Need a glimpse in the putrifying hypocrisy of the liberal mind? Guaranteed to make you snicker disdainfully or curse vociferously, depending on the level of stupidity displayed for your perusal.
I was trapped in a lobby area today with MSNBC playing on the television. I had come prepared with a fascinating book and my MP3 player, but alas... a lull between songs caused me to glance up and be captivated by the title under a picture of Hillary Clinton.
"Obama clinches nomination... Clinton "open" to be being running-mate," or something to that effect. Against my better judgement I tugged one earphone free and listened as the political "analysts" (anal being the operative syllable, I suppose) asked the question in somber tones, "But does Obama really want the Clinton baggage? Isn't it bad for his message of change?"
Well, yes, I suppose it would be bad... if Obama were not such a nauseatingly typical hypocrite who has only promised "change" toward more failed Communist tactics in our republic. His only unique feature is that in addition to being a typical Marxist liberal, Mr. Hussein Obama is also a Muslim sympathizer. Although all liberals are to some degree. Christians? Evil. Muslims? Misunderstood and misrepresented. No profiling!
But I digress. Back to Obama's sympathies. Or don't we remember his promise of aid to Raila Odinga in Kenya, after the bloodletting in the aftermath of the election where Odinga lost? And oddly enough, Odinga took a lesson from Al Gore and cried foul. Also much like Al Sharpton claimed all blacks would do if the DNC's superdelegates did not cast their votes for Obama, complete with the riots many blacks are so proud of. There's also the matter of the endorsement of Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam types that were discreetly removed from display on Obama's website once people started connecting the dots.
I suppose the only difference between the "Clinton baggage" and Obama's message is that he hasn't killed anyone for it yet that we're aware of. One thing that did make me snicker was the thought that if he took the proverbial viper into his bed by taking Clinton as his running mate, was that he would likely receive first-hand knowledge of what happened to Vince Foster within a year of taking office. Or perhaps just die in a mysterious helicopter crash...
I realize it wouldn't normally be found amusing, but watching the media scramble to excuse such things like they have in the past would be as funny as it is sickening. I'm sure Hillary would find some way to blame it on "the vast right-wing conspiracy".
The question was also posed to one of the MSNBC "analysts" as to what Obama's message would be tonight, once he has clinched the nomination officially. Perhaps, given the dignity with which the Democrats have conducted themselves during this primary, it will be some variation of the children's taunt, "Nana nana boo boo?" Or to take a lesson from his "spiritual adviser" (at least until it was no longer politically expedient) Reverend Wright, some variation of, "Take that, whitey?"
They took a moment to step away from their obsequious Obama fawning to criticize Dick Cheney for making a joke about his own family being inbred, and not even being from West Virginia. Cheney joked, "You can say these things when you're not up for re-election."
The MSNBC news-monkey responded piously, "No, Mr. Vice-President, you can't."
But of course, it is perfectly okay for B. Hussein Obama to say Pennsylvanians are "bitter, typical white people who cling to guns and religion." Racism, religion bashing and anti-gun all rolled into one. Thats some trick, isn't it?
Or it is even okay for Obama's spiritual advisor of the past twenty years, the man who married him to America-hating Michelle and baptized their children, to say "God Damn America", we deserved 9/11, we are the terrorists, white people introduced crack into black neighborhoods and infected black people with AIDS to kill them all off. It is perfectly fine for Obama to stand there like an oaf and say, at least until it began to harm him politically, that he "did not find Wright's teachings controversial."
You're right. They aren't controversial. They are putrid.
But on the upside, Jimmy Carter is claiming he will officially endorse B. Hussein Obama tonight. Its fitting. After all, Jimmy Carter has had a lifetime of endorsing, unofficially or otherwise, Muslim terrorists. First a wreath at the grave of murdering Islamic terrorist Yassir Arafat, next a crown of flowery endorsements for Obama.
Yes... definitely fitting.
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Ask the Muslims' Permission Before You Cry "Terrorist"
In an article posted on CNN's website, the American government and the American people in general are being chided and corrected by practitioners of this virulent cult on what to call the jihadis. Its interesting they would have the audacity to correct American terminology regarding the evil sadists, but can't be bothered to do much of anything at all regarding the suicide bombers, honor killings, denigrating practices toward women, ridiculous expectations of Muslim nurses in the UK who refuse to wash their forearms because it is supposedly a sacrilege, and let us not forget the violence surrounding Muhammed the teddy bear. There are a thousand more you have probably heard, and need to take note of. Our own government, and the CIA, are bowing down to the altar of Political Correctness.
May the unholy terrorist jihadi Islamic pigs not lop off their heads during their obsequious groveling.
Case in point, from CNN's article:
Government officials should depict terrorists "as the dangerous cult leaders they are" and avoid words that aggrandize them, like "jihadists," "Islamic terrorists," "Islamists" and "holy warriors," the Department of Homeland Security says in a paper released Friday.
This is not leaving many options open for description. Because it is really all it is... a description. If the accuracy bothers so many Muslims, perhaps they should consider converting to a less perverted "faith".
