The Atheist Communist Caliphate Made Flesh, Spread the Clusterfuck Around Thread

[Chuck to Chuck]

Wow.  Real financial conservatives still exist.  Well, at least one does.

http://www.forbes.com/2009/09/24/fiscal-spending-taxes-opinions-columnists-bruce-bartlett.html

Everyone knows that fiscal discipline must be restored eventually, or we will face truly horrifying consequences--defaulting on the debt, nonpayment of Social Security benefits, a collapsing dollar, and double-digit inflation and interest rates. Everyone also knows that this will involve a combination of higher revenues and lower spending. The idea that we can restore fiscal health only with spending cuts is childish, as I tried to explain last week.

What we face is a game of chicken. Republicans think if they wait until the last possible second to support the smallest possible tax increase necessary to make a budget deal work, they can get the largest possible spending cuts. The problem is that there is not one iota of historical evidence that this strategy will work. The budget deals of the 1980s and 1990s were all roughly 50-50: half tax increases, half spending cuts.

At some point, taxes have to be back on the table as the price that must be paid for profligate spending. Only then will the American people realize that they can't have their cake and eat it too, as Republicans have preached for the last decade. Only when the American people go back to believing that spending must be paid for will they stop demanding something for nothing and put the country back on the path to fiscal sanity.

[Gil Gunderson]

Labor agitation, in the streets of Chicago...literally:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-fri-hotel-protest-0925sep25,0,6192819.story

The comments are great.  I can't tell if some people are genuinely anti-union, or are jealous of union workers in the midst of a recession.  Who knows?

[Dr. Nguyen Van Falk]

Labor agitation, in the streets of Chicago...literally:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-fri-hotel-protest-0925sep25,0,6192819.story

The comments are great.  I can't tell if some people are genuinely anti-union, or are jealous of union workers in the midst of a recession.  Who knows?

In general?

Some people are just straight-up anti-union.

[Philberto]

you towel head biatches

And... Nativist Yeti is back, folks.

Did the hayseed not catch on to the fact that the guy who tried to set off the bomb was an 'merican? (He's the one on the left, Yeti)

Any TURRERIS is a towelhead to me, you pinko

[Dr. Nguyen Van Falk]

Roll that mat back out...



http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/09/25/us/AP-US-Census-Worker-Hanged.html

BIG CREEK, Ky. (AP) -- A part-time census worker found hanging in a rural Kentucky cemetery was naked, gagged and had his hands and feet bound with duct tape, said an Ohio man who discovered the body two weeks ago.

The word ''fed'' was written in felt-tip pen on 51-year-old Bill Sparkman's chest, but authorities have released very few other details in the case, such as whether they think it was an accident, suicide or homicide.

Jerry Weaver of Fairfield, Ohio, told The Associated Press on Friday that he was certain from the gruesome scene that someone killed Sparkman.

''He was murdered,'' Weaver said. ''There's no doubt.''

...

''The only thing he had on was a pair of socks,'' Weaver said. ''And they had duct-taped his hands, his wrists. He had duct tape over his eyes, and they gagged him with a red rag or something.''

Two people briefed on the investigation said various details of Weaver's account matched the details of the crime scene, though both people said they were not informed who found the body. The two spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the case.

''And they even had duct tape around his neck,'' Weaver said. ''And they had like his identification tag on his neck. They had it duct-taped to the side of his neck, on the right side, almost on his right shoulder.''

...

Both of the people briefed on the investigation confirmed Sparkman's Census Bureau ID was found taped to his head and shoulder area...

I think we all know what this points to...

http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2009/09/was-census-worker-bill-sparkman-a-child-predator.html

Was Census Worker Bill Sparkman A Child Predator?

Update: Before any more people start going bonkers that I'm accusing Sparkman of anything, take a breath. I've done a fair amount of crime blogging mixed in with politics over time. One doesn't rule anything in or out without some firm answers...

I have no idea what happened, but from the reporting I've seen, neither does anyone else. If he adopted a boy as a single man, or was married and split with the wife and kids, who knows. But I never assume I know a story or motive until I know it. Right now we don't. I'm simply speculating on one possible alternative, however impolite.

Someone may as well say it given some peculiar details. The strangest quote I've seen in all the reporting around apparently murdered Census worker Bill Sparkman is this one from his Mother located in Florida.

"I have my own ideas, but I can't say them out loud. Not at this point," she said. "Right now, what I'm doing, I'm just waiting on the FBI to come to some conclusion."

