He has no record to run on. He has little in the way of an agenda for his second term. And he is devoid intellectually of being able to debate in a rational manner. So it seems, President Obama has resorted to childish name-calling.
This is a sitting U.S. President saying this:
FIRST LOOK – Rolling Stone cover, “Obama and the Road Ahead: The Rolling Stone Interview,” by Douglas Brinkley: “We arrived at the Oval Office for our 45-minute interview … on the morning of October 11th. … As we left the Oval Office, executive editor Eric Bates told Obama that he had asked his six-year-old if there was anything she wanted him to say to the president. … [S]he said, ‘Tell him: You can do it.’ Obama grinned. … ‘You know, kids have good instincts,’ Obama offered. ‘They look at the other guy and say, “Well, that’s a bullshitter, I can tell.”
Mind you, this is a President who has perfected the art of bulls******* the American people over the last several weeks with his grand story-telling about the events that transpired in Benghazi.
This is a President who fed the public absolute bulls*** when he claimed he didn’t raise taxes on the middle class, all the while knowing that Obamacare is set to hammer the middle class with such taxes.
This is a President who presided over the longest stretch of unemployment of 8% in history, while telling the American people that if he passed his stimulus it would never go above 8%.
If children have instincts that help them to identify a bulls******, they’d be running for the hills from you, Mr. Obama. You are not Presidential material, you’re barely an accomplished snake-oil salesman. And soon, you’ll be gone.
That’s no bulls***.
Gawker may have never produced such an offensive article in their long offensive history as the one they posted on Friday by Cord Jefferson.
The title says it all:
Born This Way: Sympathy and Science for Those Who Want to Have Sex with Children
Not once in the lengthy piece does Jefferson refer to the act in it’s proper terminology – rape. Worse, he categorizes the act of raping children as a ‘sexual orientation’, treating it as a harmless choice no different than homosexuality, as opposed to a violent crime.
The article is sick and disgusting on so many levels. It begins with a sympathetic story involving a man named Terry, who has been convicted of raping his seven-year-old niece. Fitting with the theme that this was a sexual act and not a crime, Jefferson attempts to create sympathy for the rapist – portraying him as a religious man who was the victim of an abusive marriage, and describing what happens with his niece as an actual ‘relationship’.
As Jefferson explains, “it’s not easy to listen to Terry talk about the time he had sex with a seven-year-old girl”. I would imagine it would be infinitely harder to listen to the little girl’s version. Or her parents story.
Terry, Jefferson then explains, “fell for his niece and began a sexual relationship with her”.
The rest of the story is rather graphic.
The problem here is that the author doesn’t seem able to comprehend the difference between rape and sex, and he is rationalizing the behavior of pedophiles. As an example, at one point Jefferson describes the rapist’s mindset – “I had the thought that I would never hurt her and that she would grow up trusting me.”
This is such a typical behavior by pedophiles that it’s hard to imagine anyone could write such a statement without recognizing it as “grooming”, a technique used by child rapists to gain the trust of their child victims.
Noel Sheppard of NewsBusters also points out that Jefferson wonders why pedophiles “don’t enjoy the same kind of tolerance” as other people who may simply be attracted to “busty women” or “tall men”.
Holy hell! In what parallel universe does a sane individual not recognize the difference between being attracted to busty women and small children?
Sheppard also points out that a case for tolerance can be made, according to the article, because ‘Jesus would embrace pedophiles’.
Warner Todd Huston points out in his analysis that this simply isn’t so:
Gawker writer Cord should be ashamed of himself for having said that Jesus would “embrace” pedophiles. As the website Poor Richard’s News notes (by way of Newsbusters), the Bible does not excuse pedophilia..
But whoever causes the downfall of one of these little ones who believe in Me—it would be better for him if a heavy millstone were hung around his neck and he were drowned in the depths of the sea! — Matthew 18: 6
“Jesus died for the forgiveness of sin, not the embrace of it,” the site notes. “The Bible is very clear that while all sins can be forgiven, Jesus never ever embraces the sin itself. He made no bones about the punishment for harming a child.”
There is a special section in hell for child rapists, no doubt.
Gawker needs to apologize for this piece immediately and let the public know that Jefferson’s pro-pedophilia platform will not be tolerated in their pages again.
Terminate this sick, sick man immediately.
