Are Obama And The Hard Left Of The Devil? (Lord Christopher Monckton)

Are Obama And The Hard Left Of The Devil? – Lord Christopher Monckton

.

.
The devil, in the traditional theology of the Christian Church, is a fallen angel: the very personification and embodiment of evil. Perhaps the most frequent of the many descriptions of the devil is that he is the father of lies.

Most references to the devil in the Bible mention deceit as his hallmark. John 8:44, for instance, describes the devil thus: “He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own, for he is a liar, and the father of it.”

One who is “of the devil,” therefore, is one who is by nature and habit deceitful, because there is no truth in him.

Now, it has become apparent that the global totalitarian hard left, led by Mr. Obama, no longer make any pretense of speaking the truth about any of its favorite political topics.

Two of these topics are currently in the news: so-called “gay” so-called “marriage,” for which the once-Christian people of Ireland have recently and shamefully voted, and so-called “catastrophic” so-called “manmade” so-called “global” so-called “warming,” about which Mr. Obama last week preached a whining, heavily touted and in every material respect deceitful commencement sermon to Coast Guard cadets.

Even the names of these two topics are lies. There is nothing in the least bit merry about homosexuality, and marriage is by definition the union of a man and a woman, not of two of one or two of the other.

Likewise, there has been no increase in the planet’s average temperature for 18 years and five months; the rate of warming since we first might have influenced it in 1950 is far from catastrophic; no one knows what fraction of it is manmade; and it is not global, for – to take one example – there has been no warming of the Antarctic continent since the satellites began measuring temperatures there in 1979.

Why does speaking the truth about political subjects such as these matter? The reason is that the lies do real harm. They kill people.

Take homosexuality. Why does the Bible say homosexuality is wrong? Because it spreads disease and death, as Romans 1:26-27 makes explicit: “… for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature. And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.”

On the epidemiological evidence – evidence that is often discussed with concern even in the “gay” journals – promiscuous male homosexuality will shorten the life of its average practitioner by about the same period as smoking: at least a decade and, in some cases, two. It is not a lifestyle but a deathstyle.

You can bet the ranch on the fact that not once was the well-established and repeatedly proven link between homosexuality, morbidity and mortality mentioned in any of the Marxstream media during the apology for a debate that led to the Irish referendum.

The hard left is the first to wax lyrical about the evil tobacco corporations that tried to pretend smoking is not dangerous. Yet they are tellingly silent about the fact that the “gay” deathstyle of which they are the chief political advocates is every bit as dangerous as smoking.

The result – I speak with feeling, because it happened to one close to me – is that people who see the state giving recognition and even promotion to what was once outlawed are drawn into becoming “gay” because they are not told how dangerous homosexuality is to them.

It is our Christian duty to love homosexuals. Yet it is no less our duty to love those who, foolishly trusting in the state and the law as the arbiters of morals, are lured by them into a misery that is a sin precisely because it leads in so very many cases to disease and even to death. It is a sin not because some half-crazed desert prophet said so many thousands of years ago but – like all sins – because of the deadly harm it causes.

The law now says that smoking must not be advertised or promoted and that anyone who buys a pack of cigarettes will have to read an in-your-face warning on the packet about the disease and death that smoking causes.

Yet the left, in advocating, promoting and now legalizing “gay” “marriage,” is deceitfully concealing the truth about the medical consequences of homosexuality. So much so that when I recently and mildly suggested to an otherwise quite sane and sensible friend that homosexuality is at least as medically dangerous as smoking and that people should surely be given as fair a warning of that fact as they are of the dangers of smoking, he said: “That may be true, but no sane person would say so.”

So much more politically “correct,” perhaps, just to let them infect and kill each other. Well, like it or not, that is not the Christian way. We should warn people fairly of the danger of promiscuous homosexuality, just as we warn smokers, so that they understand what they are letting themselves in for. Then, and only then, can they make a mature, informed choice.

