Democrats, Global Warming, and Deceit

Democrats, Global Warming, and Deceit

 

Now that the presumptive 2016 Democrat Party nominee for president and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has seconded the current Secretary of State John Kerry in determining that climate change is easily the greatest threat to the future of the planet and America’s national security than all the other dangers confronting us and the rest of the world today, it might seem a tad impertinent to suggest that Democrats may be inhaling a lot of the mind-altering pot smoke that President Barack Hussein Obama once loved so much.

However, as impertinent as it may be, the charge is well-founded.

Clinton and Kerry, like Obama, believe that no national or international crisis, not worldwide Muslim terrorism, not the ongoing economic doldrums and related unemployment, and not any of the other serious and multiple issues facing us today are more dangerous to peace and security than the perils of climate change.

That fixation explains a great deal about skewed Democrat positions and their flawed thinking.

Defending why the president has placed climate change at the top of his priority list, Sec. Kerry unequivocably declared in August that the global impact of climate change is “the biggest challenge of all that we face right now.” 

Kerry subsequently cited biblical imperatives to support his view that reversing those changes is critical to saving “Muslim-majority”countries from the consequences of their environmental impact.

And, echoing both Kerry’s and Grand Climate Guru Al Gore’s dire warnings, Hillary Clinton said last Thursday at Sen. Harry Reid’s annual National Clean Energy Summit in Las Vegas that, “Climate change is the most consequential, urgent, sweeping collection of challenges we face.  The threat is real, and so is the opportunity . . . if we make the hard choices,” the last remark clearly an allusion to her underselling recent book of the same title.

There are so many ironies involving the Kerry and Clinton pronouncements that it is difficult to prioritize them. . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=38910.)

Democrat Doublespeak and Dumbspeak

Democrat Doublespeak and Dumbspeak

 

Merriam-Webster.com defines doublespeak as “language that can be understood in more than one way and that is used to trick or deceive people” and Dictionary.com defines the term as “evasive, ambiguous language that is intended to deceive or confuse,” definitions almost as deceptive as doublespeak itself insofar as they apply to Democrats.

Of the two, the latter definition comes closer to describing how Obama and his designated flack, his minions and fellow liberal-leftists, employ the rhetorical device of doublespeak. 

There is only one way to interpret their version of doublespeak. While clearly designed to trick and deceive the American people, their version is more akin to the technique of Hitler’s ”Big Lie” and Orwell’s Big Brother because it leaves no room for other interpretations.

Hitler coined the phrase “big lie” regarding alleged Jewish perfidy in Mein Kampf, his propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels refined it to rationalize the “Final Solution” for the Jewish “problem,” George Orwell popularized it in “1984″ with Big Brother’s “War is Peace,  Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength,” and the Obamians are trying like hell to take the rhetorical device to a whole, new, disturbing level.

Take, for example, the absurd contentions that Obama has “substantially improved the tranquillity of the global community” (White House press flack Josh Earnest), that “Obamacare implementation went great and people love it” (Vox co-founder Matt Yglesias), that  rewarding illegal aliens with American citizenship would “reduce the deficit and increase long-term economic growth” (Democrat Rep. Chris van Hollen), and “businesses are hiring at historic rates” (Joe Biden).

There is next to no tranquility on Planet Earth, Obamacare is widely despised, illegals will exacerbate unemployment and destroy our economy, and the jobs America’s clown prince refers to are predominantly part-time and offer no benefits or future.

Those liberal-leftist excursions into lying fantasy have already been exposed for what they are, lib-left excursions into lying fantasy and Obamian doublespeak.

Similar but less-publicized excursions were tried by the queens of nitwitdom, the now-totally liberal-leftist cast of ABC’s “The View” who took Democrat doublespeak down a few notches to the even lower level of dumbspeak. . . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=38248.)

A Retrospective on the First Irag War

A Retrospective on the First Iraq War

 

Now that it’s vividly clear that President Barack Hussein Obama has successfully snatched humiliating defeat from the jaws of tenuous victory in Iraq and that the United States will have to return to Iraq with some sort of military action, members of the Democrat Party and their stooges in Obama’s mainstream media are busily attempting to attach blame for that extremely regrettable situation and for its future consequences on former President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and anyone else in the previous administration they can possibly scapegoat.

That pathetic effort is a reflection of how disgraceful–and forgetful–today’s liberal-leftist Democrats and their media lackeys have become.

That disgrace was highlighted by reports this week that the State Department has revealed that the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) now occupies the Al Muthanna Chemicals Weapons Complex housing sarin, mustard gas, and the nerve agent VX, situated less than 50 miles from Baghdad, weapons of mass destruction the Obama administration has dismissed since they were old, contaminated, difficult to move, and therefore constituted no  military value.
 
In view of the fact our ever-indecisive commander-in-chief has yet to decide exactly what future military action would entail, let’s set aside for the moment the probable consequences of America’s re-involvement in Iraq and the possible use by ISIS of those allegedly valueless WMDs. 

Instead, let’s focus for the nonce on how and why we went into that Mideast cesspool in the first place and the Democrat senatorial hypocrites who approved of our intervention.

In a nutshell, Saddam Hussein was a certifiably sadistic megalomaniac and his sons, Uday and Qusay, were potentially worse.

While Uday and Qusay rampaged and raped their way through Iraq, Saddam was committing his own atrocities: He boasted about his weapons of mass destruction which he wouldn’t hesitate to use.  He demonstrated his bloodthirst by invading, looting, and annexing neighboring Kuwait in 1990-91.  

His hitlerian ambitions were ultimately and soundly repulsed in Operation Desert Shield, a war waged by coalition forces from 34 nations led by the United States.  

