Hillary 2016, the 4 BEST Reasons: AGAINST

Direct quotes from Dilbert's post!

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/131021852431

Well this one isn't from Dilbert, but I thought it rocks too:

The Top 3 Jonathan Gruber Quotes

THIS IS "OUR" GOVERNMENT!


​

Can you hate this guy for telling the truth?

Not normal for a democrat is it? 

But I guess ol' Jonathan was kind of in a corner, what do rats do when they're cornered?

"This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure [the Congressional Budget Office] did not score the mandate as taxes. If CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies. OK? …"

"Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever … that was really, really critical to get the thing to pass. Look, I wish … we could make it all transparent, but I'd rather have this law than not. "

"[I]f you had a law which explicitly said that healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed."

You gotta hand it to him for finally fessing up and coming clean with the truth about Obamacare.

But YES, he is one of the biggest bastards because he was the chief architect of Obamacare, and he helped get it through, with the "Ends Justifies the Means" mentality.

He is the perfect example of a pitiful party.

​

http://buchanan.org/blog/jonathan-gruber-honest-liberal-7206

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/12/10/Hearing-Recap-Obamacare-Architect-Jonathan-Gruber-confirms-he-thinks-American-Voter-is-Stupid

Merry Christmas Everyone!

Obama's Dilemma and Legacy

Top 13 PROFOUND Obama Quotes

1. “ISIS is not islamic”

— displaying his knowledge of the islamic world.

2. “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of islam”

— defending his favorite religion, again.

3. Whatever we once were, we are no longer a christian nation.

— just making sure we get it right.

4. “Today I’m pledging to cut the deficit we inherited in half by the end of my first term in office...”

— because you will believe anything, and vote for anyone who tells you what you want to hear.

5. “YOU DIDN’T BUILD THAT”

— giving credit where credit is due.

6. “I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody.”

— spreading Marxism everywhere he goes.

7. “I've now been in 57 states — I think one left to go.”

— on geography.

8. “If I don’t have this done in three years, then there’s going to be a one-term proposition.”

— on his own accountability.

9. “…I’ve got two daughters. 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”  

— his wonderful views on morality and abortion.

10. “I won.”

— reaching out across the aisle to the republicans.

11. “...because, you know, the Cold War's been over for 20 years.”

— telling Romney how stupid he is for saying Russia is still one of our main global enemies.

12. “...on all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space... This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.”

— sucking Russia’s cock ... again...

And the number one Obama quote of all time is of course:

13. IF YOU LIKE YOUR HEALTH CARE, YOU CAN KEEP IT.

OMG - Watch to the End - Responsiblity at its FINEST!

"As if this was my decision..." 
That's 'our' president, taking the credit for all the good things, and blaming others for all the bad things. Wow, what a shining example of leadership and responsibility. But still the finger points right back at us; which moronic, retarded, brain-dead idiots were dumb enough to vote for this puppet -- TWICE!!!?

 

Joe Biden's Son Joins Board of Ukrainian Gas Company -- Gee, I Wonder Why?!

SCUMBAGS

September 5th, 2013, we published the real intent of Obama and Biden's actions in the Ukraine.
Now Joe Biden's son is joining the board of the largest Ukrainian gas company, think that's a coincidence?!
In some countries this is called 'corruption', as a matter of fact that's how Timochenko was ousted and put into jail. But, in the Western World, this is standard practice. Gerhard Schroeder, former prime minister of Germany is now on the board of directors of Gazprom - the largest russian gas company.

This plot could not be any clearer.
It's amazing that Obama and Biden didn't go to war in Syria, however, if the pipeline is in risk -- they will most definitely beat the drums of 'freedom' and get out the pictures of suffering children again, to start a war for human rights.

There is a word for this in English, it is called 'SCUMBAGS'.

Post by IMPEACH PELOSI - SHE'S A !$NT!

Biggest Bastards of All Time: The Political Process: In the present situation: Motivated Reasoning I want to build a pipeline through Syria -- Assad has to go! The Al Qaeda Terrorists...

International Socialism vs. National Socialism

Post by Socialism Sucks.