What, you may ask, is all this to do with “global” “warming”? Well, one of the most frequent of the lying smears of the princes of deceit on the extreme left is to compare those of us who speak out against the monstrous exaggerations and outright falsehoods of the promoters and advocates of “catastrophic” “anthropogenic” “global” “warming” with the paid shills for the tobacco corporations who, for decades, tried to suppress or belittle the evidence that smoking kills.

Which brings us to Mr. Obama’s speech to the Coast Guard Academy about the weather. Even by his remarkably low standards, it was a dreadful speech. For a start, since this is a political hot potato, it was not an appropriate subject for the commander in chief to give to any branch of the nation’s defense forces. By iron convention, real presidents don’t make partisan political speeches. Just one more item of evidence, you may well think, that Mr. Obama is not a real president, just like BO’s BS WH HI ID (about which no one has done anything yet).

Seldom have I seen so many half-truths, untruths and outright lies crammed into a single speech. For a line-by-line, lie-by-lie analysis, follow this link to my detailed analysis at Wattsupwiththat.com, the world’s most visited climate website, run by a real weatherman.

Why are the climate lies of Mr. Obama and his fellow Marxists so serious? Because the cheapest and most reliable sources of electric and of motive power are coal and oil respectively. The fuel and power price hikes that have occurred solely because of these lies are already killing people.

In Britain, around 20-30,000 more people die in the winter months than at other times of year: further proof that it is cold, not warmth, that kills. In just one recent cold winter, there were 7,000 additional excess winter deaths. The extra deaths occurred not so much because the weather was cold as because their homes were cold. They could not afford to heat them.

Imagine how many more are dying worldwide because money that might have been usefully spent on giving them fossil-fuel power is being squandered on making non-existent “global” “warming” go away.

With that background, let us address the question of whether Mr. Obama and the “gay”-promoting, catastrophist hard left are, to use St. John’s phrase, “of the devil.”

The charitable conclusion is that they are of the devil, that they are under the controlling influence of the father of lies, that they are his unwitting or unwilling mouthpieces.

For if that be not the case, Mr. Obama and others like him who utter the wicked falsehoods on the basis of which they promote such fatal abominations as “gay” “marriage” and “catastrophic” “manmade” “global” “warming” are deliberately, willfully telling lies – lies that kill.

On the evidence, they are certainly not telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. So far are they from the truth, so many are the deaths their interminable and often gross lies cause, that it is surely kinder to grant them the Hitler defense – that they are not in control of themselves either because they are collectively mad or because they are individually of the devil.

.

.

Your Daley Gator Hitlery Clinton News Roundup

Hillary Discussed Highly Sensitive Information, Now Classified “Secret,” On Her Private Email, As We Predicted – Andrew C. McCarthy

.

.
Well, you heard it here first.

Today, the State Department released Benghazi-related email from the private server and one of the (at least) two private email accounts on which former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton conducted official business – recklessly and in violation of laws and guidelines relating to the exchanging and preservation of electronic communications. Within hours, the Obama administration was forced to concede that at least one of the emails contained classified information.

Mrs. Clinton has previously and dubiously claimed that she did not discuss classified information on her private email account(s). Despite today’s disclosure, she is standing by that claim as, apparently, is the State Department. Her rationale is that the information in question – which relates to suspects in the Benghazi attack and remains highly sensitive ­- was not classified “secret” at the time of the email exchange. Instead, it was upgraded to “secret” status just today by the FBI, which was plainly alarmed at the prospect of its disclosure.

I warned about this situation back in March, when Mrs. Clinton’s violation of federal laws and guidelines in connection with using private email to conduct official business first surfaced. The problem with the rationalization offered by Mrs. Clinton and the administration is twofold.

First, at the time of the Benghazi attack, Mrs. Clinton was secretary of state and an old hand at dealing with classified information. She thus had to have known at the time of the communication in question that information of the type she was dealing with should have been classified as “secret” even if it had not been so classified yet. Obviously, the FBI instantly recognized the significance of the information upon learning that it was about to be disclosed.

