Posts Tagged ‘Obama’
If you know nothing about #Benghazi, this is all you need. Right here.
Via Patricia Heaton:
There was no “video protest” as team Obama said repeatedly in multiple places. That was an outright lie, no doubt to protect His Highness B. Hussein Obama and his election chances in November.
Democrats and their willing accomplices in the media pushed a false story then, and are dutifully ignoring the real story now.
The real story – Americans are dead, this administration dropped the ball, and then lied to you, their employer, to save their own jobs.
Now, today at the Congressional hearings, Democrats still want to obfuscate and tell you it’s nothing but politics:
@erickbrockway: Via @SooperMexican GOP is at a hearing investigating Al-Qaeda attacks on #benghazi, Dems are at same hearing investigating attacks on Obama.
h/t Yid With Lid
Related articles
Misogynist in Chief is hot for California’s Attorney General
I guess there was a contest and I missed it?
Oh dear. Reminds me of the time Harry Reid called Kirsten Gillibrand “the hottest member” of the Senate at a fundraiser attended by, among others, the mayor of New York — with Gillibrand sitting right there. Is truth an absolute defense to gratuitous comments aimed at a woman colleague’s appearance? If so, he and Obama are probably both off the hook.
At the very least, this’ll make for a nifty blue-on-blue food fight between hardcore O-bots and progressives who take their feminism a bit more seriously. Next up on “Hot or Not: Attorney General Edition”? Eric Holder. Easy thumbs down because of the ‘stache, right?
“She’s brilliant and she’s dedicated,” Obama said at a luncheon fundraiser benefitting the DNC, according to the pool report. “She’s tough… She also happens to be, by far, the best looking attorney general.”
“It’s true! C’mon,” he said as the crowd laughed, according to a report provided by a print reporter at the home of John Goldman, an heir to the Levi-Strauss fortune.
Harris has served as California’s attorney general since 2011 and is a rising star for Democrats. She is often mentioned as a potential candidate for governor.
“Awwww! You!”
Filed under “If Bush Had Said This The Left Would Be In A State Of Constant Indignation.”
Related articles
- Obama says Kamala Harris Is the ‘Best Looking Attorney General’; Some Criticize, Some Don’t Mind (blackchristiannews.com)
- President Obama Slammed: California Attorney General Is ‘Best-Looking’ (hollywoodlife.com)
The Twitter Gulag Defense Network – the New TCOT?
Maybe not a replacement for #TCOT (Top Conservatives on Twitter), but rather in addition to, and in defense of, that original concept.
First, some history of #TCOT, you can go there and come back or check it out later.
Today Todd Kincannon had a good idea to prevent conservatives on Twitter from constantly being attacked by leftists and tossed into “Twitter Gulag.” Twitter, to keep the spam to a relative minimum, suspends first and asks questions later. Actually, they don’t ask questions at all, it’s up to the person suspended to appeal the suspension, and there’s no guarantee the leftists won’t simply mark you as a spammer again and cause you to have to go through the appeals once more:
Although it has not happened to a great degree some account have been completely banned from Twitter because they were suspended so many times. Not an account disobeying Twitter rules, but an account attacked and ruined because automated leftist run accounts suspended it time after time.
As mentioned earlier there are a variety of people responsible for these suspensions. They come from different liberal groups who support leftist ideals. Most are loosely (a few closely) united with the goal to silence opposition. Some conservatives on Twitter would suggest that there is a deeper reason for these suspensions. The leftists certainly do not hurt Obama and his administration with their actions– quite the opposite and it is likely that this is at the heart of this.
But it goes beyond the suspension of relatively obscure conservatives on Twitter sharing their personal views. There is an agenda. The entire purpose is to silence anyone who does not laud what is deemed ‘politically correct’ and is not supportive of the current Obama administration. Recently we have learned of other ways liberals are seeking to silence alternative new media. Red State’s Erick Erickson and other bloggers received surprise visits from law enforcement after being falsely reported for committing violent crimes. Someone (believed to be the same person in each case and likely to be instigated by Brett Kimberlin Bomber turned left-wing activist) called 911 impersonating the particular blogger claiming he had killed his wife. The SWAT team then shows up at the family’s home. Of course this was illegal and could easily have led to the death of a family member in one of those households. Quite a dirty trick which shows how the leftists are playing this year: win at all odds, forget the means and casualties.
