The LawDog on government tantrums

No one lays down the snark with as much class and talent as this unassuming Texas Deputy.

Matter-of-fact, this whole sorry episode is going to be another footnote in the annals of history that future scholars will point to and say, "This was the period of time in which the Government of the United States consisted solely of people who didn't have any business running anything more complicated than a lemonade stand without adult supervision."

RTWT.  And I totally concur with his prescription for our Lords and Masters...it might be just what they need.

A disturbing take on Benghazi

Yeah, yeah, go ahead and dismiss the whole thing as tinfoil hattery.  Or, you could examine what Ann 's saying here and try to find something concrete to try and disprove...

On Benghazi and 'Expendable Faggots'

Posted by Ann Barnhardt - May 10, AD 2013 5:16 AM MST

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, along with the rest of the regime players, murdered Ambassador Chris Stevens. It was a hit. It wasn't incompetence. It wasn't deer-in-the-headlights collective inaction. It wasn't a kidnapping plot gone wrong. It was a hit.

The whole incompetence argument is simply the domain of moral and intellectual cowards who insist upon seeing the world through rose colored glasses and deny objective reality. My contempt for these people knows no bounds. It's one thing to be stupid. It is quite another to be a coward. Cowardice is a pure moral choice. This is why courage is the fruit of the Third Sorrowful Mystery (the crowning with thorns). If courage was a genetic phenotype, as baseline intelligence largely is (as opposed to willful ignorance), then Our Lord would not desire that we pray for the grace of courage every day. Show me someone arguing that the Obama regime is incompetent and I'll show you a quivering little coward.

Next is the whole "kidnapping plot gone wrong" argument. Sorry. It doesn't hold water. First, the theory that Obama wanted to do a prisoner exchange of Ambassador Stevens for the Blind Sheik right before the election in order to look like some sort of hero is simply ludicrous. Americans would have been repulsed and disgusted by such a move. Americans don't cotton to capitulation to kidnappers. And releasing the Blind Sheik? No, this would have worked against Obama in public opinion. The fact of one of our Ambassadors being kidnapped at all would have come off as a sign of profound weakness, and releasing the Blind Sheik would have pegged the needle on the ol' wimp-o-meter.

Next, this kidnapping scenario assumes that the Obama regime was relying on fairly contested elections, had no election fraud teams in place in the major metro areas of the swing states, and/or was truly Nixonian in its desire for a unanimous victory. Again, nope. They clearly weren't going for a unanimous or near-unanimous electoral college sweep as Nixon was trying to do. They were all about targeted fraud in the swing states. They had no care or concern about winning Kansas, Wyoming or Oklahoma. The motives simply don't match up.

Finally, we have to ask why the Clintons were co-conspirators in the murder of Stevens. WHY are the Clintons a.) participating in the initial murder of Stevens and b.) not throwing Obama and Jarrett under the bus? The Obama machine stole the 2008 primaries from Hillary, and both Bill and Hillary personally loathe Obama and his Chicago crew. Why this unholy demonic alliance?

Because Chris Stevens was a lynchpin in the running of arms by the Obama regime and Clinton's State Department in full cooperation with each other to the Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaeda through Libya. And yes, it is absolutely sane and appropriate to assume that Huma Abedin (Hillary's consigliere and daughter of high-ranking Muslim Brotherhood leaders) figures into this. Both Obama's White House and Hillary's State Department were mutually and equally tied to this arms running, and both of their bacons were equally in the fire. The Obama White House, I am convinced, has plans for the retention of power beyond 2016 (Michelle?), and Hillary thinks she is going to be POTUS from 2017-2025. The bottom line is that the duumvirate of the most dangerous, evil psychopaths on the face of the earth decided for slightly different reasons that Ambassador Stevens needed to be dead in order to cover the gunrunning to the Muslim Brotherhood, and so together, they killed him. They withdrew all of his security (at the behest of the State Department), told the Muslim Brotherhood that it was all-clear, guaranteed that there would be no response or retaliation to an attack (only the Oval Office could issue the stand-down order), and even put the cherry on top by instantly framing the entire hit as some sort of musloid blasphemy propaganda. That was just gratuitous. Sickeningly gratuitous.

If it had been a kidnapping plot, Chris Stevens would have been KIDNAPPED. Remember, he had almost no security in the end. He wouldn't have been gang raped, killed and then had his dead body gang raped again.

The Clintons have a long history of having people murdered, all the way back into the early 1980's in Arkansas. Vince Foster. Ron Brown. These people are psychopaths and murderers. You have to deal with this.

