“You have been made the de facto spokesmen for what many of us believe to be a failed policy. Despite what I view as your rather extraordinary efforts in your testimony ... I think that the reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief.”
Those are the words of Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary "Moneybags" Clinton to General David Petraeus during his report to Congress about his work in Iraq. In her own, deliberate, schoolmarmesque meets shifty attorney manner she basically called Petraeus, a man with over 30 years of service to his country, a liar.
Now this is a woman who hired convicted document thief/shredder Sandy "The Pants" Berger to advise her on national security, has sparked more criminal investigations than John Gotti, and if you want to find her big donors, or Hillraisers, you just have to tune into America's Most Wanted or Dog: The Bounty Hunter.
She has the nerve to call Petraeus a liar.
Now that's chutzpah.
But that's not all, the fat-cats that fund MoveOn.org ran this full page ad in the long disgraced and discredited New York Times (which gave the group the 2/3 off 'family discount')...
Now remember, this is a group predominantly financed by a convicted insider trader, and his buddies who make their billions in the mostly unregulated wild west of hedge funds which profit hugely off of chaos and discord.
It's also an organization founded on the principal, if you can call it that, that America should just 'move on' and forget about the perjury and shady dealings of Bill Clinton.
And they have the nerve to call Petraeus a liar and a traitor.
Now you probably wonder where they get the nerve, the sheer unmitigated balls to slander someone who has dedicated his life to serving his country, while they have dedicated their lives to having their country serve them.
It's easy.
They don't expect to be challenged.
You see they've had de facto control of the media, and have been using it to spin their narratives, for so long, they've forgotten what it's like to actually have to stand and prove their points.
Hence they think it's okay slur a good man's name, to brand him a liar without a shred of real proof, and then expect to be praised for it in the media.
Put a modern liberal in any debate and they'll drag out their talking points, and then when actual real proof is demanded, call their opponent a 'racist,' 'fascist,' or 'theocrat,' and storm off in a huff.
Why do you think they're so scared of Fox News?
Why do you think Keith Olbermann said Rupert Murdoch is worse than Bin Ladin?
Because Murdoch always tempers his media enterprises to cater to an underfed market. When he started in Australia, the bulk of the industry was conservative, so he swung liberal. In America, the MSM is 90% Democrats, so he swung his outlets Republican, and it appears to have worked with Fox News beating all comers in the ratings.
That's why liberals want to bring in censorship to ban Fox News, conservative blogs, and talk radio.
That's why conservatives and related groups on campus are subjected to regular and often violent harassment.
That's why The Path to 9/11 is being denied a DVD release, because it makes the Clintons and Sandy Berger look feckless and ineffective in the face of Al Qaeda. Even Oliver "Castro" Stone thinks it's being censored.
Liberals expect, nay demand, control of all outlets of information, because they can't stand up to a real debate.
And though they may claim to support free speech, the only thing they truly support is getting power and keeping it, that's while they'll gladly toss free speech out the window if it suits them.
So remember kids, challenge everything. If they can't argue with you, they're probably a liberal.
That's all, keep watching the skies, because we're watching you.
Now this is a woman who hired convicted document thief/shredder Sandy "The Pants" Berger to advise her on national security, has sparked more criminal investigations than John Gotti, and if you want to find her big donors, or Hillraisers, you just have to tune into America's Most Wanted or Dog: The Bounty Hunter.
She has the nerve to call Petraeus a liar.
Now that's chutzpah.
But that's not all, the fat-cats that fund MoveOn.org ran this full page ad in the long disgraced and discredited New York Times (which gave the group the 2/3 off 'family discount')...
Now remember, this is a group predominantly financed by a convicted insider trader, and his buddies who make their billions in the mostly unregulated wild west of hedge funds which profit hugely off of chaos and discord.It's also an organization founded on the principal, if you can call it that, that America should just 'move on' and forget about the perjury and shady dealings of Bill Clinton.
And they have the nerve to call Petraeus a liar and a traitor.
Now you probably wonder where they get the nerve, the sheer unmitigated balls to slander someone who has dedicated his life to serving his country, while they have dedicated their lives to having their country serve them.
It's easy.
They don't expect to be challenged.
You see they've had de facto control of the media, and have been using it to spin their narratives, for so long, they've forgotten what it's like to actually have to stand and prove their points.
Hence they think it's okay slur a good man's name, to brand him a liar without a shred of real proof, and then expect to be praised for it in the media.
Put a modern liberal in any debate and they'll drag out their talking points, and then when actual real proof is demanded, call their opponent a 'racist,' 'fascist,' or 'theocrat,' and storm off in a huff.
Why do you think they're so scared of Fox News?
Why do you think Keith Olbermann said Rupert Murdoch is worse than Bin Ladin?
Because Murdoch always tempers his media enterprises to cater to an underfed market. When he started in Australia, the bulk of the industry was conservative, so he swung liberal. In America, the MSM is 90% Democrats, so he swung his outlets Republican, and it appears to have worked with Fox News beating all comers in the ratings.
That's why liberals want to bring in censorship to ban Fox News, conservative blogs, and talk radio.
That's why conservatives and related groups on campus are subjected to regular and often violent harassment.
That's why The Path to 9/11 is being denied a DVD release, because it makes the Clintons and Sandy Berger look feckless and ineffective in the face of Al Qaeda. Even Oliver "Castro" Stone thinks it's being censored.
Liberals expect, nay demand, control of all outlets of information, because they can't stand up to a real debate.
And though they may claim to support free speech, the only thing they truly support is getting power and keeping it, that's while they'll gladly toss free speech out the window if it suits them.
So remember kids, challenge everything. If they can't argue with you, they're probably a liberal.
That's all, keep watching the skies, because we're watching you.
2 comments:
Well said, sir. The rise of the blogosphere with its ability to fact-check really seems to have their knickers in a twist. Good!
I will ask again. Is the penalty for treason not death? Military tribunal, then execution.
cmblake6
Post a Comment