Whose Convention Got Hacked? Why Not RNC? DNC Emails Got Hacked BECAUSE RUSSIA HACKED HILLARY’S SECRET SERVER.

What do you think is easier to hack?  The DNC or a homebrewn secret server stored in a bathroom closet that doesn’t even have any damn security???

The phrase “no brainer” ought to come to mind.

Just remember, the Russians didn’t get their hands on the Republican National Convention emails; they got their hands on the Democrats.  And the Democrats are actually trying to blame their stunning incompetence on Donald TRUMP???

The DNC has been handled in a stunningly and embarrassingly incompetent manner for the last year and a half.  And they have been revealed to be so beyond corrupt it is beyond unreal.  And that stunningly embarrassing incompetence and that staggering corruption just got EXPOSED.

It was a joke to watch DNC Chairwoman Debbie Blabbermouth Schultz get BOOED by her OWN FLORIDA DELEGATION.

And that kind of disgusting failure to do a damn thing right ought to be rewarded: so Hillary is actually giving Debbie a JOB in her crooked and corrupt campaign.  Because staggering incompetent and corrupt birds flock together.

You want to talk about two hideously overrated individuals; the ONLY thing EITHER of them is good at is incompetence and corruption.

The Democrat Party just got proven to be the party of incompetence and corruption just as Hillary just recently got proven to be the candidate of incompetence and corruption.

Just wanting to make sure you understand: the same Wikileaks that is leacking the DNC emails HAS HILLARY CLINTON’S EMAILS.

The question is what came first, the corrupt Hillary chicken or the corrupt Hillary egg???  Hey, dumbasses, the SAME Wikileaks that hacked Hillary’s secret server is the SAME Wikileaks that hacked Hillary’s DNC.  And the common denominator to both hacks is named “Hillary”:

WikiLeaks Promises More Email Dumps Featuring Hillary Clinton
Katie Pavlich
Posted: Jul 25, 2016 12:30 PM

We’re just hours away from the gaveling in of the 2016 Democrat Convention in Philadelphia and the Democrat Party is in chaos after WikiLeaks exposed DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz for anti-Bernie Sanders bias during the primary. Wasserman-Schultz announced yesterday she will resign from her post as the head of the DNC when the convention ends Thursday and will promptly join the Clinton campaign.

But the damage WikiLeaks has done to Democrats so far isn’t over. According to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, the website will publish more hacked emails and this time, they’ll be about Hillary Clinton and her ongoing private email server scandal.

Julian Assange has made an incredible statement in an interview with ITV. Assange says that Wikileaks, the infamous whistle-blowing website, will soon be publishing documents that contain “enough evidence” for the Department of Justice to indict Hillary Clinton, the expected Democratic nominee.

Team Clinton and the DNC have been in damage control for more than 24 hours now and are blaming the WikiLeaks hack on the Russians, saying it was an attack from President Vladimer Putin on Hillary Clinton in an effort to sabotage her campaign.

[Katie Pavlich left it this way, tweeting:]

So, the Russians hacked the DNC emails and team Hillary wants us to believe they didn’t do the same with her private server? LOL #DNCinPHL

The Hillary line is that Russia did this to help Donald Trump.  Because Hillary is the next term of Obama, and everybody knows that Obama has just mopped the floor with Russia.  Oh, wait, it’s the other way around and Putin has so mopped planet earth with Barack Obama’s face it’s beyond pathetic kind of the way that Pluto is beyond Earth in the solar system.  The simple fact that all intelligent life understands is that the Russians would have gleefully done this to any idiot fool enough to install an unauthorized secret server and not bother to install security on it and then put all kinds of THE most classified material imaginable on it and then use that same system the Russians obviously hacked to email the bigwigs of that idiot’s national convention.

Amazing True Facts: Emails Actually MATTER Now To Vile Democrats (That’s ‘DEMOn-possessed bureaCRATS’)

I have to go somewhere, but I just can’t resist shouting this from my rooftop:

For over two years now, emails didn’t matter one tiny bit to the vile people otherwise known as Democrats.  They just weren’t morally capable of even the tiniest and most trivial level of honesty, integrity, decency, virtue, character or morality necessary to care about the fact that their candidate for president is as dishonest, corrupt and fascist as they come.

It just got openly revealed to the world that every single thing Hillary Clinton said about her emails and the secret, unauthorized server that she installed to fascistically control access to those emails and keep the public from having any transparency in their leaders, was an outright lie.  The woman is a pathological liar, right down to the tiniest details.

But Democrats no more care about Hillary Clinton’s emails than they do about the fact that they will soon be screaming in the eternal fire of hell for a trillion to the trillionth power years for every single nanosecond they murderously stole from every single one of the sixty million babies that every single Democrat has participated in through their vote for the party of abortion.  Just as the God of the Bible has declared that homosexual perversion is an abomination and a detestable act that will guarantee the wrath of God against any nation that approves of it.

Democrats couldn’t care less that Hillary Clinton treated the national security of the United States like disgustingly-soiled toilet paper so she could hide her corrupt Clinton Foundation shenanigans.

But all of a sudden we find that some Democrats actually care enough about emails proving the Democrat Party is as corrupt and as fascist and as created for insiders as they come.

Everyone who votes for the Democrat Party is already voting to scream in hell, and this is just another proof of that:

Wasserman Schultz sidelined from convention as more emails show Sanders slams
Published July 24, 2016
· FoxNews.com

PHILADELPHIA –  Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz was sidelined from her party convention just hours before the Monday start of the Philadelphia gathering, after leaked emails indicating an anti-Bernie Sanders bias in her operation inflamed the left flank of the party.

The controversial party boss will no longer preside over the convention, and reportedly does not have a speaking role.