She didn't say she had been advised not to speculate. Being in Florida she has nothing to fear from Kentucky locals, so why the secrecy? Add that to the somewhat mysterious way this case is being revealed by authorities and whatever is behind it, I wouldn't be surprised if there's another surprise in store here.

The condition of the body and his being naked also seems curious. Why strip someone down to their socks only to kill them? Finally Sparkman's bio and work history suggests at the least he was not just your average guy. No teaching degree, no full-time means of employment and no wife or kids so far as I am aware. But he certainly did gravitate towards children. I can't help but wonder if this wasn't a revenge killing disguised to look like something else. If he did have issues in this regard and messed with the wrong kid, it isn't as if something like that can be ruled out until we know more.

Sparkman's mother, Henrie Sparkman of Inverness, Fla., told The Associated Press her son was an Eagle scout who moved to the area to be a local director for the Boy Scouts of America. She said he later became a substitute teacher in Laurel County and supplemented that income as a Census worker.

...

[Dr. Nguyen Van Falk]

Adding, from the comments...

http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2009/09/was-census-worker-bill-sparkman-a-child-predator.html?cid=6a00d83451c1db69e20120a5a294c7970b#comment-6a00d83451c1db69e20120a5a294c7970b

There's an awful lot of information on the Internet suggesting that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a young girl back in the 1990s. I'm not suggesting that Dan Riehl was involved in this horrible crime but I can't understand why he hasn't denied it. It certainly raises suspicions.

[Quality Start Machine]

Who could have seen this coming?

[Dr. Nguyen Van Falk]

http://www.newsmax.com/john_perry/obama_military_coup/2009/09/29/266012.html

There is a remote, although gaining, possibility America's military will intervene as a last resort to resolve the "Obama problem." Don't dismiss it as unrealistic.

America isn't the Third World. If a military coup does occur here it will be civilized. That it has never happened doesn't mean it wont. Describing what may be afoot is not to advocate it. So, view the following through military eyes:

# Officers swear to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." Unlike enlisted personnel, they do not swear to "obey the orders of the president of the United States."

# Top military officers can see the Constitution they are sworn to defend being trampled as American institutions and enterprises are nationalized.

# They can see that Americans are increasingly alarmed that this nation, under President Barack Obama, may not even be recognizable as America by the 2012 election, in which he will surely seek continuation in office.

# They can see that the economy — ravaged by deficits, taxes, unemployment, and impending inflation — is financially reliant on foreign lender governments.

# They can see this president waging undeclared war on the intelligence community, without whose rigorous and independent functions the armed services are rendered blind in an ever-more hostile world overseas and at home.

# They can see the dismantling of defenses against missiles targeted at this nation by avowed enemies, even as America's troop strength is allowed to sag.

# They can see the horror of major warfare erupting simultaneously in two, and possibly three, far-flung theaters before America can react in time.

# They can see the nation's safety and their own military establishments and honor placed in jeopardy as never before.

So, if you are one of those observant military professionals, what do you do?

Wait until this president bungles into losing the war in Afghanistan, and Pakistan's arsenal of nuclear bombs falls into the hands of militant Islam?

Wait until Israel is forced to launch air strikes on Iran's nuclear-bomb plants, and the Middle East explodes, destabilizing or subjugating the Free World?

What happens if the generals Obama sent to win the Afghan war are told by this president (who now says, "I'm not interested in victory") that they will be denied troops they must have to win? Do they follow orders they cannot carry out, consistent with their oath of duty? Do they resign en masse?

Or do they soldier on, hoping the 2010 congressional elections will reverse the situation? Do they dare gamble the national survival on such political whims?

Anyone who imagines that those thoughts are not weighing heavily on the intellect and conscience of America's military leadership is lost in a fool's fog.

Will the day come when patriotic general and flag officers sit down with the president, or with those who control him, and work out the national equivalent of a "family intervention," with some form of limited, shared responsibility?

Imagine a bloodless coup to restore and defend the Constitution through an interim administration that would do the serious business of governing and defending the nation. Skilled, military-trained, nation-builders would replace accountability-challenged, radical-left commissars. Having bonded with his twin teleprompters, the president would be detailed for ceremonial speech-making.

Military intervention is what Obama's exponentially accelerating agenda for "fundamental change" toward a Marxist state is inviting upon America. A coup is not an ideal option, but Obama's radical ideal is not acceptable or reversible.

Unthinkable? Then think up an alternative, non-violent solution to the Obama problem. Just don't shrug and say, "We can always worry about that later."

