concrete ways can I call Obama a fascist?
Well, to begin with, there is the signature achievement of his entire presidency, his national health care system (ObamaCare). For liberals, it is nothing but the most bizarre coincidence that Nazi culture had a national health care system that was quite rightly considered the wonder of its day by socialists in America. It is the most despicable of insults that Sarah Palin excoriated ObamaCare as “death panels” – even though it is more precisely a bureaucratic maze consisting of more like 160 separate death panels:
And the “czar” thing hits a very fascist nerve, too. Obama has appointed 39 czars who are completely outside our Constitutional process. Obama signed a budget bill into law that required him to remove these czars, but why would a fascist trouble himself with outmoded things like “laws”? One of the enraged Republicans responded, “The president knew that the czar amendment was part of the overall budget deal he agreed to, and if he cannot be trusted to keep his word on this, then how can he be trusted as we negotiate on larger issues like federal spending and the economy.” And of course, he’s right.
But why do I say it’s financial fascism in 20/20 hindsight? Because of what we just learned: in spite of all the bogus lying promises and the massive takeover “for our own good,” Obama didn’t fix anything. Instead he made it WORSE:
The financial system poses an even greater risk to taxpayers than before the crisis, according to analysts at Standard & Poor’s. The next rescue could be about a trillion dollars costlier, the credit rating agency warned.
S&P put policymakers on notice, saying there’s “at least a one-in-three” chance that the U.S. government may lose its coveted AAA credit rating. Various risks could lead the agency to downgrade the Treasury’s credit worthiness, including policymakers’ penchant for rescuing bankers and traders from their failures.
“The potential for further extraordinary official assistance to large players in the U.S. financial sector poses a negative risk to the government’s credit rating,” S&P said in its Monday report.
But, the agency’s analysts warned, “we believe the risks from the U.S. financial sector are higher than we considered them to be before 2008.”
Because of the increased risk, S&P forecasts the potential initial cost to taxpayers of the next crisis cleanup to approach 34 percent of the nation’s annual economic output, or gross domestic product. In 2007, the agency’s analysts estimated it could cost 26 percent of GDP.
Last year, U.S. output neared $14.7 trillion, according to the Commerce Department. By S&P’s estimate, that means taxpayers could be hit with $5 trillion in costs in the event of another financial collapse.
Experts said that while the cost estimate seems unusually high, there’s little dispute that when the next crisis hits, it will not be anticipated — and it will likely hurt the economy more than the last financial crisis.
So much for the massive and unprecedented fascist government takeover.
Think last year’s $700 billion Wall Street rescue package was beaucoup bucks to spend bailing out the nation’s floundering financial system? That’s chump change compared to what the overall price tag could be, a government watchdog says.
The inspector general in charge of overseeing the Treasury Department’s bank-bailout program says the massive endeavor could end up costing taxpayers almost $24 trillion in a worst-case scenario. That’s more than six times President Obama’s proposed $3.55 trillion budget for 2010.
Nobody here but us fascists. And we sure aint talking.
Then there are other issues that the left usually uses to attack conservatives, such as racism. Wasn’t Hitler a racist, just like conservatives? The problem is, the liberals are as usual upside-down here. After running as the man to create racial harmony, Barack Obama has instead done more to racially polarize America than any president since other famous progressives such as Woodrow Wilson and FDR. Frankly, if one were to conduct a major study of racial politics, and the setting up in opposition of one racial group against another, just which party has emphasized race and race-baiting more?
Hitler’s Jew-baiting was all about the idea that one race had taken over the culture, had the money and the power, and was using its influence to oppress the people in the banking system and anywhere else that mattered. And Hitler’s constant screed was that Germany needed to confiscate the Jews’ wealth and then redistribute it. With all respect, all the left has done is replace “Jew” with “Caucasian” and making the exact same claims.
And with all this hard-core racist demagoguing, I’m supposed to say that, “Oh, yes, it’s the conservatives who are guilty of demagoguing race”??? Seriously???