How to Destroy America

Eight Steps To Destroy America
1-30-5
We all know Dick Lamm as the former Governor of Colorado. In that context, his thoughts are particularly poignant. Last week there was an immigration-overpopulation conference in Washington, DC, filled to capacity by many of American's finest minds and leaders. A brilliant college professor named Victor Hansen Davis talked about his latest book, Mexifornia, explaining how immigration - both legal and illegal - was destroying the entire state of California. He said it would march across the country until it destroyed all vestiges of The American Dream. Moments later, former Colorado Governor Richard D. Lamm stood up and gave a stunning speech on how to destroy America. The audience sat spellbound as he described eight methods for the destruction of the United States. He said, "If you believe that America is too smug, too self-satisfied, too rich, then let's destroy America. It is not that hard to do. No nation in history has survived the ravages of time. Arnold Toynbee observed that all great civilizations rise and fall and that 'An autopsy of history would show that all great nations commit suicide.'"
"Here is how they do it," Lamm said:
(First) ;
"Turn America into a bilingual or multi-lingual and bi-cultural country. History shows that no nation can survive the tension, conflict, and antagonism of two or more competing languages and cultures. It is a blessing for an individual to be bilingual; however, it is a curse for a society to be bilingual. "The historical scholar Seymour Lipset put it this way: 'The histories of bilingual and bi-cultural societies that do not assimilate are histories of turmoil, tension, and tragedy.' Canada, Belgium, Malaysia, Lebanon all face crises of national existence in which minorities press for autonomy, if not independence. Pakistan and Cyprus have divided. Nigeria suppressed an ethnic rebellion. France faces difficulties with Basques, Bretons, and Corsicans."
Lamm went on:
(Second:)
"Invent 'multi-culturalism' and encourage immigrants to maintain their culture. I would make it an article of belief that all cultures are equal. That there are no cultural differences. I would make it an article of faith that the Black and Hispanic dropout rates are due to prejudice and discrimination by the majority. Every other explanation is out of bounds. "We could make the United States an 'Hispanic Quebec' without much effort.
(Third:)
The key is to celebrate diversity rather than unity. As Benjamin Schwarz said in the Atlantic Monthly recently: 'The apparent success of our own multi-ethnic and multi-cultural experiment might have been achieved not by tolerance but by hegemony. Without the dominance that once dictated ethnocentrically and what it meant to be an American, we are left with only tolerance and pluralism to hold us together.'" Lamm said, "I would encourage all immigrants to keep their own language and culture. I would replace the melting pot metaphor with the salad bowl metaphor. It is important to ensure that we have various cultural sub-groups living in America reinforcing their differences rather than as Americans, emphasizing their similarities."
"Fourth, I would make our fastest growing demographic group the least educated. I would add a second underclass, unassimilated, undereducated, and antagonistic to our population. I would have this second underclass have a 50% dropout rate from high school."

"My fifth point for destroying America would be to get big foundations and business to give these efforts lots of money. I would invest in ethnic identity, and I would establish the cult of 'Victimology.'I would get all minorities to think their lack of success was the fault of the majority. I would start a grievance industry blaming all minority failure on the majority population."
"My sixth plan for America's downfall would include dual citizenship and promote divided loyalties. I would celebrate diversity over unity. I would stress differences rather than similarities. Diverse people worldwide are mostly engaged in hating each other - that is, when they are not killing each other." "A diverse, peaceful, or stable society is against most historical precedent. People undervalue the unity it takes to keep a nation together. Look at the ancient Greeks. The Greeks believed that they belonged to the same race; they possessed a common language and literature; and they worshipped the same gods. All Greece took part in the Olympic games. A common enemy Persia threatened their liberty. Yet all these bonds were not strong enough to overcome two factors: local patriotism andgeographical conditions that nurtured political divisions. Greece fell. "E. Pluribus Unum" -- From many, one. In that historical reality, if we put the emphasis on the 'pluribus' instead of the 'unum,' we can balkanize America as surely as Kosovo."
"Next to last, (Seventh:) I would place all subjects off limits ~ make it taboo to talk about anything against the cult of 'diversity.' I would find a word similar to 'heretic' in the 16th century - that stopped discussion and paralyzed thinking. Words like 'racist' or 'xenophobe' halt discussion and debate." "Having made America a bilingual/bicultural country, having established multi-culturism, having the large foundations fund the doctrine of 'Victimology,'

(Eighth:) I would next make it impossible to enforce our immigration laws. I would develop a mantra: That because immigration has been good for America , it must always be good. I would make every individual immigrant sympatric and ignore the cumulative impact of millions of them." In the last minute of his speech, Governor Lamm wiped his brow. Profound silence followed. Finally he said, "Lastly, I would censor Victor Hanson Davis's book Mexifornia. His book is dangerous. It exposes the plan to destroy America. If you feel America deserves to be destroyed, don't read that book." There was no applause. A chilling fear quietly rose like an ominous cloud above every attendee at the conference. Every American in that room knew that everything Lamm enumerated was proceeding methodically, quietly, darkly, yet pervasively across the United States today. Every discussion is being suppressed. Over 100 languages are ripping the foundation of our educational system and national cohesiveness. Barbaric cultures that practice female genital mutilation are growingas we celebrate 'diversity.' American jobs are vanishing into the Third World as corporations create a Third World in America - take note of California and other states - to date, ten million illegal aliens and growing fast. It is reminiscent of George Orwell's book "1984." In that story, three slogans are engraved in the Ministry of Truth building: "War is peace," "Freedom is slavery," and "Ignorance is strength." Governor Lamm, walked back to his seat. It dawned on everyone at the conference that our nation and the future of this great democracy is deeply in trouble and worsening fast. If we don't get this immigration monster stopped within three years, it will rage like a California wildfire and destroy everything in its path, especially The American Dream.

If You Like Your Healthcare You Can Keep It

RASCI

• Responsible
• Accountable
• Support
• Consulted
• Informed

I remember a day when there was such a thing known as "accountability", and also "responsibility".