He subsequently, repeatedly defied 16 U.N. Security Council resolutions demanding, among other things, he destroy his WMDs and permit U.N. inspectors to verify their destruction.

In another nutshell, Saddam Hussein was a treacherous despot and represented not only a serious danger to the Mideast but to America and the world in general.  And, at the time, most Democrats concurred in that estimation as well as in the pressing need to take military action to remove him and the threat he posed with his devastating weaponry. . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=37768.)

Obama, Bubba, and the Hildebeest

Obama, Bubba, and the Hildebeest

 

No, “Obama, Bubba, and the Hildebeest” is not a reference to a scarifying fairy tale like “Little Red Riding Hood” or “Hansel and Gretel.”

Rather, that title refers to a true-to-life, contemporary American tale of political intrigue, egomaniacal ambition, and outright venom that exists in the upper echelons of the Democrat Party today, involving, obviously, President Barack Hussein Obama, former President William Jefferson Clinton, and the former First Lady-U.S. Senator-Secretary of State-unannounced candidate for the presidency, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

When I posted the article “Does Bill Clinton Really HATE Barack Obama?” two years ago, the piece represented a belated reflection on an April 28, 2008 conservative website’s story titled, “Why Bill Clinton Hates Barack Obama AND Hillary.”

PoliticalNightTrain.com had posited the theory that Bill hated Barack essentially because the latter was everything he was not and he hated his wife because she posed a threat to his legacy.  

Now it seems evident that there is much more to the hate story than just the rantings of some far right wing conspirators like Political Night Train, at least according to journalist Edward Klein in his just-released book, “Blood Feud: The Clintons vs. the Obamas.” 

(Not incidentally, Klein’s book topped Hillary’s “Hard Choices” after one day on the market!)

Klein, a distinguished editor, prolific writer and public speaker, contends that Bill Clinton in fact does despise Obama, that Michelle Obama commonly refers to Hillary Clinton as the ”Hildebeest” when the public can’t hear her, and reveals what Amazon.com describes as an insider’s account of “the rocky relationship between the Obamas and the Clintons. . . . just how deep the rivalry between the Obamas and the Clintons runs” [detailing] the animosity, jealousy, and competition between America’s two most powerful political couples.” 

Klein alleges Michelle Obama and Valerie Jarrett came up with the nickname “Hildebeest,” . . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=37742.)

Obama's Bergdahl Waterloo

Obama's Bergdahl Waterloo

 

Long ago, an aged nun ranted that I would some day meet my Waterloo because of my recalcitrance and general classroom misbehavior. 

 

I understood and have diligently tried to correct my tendency to misbehave, with little success, but I never did understand Sister Josepha’s warning about meeting my Waterloo since I had no clue in seventh grade what or where Waterloo was and why I was threatened with meeting it.


As far as I know, I haven’t yet met it but I have come to understand what dear, old, nasty Sister Josepha meant.  Napoleon was soundly vanquished at the Battle of Waterloo on June 18, 1815 near Waterloo in present-day Belgium by Britain’s Duke of Wellington and the Prussian army, a battle costing some 22,000 British and Prussian casualties.

Sister Josepha may very well have witnessed and delighted in that mayhem and was strongly suggesting I, too, would eventually get my comeuppance.

However, that’s all tangential to the point that America’s President Barack Hussein Obama may finally have met his own well-deserved Waterloo following years of outrageously arrogant misbehavior, illegal, unconstitutional actions, and demonstrations of utter contempt for the American people, all of which have come home to roost as a  consequence of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl.

The president’s desperation and the desperation of his designated administration mouthpieces over the fallout resulting from trading five of the worst of the worst terrorists captured and imprisoned at Guantanamo for an alleged turncoat-deserter-traitor have only been accented by the mad rush to defend Obama’s insanely dangerous decision by much of his still-devoted mainstream media.

—Last Sunday, National Security Advisor Susan “Benghazi Video” Rice told America on national television that Sgt. Bergdahl had served his country with “honor and distinction,” without specifying which country she meant or explaining her concept of “honor and distinction.”

—Last Monday, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reminded a Denver audience that Bergdahl “was an American citizen–is an American citizen–was serving in our military. . . The idea that you really care for your own citizens and particularly those in uniform, I think is a very noble one,” apparently forgetting that Benedict Arnold was an American citizen, and a general to boot;

—Last Tuesday, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-MI issued a statement saying that members of Congress “should not be surprised that he [Obama] acted as he did in the circumstances that existed,” meaning the president had no other choice but to save Berdahl’s ass;

—Last week, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said the terrorists had been at Gitmo for “far too long” and that he was happy they were sent to Qatar and criticized Republicans for blocking attempts to try them in the U.S., presumably because he felt they were just freedom fighters who shouldn’t be tried at all?

On the other hand, there are definite signs that not everyone in the Democrat Party and the media thinks the president did the right thing in unleashing five Taliban terrorists in return for a likely defector, and therein lies the basis for the president’s long overdue meeting with his Waterloo.

For years, Obama’s entertainment-world sycophants, his obsequious mainstream buddies, and his partisan political cronies have blindly supported his every move, distorted the truth about everything he said and did, and outright lied when all else failed to cover for him. 

For the last year or so, though, with nothing to lose following the re-election they helped manipulate, like pissed off rats in a cage of their own making, some of his former idolators have been exposing their emperor’s lack of clothes and the chinks in his very fragile armor.

Chris Tingles Matthews, Bill Maher, Jon Stewart and a multiplicity of others who had thought Obama could walk on water–if he chose to–have all taken pot shots at him since the last election and those defections crescendoed after Obama’s terrorists-for-traitor trade:
—Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D, NH) . . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=37586.)