Obama has Samantha Powers (the wife of Cass Sunstein, the man who “nudges us”) close to him and advising him on matters of war. According to the very liberal publication The Nation, “She began to see war as an instrument to achieving her liberal, even radical, values.” What if you had an ultra conservative – oh, say a Sarah Palin – openly acknowledged to pursue war and risk American lives to advance her radical values??? What would the left call this if not “fascist”?
But it’s only fascist if Republicans do it, of course.
Also in yesterday’s news is the fact that Obama is the perpetual demagogue– which is a quintessentially fascist tactic. Obama demonized Bush for trying to raise the debt ceiling until he needed to raise it. Now it would be un-American for Republicans to act the same exact way Obama acted. In the same demagogic spirit, Obama personally invited Paul Ryan to a speech just so he could personally demonize him. The same Obama who lectured Republicans that it would be counter-productive to rely on name-calling and accusations in the health care debate launched into a vicious demagogic attack. Ryan correctly said that “What we got yesterday was the opposite of what he said is necessary to fix this problem.” But that is par for the golf course for a fascist. If that wasn’t enough, Obama held a White House conference for “stake holders” in the immigration debate and refused to invite a single governor from a border state.
A Republican equivalent would have had to come out of a deep involvement with some vile racist militia organization to approximate Obama’s background. And liberals would rightly label such a politician a fascist for his past alone.
Here’s a recent Youtube video of Obama’s key union allies on camera saying, “We’re not going to rely on the law,” and, “Forget about the law” as they seek to impose their unions basically whether workers want them or not:
Mainstream media outlets and the apparatchiks who staff them reach low after low; and then keep right on digging.
Monday night Juan Williams appeared on Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly Program and said:
Well, actually, I hate to say this to you because I don’t want to get your ego going. But I think you’re right. I think, look, political correctness can lead to some kind of paralysis where you don’t address reality.
I mean, look, Bill, I’m not a bigot. You know the kind of books I’ve written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous.
Now, I remember also when the Times Square bomber was at court — this was just last week — he said: “the war with Muslims, America’s war is just beginning, first drop of blood.” I don’t think there’s any way to get away from these facts.
If that isn’t blatant enough, the same day far leftist radical George Soros gave that $1.8 million to NPR, he similarly gave another million dollars to the profoundly leftwing Media Matters, with the express purpose of attacking Fox News. From Newsmax:
Billionaire currency titan George Soros, long a patron of liberal political causes in the United States, is giving $1 million to Media Matters in what he says is an attempt to stop the growing popularity of Fox News.
And, just to complete the picture, Media Matters proceeds to tell us the real sin of Juan Williams – appearing on Fox News – as it turns its demonization campaign to Mara Liasson. From millionaire Media Matters:
News that Juan Williams’ contract with NPR was terminated over comments he made about Muslims while appearing on Fox News shines a spotlight on the radio network’s evergreen controversy: Its continued affiliation with Fox News. Specifically, NPR’s Mara Liasson and her long-running association with Fox News has often raised questions. This might be the proper time for NPR to finally address that thorny issue.
So liberals, being the dishonest lying slime that they are, can’t just say, “We’re firing Juan Williams because he’s appearing on the most trusted name in news, which and we just can’t have that.”
They don’t have the decency to say that former Nazi collaborator George Soros bought them 100 paid-in-fill propagandists, and probably instructed NPR to clean house of anyone who won’t properly march to his goose-step.
Instead NPR relied upon the favorite tactic of the left – the politics of personal destruction – in order to try to personally destroy Juan Williams’ character and integrity.
That’s just the kind of slimy reptiles these people are.
A few things come to mind as I think about the craven excuse NPR used to get rid of Juan Williams:
1) Juan Williams was fired for telling the truth, of all things. You just can’t have truth in liberal “journalism.” Because truth is an embarrassment to the left.