In the old days, that is, the Pre-Clinton Era days, when a leader was caught lying, he was held responsible. He got punished, or even impeached.  When we have a war crimes trial, who goes to the Hague -- the foot soldier, or the general? -- or even the President?

Nixon, a man compared to our modern 'leaders'

Nowadays our supposed 'leaders' are of the most cowardly childish sorts. When confronted with their failures they just hold out their arm and point to the person next to them, in an eternal loop of denial.

This is the Crime of Clinton. He made lying fashionable.

Before - there was accountability, now ... nothing.

What the liberals fail to admit, is that true to their own battle cry of "It's Bush's fault", the previous president sets the game-board for the next. Clinton paved the way for 'Bush's Wars' quite literally. He set the field, got all the international players against each other, and then he delivered the next president the tools -- i.e. approved pre-emptive lying -- for the execution of his wars.

This is the failure of the Democrat party that no one wants to fess up to.

Children playing with bombs --  afterwards they will say "yeah but he started it!"

Obama - Pathological Liar

Watch Obama catch himself lying to the world at 0:56. The body language and the unspoken message is unmistakable here. Not just the ear tug, but also the strategic pause are amazing. It is truly amazing what less than a second of body language can tell you - it speaks volumes. Terabytes per second!

 What a 'leader' ! 

Social Security - Democrats' Rip-Off!

This is a perfect example of the "Generation Effect"!
From Facebook:



History Lesson on Your Social Security Card
Just in case some of you young whippersnappers (and some older ones) didn't know this.
It's easy to check out, if you don't believe it. Be sure and show it to your family
and friends. They need a little history lesson on what's what and it doesn't matter
whether you are Democrat or Republican. Facts are Facts.

Social Security

Cards up until the 1980s expressly stated the number and
Card were not to be used for identification purposes. Since nearly everyone in the
United States now has a number, it became convenient to use it anyway and the
message, NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION was removed.

An old Social Security card with the "NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION"message.
Our Social Security

Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social
Security (FICA) Program. He promised:

1) That participation in the Program would be
completely voluntary,

No longer Voluntary

2) That the participants would only have to pay
1% of the first $1,400 of their annual
incomes into the Program,

Now 7.65%
On the first $90,000.

3) That the money the participants elected to put
into the Program would be deductible from
their income for tax purposes each year,

No longer tax deductible

4) That the money the participants put in went to the
Independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the
General Operating Fund, and therefore, would
only be used to fund the Social Security
Retirement Program, and no other
Government program, and,

Under Johnson the money was moved to
The General Fund and spent.

5) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed
as income.

Under Clinton & Gore
up to 85% of your Social Security can be taxed.

Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are
now receiving a Social Security check every month --
and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of
the money we paid to the Federal government to 'put
away -- you may be interested in the following:

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ----

Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the
Independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the
General Fund so that Congress could spend it?

A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the Democratically
controlled House and Senate.

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --

Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax
deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?

A: The Democratic Party.

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -----

Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social
Security annuities?

A: The Democratic Party with Al Gore casting the
'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the
Senate, while he was Vice President of the U.S.

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -

Q: Which Political Party decided to start
giving annuity payments to immigrants?

(AND MY FAVORITE):

A: That's right!

Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party.
Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65,
began to receive Social Security payments! The
Democratic Party gave these payments to them,
even though they never paid a dime into it!

------------ -- ------------ --------- ----- ------------ --------- ---------

Then, after violating the original contract (FICA),
the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans
want to take your Social Security away!

And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it!
If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of
awareness will be planted and maybe changes will
evolve.

Obama - How To Fall Up the Ladder in 10 Easy Steps

Before Obama was a senator, he was a community leader.
This is his "vast reserve" of experience.
Community leader, what's that?

Licking stamps?

Being at the right place at the right  time to get your photograph in the paper?

In truth, America elected a symbol.
Every body wanted the "first black president", half black ... well that's good enough too.
So the democrat party found a perfect match:
Image + Person + Demagogue + Puppet = we have our boy!

And now I am going to let you in on a HUGE secret, this secret has been packed and sold for many dollars over the years in many forms, and now I am giving it to you absolutely free of charge.
The following is EXACTLY how Obama did it, and it should be the standardized game-plan of all politicians as Obama has so aptly shown that in the face of facts, logic and concrete arguments, EMOTION will always reign supreme.

ACHTUNG! ALL FUTURE LEADERS OF THE WORLD - THIS IS YOUR RECIPE FOR SUCCESS:

1. Be at the right place at the right time
2. Keep your mouth shut
3. If you do have to open your mouth; spout out some BS Marxist slogan you learned in college
• We are a team
• We will not let you fall
• It's better when everybody shares the burden
• Tell a story the people want to hear - the "narrative"
4. Read The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership and DO them
• This was Obama's ENTIRE game plan throughout both of his campaigns
• People "buy in" to the leader's dream
• Always appeal to emotion
5. Be at the right place at the right time
6. Be at the right place at the right time
7. Be at the right place at the right time
8. Be at the right place at the right time
9. Be at the right place at the right time
10. Be at the right place at the right time

And this is what you get when you force somebody into a position of leadership that he is not qualified for and is in waaay over his head

America needed a half black democrat as a figurehead - an empty hollow symbol, and they got him.