The fallout was swift, as even more emails surfaced Sunday showing Schultz personally blasting the Vermont independent senator’s insurgent primary presidential bid against Hillary Clinton.

In one, she practically laughed off Sanders after he vowed to replace her as DNC chairwoman if elected.

“This is a silly story. He isn’t going to be president,” she wrote in the May 21 email.

Following the release of this and numerous other emails in a WikiLeaks document dump, Fox News confirmed Sunday that Wasserman Schultz will not preside over the Democratic convention. The decision was reached amid pressure from the White House and Hillary Clinton campaign.

The latest headlines on the 2016 elections from the biggest name in politics.
See Latest Coverage →

Rep. Marcia Fudge, D-Ohio, the former chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus, will instead preside over the Democratic proceedings as convention chairwoman.

The rapid-fire set of developments ahead of the Philadelphia convention kick-off indicate a party in crisis management mode as officials try to prevent anger over the email leak controversy and other issues from disrupting proceedings. The emails only bolstered claims from Sanders – and Republican nominee Donald Trump – that the system was rigged against the Vermont senator.

Sanders himself blasted the DNC and Wasserman Schultz in interviews Sunday, demanding her resignation as party chairwoman to boot.

“I think [Wasserman Schultz] should resign. Period. And I think we need a new chair who is going the lead us in a very different direction,” Sanders told ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday.

Sanders said “these emails reiterate that reason why she should not be chair.”

Sanders is himself set to speak on the opening night of the Democratic convention, securing an A-list position after a hard-fought, ideological primary battle with Clinton.

But he hasn’t forgiven Wasserman Schultz for an alleged pro-Clinton stance during the campaign. He repeated those claims in the wake of WikiLeaks’ release of roughly 20,000 Democratic National Committee emails.

The leaks, which include emails from January 2015 to May 2016, purportedly came from the accounts of seven DNC officials. In a May 5 email, a DNC employee asked a colleague to collect information on his religious beliefs – claiming it might sway voters in West Virginia and Kentucky. In that particular email, Sanders’ name was not mentioned, but he was the only other candidate in the race at that time against Clinton.

DNC chief financial officer Brad Marshall wrote, “This would make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist.”

Others from Wasserman Schultz herself contained very strong language, raising questions about her status as an ostensibly neutral party official.

Responding to Sanders’ complaints the party hasn’t been fair to him, she wrote to a staffer in an April email: “Spoken like someone who has never been a member of the Democratic Party and has no understanding of what we do.”

Responding to the same staffer a month later regarding Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver blaming the Nevada state party for a raucous convention, she wrote, “Damn liar. Particularly scummy that he barely acknowledges the violent and threatening behavior that occurred.”

Sanders will be joined Monday night on stage at the Wells Fargo Center by first lady Michelle Obama and several other speakers, according to the Democratic National Committee.

CNN reported that Wasserman Schultz, however, would not have a speaking role in Philadelphia. Wasserman Schultz is not on the list of speakers released by the DNC.

A Democratic source told the network that she had been “quarantined.”

By contrast, Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus delivered an address on the closing night of the GOP convention in Cleveland.

The Democratic National Committee and Wasserman Schultz already were facing internal unrest over party rules, but the email leak aggravated pro-Sanders Democrats even more.

Sanders, a self-proclaimed democratic socialist, had argued all along that Washington Democrats favored Clinton. Among other decisions, he pointed to Wasserman Schultz’s decision to limit the number of primary debates, which he argued was meant to protect Clinton.

Sanders — who railed against what he called a “rigged” system throughout his campaign — has since endorsed Wasserman Schultz’s primary rival in her re-election bid, in another sign of the acrimony between them.

Clinton chief strategist Joel Benenson, on “Fox News Sunday,” defended the fairness of the primary elections and said the DNC would conduct a full review of the emails. He said people should not jump to conclusions.

“The DNC’s impact in these things is minimal compared to the results. What candidates and campaigns spend and do on the ground, talking to voters day in and day out, that’s what determines who wins,” he said.

That Sanders gets a prime-time speaking spot is also significant, considering the rival campaigns for weeks negotiated his primary exit strategy, with Sanders insisting that at least some of his progressive agenda — including free college education, better international trade deals and more social and economic equality — be included in the party platform.

He ultimately endorsed Clinton a few weeks ago.

Fox News’ Chad Pergram, Garrett Tenney and Jennifer Griffin contributed to this report.

We find through the Wikileaks release that if you are a mainstream media “journalist,” you are nothing but a fascist propagandist the way Joseph Goebbels of the Ministry of Propaganda was a propagandist.

Hillary Clinton is a national disgrace.  The entire PROCESS that led to this unelectable paranoid fascist control-freak winning the Democratic nomination was a fraud controlled by party insiders.

But what a damn surprise that finally, after YEARS, emails DO matter, after all.

Meanwhile, last week I wrote an article about the sheer dishonesty of the mainstream media coverage of the Republican National Convention.  They demonized the open-carry laws of Cleveland and predicted mayhem that never happened; they predicted a giant wave of Republican protest that never happened; they tried to milk every single protest event outside as a narrative to tarnish the convention going on inside to the extent that there would be eighty media surrounding 20 protestors.  They claimed that every time a negative remark was said against Hillary Clinton, that it was reminiscent of a “climate of hate” that forced the “journalists” to remember the rise of the Nazis.

And which party just got busted hating on Jews???  You got it, the REAL Party of Lucifer, the Democrat Party.

And as there are tens of thousands of protesters rightly protesting the fascism endemic to the Democratic National Convention and the entire Democratic Party, as you see all the hateful remarks that will spew out of every speakers’ mouth toward Donald Trump, just know that the media is as dishonest as the sun is hot.

