Monday, December 22, 2014

Obama's Anti-Police State

Science Fiction or Dystopian novels, such as George Orwell's 1984, will strike fear in the hearts of readers by suggesting a suffocating police state where freedom is outlawed.

Obama's dystopian vision is the opposite. You could plot what has happened over the past 6 years as if it were a deliberate strategy:

  • Call the police "stupid"
  • Encourage anti-police protests under the guide of marches "against police brutality"
  • Visit protesters and tell them to stay the course
  • Use restrained language when condemning violent protest behavior
  • Sit back and remain silent as anti-police protests grow around the country with the attendant violence
  • And then, the predictable outcome: 2 policemen assassinated in New York as "revenge" for someone killed by police

Before Obama, police were the Good Guys and criminal thugs were the Bad Guys. Obama has succeeded in turning that equation upside down, and it is now the police in the crosshairs.

The mainstream media, led by the New York Times, has printed loving portraits of the protesters, describing them as regular folks pushing baby strollers and forming "spontaneous prayer groups. Yet protesters were heard to call for the killing of police officers. I'm not sure if any of them were pushing baby strollers at the time.

Obama's language and statements after the police killings have remained eerily restrained, as if they are voiced because they are expected and necessary but not heart-felt. Have any thugs heard him?

Obama needs to condemn the anti-police marches. He needs to apologize to the police for his antagonistic attitude which has led to the violent anti-police climate in which the country now suffers.

Will Obama man up and admit he is responsible for social chaos and the hatred of police which has blossomed under his administration? No, he won't, because that was the goal all along. Obama's own hatred of the police is clear to all by now.

Obama owes the police. Yet he refuses to say what needs to be said because that would subvert his intentions. Does he have any interest in mending his relationship with them or taking the heat off them from criminals and thugs who look up to him? No.

Sunday, December 21, 2014

Obama Responsible for Anti-Police Climate

Before Obama was elected, was there anything resembling an anti-police climate in the country?

No.

Has Obama done enough to curb anti-police sentiment and support law enforcement?

No.

Overly-restrained language is the hallmark of Obama's comments whenever "supporting" police and "condemning" violent behavior. Clearly, no one in the entire country has listened to his ineffectual words. Is that the intent?

Obama's anti-police attitude began soon after he was elected by claiming Massachusetts police "acted stupidly" when arresting a black Harvard professor. That phrase has followed Obama through the entire length of his administration and here we are today with marches around the nation supporting thugs and threatening police. Obama, having said "A," the marchers now say "B."

If Obama has any problem with those marches and the sentiment behind them, no one is aware of it. He met with demonstrators in Missouri to urge them on, not quiet them down.

Congressman Peter King (R-NY) has called on Obama and the news media to stop the "cop bashing."

Does Obama feel any need to go to greater lengths to support the police? No. He is currently in Hawaii saying he "condemns" the killing of the New York police. And what effect is that supposed to have on those who are learning it's okay to hate the police in a very public way?

The "bad guys" are winning in today's world because that's what the leaders of prominent nations are, including our own.



Saturday, December 20, 2014

Hollywood Already Bans Anti-Obama Movies

One of the biggest news stories this week (there were many) was Sony deciding to cancel the movie "The Interview" after a terrorist threat from the hacker group "Guardians of Peace" that leaked a vast cache of Sony's data.

The US has now blamed North Korea for the hack, perhaps with a little help from their friends the Chinese.


The movie mocks North Korean leader Kim Jong-un and he is assassinated at the end.

Actors such as George Clooney were outraged that a dictator decided if the public could or couldn't watch a movie.

Fears of a "chilling effect" on the freedom of the movie industry are already being voices. Supposedly another movie in the work has been canned as a result of the hacker threat.