Congratulations

And what happens when a real test comes?
When this hollow puppet is tested with a real life situation where top level decisions must be made? What happens when you put someone in such a high position who doesn't have the mettle?

Benghazi happens.

And no amount of  empty Marxist slogans can save you in a real life situation.
Either you have the mettle or you don't.
The hollow man...

The most epic puppet of our time

"Asshole" Defined for Esoterics:

The East Coast Five 

The highest concentration of corruption possible in one picture

The "Uniform" of Deceit

Muslim Terrorist Meets AR-15. AR-15 1:0 Terrorist

I love the simple logic of the liberal left:

 - they say "If we limit the capacity of semi-automatic rifle magazines - that could prevent the next school massacre" - - simple ... right? 

Well we can easily apply that to Muslim terrorists:

"If we limit the amount of muslims allowed to immigrate into our country - we could prevent the next bombing - right.....?"
"Oh that's different!"
Will be the knee-jerk reflex of your liberal friend.
How is it different?
You propose a limit on magazines that will only target the law abiding "good" gun owners - effectively rendering their weapons ineffective!
The same can be done with muslim immigrants, it doesn't matter that not all of them are "bad" - you limit them all, just like you are imposing on the entire population of gun owners, you impose on the entire population of muslims, not discriminating between good or bad - just impose a limit on all - problem solved!

Boy am I glad such smart people are running our government!

Dear AR-15 makers:
Thank you! AR-15's are as American as apple pie!

Obama: Nobel Peace Prize winning war criminal

I disagree in only one point of Mr.Hoffman's excellent article. He says "I am not comparing Obama to Hitler"....why not?   It fits!   If he won't then I will; very simply – if you still support Barack Obama now, you are exactly the same kind of decrepit evil blind idiot who supported Adolf Hitler in 1933. That's it , done, now was that so hard? Telling the truth!

 From Pravda:

By David Hoffman

Politicians are slime, pure and simple.  They are self-serving, venal, conscienceless reprobates, perverse enough to waste millions of dollars seeking offices where they can make life and death decisions, and arrogant enough to believe those decisions are never wrong.

The United States Supreme Court's corruption inviting Citizens United ruling (2010) made this slime even more toxic.  Governors like Scott Walker in Wisconsin, Rick Snyder in Michigan, Mike Pence in Indiana (and his predecessor Mitch Daniels), and the legislators who do their bidding, have become nothing more than puppets for billionaires.  In fact, given the shameless proclivity of American politicians to sell their souls to the highest bidder, there arises a temptation to compare them to prostitutes.

But such an analogy would be an insult to prostitutes.

I do not say this facetiously.  Whatever one may think of "the world's oldest profession," at least there are no illusions about the transaction.  As a rule, prostitutes do not love their clients, and most probably do not even like them. Politicians, on the other hand, incessantly try to pretend they are motivated by a calling to "public service."

This hypocrisy is perhaps the most disgusting thing about politicians.  They will zealously and unquestioningly embrace policies and actions promoted by members of their own political party, and just as zealously question and condemn identical or similar policies and actions promoted by their opposition.

Recently, in fact, questions have been raised about why supporters of Barack Obama do not seem as eager to condemn his war crimes, his lawlessness, his illegal usurpation of power, and his destruction of the Bill of Rights as they did when these actions were perpetrated by George W. Bush.  In fact, members of the Nobel Committee, weary of the warmongering Bush-era, so readily swallowed Obama's con job that they awarded him the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009-an impulsive action that now mocks the deeds and sacrifices of past recipients, and taints the award for future ones.

Had they but waited a couple more years.

Regular readers of Pravda.Ru will have little difficulty recalling that I had (and have) nothing but contempt for George W. Bush and his fellow torturers and war criminals, and I did not hesitate to say so.  The fact that many of them are now making lucrative livings teaching at universities, serving as judges, working at prestigious law firms, making speeches and/or writing books makes all the pontifications about America being a bastion of human rights and justice where "nobody is above the law" ring hollow.

I'll admit, I bought Obama's snake oil when he first ran for president.  But, early on, I also voiced some skepticisms and suspicions about him in articles like The Beginning of Hope (11/07/08), Et Tu Barack? Part II (04/09/09), and So You Really Thought Things Would Change? (06/01/2009).

It didn't take long for these skepticisms and suspicions to be confirmed, as the man who many welcomed as the fulfillment of Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream demonstrated he was not only oblivious to King's philosophy that passive acceptance of evil "is really cooperating with it," he actively sought to ensure that such evil would go unpunished.

Wikileaks revealed that Obama strong-armed foreign governments into ceasing their investigations into Bush-era torture and war crimes, while his administration, in the words of the British Newspaper The Guardian, almost immediately began conducting an "aggressive, full-scale whitewashing" of Bush-era crimes, allowing torturers and murderers, and those who facilitated and/or covered up their deeds, to walk free.