So what did Todd do to combat this? He had an idea:
Today I’m going to announce a method of Twitter Gulag defense. It involves reciprocal following to get folks above certain thresholds.
— Todd Kincannon (@ToddKincannon) January 5, 2013
Here’s how it’ll work. If you want to be in the Gulag defense network, I’ll show you how to register for it. Still working that out.
— Todd Kincannon (@ToddKincannon) January 5, 2013
You’ll follow everybody in it. And everybody in it will follow you. If we get about 3,000 people, then Twitter Gulaging will be done for.
— Todd Kincannon (@ToddKincannon) January 5, 2013
It’s almost impossible to gulag accounts with more than 3,000 followers. So if all of you have that many, no more Gulag.
— Todd Kincannon (@ToddKincannon) January 5, 2013
It’s also a good way to connect up conservative activists. But if some liberals want in, that’s fine too. They shouldn’t be Gulaged either.
— Todd Kincannon (@ToddKincannon) January 5, 2013
The original TCOT kind of fell apart over egos, but is still used daily to disseminate information between conservatives who use Twitter. The TCOT website is still up and running, too. You can go there and see most of the original TCOT bunch, arranged by follower count.
What I’ve learned over the last several years, though, is your sheer number of followers means nothing, except as a way to keep from getting “Gulaged” by leftists marking you as a spammer. Once you get over 1,000 active followers, you Twitter Home Feed starts moving so fast (on Tweetdeck anyway) you can’t follow it anymore. And what good are followers if some are spammers or leftists who can DM you with malware links or lib vitriol?
Quality matters, I think, so I read the bios and the first few tweets before following back. SEO gurus and schmucks, I ignore and eventually they go away. If they get obnoxious, I block ‘em. I NEVER mark lib trolls as spammers, unless they actually do start spamming, I don’t like the idea of buggering up the anti-spam system. You can do what you want, but blocking is more than enough for me.
To join the Twitter Gulag Defense Network, click on the #TGDN search or just go to Twitter and search for “#TGDN, then just send the tweet “Join #TGDN.” That simple. Then read bios, follow a few, and follow back those that follow you that aren’t spammers, pornbots, or leftist trolls.
UPDATE: Here is the list Todd Kincannon created.
Crossposted to Unified Patriots
Related articles
- Twitter’s Liberal Feelings Got Hurt. Sent To #TwitterGulag FYI to #NRA #tcot (votingfemale.wordpress.com)
- Confirmed: Conservatives crushed liberals on Twitter in 2012 (twitchy.com)
- I’ve been #twittergulaged! (dennisjmahon.wordpress.com)
Time magazine, just a bunch of leftist suckups
Again…
With all the amazing people Time could’ve picked, they proved their continuing irrelevance by picking their socialist hero, B. Hussein Obama:
We are in the midst of historic cultural and demographic changes, and Barack Obama is both the symbol and in some ways the architect of this new America. In 2012, he found and forged a new majority, turned weakness into opportunity and sought, amid great adversity, to create a more perfect union.
Seriously? His “new majority” is a dubious collection of leftists and low-information voters; his “new America” a collapsing star which is about to become a financial black hole. This is their “more perfect union”?
Rush called it:
We’ve never had a more radical, we’ve never had a more partisan politician in the White House than Obama. It’s only a low-information voter (we used to have call ‘em “morons”) that could think he’s outside of politics, but there you have it. There you have it. TIME Magazine: We chose Obama because he’s a symbol of the new, low-information America. That’s what Stengel meant when he talked about Obama being “the beneficiary and the author of a kind of new America, a new demographic, a new cultural America that he is now the symbol of.”