Just another something to chew on: the Clinton campaign is blaming this email leak on Russia.  You mark my words, if you are fool enough to vote for Hillary Clinton, Russia will also have in its database all the thirty-two thousand emails Hillary purged from her secret server beyond the FBI’s ability to recover that will prove her criminal corruption through her corrupt Clinton Foundation.  Russia will blackmail Hillary Clinton into being Vladimir Putin’s slave.  And the United States will be sold down the river by a woman who long ago proved that she was all-too-willing to sell America down the river if the price was right or if it was convenient for her.

Liberal Rep. Weiner Shows Proves What A Weiner He Truly Is – LITERALLY!

It has to be ironic that the two Democrats whose names are euphemisms for the male reproductive organ are now BOTH demonstrated perverts (and of course Barney Frank, the homosexual who just got caught advancing one of his gay lovers for a position at the bankrupt Fannie Mae that caused our economy to implode in 2008, is the other).

Republican Rep. Chris Lee was caught sending a picture of himself shirtless to a woman.  That was so bad that he resigned.  A Democrat won his seat because people were disgusted by the behavior.  But that was a “G” rated picture compared to Weiner’s weiner.

It’s Weiner’s turn to say bye bye because of “Weinergate.”

Here’s the story:

Too many coincidences in Weiner’s tale
By PETER INGEMI
Last Updated: 7:22 AM, May 31, 2011
Posted: 7:21 AM, May 31, 2011

In the New York of the late 1800s, Boss Tweed famously complained about Thomas Nast cartoons: Though many immigrants in the city couldn’t read, even the illiterate could understand “those damn pictures.” Rep. Anthony Weiner and his staff now face a similar problem.

By now, you’ve heard about the Tweet picture sent from Weiner’s account to a young lady named Gennette Nicole Cordova. The congressman has insisted his accounts were “hacked.” Cordova, in a statement released late Sunday night (36 hours after the tweet in question), says, “The account that these tweets were sent from was familiar to me. This person had harassed me many times after the congressman followed me on Twitter.” She also said that her previous tweet, “I wonder what my boyfriend @repweiner is up to,” was a joke.

Such statements notwithstanding, those on the left trying to paint this as a conspiracy must deal with an array of odd elements that an increasingly tech-savvy public may find suspicious:

* Not just the offending picture but most of the congressman’s pictures were removed from the site.

* Not only did the young lady’s Facebook and Twitter accounts disappear from the ’Net (she’s apparently since started a new Twitter account, and may go back on Facebook), but also her bylines on articles in her college paper.

* The congressman made it a point to tweet what time an East Coast interview would be shown in Seattle, where the young lady’s from.

* Cordova reportedly wrote in the college paper in March about Twitter’s verifiable accounts giving access to celebrities.

Coincidences all, but there’s one more that millions of Twitter users will understand best:

On Twitter, famous people tend to have tens of thousands to millions of followers — but they themselves follow only a fraction of that amount.

Rep. Weiner is a man of national prominence, a rising star in the Democratic Party, frequently on TV, a past and likely future candidate for mayor. He knows and is known by thousands of movers, shakers, members of the press and politicians on the city, state and national levels.

Yet, as of yesterday, he was following fewer than 200 others — and, with all those famous folks to choose from, one of the few he followed was Cordova, a 21-year-old college student who lives nearly 3,000 miles away in Bellingham,Wash.

Run that though your head for a second and at the same time remember two important facts about Twitter:

1. If two people follow each other on Twitter, they can send private messages unseen by others.

2. The difference between a direct message, seen by only the recipient, and a public tweet, seen by the world, is a single character.

The biggest problem for Weiner and his defenders on the left is not bloggers from the right. It’s the details of “#weinergate” can be understood by millions of ordinary people in 140 characters or less.

Peter Ingemi blogs at datechguyblog.com. He is the host of Da- TechGuy on DaRadio Saturdays 10 a.m. on WCRN-AM 830 in Worcester, Mass.

Here’s Weiner’s utterly bizarre press conference (it’s 7:30 long, but if you think this guy is actually innocent, maybe you could explain how in a way he refuses to do):

He stuck rigidly to his “If I were giving a speech to 45,000 people” non-analogous “analogy” with CNN. But apparently felt the need to add that a Clinton News Network producer is a “jackass” for actually expecting Weiner to answer an actual question about what he has claimed and what he has tacitly admitted.

Weiner – who refused to state that the picture in question was not actually of him – is calling it a “prank,” which is very different from calling it a “crime” as he immediately did when the story first came out on Big Journalism. And he is now refusing to talk about it any more than his answers to questions he’s done nothing but dodge.

Weiner claimed at first his account had been hacked – which is a federal crime (particularly given the fact that he is a congressman) involving real jail time which would obviously need to be handled by the Capitol Police and/or the FBI. But in spite of the fact that he said afederal crime had been committed against him, he refused to file a criminal report. Instead he called his lawyer – who of course essentially said “Badges? We don’t need no stinkin’ badges!  We’ll investigate this ourselves and tell you exactly what happened.”  And now Weiner – who wanted a federal investigation of Glenn Beck for pitching gold (which has massively increased in value since Beck pitched it, for the record) – suddenly doesn’t want an investigation of what he initially represented as a crime.  He doesn’t think it rises – pun apparently not intended – to the level of national federal resources.

The theory that best fits the facts is that Weiner most certainly DID intend to send this picture, but did not intend to send it to all 45,000 of his fool followers.  We’re finding out that Weiner had a penchant for tweeting young women – such as porn actress Ginger Lee, with whom Weiner exchanged private tweets.  What do you think are the odds that Weiner forgot to change a setting and sent something public what he wanted to send private?