Second, it is frequently the case that highly sensitive information is not classified (or not yet classified); nevertheless, government officials are instructed that it is not to be disclosed publicly and not to be discussed on non-government email systems.

As I explained back in March:

Mrs. Clinton [in her press conference] stressed that she never stored classified documents on her private e-mail system. To the uninitiated, this sounded like the strongest point in her defense. Mostly, however, it is a red herring, exploiting the public’s unfamiliarity with how classified information works – and fueling no small amount of irresponsible speculation over the last few days about how the nature of her responsibilities meant classified material must have been stored on her private system. In the government, classified documents are maintained on separate, super-highly secured systems… [I]n general, Mrs. Clinton would not have been able to access classified documents even from a .gov account, much less from her private account – she’d need to use the classified system… That said, there are two pertinent caveats.

First, since we’re dealing with Clintonian parsing here, we must consider the distinction between classified documents and classified information – the latter being what is laid out in the former. It is not enough for a government official with a top-secret clearance to refrain from storing classified documents on private e-mail; the official is also forbidden to discuss the information contained in those documents. The fact that Mrs. Clinton says she did not store classified documents on her private server, which is very likely true, does not discount the distinct possibility that she discussed classified matters in private e-mails…

Second, most of the important but mundane information exchanged in government is not classified. It is a truism that too much information in Washington is classified. Still, it is also true that, for government officials, dealing with classified information is very inconvenient – you are usually not allowed to read it on your office computer, certainly not on your personal computer, not while commuting to work, not at home, etc. Thus, much of the information that government officials deal with is categorized as “sensitive but unclassified” (SBU).

To listen to the commentary over the past week, and to listen to Mrs. Clinton yesterday, one would think there are only two realms of government information: something is either a national defense secret or the seating chart for Chelsea’s wedding reception. Most information, though, is neither classified nor private. When I was a federal prosecutor, for instance, the SBU information I routinely dealt with included: grand-jury transcripts, the secrecy of which must be maintained by law; investigative reports by the FBI, DEA, NYPD, and other investigative agencies; wiretap affidavits that disclosed that investigations were underway, the suspects, the evidence, the wiretap locations, and the identity of government undercover agents, informants, and witnesses; memos outlining investigative or litigation strategies to deal with organized crime and terrorism organizations; plans to orchestrate arrests in multi-defendant cases where flight risk was a concern; financial information of subjects of investigations; personal information (sometimes including family financial and medical information) of lawyers and staff whom I supervised; contact information (including home addresses) of agents with whom I worked on cases often involving violent crime and public corruption; contact information (including home addresses) of judges in the event it was necessary to get a search warrant after hours; and so on.

None of that information was classified. I was permitted to – and needed to – have it ready to hand, but it was also my duty to maintain it in a secure, responsible manner… a duty that became even more important once I was a boss and was expected to set an example for junior lawyers and staff to follow. And mind you, I was just a government lawyer. I was not the secretary of state.

The inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure of SBU can do enormous damage. It can even get people killed. That is why the State Department has elaborate rules about SBU – rules that include instructing State Department employees to conduct their e-mail business via government e-mail accounts on government communications systems that have “the proper level of security control to provide nonrepudiation, authentication and encryption, to ensure confidentiality, integrity, and availability of resident information” (U.S. Dept. of State, Foreign Affairs Manual, vol. 12, sec. 544.3 ). As Fox News relates, it was on the basis of these concerns that Mrs. Clinton, as secretary of state, directed State Department employees in June 2011 to “avoid conducting official Department [business] from your personal e-mail accounts.”

