“They gonna put you y’all back in chains” — the ever eloquent Obama’s VP Biden

But don’t worry, it’s not a “gaffe.” That word is reserved for the other side.

Can you just imagine if, instead of the gaffe and idiocy-prone imp Joe Biden saying this,  it was Paul Ryan, GOP nominee Mitt Romney’s VP pick, saying this about Barack Obama? Can you just imagine the clarion call from the ever so civil Left and all of its sycophantic media division for Mitt Romney’s and Paul Ryan’s very public apology and, notwithstanding that, the media’s subsequent ongoing slaughtering of them anyway?

Sure you can! We all can! Yes we can!

When asked about it in another fluffy media interview, Obama deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter says the campaign has “no problem” with Vice President Joe Biden’s comment about putting people back in chains. But first, Cutter tried to “put it in context.” See, suddenly “context” matters to them. So since suddenly, in trying to explain and defend those words, context matters, let’s talk about the context. The context doesn’t matter! Because if Paul Ryan had said this instead of Joe Biden, context once again simply wouldn’t matter! But thanks for playing!

This comes on the same day I received one of my four-or-five-times-daily desperate emails from barackobama.com  –  this one asking, in very eloquent and civil and respectful “unity” and “post-partisan,” “respectful,” and new-style” and “post-modern” and “intelligent” Obama-style language:  “You might be wondering why the hell Romney picked this guy.”

Of course, “this guy” is the very respectable Congressman Paul Ryan, uh, “the hell.”

And it doesn’t take eagle eyes to see where the rest of that emailed missive was going: more lies. Clearly they’ve decided to stick with an outright lie about Romney/Ryan planning to “dismantle Medicare,” which I can tell is a lie inasmuch as the truth is exactly the opposite, and they know it.

This Obama regime is the most deceptive, dishonest, vulgar, divisive regime I’ve ever known. The People need to put Obama and thems’all back in chains. Oh sorry  –  was that “homophobic?”

Barack Obama was never vetted. Here’s another explosive example (or what should be explosive).

Imagine if Mitt Romney had in any way ever joined or supported, say, the John Birch Society (which is something about which the left and its mainstream media division would set its collective hair afire, on account of the fact that the group officially stands for limited government and the Constitution, and against communists, etc).

But imagine if, when specifically asked about it (and he most certainly would, approximately 8,000 times), Romney lied about it and said he had nothing to do with it  –  and he covered it all up  –  and imagine if his top aides did too. And he and they were caught.

Imagine the shrieking and outrage  –  the hairy flames!  –  from the Left and their mainstream media division tools at NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, and so on. Ever the optimist, just in case, I just donned a pair of industrial ear muffs and checked the expiration date on my fire extinguisher, as protective measures against Chris Matthews’s thrill-up-the-leg reactions, and that of all the other weird MSNBC anchors and the New York Times editorial division.

I know I’m stating the obvious, but Mitt Romney’s presidential aspirations would be over, to say the least. The infection would spread to the entire GOP and Republicans across the nation would be roundly defeated because of it. It would be cast as a national political scandal. As “Birch-gate” and such.

Yet journalist Stanley Kurtz wrote about the real-life juxtaposition of this, involving Barack Obama’s 1990′s involvement in a radical far-leftist group  –  a socialist group  –  several times. (Yeah I know, for those of you keeping track, another one!) Each time, mainstream media has ignored him… you know, rather than actually and honestly vetting their man Obama, and exposing his ties to radical far-leftists and socialists.

But now more proof has been uncovered. And again, so far at least, no mainstream media has been moved whatsoever.

Which is why I call them corrupt, useful idiots, and oblique water-carriers for Obama.

Here’s a snippet:

June 7, 2012 4:00 A.M.

Obama’s Third-Party History
New documents shed new light on his ties to a leftist party in the 1990s.

By Stanley Kurtz

[...]

In late October 2008, when I wrote here at National Review Online that Obama had been a member of the New Party, his campaign sharply denied it, calling my claim a “crackpot smear.” Fight the Smears, an official Obama-campaign website, staunchly maintained that “Barack has been a member of only one political party, the Democratic Party.” I rebutted this, but the debate was never taken up by the mainstream press.