I wonder what these elite Democrats really think about that. So this guy’s Man of the Year because idiots love him? Because believe me, they think low-information voters are idiots. I guarantee you. They’ll be glad to take their votes. The new stupid America? That should have been Man of the Year. Person of the Year: Stupid people. The low-information voter should have been the Person of the Year.
Here’s who the editors at Time should’ve picked – the teacher who gave her life to save her children:
10 Things to Say to an Obama Voter Who Just Got Laid Off
1. “Hey, at least that successful Mormon businessman didn’t win.”
2. “Didn’t your lady parts warn you this would happen?”
3. “Look at the Bright Side, Gay marriage passed in four states.”
4. “Hey, Big Bird still has a job. Isn’t that the important thing?”
5. “I am sure Obama cares deeply about your situation. Maybe he’ll send you a postcard from Hawaii.”
6. “Well, look at the bright side, Rush Limbaugh is getting a massive tax increase.”
7. “Hey! Now you’ll have more time to play with your unicorn.”
8. “Isn’t it worth losing your job to know that religious organizations now have to pay for abortions and contraceptives?”
9. “Well, now you and Keith Olbermann have something else in common.”
10. “Forward!”
h/t Suzanne
Raise taxes on the rich? They didn’t GET to be rich by being stupid
With all the clamoring to soak the rich to avoid forcing the fortunate poor* going to work and getting less for free, Great Britain played the “fair share” game and went after more of the income of the evil rich. The rich, not being stupid, simply said ”Tax THIS!” and took measures to keep what they earned:
In the 2009-10 tax year, more than 16,000 people declared an annual income of more than £1 million to HM Revenue and Customs.
This number fell to just 6,000 after Gordon Brown introduced the new 50p top rate of income tax shortly before the last general election.
The figures have been seized upon by the Conservatives to claim that increasing the highest rate of tax actually led to a loss in revenues for the Government.
It is believed that rich Britons moved abroad or took steps to avoid paying the new levy by reducing their taxable incomes.
George Osborne, the Chancellor, announced in the Budget earlier this year that the 50p top rate will be reduced to 45p from next April.
Note: what Obama leftists want to do has been tried. It failed. But of course, they’re smarter leftists in America.
*Fortunate to be in America. Where else on Earth but America do the “poor” have big screen TVs, new cars, video games, cell phones. etc?
Imagine a faraway land that was so prosperous that almost every inhabitant had their own personal Rolls Royce parked inside the garage of a 5,000 square foot house, and had personal chefs that whipped up whatever food they wanted.
Now, imagine about 15 percent of the population of that fictional country only had a 2,000 square foot house, a low-end BMW or Mercedes, and had to go to restaurants to get what they wanted to eat. Would it seem silly to call this group “poor”?
It would seem so to people from less prosperous countries who struggle to find food and warmth on a daily basis, as well as people in the rich country who had the presence of mind not to be fooled by the laughable idea of relative poverty.
Relative poverty is not quite the same as actual poverty, as the story about the faraway land illustrates. No matter how rich a person is, he can always be considered relatively poor when compared to someone wealthier.
Just as the person with more is considered “rich” by the person with less, there’s going to be a leftist Democrat somewhere willing to pit the one against the other in exchange for votes and more power for himself/herself.
Crossposted to Unified Patriots
Related articles
John Kerry for Secretary of Defense? Why not Jane Fonda?
John F’n Kerry, (who served in Vietnam) “reporting for duty” at the 2004 DNC Convention
This can’t be real. Just some trial balloon to make the next name floated seem more realistic. I mean, nothing says a Commander in Chief loves his troops like sticking a reviled war protester who allegedly threw his medals over the White House fence at an anti-war protest (the ones he allegedly didn’t rightfully earn) in as Secretary of Defense.
President Obama is considering asking Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) to serve as his next defense secretary, part of an extensive rearrangement of his national security team that will include a permanent replacement for former CIA director David H. Petraeus.
Although Kerry is thought to covet the job of secretary of state, senior administration officials familiar with the transition planning said that nomination will almost certainly go to Susan E. Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.
I try to keep this blog free of profanity, but you gotta be sh*ttin’ me?