I’ll have to say this: there’s a major difference between liberal women and conservative women.  Liberal women have a depraved tendency (which is probably simply part of the fact that liberals are depraved in general) of being willing to sexually service their idols.  I think of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange.  Even the New York Times acknowledged that the guy “smelled as if he hadn’t bathed in days.”  But that didn’t stop liberal women from servicing their socialist star.  I think of “journalist” Nina Burleigh who famously said she would gladly give Bill Clinton oral sex to thank him for keeping abortion legal.  [That’s just one of the reasons that fascists are leftists; liberals are only too willing to go to depraved lengths for their messiahs].  And so we shouldn’t be one bit surprised that Weiner is out advertising his weiner to his fans.

It’s time to retire so you can spend more time with your Tweets, Weiner.

A Nobel For Wikileaks? Nobel Prize Worth About A Cup Of Horse Crap These Days

Jimmy Carter got one (maybe it was for abandoning a key US ally in the Shah and inviting in the Ayatolloahs?).  Al Gore got one for being a global warming propagandist.  Barack Obama got one for being nothing but a slick-talking socialist.

Ronald Reagan, who won the Cold War that had plagued the world for nearly fifty years, and who turned around an economy that was on its way down the toilet, didn’t get one.

So clearly being an ideological partisan liberal is a prerequisite for “winning” a Nobel Prize.

Murderer Yassar Arafat got one.  So maybe being a terrorist or at least being someone who is good at destabilizing world peace is a prerequisite, too.

And, of course, one of the few people who actually deserve the award was languishing in a Chinese prison while the Chinese who were crushing the human spirit were sipping champagne with Barry Hussein in the Obama White House.  So I guess hypocrisy and moral cowardice are probably criterions, also.

The background for giving that dissident – Liu Xiaobo – the Nobel Prize, is itself rather revealing.  Basically, in giving it to Obama for doing nothing beyond being a leftist, the Nobel committee felt pressured to give the 2010 award to somebody who actually deserved it.  If this was a Pee Wee Baseball umpiring deal, the dirty umpire would make sure his kid’s team won every single game but the one where league officials came to monitor his calls.

All that said, Wikileaks founder Julian Assange would seem to be a perfect choice for the award.

A cup full of horse crap stuffed in his face would be a pretty good choice, too.

As Hot Air points out:

There’s also the complicity of Wikileaks in possible torture and death, but who cares about that? Wikileaks callously released the names and whereabouts of Afghan informants helping US troops drive out the Taliban — a truly corrupt, murderous, terrorist regime — putting not only the lives of the informants in danger, but also the lives of their families. (Even Amnesty International was disgusted by this.) Julian Assange doctored a video of an Apache shooting insurgents in Baghdad, calling it collateral murder, but his little act of exposure in Afghanistan could lead to real collateral murder. The “courage” of the Wikileaks document drop also put the lives of US citizens and troops in danger, but hey, maybe that’s why they’re being nominated.

Julian Assange also admitted that Wikileaks was responsible for a Kenyan massacre that followed one of their document drops, but who cares? The Kenyans were informed before they were slaughtered. I’m sure that, were they alive, they would totally say it was worth it.

Even the flagship of liberalism The New York Times acknowledged that Assange and Wikileaks altered video to falsely demonize the US military:

By the time of the meetings in London, WikiLeaks had already acquired a measure of international fame or, depending on your point of view, notoriety. Shortly before I got the call from The Guardian, The New Yorker published a rich and colorful profile of Assange, by Raffi Khatchadourian, who had embedded with the group. WikiLeaks’s biggest coup to that point was the release, last April, of video footage taken from one of two U.S. helicopters involved in firing down on a crowd and a building in Baghdad in 2007, killing at least 18 people. While some of the people in the video were armed, others gave no indication of menace; two were in fact journalists for the news agency Reuters. The video, with its soundtrack of callous banter, was horrifying to watch and was an embarrassment to the U.S. military. But in its zeal to make the video a work of antiwar propaganda, WikiLeaks also released a version that didn’t call attention to an Iraqi who was toting a rocket-propelled grenade and packaged the manipulated version under the tendentious rubric “Collateral Murder.” (See the edited and non-edited videos here.)

Too bad those Reuters journalists decided to pal around with armed terrorists.  And too bad that Wikileaks released what was clearly propaganda that edited that little detail out of their Nobel-Prize-winning effort.

But propaganda is FINE with the political left, as long as it’s propaganda that demonizes conservatives, Republicans, America or the US military.  And just as is the case of Al Gore, the fact that Julian Assange is a documented propagandist who falsifies stories really doesn’t much matter in whether or not he should get a big fat award.

The New York Times, which of course helped Assange get his America-undermining pile of secrets to the world, was rather petty in its treatment of Assange.  After all, they were the arrogant elitists, and Assange wasn’t even a “real journalist.”  So after benefitting from his story, they turned on him like cockroaches eating their own:

On the fourth day of the London meeting, Assange slouched into The Guardian office, a day late. Schmitt took his first measure of the man who would be a large presence in our lives. “He’s tall — probably 6-foot-2 or 6-3 — and lanky, with pale skin, gray eyes and a shock of white hair that seizes your attention,” Schmitt wrote to me later. “He was alert but disheveled, like a bag lady walking in off the street, wearing a dingy, light-colored sport coat and cargo pants, dirty white shirt, beat-up sneakers and filthy white socks that collapsed around his ankles. He smelled as if he hadn’t bathed in days.”

So maybe really lousy personal hygiene habits are desirable for winning a Nobel Prize, too.