Recently obtained evidence from the updated records of Illinois ACORN at the Wisconsin Historical Society now definitively establishes that Obama was a member of the New Party. He also signed a “contract” promising to publicly support and associate himself with the New Party while in office.

Minutes of the meeting on January 11, 1996, of the New Party’s Chicago chapter read as follows:

Barack Obama, candidate for State Senate in the 13th Legislative District, gave a statement to the membership and answered questions. He signed the New Party “Candidate Contract” and requested an endorsement from the New Party. He also joined the New Party.

Consistent with this, a roster of the Chicago chapter of the New Party from early 1997 lists Obama as a member, with January 11, 1996, indicated as the date he joined.

[...]

 

UPDATE:
BigGovernment.com columnist @NolteNC has been tweeting to left-wing media anchors and reporters all morning:

Who Would Jesus Tax?

This past Thursday at the National Prayer Breakfast, Obama said that his Christian faith crafts his domestic policies—particularly his desire to rob from the rich and give to the poor. In my humble opinion, I think the president is getting Jesus and His disciples confused with Robin Hood and his Merry Men.

I don’t know which White House wizard crafted that speech for him, but the verse he or she gave to our Spender in Chief to back his socialism was more twisted out of joint than a Gumby doll being worked over by a frustrated Gary Busey.

I can’t believe that hot coffee didn’t spew from hundreds of Christians’ mouths when Obama took a text that refers directly to believers’ judgment and contorted it to be interpreted as a ratcheted-up government imposed higher tax rate upon those who already bear the brunt of the tax burden.

From a theological standpoint it appears as if the president takes more of an eisegetical approach to Luke 12:48 than and exegetical one—which is convenient. But who are we to judge? Judge not.

Now … before I plow on with the topic of Obama’s Christian faith influencing his policies, I thought that in our current culture of sassy secularism elected officials, especially the president, are forbidden to merge biblical beliefs and public policy. Hell, GW couldn’t even tell Cheney “God bless ya” after Dick phlegmed his tie without Media Matters, Maddow and Matthews calling him a theocratic dominionist Nazi who was violating the Establishment Clause and who, left to his own devices, would be hanging homosexuals and burning Harry Potter books. Does Obama get a pass when he parlays his faith-based policies? Shucks … that ain’t fair, is it MSNBC?

I wish Christianity did influence Obama’s politics; if it truly did then there would be an end to abortion, bearing false witness, and obtrusive government and would allow for more liberty than ever before. In addition:

• The entitlement mentality would be history;
• We’d yield up a solid Protestant work ethic;
• We’d enforce a tougher immigration policy;
• Our military would be stronger;
• We’d have a balanced budget;
• We’d see a decrease in national debt and an end to prodigal spending;
• We’d have a defense of traditional marriage;
• And we’d revisit worshipping God rather than feckless humans and their stilted and stymied worldviews.

Lastly, with just a cursory glance at the gospels, the honest reader will note that Christ Jesus never commanded Caesar or Herod to collect taxes in order to take care of the poor. He told his disciples to give to the needy, of their own volition, as worship to God and in service to mankind, and only—only—when it’s done by these means and motivations is it deemed virtuous and Christian.

Oh, and by the way, the Scripture has a lot to say about taxes. Progressives might want to put on a cup before they click this hyperlink to see what “God” thinks about Obama’s tax plan.

Amen.

A Naughty Newt, A Bitter Ex and Misplaced Rage

As a Christian, I will neither defend nor excuse Newt’s past adultery. That said, after watching his ex-wife Marianne go off on him on ABC, as a man, I now get why he supposedly wanted an “open marriage.” Holy crikey. That chick is scary! Hell hath no fury like a furry woman. That’s one angry, gangrenous ex-Gingrich chica right there, folks. Let’s see … what do we have here? Lonely and bitter? Table for one?

Now, before I get my inbox stuffed with hate mail labeling me insensitive, calling Newt a cad, and painting Marianne as a damsel in distress, let me state up front that … I know … he was … and oh, please.