The Obama machine, being neo-Stalinist, is also murderous, having seen to the assassination of at least three of Barry's sodomy partners from Trinity UCC cult on the South Side of Chicago. Purely as an aside, don't you think that it is odd that an attention whore like Jeremiah Wright saw three members of his cult murdered within just a few weeks of one another and never said a WORD publicly about that? No demands for a full FBI investigation on the front steps. No march through the streets with Jesse Jackson and Fr. Pfleger demanding that justice be done and that the targeted killings of his flock be given the highest priority by law enforcement. Nope. Nothing. It's almost as if Wright was neither surprised nor alarmed by the rapid serial killing of his "parishioners". I wonder what POSSIBLE EXPLANATION there could be for that?

Sadly, Chris Stevens was just another "expendable faggot" in the eyes of the Obama-Clinton machine. He was a dead man the day he accepted the position. And doesn't it seem odd that the Obama-Clinton machine would send a known sodomite man to be the ambassador to an unstable, backward muslim country to begin with? Again, it was probably done intentionally as a last-ditch hedge, an ace-up-the-sleeve as it were. Stevens could be killed, and then turned into some sort of sodomite martyr as a last-ditch plan. But, they didn't need that. They had the "blasphemy video". Eyeroll.

Finally, I would like to reiterate that the ultimate "expendable faggot" is Barry himself. I worry. I worried terribly after he showed up stoned to the first debate. I continue to worry now. Barry the man is in no way any sort of intellectual driver behind the regime. He is a puppet, a facade, a lazy imbecile and sodomite and nothing more. If the drivers decide that he is worth more dead than alive, assassinating their "expendable faggot" would be the mother of all Reichstag Fires, and would likely result in instant suspension of the Constitution and martial law. IF BARRY IS ASSASSINATED, THE FIRST THING THAT A TEXAS, A KANSAS, AND ANY OTHER REMNANT STATES LOYAL TO THE CONSTIUTION SHOULD DO IS SECEDE. LIKE, WITHIN MINUTES.

And you people keep paying taxes into this.

Kyrie eleison.
Christe eleison.
Kyrie eleison.

We may never know all the facts, but this analysis makes sense to me.  Like I said, you can dismiss it out of hand, or you can think about it.  Free will, y'all.

Now, I'm going to present you with the photo at the end of Ann's post.  I warn you, it is graphic and disturbing.

Progracists

Yeah, Zombie nailed it.

Progracists hate Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream of an America in which people “will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character,” because progressive policies are based on race consciousness, ethnic division, and identity politics.

...

Progracists call Americans “cowards” for not discussing race enough; but when we do discuss it, they call us racists.

...

Progracists don’t want you to know that the progressive hero Margaret Sanger sought to legalize abortion specifically to reduce the population of minorities in America, as part of a eugenics program to protect the racial purity of whites.

...

Democrat Woodrow Wilson was the first progressive president — and he also introduced racial segregation and Jim Crow laws to Washington DC, claiming segregation was beneficial to blacks because otherwise they would be out-competed by superior whites; he even used the White House to promote the film Birth of a Nation and especially its glorification of the Ku Klux Klan; despite all this (or perhaps because of it), Wilson remains an iconic hero to modern progracists.

But wait, there's more.

(HT Doug Ross)

Mr. Colion Noir: I'll have your back any day!

Via Say Uncle, the latest from one of the Jedi Masters of Snark.



We Conservatives totally got that whole "not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character" thing.  Why are the Proglodytes still stuck in 1950's Alabama?

Yeah...it's like that.

On tyranny:

Antitrust laws are only one example of Progressive tyranny; Prohibition, which made criminals rich and established a permanent criminal organization, is another example. Fortunately, the insanity of trying to legislate beverage choices eventually became so obvious that it was repealed. A rare blow struck for freedom; one wishes that the present Mayor of New York City had studied history. However, the repeal of Federal prohibition kicked off the next attempts at Progressive 'improvement.'

Enter the current war on drugs. Started in 1914 with the Pure Food and Drug Act, in the aftermath of the repeal of alcohol prohibition the authorities began to expand and aggressively enforce the prohibition of "dangerous drugs" (what are those, exactly? Aspirin? Tylenol? Antibiotics? By what principle are such things defined?) This aggressive enforcement hasn't done much to decrease drug use, but we have succeeded in enriching murderous thugs by creating legal barriers to entry for recreational substances and provided an endless source of employment for tens of thousands of 'law enforcement' officers.