John Stossel pointed something out in an interview with Bill O’Reilly.  O’Reilly mentioned all the awards Stossel had won as a journalist, including 19 Emmys and 5 awards for excellence by the National Press Club.  But John Stossel noted that he wouldn’t be winning any more such awards.  Because he went to Fox News.  And the field of journalism is largely comprised of radical leftwing ideologues who are simply far too biased to recognize that the same great journalist who won all those awards is still the same great journalist doing the same great work.  But the field of American journalism doesn’t care about that; as far as these ideologue propagandists are concerned, John Stossel is persona non grata.  It’s just the way the roll.

And frankly, John Stossel is a better journalist than he’s ever been, because he cares more about the truth than he cares about playing these sick people’s game to win their stupid awards for leftwing bias.

The only reason the Nobel Prize award gets any coverage at all any more is because it is clearly lagely a far leftist award, and the media that gives us “the news” are a bunch of far leftists who think their fellow leftists (and only fellow leftists, mind you) deserve accolades.

Obama Continues To Sell Out Our Allies In Order To Appease Our Enemies

The following is simplyyet another layer of icing on the “I-told-you-so-cake” I baked a long time ago.

Obama simply can’t stop selling out and undermining America’s closest allies in order to appease America’s enemies.  It is in his DNA.  It is what he is.

First, let’s start with our closest ally of all:

WikiLeaks cables: US agrees to tell Russia Britain’s nuclear secrets
The US secretly agreed to give the Russians sensitive information on Britain’s nuclear deterrent to persuade them to sign a key treaty, The Daily Telegraph can disclose.
By Matthew Moore, Gordon Rayner and Christopher Hope 9:25PM GMT 04 Feb 2011

Information about every Trident missile the US supplies to Britain will be given to Russia as part of an arms control deal signed by President Barack Obama next week.

Defence analysts claim the agreement risks undermining Britain’s policy of refusing to confirm the exact size of its nuclear arsenal.

The fact that the Americans used British nuclear secrets as a bargaining chip also sheds new light on the so-called “special relationship”, which is shown often to be a one-sided affair by US diplomatic communications obtained by the WikiLeaks website.

[…]

A series of classified messages sent to Washington by US negotiators show how information on Britain’s nuclear capability was crucial to securing Russia’s support for the “New START” deal.

Although the treaty was not supposed to have any impact on Britain, the leaked cables show that Russia used the talks to demand more information about the UK’s Trident missiles, which are manufactured and maintained in the US.

Washington lobbied London in 2009 for permission to supply Moscow with detailed data about the performance of UK missiles. The UK refused, but the US agreed to hand over the serial numbers of Trident missiles it transfers to Britain.

Professor Malcolm Chalmers said: “This appears to be significant because while the UK has announced how many missiles it possesses, there has been no way for the Russians to verify this. Over time, the unique identifiers will provide them with another data point to gauge the size of the British arsenal.”

Duncan Lennox, editor of Jane’s Strategic Weapons Systems, said: “They want to find out whether Britain has more missiles than we say we have, and having the unique identifiers might help them.”

While the US and Russia have long permitted inspections of each other’s nuclear weapons, Britain has sought to maintain some secrecy to compensate for the relatively small size of its arsenal.

William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, last year disclosed that “up to 160” warheads are operational at any one time, but did not confirm the number of missiles.

This from the quivering pile of slime who sent back the bust of Winston Churchill that England gave America after 9/11 like it was junk.  I guess Obama felt like Churchill – a great man – was mocking the naive turd who was putting his feet up on the desk of the Oval Office.

Obama promised to restore American prestige that was somehow lost – according to the liberal narrative – by George Bush.  He has been an abject disgrace.

Also in the news that is going on before our very eyes, Barack Obama has turned his back on the Egyptian leader who has been a key American ally for presidents of both parties for thirty years.  And even uber liberals such as Chris Matthews are disgusted by Obama’s treatment:

“And Barack Obama, as much I support him in many ways, there is a transitional quality to the guy that is chilling.” He added, “I believe in relationships…You treat your friends a certain way. You’re loyal to them.”

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2011/02/04/chris-matthews-obamas-response-egypt-crisis-makes-me-ashamed-america#ixzz1DFDId2MT

The problem is that Obama is as loyal to his allies as a rattlesnake.  And his fangs are just as poisonous.

The special envoy that Obama himself picked to go to Egypt – and the former ambassador to Egypt – Frank Wisner said this:

“We need to get a national consensus around the pre-conditions for the next step forward. The president must stay in office to steer those changes,” he told the Munich Security Conference on Saturday.

“I believe that President Mubarak’s continued leadership is critical – it’s his chance to write his own legacy.

“He has given 60 years of his life to the service of his country, this is an ideal moment for him to show the way forward.”

Wisner’s own many years of service to his country didn’t much matter in a fascinating turn of events in which Obama distanced himself from and recalled his very own special envoy.

But Obama doesn’t just undermine and backstab American allies; he appeases American enemies, too.  Obama went from specially inviting the pro-terrorist Muslim Brotherhood to his Cairo speech in 2009 to specifically embracing a role for the pro-terrorist Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt’s new government.  Which has got to be salt in Hosni Mubarak’s wounds given the fact that he spent his entire life trying to prevent terrorist organizations from establishing a foothold in Egypt.

Israel – America’s second closest ally after only England which Obama has repeatedly screwed and spurned – also feels betrayed by Obama and shocked at Obama’s betrayal of Mubarak:

(Reuters) – If Egypt’s President Hosni Mubarak is toppled, Israel will lose one of its very few friends in a hostile neighborhood and President Barack Obama will bear a large share of the blame, Israeli pundits said on Monday.

Political commentators expressed shock at how the United States as well as its major European allies appeared to be ready to dump a staunch strategic ally of three decades, simply to conform to the current ideology of political correctness.