The question is why?  The answer has become disturbingly clear:  Obama wanted unbridled authority to perpetrate his own war crimes, human rights abuses, and destruction of the Bill of Rights.

Although George W. Bush once opined that the so-called "war on terror" gave the United States government the authority to execute its own citizens without charge or trial, it is Obama who first did such executions through his use of unmanned attack drones.

One of the victims of such an attack was Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen who was killed by a drone in Yemen in 2011.  Al-Awlaki's death, and the events that preceded it, highlighted the first problem with Obama's "drone war":  America's corrupt legal system has made it virtually impossible for a person to challenge his/her placement on Obama's "kill list."

As I stated in America is Still Dead (10/3/2011), when al-Awlaki's father petitioned the federal courts to remove his son's name from this "kill list," he was advised that he lacked the "standing" to do so, meaning that Anwar al-Awlaki himself had to file such a petition.  This, of course, "creates a ludicrous and perverse Catch-22 for persons on this list, because seeking legal redress in America to prevent their extrajudicial executions would also heighten their chances of being extrajudicially executed before they ever reached the courthouse."

Al-Awlaki's death also demonstrates the second problem with Obama's "drone war":  Its arbitrariness, secrecy, and lack of legal oversight are an invitation for cover-up and abuse.  As Oliver Knox of Yahoo News recently reported, an Obama administration memo lists three criteria that allegedly must be established before a drone attack is launched:  First, "an informed, high-level official of the U.S. government" must conclude that the targeted individual is a "senior operational leader" of al-Qaida or "associated forces"; Second, the targeted individual must pose "an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States"; Third, it must be "infeasible" to attempt to capture the targeted individual.

However, in vague and overbroad language typical of self-appointed demigods lusting for unchecked power over life and death, the memo goes on to state that the phrase "imminent threat" does not require "clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future," only that the targeted individual "recently" participated in "activities" that a high-level government official construes as a threat.

Under the auspices of these so-called "criteria," sixteen-year-old Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was also killed in a drone attack just two weeks after his father-his extrajudicial murder ordered by a government whose own laws prohibit the execution of juveniles within its borders.  Yet, when asked if this teenager was a "senior operational leader" of a terrorist group, White House press secretary Jay Carney, in a duplicitous, cowardly and hypocritical response typical of the political slime he represents, remarked, "I'm not going to talk about individual operations that may or may not have occurred."

In other words, when someone, even an American citizen, is murdered in Obama's "drone war," the American people, if they are informed of the killing at all, are simply being told to obsequiously accept the government's contention that the person was a legitimate target.

Yet it was just a few short years ago that America's corporate-controlled media, and the majority of America's people, were blindly accepting George W. Bush's assertions that Saddam Hussein possessed "weapons of mass destruction" and bore some responsibility for the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.  These assertions turned out to be nothing more than unmitigated lies, disseminated by corrupt politicians who segued the fear and anger over 9/11 into a war designed to enrich their cronies in the military-industrial complex.

Given the secrecy surrounding the "drone wars," who will ever know for sure that the United States government is not simply using "terrorist" as a term of opprobrium to target individuals because of their political or religious beliefs, family connections, demands for human rights, or desires to exercise fundamental freedoms?  And, given the dangerous precedent Obama's "drone war" has set, what will prevent corrupt foreign political leaders in the future from granting economic, political, and/or military "favors" to the United States government in exchange for it killing political opposition leaders who have falsely been branded as "terrorists?"

There was a time when America supported the apartheid regime in South Africa.  If this happened today, would Nelson Mandela be a "legitimate" drone target?  How about members of the American Indian Movement (AIM), the Black Panther Party, the Weather Underground, the anti-war movement, or even individuals like Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X?

Before dismissing this argument as far-fetched, it must be remembered that government officials in the past, without the benefit of drones, demonstrated little hesitancy in using any means available, legal or illegal, to target individuals and groups considered to be threats to "national security."  Black Panther leaders Fred Hampton and Mark Clark were extrajudicially executed; Elmer "Geronimo" Pratt was framed for a murder he did not commit; Lee Otis Johnson was sentenced to thirty-years in prison for allegedly passing a marijuana joint to an undercover police officer; Leonard Peltier was extradited from Canada based upon a perjured affidavit; and Weather Underground members and their families were subjected to illegal spying and break-ins.  And even when two government officials were convicted for their roles in these break-ins, Ronald Reagan pardoned them.

The third problem with the "drone wars" is the specious arguments about their "legality." In the abovementioned Yahooarticle, Carney is quoted as calling the killing of Americans in drone attacks "legal," "ethical," and "wise."

Carney's argument stirs memories of Martin Luther King Jr.'s excellent analysis of "just" and "unjust" laws.  King once noted that everything Adolf Hitler did was "legal" under the laws of the Nazi regime, while everything Mahatma Gandhi did to nonviolently free India from British rule was "illegal."  Yet, of these two men, who truly represented the moral high ground?