Further, “government-funded” and “journalism” go together like ketchup and milkshakes. NPR and PBS stand as embodiments of disgrace to journalism. And when you add “George Soros” to “government funded,” you get something that is quintessentially dangerous to both journalism and democracy itself.
2) Every mainstream media outlet is fundamentally hypocritical as well as dishonest regarding Islam as the “religion of peace.”
On the one hand, we are constantly told that Islam is peaceful. And that anyone who fears Islam is some kind of a bigot.
And yet, on the other hand, the same “journalists” and news outlets that say this to us are themselves so piss-in-their-pants afraid of this peaceful religion becoming über-violent at the drop of a hat that they constantly censor themselves lest they end up as terrorist murder victims.
Case in point: the Washington Post, the Denver Post, and many other mainstream media papers, refused to allow the following Non Sequitur cartoon:
Why? Because the people the leftist journalists so dramatically insist are “peaceful” will launch a murderous jihad if they feel insulted or offended in any way, shape, or form.
If NPR, the New York Times, the “ladies” of The View, or anyone else, wants to tell me that Muslims are peaceful, or that Islam is the religion of peace, let them publish pictures of an image of The Prophet immersed in a jar of urine. So we can see Islamic “tolerance” in action.
The fact of the matter is that the very mainstream media news outlets that are the most vocal in telling us that fear of Islam equals bigotry are in point of fact the most terrified of Islam. And journalists have literally bowed down to the point of becoming the most pathetic form of useful idiots out of fear of the thing they constantly tell the American people they must not be afraid of.
3) NPR, in firing Juan Williams, committed a terrorist act itself. With this firing as their “jihadist propaganda bomb.”
I think that’s what Rush Limbaugh was getting at when he started referring to Muslims today as “Middle Eastern liberals.”
Let’s face it. This wasn’t just about Juan Williams. This was about any journalist who dares to cross the line from propaganda to truth. If you tell the truth – especially on the most trusted network in news – they will bury you.
The idea was to strike terror in any journalist who would say, “I’m going to be objective for once in my life.”
I always got the sense that Juan Williams was both a personally gracious man and a straight shooter who called it as he saw it.
Now, having said all of that, I found most of Juan Williams’ offerings to be frankly idiotic. And if the man was to be fired by anyone, it should have been by Fox News for offering mostly stupid, doctrinaire liberal crap.
It’s been nine years. But most Americans remember where they were when they first learned that a hijacked passenger jumbo jet had just slammed into the World Trade Center.
We also remember how we felt: the incomprehension, the shock, the fear and the anger.
A few moments stand out for me that give me pride to this day.
United Airlines flight 93 was a Boeing 757 on a morning Newark-to-San Francisco route. On 11 Sep 2001 the plane was hijacked by a four man hijacking team. Evidence suggests that the hijacking was apparently thwarted by the efforts of the plane’s passengers and flight attendants. The plane crashed southeast of Pittsburgh in Somerset County, Pennsylvania. The plan was carrying 37 passengers and 7 crew members. There were no survivors. Todd Beamer, a passenger, tried to place a credit card call but was routed to a customer service representative instead, who passed him on to supervisor Lisa Jefferson. She called the FBI. Beamer reported that one passenger was dead. He asked if together they could pray the Lord’s prayer, which they did. Later, he told the operator that some of the plane’s passengers were planning “to jump” the hijackers. The last words Ms. Jefferson heard from the plane were “Are you ready guys? Let’s roll.” The plane crashed into a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania at 10:03 AM, killing all aboard. It is believed that this aircraft was intended to be crashed into the United States Capitol building in Washington, DC, Congress was in session at the time.
A shiver goes up my spine every time I try to visualize the raw courage of Todd Beamer and the beyond-heroic men and women who assisted him in taking back the plane so that it could not be used as a weapon against other Americans. Even as they likely knew that they would surely die themselves.
I think particularly of Todd Beamer asking to pray with an operator whom he would never see in this life, and afterward that operator being able to recollect his last words, spoken to other passengers: “Are you ready guys? Let’s roll.”