Someone help me here. When did Marianne start giving a crap about Gingrich committing adultery? She didn’t mind his “open marriage” policy when she was doing the fig Newton with him while he was married to his first wife, Jackie.

Yep, this is the same Marianne who was spooning Newt while his wife was in the hospital. Oh, I forgot. I’ve transgressed. I cannot blame Marianne for her adultery. Only guys, especially conservative guys, are the villains in an adulterous affair. Women, according to the lame stream media and the loons on the Left, are helpless victims who are not responsible for their wanton ways. Hallelujah. Ain’t that convenient?

Now, Newt, according to his own admission, was a scallywag. But also according to his own admission, he has repented. Is it BS? I don’t know. All I know is that when people verbally repent we’re supposed to forgive them. I believe that’s how the Jesus movie went. And it looked as if lots of South Carolinians were ready to forgive Gingrich judging from the standing ovation they gave him after he horsewhipped John King when he brought up Newt’s past peccadilloes.

Oh, and by the way, I believe according to Christ that if you look at a woman lustfully you’ve committed adultery in your heart in His holy estimation. In other words, we’re all guilty, and Jesus is the only one ever to navigate that tightrope successfully. As Dennis Miller once said, “He that hath an empty hand, let him throw the first stone.”

Boy, the Left is grasping at straws, aren’t they? They think they have breaking news about Newt’s randy ways. Uh, hello. This stuff has been out there and dealt with now for fifteen years. Fifteen years. As in One Five. But that’s just it: divert, divert, divert—talk about Newt 15 years ago rather than about what Obama has been doing for the last 15 months! Also, you do know that if Gingrich were a Democrat and we found out he just had a chunky female volunteer shine his apple on his election bus 15 hours ago that he’d be hailed as a rock star and defended for his wang dang ways.

My final assessment of this puritanical witch-hunt against Gingrich instigated by the anti-puritanical Left is this: I’m concerned more about how Obama’s policies have radically screwed this nation more than who Newt boinked two decades ago.

Newsweek adds to the left-wing media “racist” narrative: Obama critics are “dumb.”

Why are Newsweek‘s readers so dumb? Why would they buy a “news” magazine like this for anything resembling news, when it’s actually a lie, and it’s actually so obviously premised on abject bias?  Indeed, why would a publication be so dumb as to exclude at least half or more of America from its pool of potential consumers? I mean it’s dumb on so many levels.

It’s actually getting a little pathetic now. They  –  the lamestream news media  –  are now making a mockery of themselves.

The latest edition of Snooze Weak explains to Americans that, you see, Barack Obama’s critics are also “dumb.”  Or rather, “so dumb.”

Actually, in true lamestream style, they ever so earnestly ask the question as to whether they’re “so dumb,” or not, using “Why are…” and sticking a question mark at the end, thereby giving the editors or authors cover, they think, when they’re accused by normal people of being totally biased tools.

So in addition to being “a racist” if you disagree with Obama, you’re now also “dumb.”

The piece is written by Andrew Sullivan, who is one of America’s biggest fools. (Read this piece about him.) He’s one of the many famous left-wing news media writers who, during the Obama-electing election in 2008, tried to propagate the hateful myth that Trig Palin, Sarah Palin’s challenged baby son, is not actually Sarah Palin’s at all, but rather daughter Bristol’s, or even an unknown third party’s, instead. Palin punched this Tweet out this morning:

[blackbirdpie url="https://twitter.com/#!/SarahPalinUSA/statuses/159160957795450881"]

Sullivan maintained that Sarah Palin faked the pregnancy to save her daughter Bristol from embarrassment, or was using Trig simply for some weird form of crass political gain. It’s something only a disturbed far-leftist idiot could conjure up.  Whatever you do, though, don’t call Sullivan or Newsweek “so dumb.”  That would be a compliment.

Which of course demands we ask the obvious question: who the Hell would ever hire such an idiotic, dumb-ass writer, and what does it tell you about the publication that did? It’s a rhetorical question. It answers itself.

Besides, the Newsweek story is all a little ironic, inasmuch as Barack Obama appears to me to be one of the dumbest presidents in my lifetime.  As are many of the people who surround him and those who defend him.