"Words matter," the agency says in the paper, which also suggests avoiding the term "moderate Muslims," a characterization that annoys many Muslims because it implies that they are tepid in the practice of their faith.
"Mainstream," "ordinary" and "traditional" better reflect the broader Muslim American community, it says.
I suppose there is just no pleasing some people. It is all semantics, and not worthy of consideration. And I'm afraid "traditional" would be the jihadis, the suicide bombers, the rabid anti-Semites, the honor killings. Anyone who researched the murderous history of their pedophile prophet and the history of Islam itself, would not dare say otherwise.
The paper, titled "Terminology to Define the Terrorists: Recommendations from American Muslims," was designated "For Official Use Only" and distributed internally in January.
"Islamic law and terms come with a particular context, which may not always be apparent," the paper says. "It is one thing for a Muslim leader to use a particular term; an American official may simply not have the religious authority to be taken seriously, even when using terms appropriately."
Does anyone else sense the nauseating arrogance in such a statement? We must now consult the Muslims on what to call a murdering terrorist, because our terminology may offend the "mainstream" Muslims and turn their allegiance to the terrorists? Does anyone else see any problem with allegiances that shift so easily? That mindset makes them all our enemy, if their souls can be bought so cheaply. What a jewel of a religion, to breed such filth.
The paper is silent on one term frequently used by some people at the highest level of U.S. government but scorned by others: "War on Terror." Sutherland said there is not a consensus on the term.
Some argue that "war" is too grandiose and adds legitimacy to the other side, because there are two legitimate sides to wars.
"We really face a legitimate threat and we need to guard against complacency," Sutherland said, explaining the rationale supporting the use of the term.
I suppose anyone who would think the term "war" too grandiose has not been paying attention. Not to the last forty years of American encounters with jihadis home and abroad, which consist of not less than twelve Islamic terrorist attacks on Americans in just the 9-year span of 1979-1988, and certainly not with the rest of the world's fight against Islamic tyranny since the religion's inception. There has never been anything peaceful about Islam.
This "war" while hardly traditional and lacking clearly delineated enemy armies, is nonetheless a struggle between the ideologies of freedom and oppression. A struggle that demands heroism, selflessness, and the re-shaping of the mindset of the world to win. If that doesn't count as a war, I certainly would like to know what does.
May the unholy terrorist jihadi Islamic pigs not lop off their heads during their obsequious groveling.
Case in point, from CNN's article:
Government officials should depict terrorists "as the dangerous cult leaders they are" and avoid words that aggrandize them, like "jihadists," "Islamic terrorists," "Islamists" and "holy warriors," the Department of Homeland Security says in a paper released Friday.
This is not leaving many options open for description. Because it is really all it is... a description. If the accuracy bothers so many Muslims, perhaps they should consider converting to a less perverted "faith".
"Words matter," the agency says in the paper, which also suggests avoiding the term "moderate Muslims," a characterization that annoys many Muslims because it implies that they are tepid in the practice of their faith.
"Mainstream," "ordinary" and "traditional" better reflect the broader Muslim American community, it says.
I suppose there is just no pleasing some people. It is all semantics, and not worthy of consideration. And I'm afraid "traditional" would be the jihadis, the suicide bombers, the rabid anti-Semites, the honor killings. Anyone who researched the murderous history of their pedophile prophet and the history of Islam itself, would not dare say otherwise.
The paper, titled "Terminology to Define the Terrorists: Recommendations from American Muslims," was designated "For Official Use Only" and distributed internally in January.
"Islamic law and terms come with a particular context, which may not always be apparent," the paper says. "It is one thing for a Muslim leader to use a particular term; an American official may simply not have the religious authority to be taken seriously, even when using terms appropriately."
Does anyone else sense the nauseating arrogance in such a statement? We must now consult the Muslims on what to call a murdering terrorist, because our terminology may offend the "mainstream" Muslims and turn their allegiance to the terrorists? Does anyone else see any problem with allegiances that shift so easily? That mindset makes them all our enemy, if their souls can be bought so cheaply. What a jewel of a religion, to breed such filth.
The paper is silent on one term frequently used by some people at the highest level of U.S. government but scorned by others: "War on Terror." Sutherland said there is not a consensus on the term.
Some argue that "war" is too grandiose and adds legitimacy to the other side, because there are two legitimate sides to wars.
"We really face a legitimate threat and we need to guard against complacency," Sutherland said, explaining the rationale supporting the use of the term.
I suppose anyone who would think the term "war" too grandiose has not been paying attention. Not to the last forty years of American encounters with jihadis home and abroad, which consist of not less than twelve Islamic terrorist attacks on Americans in just the 9-year span of 1979-1988, and certainly not with the rest of the world's fight against Islamic tyranny since the religion's inception. There has never been anything peaceful about Islam.
This "war" while hardly traditional and lacking clearly delineated enemy armies, is nonetheless a struggle between the ideologies of freedom and oppression. A struggle that demands heroism, selflessness, and the re-shaping of the mindset of the world to win. If that doesn't count as a war, I certainly would like to know what does.