Is Hosni Mubarak a dicator?  Of course he is.  And Joe Biden once again proved he is a fool for saying otherwise.  But the problem is that we’re going to end up with a dictator one way or another in Egypt because Muslims are ungovernable as a people by any other type of leadership.  The only question is whether it will end up with a pro-American dictator like it has had for thirty years or a viciously ANTI-American dictator like Iran that resulted from the last time a liberal president decided to naively prove what a fool he was in Jimmy Cater and the Ayatollah who replaced the Shah.

Obama is determined to dump Mubarak and is seemingly doing everything he can to make sure that the pro-terrorist Muslim Brotherhood take his place.

One day America will recognize that Barack Obama destroyed our most vital relationships to appease our worst enemies.  And got absolutely nothing for it.

This betrayal of American allies is nothing new to Barry Hussein.  He’s done it to many other former American allies, such as Poland, Czeckoslovakia and Georgia.  Like I said, it’s who he is.

But what else would one expect from the president of “God damn America“?

Gay Military: Something America Needs Like A Massive WikiLeak

Well, what would have been absolutely freaking unthinkable to our first commander-in-chief, George Washington, has finally happened: we’ve got a gay military now.

I feared this from the outset of the Obama presidency and wrote it up in tones of irony and as much derision as I could muster:

Heck, I’ve got an even better idea.  Liberals have thought excluding gays from the military was so danged unfair and discriminatory.  Why don’t we “swing the other way,” and have a “Gay All The Way!” military?  Maybe – in the name of tolerance – you might allow a few token heterosexuals in as long as they don’t reveal that politically incorrect sexual orientation of theirs.  It’s time to gear up for battle, Rump Rangers; you’re going to need to feed a lot of red meat into the grinder once the world’s dictators realize that the President of God Damn America is an appeasing weakling.  You can use those superior compromising skills of yours to deal with Iran unleashing terrorist hell once your Messiah-President does nothing while Iranian President Ahmadinejab develops nuclear weapons so they can launch terrorism-by-proxy strikes on us with impunity.

The new God Damn America could augment its “Gay All The Way!” status with women who believe that being excluded from being able to do anything a man can do is discriminatory.  They can start walking sustained patrols while carrying a hundred pounds of extra weight in 110 degree heat, and be the ones who try to keep all their body parts intact while running and dodging with fifty pound combat loads.  Good luck with that, girls.  The guys carry that; surely you can do it too.  And don’t worry; you won’t have any heterosexual males around who would let that insulting and patronizing chivalry of theirs get in the way of your NOW-feminist-style equality.  You’ll get the chance to develop that upper body strength of yours digging your own fighting positions out of the rock hard clay.

It is absolutely stunning that we have these disastrous leaks revealing literally hundreds of thousands of pages of US government secrets at the hands of a homosexual soldier, and the very next thing we do is provide for the creation of another hundred thousand Private Bradley Mannings.

I would have thought the theft and release of 250,000 top secret documents would have made the “intelligentsia” pause about the wisdom of recruiting homosexuals who have a documented history of super-massive hissy fits.  But nope.  That would be the sane thing to do; and we can’t have that.  Onward ye proverbial lemmings!  Mush!  Mush!!!

Irony aside, and Bradley Manning aside, I thought this article from Townhall nailed the biggest reasons why this thing is going to be a disaster:

Obama’s New ‘Gay’ Force
Kevin McCullough

With the passage of the law to repeal the Clinton-era legislation commonly referred to as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” President Obama enters into a new reality. In one last blaze of defiance of the American people, and expressly those who serve in our nation’s armed forces, President Obama was able to shove social engineering into pretty much the very corner of American culture where we have no business doing so.

Upon his signature President Obama will begin a process that will at the very least disrupt operations, and at the very worst see the eventual weakening of our armed forces.

Throughout the entirety of this debate I’ve had questions, none of which seemed to be answered or even asked in the congressional sessions dealing with the matter.

From a purely pragmatic standpoint perhaps someone could answer them now, since I’m especially sure that President Obama wouldn’t push for such a fundamental transformation of our military without good answers to them.

1. What happens to housing, on base and in theater?

If it is morally questionable to have men and women housed together because of the sexual tension that exists between primarily men who would be predatorily interested in the women they might shower with or frequently be seen in the act of dressing and undressing on a regular basis, why is it any different if you have identified the predatory homosexual male who might have an unrequited “thing” for a fellow service member? If it is proper to keep men and women housed separately do we now go to four sets of housing. Men who don’t engage in homosexual activity, Men who do, Women who don’t, Women who do? Practically speaking Mr. President how do you get past the fundamental sexual tension that will be present the minute some make it known?

2. Do you expect the military system or the civilian courts to deal with the influx of phony sexual harassment cases to follow?

Consider this issue a prediction of sorts, but take it to the bank that those who engage in open homosexuality will feel the freedom if not the need begin to portray themselves as victims of harassment pretty much anytime something doesn’t go their way. And it may not require anything all that severe to trigger it. A drill instructor gets a little too rough in his language while trying to beat the “sissy” out of a recruit in basic training or Officer Candidate School and the backlog will commence.

3. Will base commanders be required to host “pride” events that allow for similar conduct to the x-rated displays that go on in the nation’s cities each year?

There was much discussion in the Senate and House hearings about the issue of morale, the breakdown of structure, the significance of discipline and the ability to command respect and a readied force. Nothing related to any “pride” event ever held comes close to anything resembling respect, discipline, or structure. There is a reason our best volunteer to serve their nation, and it has nothing to do with speedos, bump or grind.

4. Will all other sexual conduct be made legal as well?

It is still a crime to commit adultery in active military duty, and even more so for officers. How can you possibly be allowing for the flamboyancy of effeminate male soldiers to engage in sexual conduct and their notorious ever wandering lust for the new on one hand, and hold court martial for those who have discreetly hidden their sexual escapades while destroying their families?