And sometimes that’s what weak, defensive people do.  It’s a psychological defensive mechanism. They lash out with what’s called psychological projection or transference. In projection, they ascribe onto others the problem they actually have themselves.

In the case of Obama, this mechanism has been used by him over and over.  He ran on a campaign platform of being “post-partisan,” and “post racial.” Yet he’s one of the most divisive presidents I’ve ever known. He blares out, using the nastiest possible rhetoric, in teleprompter-read speeches (so it was premeditated), at defined segments of Americans, like the group he derisively calls “millionaires and billionaires”  –  or even just regular Republicans, or tea party activists, or thoughtful conservatives  –  who don’t agree with him.  He’s clearly dividing America, but he blames or accuses others of being divisive, in his pious speeches.

He denied ever creating a class war, and then claimed he’s a “warrior for the middle class.”

He and his followers lash out at Americans for supposedly, or surreptitiously, using race as the motive in their counter-Obama arguments (even though it’s a phantom menace and doesn’t really exist at all), yet I’ve never seen a president or sycophants of a president, refer to, and negatively bring up race so much.

He constantly blasts Republicans for being partisan and vitriolic, yet he’s the most partisan and vitriolic president in my lifetime, constantly mocking Republicans as people who can sit in the back of the bus (“We don’t mind the Republicans joining us. They can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back”); and tea party patriots as folks “waving tea bags around.”

And that’s all after he was elected president of all the people!  There are so many more examples I could fill a chapter in a book, and I’m sure somebody will. Fingers crossed.

On the race issue, the good David Limbaugh rightly Tweeted last night during the Fox News Channel GOP debate, after (black) panelist Juan Williams read out his list of questions for the candidates, half of which were race-baiting questions: “I am SO SICK of the race-baiting. So sick of it. Can’t stand it. Have no tolerance left for it.”  You’d think Obama-supporter Juan Williams would be sick of it too, having been hired by Fox News Channel after being the object of unfair race-tinged criticism by his former employers at National Public Radio, and then fired by them.

Nothing can account for the Obamamania media and its players being so dumb. But their accounts do reflect a reality that even they can’t cover up with BS and bias: Newsweek is failing. Others, hopefully including presidents, are sure to follow.

Ratings downgrade in store for France, others? Damn that French tea party and madame Sarah Palin!

The credit ratings of France, Italy, Spain and Portugal are to be downgraded today by Standard and Poors. Guess it was more of that George W. Bush lack of regulations on banks and mortgage companies, huh?

Liberals took every opportunity, last year, to point one of their dozens of fingers of blame (they have weird hands, inherited from Barack Obama) on… none other than the fiscally responsible tea party activists newly elected to Congress in 2010.  It was the tea partiers’ annoying habit of actually debating the rise of the already excessive American debt ceiling, see, and the theory goes, thereby causing the ratings agency Standard and Poors to lower America’s credit rating for that.

Which was of course ridiculous on its face. As saner minds were aware, it was precisely the tea party’s demands for fiscal responsibility which might have saved not only America’s AAA credit rating, but also trillions of wasted taxpayer dollars, had they been elected back in 2008 before President Obama oversaw between four and five TRILLION dollars in extra deficit spending on “shovel ready projects” to nowhere. It’s a little like liberals blaming those who favor teaching abstinence in school, for their daughter getting pregnant.

But the liberal lamestream media gobbled up the liberals’ claptrap, and “reported” it wholesale. Just as they did when the tea party and Sarah Palin, and other conservatives, but not liberals, were blamed for the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords. As a matter of fact, forget waiting to report what their team’s elected puppet masters said. The made it up themselves, and “reported” it! The “news reporters” themselves tacitly insinuated, acting every bit the erudite truth-tellers, that “some say” or “many people say” Sarah Palin (et al) should be blamed for the Giffords shooting.