I feel pride. and I pray, and hope, that I would have been like those heroes had I been on board that flight.
As thousands of workers in the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center desperately fled down the stairs, there were heroes laboring their way up carrying their heavy gear. Laboring up floor after floor, trying to make their way up to render aid when everyone around them was trying to make their way to safety.
Few if any of those men knew that they were climbing to their deaths. But you know what? I have a feeling that many of them would have kept on climbing even if they did know. It was just who they were.
And on this day, I honor them. And I’m proud of their sacrifice.
The Events On The Top Floors Of The World Trade Center:
One of the most vivid images in my mind was the footage of people in the top floors of the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center throwing themselves out of windows to their deaths to escape the raging inferno within that dying skyscraper. We can only imagine their horrific and terrorized desperation in facing the nightmare choice of a certain death by fire, or a certain death by fall.
In the months afterward, I watched a program putting these events into a spiritual context. If my memory serves, it was R.C. Sproul who had the made the most memorable impression in my soul.
He spoke of 9/11 representing both the greatest evil and the greatest good in the world, of the evil of the terrorists, and of the love exhibited by those who perished as a result of their evil.
He described how he imagined the final moments of those who had been in the top floors, unable to escape the inferno. He focused on the image of many of those who threw themselves out of the building: how they leaped to their deaths holding hands with their fellow workers.
I can imagine a crying, terrorized secretary, afraid to jump, but even more terrified of the terrible heat and smoke, and the approaching roaring flames. And I imagine someone telling her, “Come with me. Hold my hand. We’ll go together.”
And amidst all that evil, they leaped. Holding hands.
What love.
The image brings tears of sorrow, that so many such anonymous, but such wonderful, people, died that day. But it also brings pride.
What would you do in that situation? I hope if I had to go out like that, someone would be holding my hand.
The Events Of The President’s Visit To The Ground Zero Site:
Another vivid memory for me was President George Bush’s so-called “bullhorn moment” on September 14, 2001 as he visited Ground Zero following the attack.
I had joined my brother and his family and my parents in a restaurant which had a giant screen television. And that’s where I saw Bush step up – literally – and say a very few, but now very famous, words:
As described by eyewitness and participant Karl Rove, who documented the scene in his book, Courage and Consequence:
Bush was hearing and seeing the rescue workers up close. They were not shy about sharing their feelings. These men were working on adrenaline and passion and, after three days and increasingly less frequent good news about survivors, they were nearly spent. Pataki was right; the presidential visit was energizing for many of the people we met. Bush later told me what he felt from the workers was deep, almost overwhelming anger, even hatred. […]
There was a tug on my sleave. It was Nina Bishop, a White House advance woman working the event. She pointed to the chanting workers and said, “They want to hear from their president.” No one had prepared remarks, but she was exactly right…
I pointed at the battered fire truck. Andy [Card] made a beeline to the president. Nina had commandeered a bullhorn from a man who worked for Con Ed and met me at the fire truck with it. The bullhorn’s batteries weren’t that good, but it was all we had…
The president took the bullhorn and reached his hand up to the rescue worker, a retired sixty-nine-year-old firefighter named Bob Beckwith. Beckwith looked down into the scrum below him, saw the outstretched hand, grasped, and pulled. In an instant, Bush was sharing the top of the truck with Beckwith, who suddenly realized he’d helped up the president of the United States. Beckwith tried to crawl down but the president asked, “Where are you going?” Bob said he was getting down. Bush said, “No, no, you stay right here.”
