Apples & Liars

Discussion in 'Tea Party' started by Flanders, Aug 13, 2013.

  1. Flanders
    Offline

    Flanders ARCHCONSERVATIVE

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    7,628
    Thanks Received:
    743
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Ratings:
    +2,036
    There is one question Tea Partiers should be asking. Will rehashing the birth certificate lie help Tea Party candidates win a Senate seat or two in 2014? Answer: It might when it is combined with all of his other lies —— plus the majority’s hatred of the Affordable Care Act. It’s certainly worth considering. Tea Party candidates have nothing to lose by painting Democrats as liars and tying them to the liar in chief. There is one danger.

    Democrat candidates get a media pass for telling lies on the campaign trail. Some lies are deliberate fabrications; others lies are told in the form of promises never meant to be honored. Lies of omission are the most damaging lies of all. Barack Taqiyya excels at every form of lying, but none more than lies of omission. In fact, I believe he told lie after lie in order to point everyone away from his lies of omission.

    Interestingly, the apple does not fall far from the tree. In that sense not one person in his administration can open their mouth without lying, but then bureaucrats don’t run for reelection.

    In any event Barack Taqiyya told so many lies since he took office nailing him for his first lie only has little value to Tea Partiers:


    NOTE: His mother was American. Impeaching him has nothing to do with his birth certificate. His ineligibility is based on his father not being American according to the Eligibility Clause.

    Rehashing the birth certificate lie is good clean fun to be sure, but it can’t go anywhere because the question of throwing out every law he signed, every EO he wrote, every bureaucratic regulation he engineered comes into play. The High Court would not touch his ineligibility in 2009; they sure as hell won’t touch it now. And as the man said:


    Presidential perks

    The Clintons are liars on par with Barack Taqiyya, yet the media treats them with respect, and a lot of people are paying a lot of money to hear them speak. Democrat liar after Democrat liar gets the same treatment in or out of office. Barack Taqiyya is toast in January 2017. There is no doubt he will be fawned over in retirement. It’s one of the perks of office irrespective of how much harm he did to the country.

    Incidentally, let one Tea Party candidate make a politically incorrect statement and the media never lets it go. God forbid that a Tea Party candidate gets caught in a lie. The media would burn him or her at the stake.

    Now, let me go astray and confess to the biggest mistake I ever made in the art of predicting the future.

    Away back in the year 2,000, I predicted Bill Clinton would leave the country he despises. I said that his bung hole buddy Tony Blair would get him a professorship in Oxford or Cambridge. I truly believed my own prediction based on what a shameful man he is. No president ever left office despised by so many Americans; so I assumed he would want to live in a country where he wasn’t held in contempt by so many. In those days I retained a tiny streak of naiveté. I’ve since learned that politicians like the Clintons know no shame. The all-but-forgotten Waco Massacre proved that.

    At the risk of making another monumental blunder let me say that Barack Taqiyya will retire to Kenya. Reasons: He hates this country more than do the Clintons. Kenyans will elevate him to god-like status, and Michelle can finally live in a country she is proud of full-time:


    [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYY73RO_egw&feature=player_embedded]Michelle Obama: First Time proud of USA - YouTube[/ame]​

    Frankly, few Americans give a rat’s ass what makes Michelle proud. Most Americans want to be proud of their president. If my prediction pans out this time she and Barack can bring hope and change to Kenyan parasites. Look at it this way. They can be community organizers to a whole damn country. Only they’ll have to do it without American tax dollars.
     
    Last edited: Aug 14, 2013
  2. Flanders
    Offline

    Flanders ARCHCONSERVATIVE

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    7,628
    Thanks Received:
    743
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Ratings:
    +2,036
    The Donald weighed in on ineligibility —— sort of. Move the cursor to 2:30:

    [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FC_wapgQLxw&feature=player_embedded]Donald Trump 'This Week' Interview - YouTube[/ame]​

    Jonathan Karl invoked Ted Cruz’s eligibility. Ted Cruz’s mother was American as was Barack Taqiyya’s. The difference is that Cruz’s father became a naturalized citizen. I don’t know if it was before or after Ted was born. Barack Taqiyya’s father never became an American citizen.

    The MSM is in the process of nominating their choice. Right now it looks like Chris Christie and Marco Rubio are the front runners in media boardrooms. Obviously, the media would love to torpedo Cruz early on because he is a Tea Party favorite. CINO (conservative in name only) far outnumber RINO in the ranks of establishment Republicans. So there’s too much uncertainty in running a CINO against a true conservative.

    Note that the media’s love affair with Rubio goes back to the time they wanted him on Romney’s ticket in order to legitimate Taqiyya’s ineligibility. Rubio’s immigrant parents did not become citizens until after he was born. Ditto Bobby Jindal who was also a highly touted media choice last year. Conclusion: Presidents can be ineligible so long as they are not Tea Party conservatives.

    Finally, being conservative gives new meaning to the word underdog. The media, the Democrats, all of Liberaldom, and Karl Rove’s Republican candidates unite in trying to erase you long before the nominating convention convenes.
     
  3. Flanders
    Offline

    Flanders ARCHCONSERVATIVE

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    7,628
    Thanks Received:
    743
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Ratings:
    +2,036
    I’m sensing that media liberals are in a dilemma. They would like to see a Republican with an eligibility problem like Marco Rubio get the nomination and possibly win the general election because he is an acceptable substitute for a Democrat. On the other hand, Ted Cruz winning is the last thing Democrats want.

    Here’s the dilemma. Liberals have to say that Cruz is eligible if they say Rubio is eligible. Watching it play out in the media will be more fun than watching Hillary Clinton tell black Americans she is not a racist when she was the one that introduced race into the 2008 campaign.

    Regarding eligibility: Does anybody remember good old RINO Orrin Hatch’s views on presidential eligibility:


    Hatch is also the guy who supported Ginsburg and Breyer for the Supreme Court. Hatch had a tough campaign for the nomination in 2012. Unfortunately, he won. In the future, conservatives better watch him closer than they watch Democrats.

    Click on the above link for a video about Ted Cruz’s eligibility.
     
    Last edited: Aug 14, 2013
  4. Wry Catcher
    Offline

    Wry Catcher Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    49,818
    Thanks Received:
    6,282
    Trophy Points:
    1,860
    Location:
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Ratings:
    +20,632

    Falsehoods not only disagree with truths, but usually quarrel among themselves.[/SIZE]

    Daniel Webster

    Webster was prescient when he wrote these words which describe today's Republican Party.
     

Share This Page