We have created a system which provides massive financial incentives for the drug cartels to create, import and sell the most addictive substances that they can to whomever they can attract. Usually the young. Then there are the infringements upon our Constitutionally guaranteed rights, which have largely eviscerated that protection against arbitrary police power. I'm told by law enforcement acquaintances involved in the drug war that the inflation adjusted price of most recreational substances has been steady or decreased over the last couple of decades, so if your goal is reduction of drug use and the protection of the young from the predatory efforts of the local illegal drug dealer (and you DO have a local illegal drug dealer, regardless of where you live,) then the 'War on Drugs' has been lost. 

...

There are literally hundreds, if not thousands of examples I could cite and I could go on in this vein for thousands of pages, but the point is that the ultimate result of 'Progressive' legislation is a totalitarian police state. Is that your goal? Is that what you want the future to look like?

What is the only legitimate function of government? To protect the rights of the individual. If the government not only fails to act to protect our rights, but acts to destroy them, is that government legitimate? Do you want to continue the progress of these presently united States towards totalitarian tyranny?

What is to be done? This, gentle reader, is up to you. I can show you the path back to liberty, but only you can walk it.

RTWT.  It's freedom or it ain't.

(HT WRSA)

How I turned from the Dark Side

I've always been for freedom.  It seemed self-evident, if you will, that people should be able to do whatever they liked, as long as they weren't defrauding or harming the person or property of another.  If someone wanted to smoke a joint, host an orgy or carry a gun, exactly how was that harming me?

I still feel that way.  That part hasn't changed.  What has changed, is my understanding of who my allies really are in this fight.

969

Here's a comment on an article that we ought to be taking lessons from:

With muslims making up only 4% of Myannmar’s (Burma’s) population, this level of Buddhist outrage is damningly conclusive as to how evil islam must be. Not only that, but it is damningly conclusive as to how stupid anybody else is, especially liberals, if they cannot see how muslims overwhelmingly cause more trouble, misery, murder, mayhem, and destruction upon this earth and it’s diverse peoples, creeds, and cultures. Only a thoroughly brainwashed or willfully blind idiot couldn’t see this. Everybody the world over it seems have troubles with muslims. Hmm, could it be because of islam’s supremacist nature? Hello? HELLO LEFTARDS!

Crickets

Apparently, there is no greater a blithering idiot than a leftist blithering idiot, and one would be at great pains to find one. Not even uneducated, inbred muslims come close to that kind of stupid. A stupid born of academic arrogance, guilt-ridden self-hate, and hubristic snobbery.

Post-modern liberalism truly is a mental illness. If one wishes to see a perfect example of this in action, just look at Mikey Weinstein and his war against Christianity in the ranks of the US military. This man is the epitome of a left-wingnut, rabid extremist, hypocrite, and a projectionist prick, out to suppress the 1st Amendment rights of Christian servicemembers.

Go forth and read the article.  When you succeed in pissing off Buddhists, you're doing something dreadfully wrong.

Why should we trust you?

The gun-grabbers don't understand why we basically aren't talking to them any more.  Because you can't 'coexist' with people who view you as less than human, and want to destroy you and everything you stand for.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because they seek to punish us for crimes we didn’t commit. We don’t trust anti-gunners because we know that the 100 million of us are peaceful, law-abiding citizens who love this country and our society as much as the next liberal. Yet when one previously convicted felon murders someone with a stolen gun five days after his release from prison, or things like the Newtown shooting happen, guns are blamed — and therefore lawful gun owners too, as there is guilt by association, apparently.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because when things like the Boston Marathon bombing happen, everyone correctly blames the bomber, not the bomb. Nobody is calling for bomb control because killing people with bombs is already illegal — just like killing people with guns is illegal too.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because they’re fine with guns protecting the money in our banks, our politicians and our celebrities, but they’re against us using guns to protect ourselves, our families, or even our children in schools. Legislative trolls like Dianne Feinstein cry havoc about me protecting my life, while standing comfortably behind armed guards —and the .38 Special revolver she got a California carry permit for. We don’t trust anti-gunners because they tell us our lives aren’t important, or at least are less important than the life of some celebrity like Snooki, who can have all the armed guards her bank account can afford.

RTWT.  Seriously, this article encapsulates every single reason I can think of, why we're no longer trying to explain reality to a group of obvious mental defectives. 

There just ain't no more to say, except this:  For this particle-by-particle breakdown, Barry Snell is the 13th-ever recipient of the W&PO Award For Extreme Cleverness.   May God bless and guide you in your future endeavors, sir!

Damn right.

Hmm...three out of five.  I'd better get to work on the last two...

(Ripped off from the good people at Sipsey Street)

How they "think"