In the 2008 election, that was the wistful, self-indulgent, indifferent reliance on abnegation of personal responsibility that has sunk the nation into this morass.

Since the President is a confirmed Negro, would a plot to overthrow his despotic rule militarily be called "The Bidness Plot"?

[Tinker to Evers to Chance]

http://www.newsmax.com/john_perry/obama_military_coup/2009/09/29/266012.html

There is a remote, although gaining, possibility America's military will intervene as a last resort to resolve the "Obama problem." Don't dismiss it as unrealistic.

America isn't the Third World. If a military coup does occur here it will be civilized. That it has never happened doesn't mean it wont. Describing what may be afoot is not to advocate it. So, view the following through military eyes:

# Officers swear to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." Unlike enlisted personnel, they do not swear to "obey the orders of the president of the United States."

# Top military officers can see the Constitution they are sworn to defend being trampled as American institutions and enterprises are nationalized.

# They can see that Americans are increasingly alarmed that this nation, under President Barack Obama, may not even be recognizable as America by the 2012 election, in which he will surely seek continuation in office.

# They can see that the economy — ravaged by deficits, taxes, unemployment, and impending inflation — is financially reliant on foreign lender governments.

# They can see this president waging undeclared war on the intelligence community, without whose rigorous and independent functions the armed services are rendered blind in an ever-more hostile world overseas and at home.

# They can see the dismantling of defenses against missiles targeted at this nation by avowed enemies, even as America's troop strength is allowed to sag.

# They can see the horror of major warfare erupting simultaneously in two, and possibly three, far-flung theaters before America can react in time.

# They can see the nation's safety and their own military establishments and honor placed in jeopardy as never before.

So, if you are one of those observant military professionals, what do you do?

Wait until this president bungles into losing the war in Afghanistan, and Pakistan's arsenal of nuclear bombs falls into the hands of militant Islam?

Wait until Israel is forced to launch air strikes on Iran's nuclear-bomb plants, and the Middle East explodes, destabilizing or subjugating the Free World?

What happens if the generals Obama sent to win the Afghan war are told by this president (who now says, "I'm not interested in victory") that they will be denied troops they must have to win? Do they follow orders they cannot carry out, consistent with their oath of duty? Do they resign en masse?

Or do they soldier on, hoping the 2010 congressional elections will reverse the situation? Do they dare gamble the national survival on such political whims?

Anyone who imagines that those thoughts are not weighing heavily on the intellect and conscience of America's military leadership is lost in a fool's fog.

Will the day come when patriotic general and flag officers sit down with the president, or with those who control him, and work out the national equivalent of a "family intervention," with some form of limited, shared responsibility?

Imagine a bloodless coup to restore and defend the Constitution through an interim administration that would do the serious business of governing and defending the nation. Skilled, military-trained, nation-builders would replace accountability-challenged, radical-left commissars. Having bonded with his twin teleprompters, the president would be detailed for ceremonial speech-making.

Military intervention is what Obama's exponentially accelerating agenda for "fundamental change" toward a Marxist state is inviting upon America. A coup is not an ideal option, but Obama's radical ideal is not acceptable or reversible.

Unthinkable? Then think up an alternative, non-violent solution to the Obama problem. Just don't shrug and say, "We can always worry about that later."

In the 2008 election, that was the wistful, self-indulgent, indifferent reliance on abnegation of personal responsibility that has sunk the nation into this morass.

Since the President is a confirmed Negro, would a plot to overthrow his despotic rule militarily be called "The Bidness Plot"?

Oh, sure.  Fuckers waited til I got out of the Army before they decided to do this.

I always miss out on all the fun.  *kicks dirt*

[Gil Gunderson]

http://www.newsmax.com/john_perry/obama_military_coup/2009/09/29/266012.html

There is a remote, although gaining, possibility America's military will intervene as a last resort to resolve the "Obama problem." Don't dismiss it as unrealistic.

America isn't the Third World. If a military coup does occur here it will be civilized. That it has never happened doesn't mean it wont. Describing what may be afoot is not to advocate it. So, view the following through military eyes:

# Officers swear to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." Unlike enlisted personnel, they do not swear to "obey the orders of the president of the United States."

# Top military officers can see the Constitution they are sworn to defend being trampled as American institutions and enterprises are nationalized.

# They can see that Americans are increasingly alarmed that this nation, under President Barack Obama, may not even be recognizable as America by the 2012 election, in which he will surely seek continuation in office.