Friday, May 30, 2008
Iranian "Goodwill" Snatched Victory from the Jaws of Defeat
I noticed the Nancy Pelosi Iranian hubbub, where illustrious Speaker of the House Pelosi credits Iran and their "goodwill" for the success American and Iraqi security forces fought, bled, and died for.
Yes, that is the same Iran Miss Pelosi's split personalities have previously condemned for their blatant desire to nuke Israel, for punishing a gang-raped woman and other backward practices rooted in Islam, for executing homosexuals that supposedly "don't exist", for happily funnelling money into terrorist organizations like Hezbollah, Hamas, and other Palestinian jewels of "peace", and last but not least, for providing weapons, supplies, and manpower to the Iraqi battlefields. Against the Americans, of course. Perhaps we should vote to change this woman's name to Sybil?
Its obviously ludicrious, and seems to have angered at least the few people in this country that have bothered to pay attention to more than their own tiny sphere of existence. Yet, I do find it curious that anyone has any reserves of shock left for the depths of slime the Democrats are so willing to sink to, most especially in regards to the military. Every Democrat save perhaps one or two (who's voices are so muffled by the far-left liberals that I can't even think of their names right off the top of my head) "supports" the American soldier the way an ancient pagan might have "supported" a sacrificial virgin on the way to the temple of their chosen god.
Truss them up and prepare them for bloody, back-stabbing sacrifice, and "support" them all the way to the altar. Anything to appease Islam, and anything to appease the mindless, droning mantra of the liberal sheep bleeting their malignant anti-Americanism. If the liberals admit they were wrong, and admit that the American military are not a passel of weak-minded victims manipulated by Bush's insidious Nazi-like nationalism or vague promises of monetary reward, or the only apparent way out of their poor, menial existence... if they admit these men and women only need the pedestal-perched pencil-pushers on Capitol Hill to sit back and shut up while they clean house... then they lose the only tether to their power that the liberals have ever held.
The victim mentality.
Thank you, Pelosi. You and your braying cohorts continually prove you believe the military by turns as ineffectual, or as cutthroat, as you, yourselves, actually are. A term commonly referred to as "projecting".
I can tell you nothing out of the sanctimonious and libelous mouth of a liberal surprises me any longer. Not after Durbin, Murtha, Reid, Kerry, Clinton, Obama, and so many other high-profile societal warts have blatantly, before God and CNN (no, they are not synonymous), sliced the military reputation in this country to shreds. Their treasonous antics fail to rustle up more than a vaguely slumbering disgust I hold unilaterally for those of the liberal ilk. It is a pity we don't hang thieves, Communists, and traitors in this country any longer.
The Democrat party might actually have a viable chance at survival if we did.
Yes, that is the same Iran Miss Pelosi's split personalities have previously condemned for their blatant desire to nuke Israel, for punishing a gang-raped woman and other backward practices rooted in Islam, for executing homosexuals that supposedly "don't exist", for happily funnelling money into terrorist organizations like Hezbollah, Hamas, and other Palestinian jewels of "peace", and last but not least, for providing weapons, supplies, and manpower to the Iraqi battlefields. Against the Americans, of course. Perhaps we should vote to change this woman's name to Sybil?
Its obviously ludicrious, and seems to have angered at least the few people in this country that have bothered to pay attention to more than their own tiny sphere of existence. Yet, I do find it curious that anyone has any reserves of shock left for the depths of slime the Democrats are so willing to sink to, most especially in regards to the military. Every Democrat save perhaps one or two (who's voices are so muffled by the far-left liberals that I can't even think of their names right off the top of my head) "supports" the American soldier the way an ancient pagan might have "supported" a sacrificial virgin on the way to the temple of their chosen god.
Truss them up and prepare them for bloody, back-stabbing sacrifice, and "support" them all the way to the altar. Anything to appease Islam, and anything to appease the mindless, droning mantra of the liberal sheep bleeting their malignant anti-Americanism. If the liberals admit they were wrong, and admit that the American military are not a passel of weak-minded victims manipulated by Bush's insidious Nazi-like nationalism or vague promises of monetary reward, or the only apparent way out of their poor, menial existence... if they admit these men and women only need the pedestal-perched pencil-pushers on Capitol Hill to sit back and shut up while they clean house... then they lose the only tether to their power that the liberals have ever held.
The victim mentality.
Thank you, Pelosi. You and your braying cohorts continually prove you believe the military by turns as ineffectual, or as cutthroat, as you, yourselves, actually are. A term commonly referred to as "projecting".
I can tell you nothing out of the sanctimonious and libelous mouth of a liberal surprises me any longer. Not after Durbin, Murtha, Reid, Kerry, Clinton, Obama, and so many other high-profile societal warts have blatantly, before God and CNN (no, they are not synonymous), sliced the military reputation in this country to shreds. Their treasonous antics fail to rustle up more than a vaguely slumbering disgust I hold unilaterally for those of the liberal ilk. It is a pity we don't hang thieves, Communists, and traitors in this country any longer.
The Democrat party might actually have a viable chance at survival if we did.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