Although I am not comparing Obama to Hitler, there is no doubt that all Americans should be disturbed by a system where the individuals who create laws and policies are also the ones who determine their "legality".

How does it bode for the future when "drone wars" become more common?  Can one imagine the outrage the Obama administration would express if Iran, North Korea, or China used a drone to kill one of their citizens on American soil, especially if this drone killed innocent Americans as well?  Yet the precedent Obama is setting, and the fact he has demonstrated no reluctance about using drone strikes even when they pose a risk to innocent people, certainly invite such scenarios.

Finally, there is the Star Trek problem.  Science fiction has a way of becoming science fact, and the "drone wars" are a glaring example of this maxim.  In the episode, A Taste of Armageddon, the crew of the USS Enterprise find themselves caught in the middle of two planets whose inhabitants have fought a war for over five hundred years solely through the use of computers.  When the computer from one planet scored a "hit" on the other, all occupants in the affected area were required to report to disintegration chambers to be put to death-the moral being that if wars only bring death, but not destruction, they go on forever.

It is not difficult to see how the so-called "war on terror," being fought largely in secret with unmanned drones directed against an enemy assimilated into civilian populations and scattered throughout the world, could potentially go on forever, particularly since opportunistic and power hungry politicians have recognized that the fear such a war generates continues to dupe Americans into sacrificing their freedoms and rights in the name of "national security."

Some opponents of Obama may argue that America would be better off if Mitt Romney had been elected president.  But conspicuously missing from the political debates during the 2012 presidential campaign was any mention of the tactics being used to fight the so-called "war on terror."

As Knox also pointed out in his article, Obama campaigned in 2008 as a "fierce critic of George W. Bush's national security policies."  Yet, once he obtained the presidency, "he apparently learned to stop worrying and love executive power-the literal power of life and death over fellow U.S. citizens . . ."

Lord Acton's observation, now personified by Obama, that "power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely," coupled with the fact that Romney was largely silent about the escalating and unconstitutional usurpation of power now being assumed by American presidents, leaves little doubt that, had he won the election, the "drone wars" would have continued unabated.

So the question becomes, why do the people of the United States habitually give the reins of political power to sociopaths?

One reason may be a theory I have propounded in several previous articles for Pravda.Ru:  Evil is the primary motivating force in the world, and therefore most of the world's conflicts are simply struggles between varying degrees of evil.  So while people are rightfully outraged when deranged individuals commit torture and murder, far too many subserviently and routinely wave the flag and cheer when such tortures and murders are given the "government seal of approval."  Thus politicians are nothing more than reflections of humanity's evil.

A second theory could be that politics, by its very nature, only attracts the most despicable people, much like rotting flesh attracts maggots and vultures.  Good people are not only repulsed by political office, most would probably not stand a chance of being elected because their principles would impede them from sinking to the depths of dishonesty and hypocrisy necessary to win elections.  It doesn't take a historical scholar to see that many of the positive changes in the world have not evolved from politicians, but from people who challenged them and condemned their evil.

In these past articles, I also argued that the persistence of evil might explain the meaning of mortality.  If evil people did not die, then the power they acquired from their evil could profit them forever.  Death, the great equalizer, befalls the wealthy and the poor, the powerful and the subjugated, the famous and the unknown.  It befalls sixteen-year-old boys targeted by drones, and will one day befall those who ordered and/or defended such targeting.  After all, in the end only God can play God.

Some critics of my articles have contended, and I agree, that my arguments cannot survive unless a just God truly exists.  But when men like George W. Bush and Barack Obama obtain power in arguably the most powerful nation in the world, it does raise doubts about the existence of such a God.

Still, one fact is clear:  Barack Obama, the man who rode his Audacity of Hope to the presidency, also possessed the audacity to destroy the hope of millions who once believed in him and his message of change.  

David R. Hoffman

Legal Editor of Pravda.Ru

Civilization: 1.Start good 2.Add liberals 3.Shake it up 4.Die 5.Repeat

Gun Laws - Designed to Fail

As usual, as a result of the recent shootings in Connecticut, everyone is boiling over with raw emotions.

And equally as predictable, most people are reflexively looking at gun laws for the answer.

Unfortunately, gun laws are designed to fail.
Not only are they designed to fail - they are guaranteed to fail.

Simply for the reason that they do not affect the target group whatsoever.
They do not address the underlying cause, they are not a real solution and at best they are just a band-aid quick fix.
They have therefore zero impact.

"You cannot 'cure' humanity with laws"

They are nothing but a knee-jerk reaction for politicians to fall back on and say "See? I did something! Now vote for me pretty please."