I mention this because that absurd story line continues even to this day. By way of example, see this insane video by the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee from this very week, exemplifying just that kind of obtuse, circular logic, and abject hypocrisy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPaaOnXcldY

So who will liberals and their media divisions blame now that S&P is downgrading France and other European countries from “AAA” to “AA-”  –  a downgrading which comes as a direct result of massive overspending by progressive governments, and their unsustainable entitlement and social programs? Since it is a direct result of their progressive, socialist, and profligate spending and liberal fiscal and social policy decisions over decades all over Europe, I have no doubt they’ll therefore blame George W. Bush, Republicans, conservatives en masse, Sarah Palin, tea party activists and Congressmen, and of course capitalism because that’s de rigueur today, and everybody and everything else… except themselves.

C’est dommage.

Which reminds me: Seeing the news leak out (pardon the pun, which you’ll see in a second), that soldiers fighting in Afghanistan chose to pee on dead Taliban fighters was some bad news, no? (Not because it offends me to the point of vapours, the way it does anti-military liberals, by the way, but because it’s against orders).  It took me back to Abu Ghraib. You’ll remember that one because it was all over the front page of every newspaper for at least a month.  The buck, you’ll remember, stopped at President George W. Bush.  Full stop.  Well him and the Defense Secretary Donal Rumsfeld –  one or both of whom should, we were told by liberal politicians, pundits, reporters, and bloggers alike, be fired or impeached.  “Bush policy ‘led to Abu Ghraib’” reported the BBC.  “Locked in Abu Ghraib – The prison scandal keeps getting worse for the Bush administration” shouted Slate.com.  There were thousands upon thousands of such stories. The nutbar far-left group Code Pink were apoplectic, as were most every left-wing Bush haters, sufferers of the dreaded Bush Derangement Syndrome, anti-war zealots, academic know-it-alls, and left-wing nutbars writ large. But it played-out not as a story about Abu Ghraib, as much as a story about how Bush was to blame for it. That was the narrative carefully carved out of a lump of pure crap, if you’ll excuse another bit of gross wordplay.

But where is Code Pink today on this peeing incident?  Where is the left-wing media and their blame game now? How is this peeing incident not Barack Hussein Obama’s fault directly? Why should he and his defense secretary not be fired or impeached, suddenly? Crickets. It’s barely even making news today, and what news there is, certainly doesn’t cast Obama as the one to blame.

The perfidy of liberals and progressives and their media know no bounds. And getting back to the question of nations’ credit ratings, they deserve all the credit, fully downgraded to a score of “BS”, for taking down the economies of their countries, and then misleading America and the world about it.They should be flushed down the crapper.

Once You Go Conservative Black, You Better Watch Your Back

With the mainstream media giddily reporting on an alleged affair involving Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain, how long can it be before they break the news that their 2004 vice presidential candidate conceived a “love child” with his mistress, Rielle Hunter?

The left is trying to destroy Cain with a miasma of hazy accusations leveled by three troubled women. Considered individually, the accusations are utterly unbelievable. They are even less credible taken together. This is how liberals destroy a man, out of nothing.

After the first round of baseless accusations against Cain, an endless stream of pundits rolled out the cliche — as if it were the height of originality — “This isn’t he said-she said; it’s he-said, she-said, she-said, she-said, she–said.”

Au contraire: We had two “shes” and only one “said.”

Remember? Only two women were willing to give their names. And as soon as they did, we discovered that they were highly suspicious accusers with nothing more than their personal honor to support the allegations. Only one of the two would even say what Cain allegedly did.

The first one was Sharon Bialek, who claimed that Cain grabbed her crotch in a car.

Then we found out Bialek was in constant financial trouble, had been involved in a paternity lawsuit, was known as a “gold digger,” had a string of debts and had twice filed for personal bankruptcy. Also, she admitted she knew Obama’s dirty tricks specialist, David Axelrod, from living in the same building with him.

Her personal history is relevant because she produced no evidence. We had to take her word. (Which was not helped by seeing her standing with Gloria Allred.)

The second one, Karen Kraushaar, made unspecified allegations of a “hostile environment” when she was working for Cain, but refuses to say what those allegations were. This despite the fact that the National Restaurant Association waived her confidentiality agreement, thus allowing her to go public.

That’s one “she,” but no “said.”

Cain said he had once told Kraushaar she was as tall as his wife — which would be one of the more worthy sexual harassment claims settled by an American company in recent years.