But the odd part of all this is the longstanding and unstated ban on movies mocking and criticizing US President Barack Obama. Before the Sony hack, it was easy to make a movie attacking Kim, but where are the movies making fun of Obama? Rush Limbaugh recently pointed out the improbability of actors such as Clooney defending an anti-Obama film but would instead demand that it be cancelled just like the Kim film. Actors demand that the anti-Kim film be seen, but it's likely they would demand an anti-Obama movie be shelved and hidden from view.

Will there be any attempt from Hollywood to "push back" from the Sony debacle and make some movies that mock world leaders including Obama? The fears of hacking, terror, and political incorrectness shout a resounding No.



Obama's Solution to Maintaining Relevancy: Go Rogue

Obama has solved the problem of a second-term president struggling to remain relevant in the last two years of his presidency.

The answer: Go Rogue!


No one ever saw the issue on a ballot, but immigrant numbers have doubled since 1990. And Obama's heavy-handedness in increasing that flow have shocked even some on his side of the political aisle. Obama is deliberately tearing apart the social fabric of the US and causing social chaos. No one will ever call him "The Great Uniter."

  • Bringing in illegal teenagers and depositing them all around the country
  • DHS aiding illegals in entering the country
  • Dramatically cutting back on illegals deported
It was never on a ballot, but Obama decided if something "isn't working" then it need change:
  • Trade deal with repressive rogue regime Cuba
  • Exchanging spies with Cuba to the outrage of survivor families
It was never on a ballot, but who are the good guys, the CIA or Al Qaeda terrorists?
  • Obama approved the Feinstein/Democrats' CIA 'Torture Report' with the expected result that the bad guys around the world can portray the US as torturers and the heat is off them.
It was never on a ballot, but who are the good guys, the police or criminal thugs?
  • Obama did little to stop riots and protests resulting from the death of thug Michael Brown at the hands of a policeman he assaulted. He never said what he knew he needed to say to stop the protests because he never wanted them stopped and always desired a mid-level of street chaos. The Commander in Chief is now hated by most police and military.
Two years remain on Obama's term as president. He has the power to keep the fires burning and even start newer, bigger conflagrations. Anybody care to see the issue on a flash ballot vote and check the results?



Wednesday, December 10, 2014

Democrats Are Now the Party of the Bad Guys

With the release of the Senate Anti-CIA Report, The long-term political strategy of the Democratic Party has emerged.

After their drubbing at the polls in November, the Democrats have doubled-down on their strategy of amassing voter blocks from the edges of society.

A rundown of some of the groups Democrats court:

1. Anti-CIA and therefore Pro-Terrorist
2. Anti-Police, Anti-Military, Pro Rioter
3. Anti-Citizen, Pro-Illegal Alien
4. Anti-Christian, Pro-Atheist, Pagan, etc.

President Obama and the Democrats, bizarrely, has been publicly wringing their hands over the "torture" of al Qaeda terrorists responsible for 9/11 and who desire to destroy the United States and everything it stands for. The CIA's interrogation methods were "unconscionable." But are Americans joining Obama in shedding tears over the treatment of terrorists?

The release of the Senate Democrats' Anti-CIA Report comes on the heels of a massive Republican victory at the polls in November. The CIA report is the Democrats' attempt to get their mojo back by blaming Bush for "torture." But does the "Bush's Fault" narrative still play? Is it a wise political strategy?

Americans feels increasingly alienated by the Democratic Party because it no longer serves their interests but those of others that are at odds with traditional American values.

After the "shock" value of the CIA report wears thin, questions will emerge demanding answers. Why was the report a strictly Democratic partisan effort with no input from Republicans on the committee? Why didn't they complain when briefed numerous times? Why didn't their investigators interview past CIA directors? Why endanger American lives for no reason? And how are Obama's drones that kill from afar any more ethical than interrogating terrorists?

The Democrats see the CIA report as a means of righting their ship, but is it the event that will capsize it in due time? Can the Democrats continue to spit on those who protect us from terrorists? Can they continue to support illegals over citizens? Rioters over police? 

Where does the Party of the Bad Guys go when the good people revolt?