The cheers and chanting subsided and the president started to speak into the bullhorn. With the National Cathedral prayer service still fresh on his mind, Bush began by saying, “I want you all to know that America today is on bended knee in prayer for the people whose lives were lost here, for the workers who work here, for the families who mourn. This nation stands with the good people of New York City and New Jersey and Connecticut as we mourn the loss of thousands of our citizens.” Someone yelled, “Go get ’em, George!” Someone else yelled, “George, we can’t hear you!” and others echoed this complaint. Bush paused and then responded in a voice now fully magnified by the bullhorn, “I can hear you.” The crowd went nuts – and he knew what to do from there. “The rest of the world hears you,” he went on, “and the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon.” The crowd broke into defiant, even bitter, chants of “U.S.A.! U.S.A.!” Bush handed the bullhorn off and he climbed down.
In an iconic moment, George Bush was very much alone with an enormous responsibility. The nation wanted reassurance; it wanted to know it had a leader who understood the mission America now faced. No speechwriters, no aides, no advisers were involved in Bush’s response. It was an authentic moment that connected with the public in a strong, deep way. Without assistance and in an instant, George Bush gave voice to America’s desires.
Seeing President Bush hop up on that busted truck and stand shoulder to shoulder with a weary firefighter is a sight forever etched in my mind, and for many it remains one of the most inspiring scenes from the terrible events of 9/11. Presidential historian Douglas Brinkley’s assessment of Bush’s visit to Ground Zero was prophetic: “We can’t just judge him as President Bush anymore, but we’re going to soon be judging him as commander-in-chief.”
President George Bush was at his finest moment when the country needed him the most.
The Events Of Our Very Greatest Americans: The Congressional Medal Of Honor Recipients:
Our soldiers are all heroes, these days. You don’t volunteer to serve in today’s military without realizing that you may very well be called upon to serve in a combat zone. And with terrorism and the tactics used by terrorist fighters, anyone can suddenly find himself or herself on the front lines.
I’ve marveled at our soldiers and Marines since the first footage showed them ready to go into battle. And from those first days to the present, they have been magnificent.
I am so proud of them, so proud of what they have accomplished, and so proud that these incredible men and women wear the flag that I cherish.
I obviously can’t name them all, and tell all of their stories. But here are the stories of the greatest of the great: our Congressional Medal of Honor recipients:
Salvatore Giunta, Staff Sergeant, B Company, 2nd Battalion, 503rd Infantry Regiment, 173rd Infantry Brigade (Airborne), US Army
Robert James Miller, Staff Sergeant, A Company, 3rd Battalion, 3rd Special Forces Group (Airborne), US Army
Jared C. Monti, Sgt 1st Class, 3rd Squadron, 71st Cavalry, 10th Mountain Division, US Army
Michael P. Murphy, Lieutenant, Alpha Platoon, SEAL Delivery Vehicle Team ONE (SDVT-1), US Navy
Jason Dunham, Corporal, 4th Platoon, Company K, 3rd Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment (3/7), 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, USMC
Ross A. McGinnis, Specialist,1st Platoon, C Company, 1st Battalion, 26th Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division, US Army
Michael A. Monsoor, Petty Officer 2nd Class, Delta Platoon, SEAL Team 3, US Navy
Paul R. Smith, Sgt 1st Class, B Company, 11th Engineer Battalion, 3rd Infantry Division, US Army
These men, in receiving this the highest award for valor, have transcended themselves, and rightly epitomize the greatest attributes of not just soldiers, sailors, and Marines, but of human beings. I think of the words of Jesus, “Greater love has no one than this, than that he lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:13).
On this 9/11, I remember that the United States was attacked by men who had murdered their very own humanity in the name of a rabid religious ideology before they murdered nearly 3,000 Americans. I remember that we are at war, whether all of us recognize it or not. And I remember that we must hold the same steely resolve to fight against an adversary who practices no rules, has no compassion, and stops at no moral or rational limits.
But most of all, I remember the men and women who gave us the greatest possible example of love, of courage, of sacrifice, and of both the human and American spirit.
And I’m proud to be an American, because I am surrounded by such a cloud of magnificent heroes.
Thank you, Lord, for producing these magnificent men and women.
And Lord, please make more of them and keep them coming. For we surely need others like them.
Start Thinking Right 