The shocking part here is that they ever actually had God in the platform to begin with.
Guess what? God’s name has been removed from the Democratic National Committee platform.
This is the paragraph that was in the 2008 platform:
“We need a government that stands up for the hopes, values, and interests of working people, and gives everyone willing to work hard the chance to make the most of their God-given potential.”
Now the words “God-given” have been removed. The paragraph has been restructured to say this:
“We gather to reclaim the basic bargain that built the largest middle class and the most prosperous nation on Earth – the simple principle that in America, hard work should pay off, responsibility should be rewarded, and each one of us should be able to go as far as our talent and drive take us.”
I suppose it would be difficult to include God in a platform that also “opposes any effort” to stop abortion.
Democrats at the 2012 Democratic National Convention are set to approve a platform today that is unambiguously pro-abortion and opposes any effort whatsoever to stop any abortions. The platform also calls on forcing Americans to pay for abortions at taxpayer expense.
The platform Democrats will approve rejects efforts to stop forcing taxpayers to fund Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion business and supports the Obama HHS mandate that forces religious groups to pay for and refer women for abortion-causing drugs under Obamacare.
Here is an excerpt of the exact wording on their abortion stance:
The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.
And so it is… Democrats are waging a War on God, Catholics, women, and children.
You read that correctly. The dredges of the Earth otherwise known as the Occupy movement actually held a protest in support of child sex trafficking, including one woman’s sign which read ‘End Police Terror Against Minor + Adult Sex Workers’.
Remember when Nancy Pelosi said ‘God bless them’?
Let me channel my inner Jeremiah Wright and say – No, not God bless the Occupy movement, God damn the Occupy movement. Well this little faction anyway can go to hell…
The protesters mostly were members of Occupy Oakland Patriarchy, a group within the overall Occupy movement tasked with overthrowing our civilization’s “patriarchy.”
The conference which so infuriated them was called HEAT Watch, short for the National Human Exploitation And Trafficking Watch Conference.
If there’s one issue that unites Americans of all political stripes, it’s the sexual enslavement of children. Whatever our opinions on other issues, we all agree that sex trafficking and the prostituting of children is an outrage and a tragedy. Thus, conference attendees included liberal, moderate and conservative politicians; progressive nonprofit organizations; law enforcement groups; religious leaders; and (according to the conference Web site) “social services, medical providers, mental health, education, probation, and community-based organizations.” In short: Everybody.
Everybody, that is, except Occupy Wall Street, who somehow found a way to oppose the abolition of child sexual slavery.
Here are a couple of images from the rally, courtesy of Zombie…
One stating that sex-trafficking enforcement is raaaacist:
What exactly does she mean by wrong people?
From the PJ Tatler:
The first lady tried to enlist “Families for Obama” at an event with tickets starting at $500 a pop at the California Academy of Sciences in San Francisco’s Golden Gate Park on Friday.
The pool reporter estimated that there were a couple dozen kids in the audience of about 350, and Michelle Obama spent much of her speech talking to them.
“I mean, I can’t tell you in the last election how many grandparents I ran into who said, I wasn’t going to vote for Barack Obama until my grandson talked to me, until my great-grandson talked to me, and talked about the future he wanted for this country,” she said.
“You can get out there with your parents. You guys can knock on doors. I had one young lady who brought me a petition — she’s already working. You can convince wrong people. Sometimes we don’t listen to ourselves, but we will listen to our children.”
If your five-year-old needs to convince you of some sort of previously unseen wisdom in President Obama’s policies, then you have to ask yourself two questions: Just how brilliant can a man be who only appeals to underdeveloped minds? And how bright can I be if I have to rely on a child to guide my decision making when voting for the future of America?
Via Breitbart News:
This is a hallmark of leftist campaigning – the notion that children possess some sort of inherent wisdom to which their elders must heed. It’s insulting and ridiculous, but it’s also the same sort of electioneering that got Obama elected the first time. But during the 2008 election cycle, President Obama hadn’t yet sold out future generations to finance his world-remaking vision. The good news for the Chicago Obamas is that many of these children’s grandparents and great-grandparents may be voting Obama – whether or not they’re alive to do so.
Isn’t it funny how two groups – children and Democrats – that both believe in fantasies and unrealistic utopias, that both believe in the land of unicorns and lollipops, would both be on a mission to get out the vote for President Obama?