There are many legitimate reasons why the military is not the place to run experiments on the restructuring of the society at large.

For the leftist idiots who will scream the meme that, “every other nation on the planet already does it,” shut up!

None of those military forces are the United States Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marines.

I know the progressive elites in the nation awake this morning feeling better about what has been done to the U.S. Military in this vote. I know this President has never served and likely barely knows anyone who has. I know that the godless in our nation think this is all a tremendous step forward.

In the hundreds of conversations I’ve had with those that serve in our nation’s armed forces, from Naval F-18 aviators to Army Rangers, Marine specialists to Air Force pilots of B2 stealth bombers, C130s, and military drones, the view of the military is clear. They serve to focus on the mission at hand, not because they may or may not display pictures of their romantic interests in the living quarters.

I know that our military has been the best in the world, and that they deserved to be listened to when they spoke clearly from the four branches to the President. The head of each branch clearly made the case for not allowing the military to become a place where the focus of our troops was placed on when and how they can have sex, instead of achieving their mission.

But now that reality has been thrust upon us. It is a focus of magnificent distraction, and in terms of operational priorities it is of miniscule importance.

It was President Obama’s doing, and the results that follow will be laid at his feet.

Another set of questions by a Marine that no one ever asked about ending “Don’t Ask” can be found here.

In my “day” in the Army, soldiers in the infantry that I served in just would not have tolerated openly homosexual soldiers.  There would have been blanket parties galore, until the gay-berets got the message that they were most definitely not wanted.  I don’t know that that will happen today, but I just can’t imagine the mindset has changed that much in the years I’ve been out (by which I mean out of the military, and not, you know, “out”).

I heard a Democrat representative today say that the military is having a hard time keeping up its recruiting goals, and so therefore it’s stupid to deny thousands of gay men and women the opportunity to serve.  What that omits is the fact that there are a lot of heterosexual men and women who don’t want to be forced to shower and sleep right next to same-sex soldiers who may well want nothing more than to have “sexual relations” with them.  There are also a lot of young men who continue to have something of that Judeo-Christian worldview who rightly believe that homosexuality is a serious moral issue, and these young men aren’t going to want to be forced to trust people that they don’t trust with their lives.

“Missile defense” is about to take on a whole new meaning.

It will be interesting to see if the infantry units – you know, the guys who basically do all of the fighting and most of the dying – are going to see significant drops in enlistment.  The Marine Corps will be an interesting place to look, since “infantry” enlistment figures are hard to find.

One thing I definitely don’t expect to see is huge swells in enlistment, as all of those homosexuals suddenly join up and fill the ranks.  If I’m wrong, you’ll see – based on statistics homosexuals offer – that the US military will suddenly have 143,000 more enlistments, as that 10% of the population that are homosexual suddenly rush to join up.  The thing is that these people didn’t want a gay military so they could join it; they wanted a gay military so they could ruin it.  Just like marriage.

The liberal ideologues whom we just appeased are not the people who will serve.  The people who will serve just got served an in-your-face insult.

The same people who want homosexuals in the military are the same people who think WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is a rock star for publishing every stolen classified American document he can get his filthy paws on.

This was a terrible and an immoral decision, which is all the more terrible and immoral for occurring during time of war.

The left always points to Europe or “other countries” and say that we should do what they do.  A few things are wrong with that: one of them emerges from Thomas Jefferson’s words, “With all the defects in our Constitution, whether general or particular, the comparison of our government with those of Europe, is like a comparison of Heaven with Hell.”  To wit: why on earth would we want to be like Europe?  Another emerges from the question, “WHAT PART OF EUROPE ARE YOU FROM? THE PART WHOSE ASS WE SAVED, OR THE PART WHOSE ASS WE KICKED?” To wit: why on earth would we want to be like Europe.  And yet another emerges from the question why European nations aren’t bothering to stand up and fight for freedom?  Europeans aren’t sending troops to Afghanistan; the troops they do send don’t fight; and most European Union nations are failing to spend even the minimum 2% of their GDP on defense, as required.  To wit: why on earth would we want to be like Europe?

Now we’re way down the path to becoming useless, pathetic and apathetic Europe, only with deodorant.

If homosexual men and women really wanted to serve their country – rather than further break down our nation and its social structures more than they already have – then they would have continued to volunteer and serve their country, rather than imposing their rabid homosexual agenda onto those who just want to defend their country.

Homosexuality Not Dangerous To America?

I’ll bet you didn’t know this.  And if you do know it, you didn’t hear it from the mainstream media.  Because we have the kind of media that doesn’t bother to report that the drunken scumbag who ran over an aged nun also happened to be an illegal alien who had been busted, handed over to the federal government, and then released.

Pfc. Bradley Manning, the guy who leaked so many thousands of documents that it’s positively unreal (it was 90,000 documents before the number exploded)?  He’s an open homosexual who says, “Take me for who I am, or face the consequences!” And the consequences are a gigantic, naked act of treason.

Now America, the U.S. military in Afghanistan, and a whole bunch of Afghani civilians who were unfortunate enough to cooperate with the United States, are “facing the consequences.”

Bradley Manning, suspected source of Wikileaks documents, raged on his Facebook page
Bradley Manning, the prime suspect in the leaking of the Afghan war files, raged against his US Army employers and “society at large” on his Facebook page in the days before he allegedly downloaded thousands of secret memos, The Daily Telegraph has learnt.

By Heidi Blake, John Bingham and Gordon Rayner
Published: 10:00PM BST 30 Jul 2010

The US Army intelligence analyst, who is half British and went to school in Wales, appeared to sink into depression after a relationship break-up, saying he didn’t “have anything left” and was “beyond frustrated”.