But before we reflexively reach to an empty placebo, we should take a sober look at the sick media culture we live in.
I think Roger Ebert expressed it best:

"Events like this," I said, "if they are influenced by anything, are influenced by news programs like your own. When an unbalanced kid walks into a school and starts shooting, it becomes a major media event. Cable news drops ordinary programming and goes around the clock with it. The story is assigned a logo and a theme song; these two kids were packaged as the Trench Coat Mafia. The message is clear to other disturbed kids around the country: If I shoot up my school, I can be famous. The TV will talk about nothing else but me. Experts will try to figure out what I was thinking. The kids and teachers at school will see they shouldn't have messed with me. I'll go out in a blaze of glory."
In short, I said, events like Columbine are influenced far less by violent movies than by CNN, the NBC Nightly News and all the other news media, who glorify the killers in the guise of "explaining" them. I commended the policy at the Sun-Times, where our editor said the paper would no longer feature school killings on Page 1.

The reporter thanked me and turned off the camera. Of course the interview was never used. They found plenty of talking heads to condemn violent movies, and everybody was happy.

Question:
Why are we not up in arms about the recent knife attack at a school in China?

Amazingly only a couple of hours separates the two incidences.
Why are the knives not demonized in this case?

Answer:
The media cannot hype up a knife attack on children in China, however a gun attack fits right in perfectly.
There are no emotionally charged scenes in a knife attack in China, there is therefore no "media currency" to trade.
It is simply a bad business case with no added value.
No Hype-factor. Nothing to gain for the drooling buffoonery known as our media.
Now a gun attack at an American school – that's GOLD, that's tradable media currency!

And as usual, the emotional idealists are doing what they do best – letting their emotions get the best of them:
"We gotta do something!"

When faced with logic however, they are perplexed and flabbergasted:
Rationalist – "If someone abuses the right of free speech, do we outlaw the 1st amendment and free speech?"
Liberal – "No of course not –the 1st amendment is holy!"
Rationalist – "If someone abuses their 2nd amendment rights – do we outlaw the 2nd amendment?"
Liberal – "That's different! You're crazy!"

The list goes on and on when trying to explain to liberals their failed logic, 

one other good example is cars.
If someone is caught drunk driving – do you put the car in jail or the driver?
If we want to outlaw prostitutes standing on the corners – do we outlaw hotels?

Amazingly enough, you can get liberals to agree with you on the cars and prostitutes and 1st amendment rights, but when it comes to the same arguments about 2nd amendment rights and Pit bull dogs – they suddenly take a left turn.

It seems that guns and Pit bulls are so emotionally charged that people lose their wits. I have actually heard some people say that Pit bulls should be exterminated, i.e. the entire race!

Even more amazing is that these comments usually come from a "freedom loving liberal"!

One can reach to statistics to support their argument – however for every statistic there is a counter-statistic.
For example the fact that in 1997 when the Brits banned hand guns – gun violence went up!

And the safest 40 years.

These statistics of course are buried by the liberal media.

"But you don't need guns"
"Need" is a highly philosophical word which you will encounter in EVERY argument about guns.
The interesting thing about "need" is that it is directly inversely proportional to freedom.
I.e. you can measure your freedom or your country's freedom directly by the amount of things you have that you don't "need".
For example, in an "unfree" country like the former communist DDR, someone else decided what you need. That's a nice feeling isn't it? And because someone else decided what you needed, you didn't need a car. But if you absolutely had to have one, you could pay up front, IN-FULL and then wait 13 years for delivery for a piece of shit two cylinder 2-stroke Trabant! No shit, just ask my uncle who lived in East Germany all his life.
To make a long story short, a free country is not based on "need", yea it is based on the opposite of "need"!

However, like said before, we are dealing with emotional irrational idealists.

THEY DO NOT RESPOND TO LOGIC AND REASON.

So an argument based on statistics is totally futile.

Yea, an argument with them is futile anyway - you will never change their mind.

They "buy in" to ideology. That's all.

Later on these same dip-sticks will wonder "where the hell did all my rights go?!" , whereas they are the people who voluntarily  gave up their rights! Witness the people who voted for Obama just because he told them a good story, the narrative they wanted to hear.

The second amendment was put there for a reason, without it, the constitution is just a bunch of words.

The American constitution is the only one on earth that actually gives the power to the people to back up their words.

Everything else is just talk if you can't back it up.
This is what truly makes the American constitution a revolutionary document.

The right to self-defense, and the right to own guns and arm yourself - this is the ultimate litmus test.

It is not until a government actually puts its money where its mouth is - that it means anything.

All of those other constitutions e.g. Germany's or the EU's have a bunch of pretty words and high and noble ideas, but NOT ONE of them actually guarantees the people the RIGHT TO REVOLUTION. Not one of them actually puts the power into the people's hands - literally. For these reasons I actually believe the second amendment should be the first. Because without it - everything else is just talk.

It is up to the sane and rational people of America to hold back the tidal wave of knee-jerk idiots now.

Part 2

BENCHMARK ISRAEL

I have heard many people in Europe calling America and Americans "sick" for their gun policies.

Yea, the polarization is complete in most of Europe.
Guns are simply evil and anyone who believes otherwise is sick - proven fact.
This is the arrogance called modern Europe now.
They profess to be so culturally superior to the rest and so much more open minded.

Sadly - they are just following their old world genes and are the absolute opposite of open minded or culturally superior.