Why won’t she say? We’re not talking about rape. Kraushaar can’t say, “I don’t want to relive being told I was the same height as his wife!” With all the nonsense that passes for a “hostile environment,” either Kraushaar tells us what Cain allegedly did, or her blind accusation is worth less than nothing.

As if that weren’t enough, then it turned out that Kraushaar had also filed a complaint at her next job just three years later, charging that a manager had circulated a sexually explicit joke email comparing computers to men and women. She demanded a raise and the right to work at home.

Maybe Kraushaar is the most unlucky woman in the world. But the simpler explanation is that she is not a credible witness on the workplace atmosphere.

And now we have Ginger White stepping forward to claim that she had a 13-year affair with Cain. Cain admits he was friends with White, but he categorically, adamantly denies having an affair with her.

White has the whole combo-platter of questionable accuser attributes: She’s another financially troubled, twice-divorced, unemployed single mother, who has claimed sexual harassment in the past, declared bankruptcy once, was accused of stalking and had a libel judgment entered against her just this year. So far in 2011, she’s had nine liens put on her property.

But we’re supposed to ignore all of that because she’s the third woman of questionable character to make an implausible allegation. Liberals say there’s a pattern, but the only pattern is of their making far-fetched accusations of a sexual nature against Cain.

White’s proof that she had a 13-year affair is that she has two of Cain’s books signed by him — one with the incriminating inscription, “Friends are forever! Everything else is a bonus,” and the other, “Miss G, you have already made a ‘big difference!’ Stay focused as you pursue your next destination.” (I know — filthy!)

If that’s proof of an affair, I’ve had thousands of them without even realizing it.

Also, White produced evidence that Cain had texted or called her cell phone 61 times during four non-consecutive months — but did not reveal what those texts said. (“Would you please return my lawn mower?”)

Again, if that’s proof of an affair, I’m having hundreds of them at this very moment.

This is the sort of evidence you get with an actual sexual predator: Bill Clinton’s accusers had gifts, taped phone conversations with him and a semen-stained dress.

Gennifer Flowers produced taped telephone calls with Clinton totaling thousands of words between them, with him counseling her on how to deny their affair: “If they ever hit you with it, just say no, and go on. There’s nothing they can do … But when they — if somebody contacts you, I need to know … All you got to do is deny it.”

Paula Jones had multiple same-day witnesses — including the state troopers who worked for Clinton and had already told the press about a “Paula” they brought to Clinton’s hotel room. And that was for a single incident.

Monica Lewinsky had lots of gifts from Clinton, including a hat pin, two brooches, a marble bear figurine, a T-shirt from Martha’s Vineyard and Walt Whitman’s “Leaves of Grass,” all of which she mysteriously placed with Clinton’s secretary, Betty Currie, during the investigation, as well as a semen-stained dress, which Monica kept.

Ginger White claims she had a 13-year affair with Cain — and all she has are two books with inscriptions that could have been written to an auto mechanic who waited in line at a Cain book signing. Even her business partner during the alleged affair says White never mentioned Cain’s name.

These women are like triple-A ball players with the stats being: number of bankruptcies, smallest bank account, number of liens, most false claims, number of children out of wedlock, degrees of separation from David Axelrod, total trips to human resources and so on.

That wouldn’t be dispositive — except for the fact that their only evidence is their word.

But this is how liberals dirty you up when they’ve got nothing: They launch a series of false accusations, knowing that Americans with busy lives won’t follow each story to the end and notice that they were all blind alleys.

The liberal media is an old story, but it’s still a big story when it comes to creating the impression of scandal out of thin air.

Most people say, “Where there’s smoke, there’s fire.” I say, “Where there’s smoke around a conservative, there are journalists furiously rubbing two sticks together.”

Occupy Bull Streeters Get Worse

This past week I was in Texas with my family honoring our wounded troops with our 3rd annual Texas Purple Heart Hunt. For the last three years the Giles Tribe has gathered (along with several others) at one of Roy Burnes’ ranches to celebrate America and those who keep her safe by hunting deer and drinking beer while listening to great music as we roast the flesh with the best of the best. It was truly a great time deep in the heart of Texas.