# They can see that the economy — ravaged by deficits, taxes, unemployment, and impending inflation — is financially reliant on foreign lender governments.

# They can see this president waging undeclared war on the intelligence community, without whose rigorous and independent functions the armed services are rendered blind in an ever-more hostile world overseas and at home.

# They can see the dismantling of defenses against missiles targeted at this nation by avowed enemies, even as America's troop strength is allowed to sag.

# They can see the horror of major warfare erupting simultaneously in two, and possibly three, far-flung theaters before America can react in time.

# They can see the nation's safety and their own military establishments and honor placed in jeopardy as never before.

So, if you are one of those observant military professionals, what do you do?

Wait until this president bungles into losing the war in Afghanistan, and Pakistan's arsenal of nuclear bombs falls into the hands of militant Islam?

Wait until Israel is forced to launch air strikes on Iran's nuclear-bomb plants, and the Middle East explodes, destabilizing or subjugating the Free World?

What happens if the generals Obama sent to win the Afghan war are told by this president (who now says, "I'm not interested in victory") that they will be denied troops they must have to win? Do they follow orders they cannot carry out, consistent with their oath of duty? Do they resign en masse?

Or do they soldier on, hoping the 2010 congressional elections will reverse the situation? Do they dare gamble the national survival on such political whims?

Anyone who imagines that those thoughts are not weighing heavily on the intellect and conscience of America's military leadership is lost in a fool's fog.

Will the day come when patriotic general and flag officers sit down with the president, or with those who control him, and work out the national equivalent of a "family intervention," with some form of limited, shared responsibility?

Imagine a bloodless coup to restore and defend the Constitution through an interim administration that would do the serious business of governing and defending the nation. Skilled, military-trained, nation-builders would replace accountability-challenged, radical-left commissars. Having bonded with his twin teleprompters, the president would be detailed for ceremonial speech-making.

Military intervention is what Obama's exponentially accelerating agenda for "fundamental change" toward a Marxist state is inviting upon America. A coup is not an ideal option, but Obama's radical ideal is not acceptable or reversible.

Unthinkable? Then think up an alternative, non-violent solution to the Obama problem. Just don't shrug and say, "We can always worry about that later."

In the 2008 election, that was the wistful, self-indulgent, indifferent reliance on abnegation of personal responsibility that has sunk the nation into this morass.

Since the President is a confirmed Negro, would a plot to overthrow his despotic rule militarily be called "The Bidness Plot"?

Oh, sure.  Fuckers waited til I got out of the Army before they decided to do this.

I always miss out on all the fun.  *kicks dirt*

Here's my question.  Is there this much anger and vitriol and Dolchstoßlegende just because the president is black or because the president is a Democrat?

[Slaky]

Here's my question.  Is there this much anger and vitriol and Dolchstoßlegende just because the president is black or because the president is a Democrat?

That's the same question I have.

I also enjoy that every time I go home I get to hear a not-so-thinly veiled jab at Obama ruining the country from my parents. Each and every time.

Ever listen to Michael Savage?

That's my dad's question as I'm leaving to head back to the city.

Facepalm.

[*In a Nutsack]

Here's my question.  Is there this much anger and vitriol and Dolchstoßlegende just because the president is black or because the president is a Democrat?

That's the same question I have.

I also enjoy that every time I go home I get to hear a not-so-thinly veiled jab at Obama ruining the country from my parents. Each and every time.

Ever listen to Michael Savage?

That's my dad's question as I'm leaving to head back to the city.

Facepalm.

For me, it's definitely the half-negroid sandjew part I don't like.

[Waco Kid]

Well I can think of no better way to preserve democracy than a military coup followed by some sort of military run government, be it dictatorship, oligarchy, or whatever.

[Quality Start Machine]

I like how people on the far right can somehow talk about Obama's "Change" mockingly, as if nothing has changed, while simultaneously complain that America is being rendered unrecognizable.

All in 8 months.

[Brownie]

I like how people on the far right can somehow talk about Obama's "Change" mockingly, as if nothing has changed, while simultaneously complain that America is being rendered unrecognizable.

All in 8 months.

Guys like me on the far right mock Obama's "Change" for the same reason we might mock Hendry's vision of change. The Cubs were embarrassed in the playoffs, so things were going to have to change around Clark and Addison. Change they did indeed.



(However, if anyone needed any proof that Newsmax is off its rocker and no other evidence was convincing, this would be all you need. Ho. Lee. Shit.)