Hanoi Jane Fonda giving the North Vietnamese a much needed morale boost in North Vietnam
John F’n Kerry giving the North Vietnamese a much needed morale boost at home
I guess the left being hard up for a “War Hero” and all just can’t pass up the chance to grab whatever they’re offered. If Kerry is the “trial balloon” I can hardly wait to see who the real pick will be. As was said elsewhere, “I can’t think of anyone less respected by the troops“.
Related articles
- Former anti-war protester John Kerry to be Secretary of Defense? (twitchy.com)
- WaPo: John Kerry under consideration for defense secretary (michellemalkin.com)
- Kerry, John Kerry: Defense Secretary (zerohedge.com)
The NY Times – Praising the tolerance of infidelity if it benefits liberal political causes?
There aren’t enough “Headdesks” in the world to cover this:
MY WIFE’S LOVER
My wife is having an affair with a government executive. His role is to manage a project whose progress is seen worldwide as a demonstration of American leadership. (This might seem hyperbolic, but it is not an exaggeration.) I have met with him on several occasions, and he has been gracious. (I doubt if he is aware of my knowledge.) I have watched the affair intensify over the last year, and I have also benefited from his generosity. He is engaged in work that I am passionate about and is absolutely the right person for the job. I strongly feel that exposing the affair will create a major distraction that would adversely impact the success of an important effort. My issue: Should I acknowledge this affair and finally force closure? Should I suffer in silence for the next year or two for a project I feel must succeed? Should I be “true to my heart” and walk away from the entire miserable situation and put the episode behind me?
NAME WITHHELD
The response from “The Ethicist”?
Prepare yourself [my emphasis below]…
Don’t expose the affair in any high-profile way. It would be different if this man’s project was promoting some (contextually hypocritical) family-values platform, but that doesn’t appear to be the case. The only motive for exposing the relationship would be to humiliate him and your wife, and that’s never a good reason for doing anything. This is between you and your spouse. You should tell her you want to separate, just as you would if she were sleeping with the mailman. The idea of “suffering in silence” for the good of the project is illogical. How would the quiet divorce of this man’s mistress hurt an international leadership initiative? He’d probably be relieved.
The fact that you’re willing to accept your wife’s infidelity for some greater political good is beyond honorable. In fact, it’s so over-the-top honorable that I’m not sure I believe your motives are real. Part of me wonders why you’re even posing this question, particularly in a column that is printed in The New York Times.
Your dilemma is intriguing, but I don’t see how it’s ambiguous. Your wife is having an affair with a person you happen to respect. Why would that last detail change the way you respond to her cheating? Do you admire this man so much that you haven’t asked your wife why she keeps having sex with him? I halfway suspect you’re writing this letter because you want specific people to read this column and deduce who is involved and what’s really going on behind closed doors (without actually addressing the conflict in person). That’s not ethical, either.
So if you are willing to tolerate your spouse screwing around to not damage a political cause (as long as that’s a leftist cause, I’m sure. This IS the NY Times), then you are to be praised – nay applauded, for your tolerance.
Also, can’t help but wonder, especially in light of the (former) Gen. Petraeus affair and subsequent resignation, well it just makes you think…”Hmmmm…”
Yeah, I realize it’s probably made-up BS, but the response? C’mon…you can’t make up leftist idiocy.
h/t Kat
Crossposted to Unified Patriots
Are the US Navy SEALS voting for Obama tomorrow?
Ummm, I doubt it -
Must all be racists.
I know! They’re “Swiftboating” Obama. Yeah, that’s the ticket.
Or, maybe the just…
…remember.
Worried about the polls? Watch this and stop worrying.
We all see the polls showing Romney either tied with Obama or slightly behind, polls with huge Democrat oversampling which then claim to somehow be unbiased.
What they hope to accomplish I’m not sure, because rather than depress Republicans into submission they’ve only served to fire them up.
The crowds that four short (or horribly long) years ago belonged to B. Hussein Obama now clearly belong to Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan.
Conservatives are fired up.
Via Ace of Spades
h/t ‘Nita