As you can imagine, partying and hunting with our vets for the last few days pulled me away from my job of monitoring the fetid chum slick of the daily news. So, I was itching to see what in the world had happened while we were blissfully tucked away with guns in God’s Country.

Upon arrival back to civilization I opened my email account and started plowing through the gazillion emails my columns spawn. Many of the emails I got told me about how great I am. Of course I hit print and pasted them on my office wall next to the altar sporting the life-sized poster of myself. However, several of the emails I received told me how full of crap I am in regard to the last column I penned about the Occupy crowd and their aberrant and criminal behavior.

When I pointed out last week how the media and the president had insanely ignored the 99% who’re turning our taxpayer funded cities into trash and disease-filled Petri dishes, where rapes and multi-million dollar vandalism goes down, I was told that I am the mean guy and have been skewing the facts—even though I cited several legit sources.

Being one who practices the biblical discipline of self-examination, I took a nanosecond and asked myself, “Self … have you indeed wrongfully judged a reasonable democratic uprising? Do I need to repent?”

Having been out of the loop, I minimized my email page, popped open Google and typed in “Occupy November 5th – 11th” to see if I had grieved the Holy Spirit by fudging the facts. Holy Schnikey. Was I not only right about the things previously reported, but it appears that Occupy matters have gotten worse. For instance …

More Americans Died at ‘Occupy’ Protests Than in Afghanistan on Thursday

Tea Partier Violently Assaulted at ‘Occupy San Diego’

Cops Bust up ‘Occupiers’ With Nightsticks

‘Occupiers’ to Block Christmas Tree Lighting Ceremony?

Tuberculosis Outbreak at Occupy Atlanta’s Base

Is This the Nuttiest ‘Occupy’ Protester Ever?

‘Occupy Wall Street’ Kicks Hungry Homeless Out of Park

Help me here, main stream media and Doug critics: I don’t recollect any murders, assaults, rapes, multi-million dollar trashing of environments, nudity, nightsticks, protests of Christmas, or any homeless people snubbed by tea partiers … and yet it is the tea partiers who are demonized—as in, ridiculously demonized.

However, facts be damned, it is the occupiers who are spawning the mayhem throughout our land, and I for one hope sane voters are seriously paying attention to the fruit of the progressive movement.

BTW Occupusses: Here’s a shot of your chunky buddy Michael Moore’s vacation house. Breitbart Exclusive Pics: Michael Moore’s Massive Michigan Vacation Mansion…

Oh, and one more BTW: From a global perspective, all you Ninety-Nine Percenters are the lucky one percent. Yes, if you eat three meals a day, have a cell phone and a laptop you are one of the world’s lucky ones.

Susan Sarandon shows how it’s hard to be liberal. And sane.

The brilliant political analyst, green scientist, theologian, feminist, philosopher queen, wow what an excellent actress, and super neat Hollywood liberal, Susan Sarandon, once threatened Canada (yes, Canada) that if Barack Obama didn’t win the ’08 election, she’ll be “checking Susan Sarandonout” and moving to somewhere else like Italy, or “maybe Canada.” Yes the Canada which has a Conservative government, the politics of which I mention only to reinforce her self-righteous idiotness.

This week, she’s being an idiot on a different, higher, more serious and utterly insulting level.

Ostensibly sober and not high on any drugs, she made the decision to call the Pope a Nazi.  Twice, apparently to make sure we all understand how she feels.

Susan Sarandon Under Fire From Catholic, Jewish Groups for Calling Pope Benedict a ‘Nazi’

Actress Susan Sarandon called German pontiff Pope Benedict XVIa Nazi during a discussion session at the Hamptons Film Festival over the weekend. …

And then everyone in Hollywood and in most of the mainstream media didn’t say a damn thing.

The fact that she preceded that brilliance with an endorsement of the Occupy Wall Street mobs, just confuses the matter, inasmuch as the Nazis in the United States of Barack Obama have officially endorsed the Occupy Wall Street protest mobs.  I’m not willing to venture into the matter of whether that makes her a Nazi or not.