However some countries still have their heads on straight, Switzerland, Israel;

here we see an Israeli school teacher with rifle and children. If we say we love our children so much why don't we do anything?

Do you think it is a coincidence that "Drug free zones" and "Gun free zones" only tell the criminals where they should go?

Isn't it strange? We say our children are our most valuable assets - our future - but we do not guard them? If you go to the water supply of your city, you will see an armed guard. If you go to any military base - you will see armed guards, guarding what? We say we love our children but don't guard them. Are the Israelis the only ones who have their heads on straight!?

Oh, and by the way, Switzerland has indeed had an Amoklauf of their own.
Friederich Leibacher - after getting extremely pissed off at his government, went into the local parliament building and shot up some politicians.
But that's not my point here, point here is that Friederich, and the boys from Columbine, AND Timothy McVeigh all had bombs on them too.
You never hear people talking about bombs and bomb control do you?

As a parting shot - the next time someone is on their high horse about Europe, just refer them to this interesting list.

It looks like America ISN'T the top shooting spree country after all!

Variable Truth

For some people, the truth is variable.
As I have said in previous posts (see Idealists), our world is full of dreamy idealists who don't give a rat's ass about the truth.

All you have to do is tell them a nice story.
All you have to do is be the SYMBOL of their "ideals" and nothing more...

Witness - the Nobel committee and the "international community" giving Obama the peace prize after a whopping two weeks of being in office.

Witness - the record demonstrations against George Bush's war in Iraq.
Never mind that key democrats like Clinton and Obama supported it and voted for it, it was "Bush's war".

Enter the variable truth.
The same people who accused George Bush of being a baby killer, are magically blind to all of the dead children in Afghanistan or Libya.
It seems if a Predator Drone is controlled by a Democrat, or Obama, it is not "murder" anymore, let alone "baby killing".

If Obama maintains a Kill List and personally pushes the button - it's "OK".
Obama means well.
It doesn't matter that 50 or more innocent people were killed at a wedding party just to get one "supposed" terrorist with a Hellfire missile directly sent from Obama himself.
It doesn't matter that the CIA and Obama keep shooting and murdering people who then rush to give assistance and first aid at the wedding party.

THOSE MUST BE LIES! WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? YOU'RE CRAZY - THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN!

Is the usual response.
Confront these people with the truth - photos , websites, eye witness accounts, Bradly Manning, Collateral murder, Wiki-leaks,

AND ALL OF A SUDDEN - THE TRUTH BECOMES VARIABLE AGAIN!

Watch the bullshit roll out of the Obama supporter's mouth:
"Well at that level, you gotta do what the military says"
"He didn't make those choices himself"
"He means well"
"At that level you have to reach a consensus"
"It was the guy before him"
"The president really doesn't have that much influence"
"Blah blah blah"

Of course if it was Bush - he's an evil baby killer DIRECTLY responsible for these deeds.

OH but of course when it comes to getting Osama, now that was Obama's doing - directly of course - He got Osama.

Flip-Flop, variable truth.

I can forgive people,
yea, I can understand people who didn't like Romney and voted against him.

But I will never forgive people who kill the truth and bury it and rename it,
who rationalize murder and relativize it.
YOU ARE AN ACCOMPLICE TO MURDER!
YOU ARE THE SAME PEOPLE WHO VOTED FOR ADOLF HITLER IN 1932 BECAUSE HE TOLD YOU A STORY THAT YOU WANTED TO HEAR!

It truly makes me sick - the people who are actually proud of Obama, and are now proud to be Americans just because of Obama!
See Lady Gaga's G+ post.
SERIOUSLY LADY GAGA? 
You need that guy to make you proud and feel good again to be American?
You like being lied to?
You like "baby killers"?
After all your hard work?
After all that YOU have accomplished?
You didn't build that?
You are attracted to stupidity?

"The joy when FREEDOM prevails"!!!!

Are you kidding me?
More Mexicans have been deported by Obama's administration than any other!
Transparency? The Obama administration has passed more laws against transparency THAN ANY OTHER.

BRADLY MANNING? Do you know who that is Lady Gaga?

THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION IS SEEKING CRIMINAL ACTIONS AGAINST JULIAN ASSANGE - NOT EVEN A US CITIZEN - ALL DECIDED IN SECRET CONGRESSIONAL MEETINGS!
Is that American!?

In a  telling twist of fate which lays bare the ironic, hypocrisy filled bigotry of the democrat party and their supreme story teller Obama - the artist who made his iconic poster is being screwed by the Obama administration!

You call that freedom?

Well yes, you do, because for retarded, stupid, BLIND, misguided idealist dreamer idiots, the truth is variable.

VARIABLE TRUTH = NO PRINCIPLES

An Obama supporter is like a motorcycle rider who doesn't wear a helmet:
Not only are they stupid, but they yell to the world - "Hey world! Look at me - I'm stupid!"

The only advantage these idealist have is that they are indeed guidable.
Right now they are criminally misguided.
It is up to some smart people to figure out how to guide these idiots to real freedom, not lies.
It definitely won't be Obama - he doesn't even follow or live by his own story.