In an apparent swipe at the army, he also wrote: “Bradley Manning is not a piece of equipment,” and quoted a joke about “military intelligence” being an oxymoron.

Mr Manning, 22, who is currently awaiting court martial, is suspected of leaking more than 90,000 secret military documents to the Wikileaks website in a security breach which US officials claim has endangered the lives of serving soldiers and Afghan informers.

Supporters claim the war logs leak exposed civilian deaths in Afghanistan which had been covered up by the military, and Mr Manning’s family, who live in Pembrokeshire, said he had “done the right thing”.

The Pentagon, which is investigating the source of the leak, is expected to study Mr Manning’s background to ascertain if they missed any warnings when he applied to join the US Army. The postings on his Facebook page are also likely to form part of the inquiry.

Mr Manning, who is openly homosexual, began his gloomy postings on January 12, saying: “Bradley Manning didn’t want this fight. Too much to lose, too fast.”

At the beginning of May, when he was serving at a US military base near Baghdad, he changed his status to: “Bradley Manning is now left with the sinking feeling that he doesn’t have anything left.”

Five days later he said he was “livid” after being “lectured by ex-boyfriend”, then later the same day said he was “not a piece of equipment” and was “beyond frustrated with people and society at large”.

His tagline on his personal page reads: “Take me for who I am, or face the consequences!”

Mr Manning was arrested at the end of May on suspicion of leaking a video of a US helicopter attack, and quickly became the main suspect when the Afghan war documents were leaked earlier this week.

You want another oxymoron, Mr. Manning?  How about “normal homosexuality”?

And now Bradley Manning has done to military secrecy what Judge – and fellow homosexual – Vaughn Walker has done to the institution of marriage.

Ah, these pesky homosexual relationships that gays want to normalize.

Only, they aren’t anything even CLOSE to “normal.”

[Updated March 3, 2011]: Take domestic violence:

The American Journal of Public Health has published a detailed study of battering victimization in the male homosexual community (December 2002, Vol. 92, No. 12). The probability-based sampling of “men who have sex with men” (MSM) focused on four geographical areas (San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York) and resulted in 2,881 completed telephone interviews.

Based on these responses, this first-of-its-kind study determined that the rate of battering victimization among gay men in the target group (men over 18 who had engaged in homosexual activity since age 14, or who identified as gay, homosexual, or bisexual) is “substantially higher than among heterosexual men” and also possibly higher than the rate for heterosexual women, according to the study.

The researchers report a high rate of battering within the context of intimate homosexual partnerships, with 39% of those studied reporting at least one type of battering by a partner over the last five years.

In contrast, only about 7.7% of heterosexual men of all ages report physical or sexual partner abuse during their entire lifetimes. (Lifetime rates of abuse are generally higher than those within a five-year period.) […]

The conclusion arrived at by the researchers, based upon these figures, is that the rate of abuse between urban homosexual men in intimate relationships “is a very serious public health problem.”

That’s not normal.  That’s a 406.5% increase in violence.

Maybe you’d rather consider married women, versus lesbian women in domestic partnerships:

• The Journal of Social Service Research reported in 1991 that survey of 1,099 lesbians showed that slightly more than 50 percent of the lesbians reported that they had been abused by a female lover/partner, “the most frequently indicated forms of abuse were verbal/emotional/psychological abuse and combined physical-psychological abuse.” ^[14]

• A study of lesbian couples reported (2000) in the Handbook of Family Development and Intervention “indicates that 54 percent had experienced 10 or more abusive incidents, 74 percent had experienced six or more incidents, 60 percent reported a pattern to the abuse, and 71 percent said it grew worse over time.”^[15]

• A study that compared domestic violence between lesbian couples and married women is even more pronounced in respect to the above statistics that suggest that homosexual couples are more violent than heterosexual couples.

And what you actually find is that these statistics – as terrible as they are – are actually dramatically UNDERREPORTED:

“But the issue of gay domestic abuse has been shrouded by silence until recently…” (New York Times, November 6, 2000)

“Domestic abuse is under-reported in the gay community…” (Nursing Clinics of North America North Am. 2004 Jun;39(2):403)

Why would any morally intelligent person want this? [end update]

When you compare drug use, suicides, rape, promiscuity/infidelity, psychiatric problems, child molestation, and sexually transmitted disease, the rates between heterosexuals in marriages and homosexuals in committed relationships are likewise so through the roof that it’s positively unreal.

And you can add treason to that list as well.

We’re not talking about normal, healthy people in normal, healthy relationships that should be encouraged in society.  We’re talking about broken, fractured people in broken, fractured relationships that are a lot more like cancer and a lot less like healthy.

But in order to be “tolerant,” I have to drill a giant hole in my head, scoop out all my brains, slam then on the floor, and then repeatedly stomp on them.

I have to accept whatever lame answer I’m spoon-fed regarding the massive issue with homosexuality in our prison system.  We’re assured that if we were thrown in jail for a weekend, we’d surely all turn gay for the duration of our sentences.  Baloney.  These violent felons are homosexuals with massive identity issues.  I’m forced to accept whatever answer I’m handed regarding the massive problem with homosexual Catholic priests and the fact that most of the sexual abuse occurred between priests and teenage boys.  80% of priests who sexually abuse do so with adolescent boys rather than prepubescent minors.  The “Pedophile Priests” are mainly homosexuals, and not so-called “pedophiles.”  And the cancer they have inflicted upon the once-respected Catholic Church, and upon the larger society, cannot be underestimated.

Homosexuality IS dangerous to America.  And a California homosexual judge just said that he frankly doesn’t care; he’s going to usurp the clearly expressed will of the people and impose his own twisted morality on a state that already has more than enough problems.