Thus far, there has been disclosure of only a fraction of Mrs. Clinton’s existing private email – i.e., the email that she did not unilaterally delete despite being on notice that it was relevant to government investigations. Yet it is already clear that, as secretary of state, she did business in a way that was, at a minimum, grossly irresponsible… and quite possibly worse. She had to have realized the near certainty that an official of her stature would have been targeted for surveillance of her private emails by foreign intelligence services. Yet, in her determination not to leave a paper trail that might damage her political prospects, she ignored the risks. The Justice Department, which has prosecuted high government officials for mishandling national defense information, should be investigating – and that includes acquiring custody of Mrs. Clinton’s private server.

.
————————————————————————————————————————–
.

Related articles:

.
Krauthammer Sounds Off On Hillary Email Dump, Explains Why He Thinks ‘Whole Release Is A Farce’ – The Blaze

Conservative political pundit Charles Krauthammer reacted to the release of the first batch of Hillary Clinton emails, calling the “whole release” a “farce.”

“This is an echo of what her own press secretary said, who said there isn’t a shred of evidence. And as I’ve said there is no shred of evidence because she shredded the evidence. This whole release is a farce,” the syndicated political columnist said. “What is being released now… is stuff that was scrubbed and cleansed and decided upon, chosen by her own people, acting in her own interest, rather than… people with obligation to the public.”

“So we are getting the cleaned up version,” he continued. “And I think they are succeeding, the Clinton people. Because everybody is hungrily looking through stuff pre-scrubbed. They are not going to find anything. The Clinton’s are secretive and deceptive, but they are not stupid.”

Krauthammer then explained how he thought the process will benefit Clinton in the presidential election.

“Whatever is indicating has been scrubbed and removed. So we are going to have this long saga of the release. She will take the credit for, ‘I asked for it to be released, I wanted it to be released.’ But it’s the wrong stuff. And when people attack her later in the campaign, she will say it’s all been released, the press has looked at it,” he said.

.

.
————————————————————————————————————————–

.
Hillary Slept Through Security Briefing On Benghazi Attack – Gateway Pundit

Figures.

Hillary Clinton slept through the president’s daily briefing on Benghazi. She didn’t wake up until 10:45 AM.

.

.
What difference does it make?

.
————————————————————————————————————————–

.
Hillary Didn’t Even Know Ambassador’s Name After He Was Murdered In Benghazi – Right Scoop

The State Department is releasing a batch of the Hillary emails, because the best way to make sure no one notices is to do it on the beginning of Memorial Day weekend. Hidden in one email is a pretty deplorable absence of interest and care from Hillary.

From the Washington Times:

The night a U.S. ambassador was killed in a terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, Hillary Clinton sent a message three senior State Department officials.

The recepients were Jake Sullivan, Deputy Chief of Staff to then-Secretary of State Clinton, Cheryl Mills, an adviser to Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign and Counselor and Chief of Staff to the Secretary, and Victoria Jane Nuland, Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs.

“Cheryl told me the Libyans confirmed his death. Should we announce tonight or wait until morning?” Clinton says in the email, time stamped 11:38 p.m. on Sept. 11, 2012.

The email had as its subject line: “Chris Smith.” The murdered ambassador was Chris Stevens.

The Secretary of State didn’t even know the name of the U.S. ambassador to Libya – even after terrorists stormed an American compound and killed him.

How deplorable is that. And this is who the Democrats want to make president? Disgusting.

.
————————————————————————————————————————–

.
E-mails: Hillary Knew That State Department Asked YouTube To Block Anti-Muslim Movie Overseas – Hot Air

Not that there was ever much doubt. Three days after the Benghazi attack, the White House admitted it had pressured Google and YouTube to yank “Innocence of Muslims” as some sort of terms-of-use violation. Google refused. A week after that, having failed to twist a major corporation’s arm into censoring a politically unhelpful bit of free speech on its behalf, the State Department started running ads in Pakistan denouncing the movie, in hopes that jihadi savages would be appeased by the show of national contrition and not target any more embassies. Also around this time, YouTube did agree to censor “Innocence of Muslims” by blocking it in Egypt and Libya, the two nations that saw the most violent attacks on U.S. diplomats on September 11, 2012. Hillary Clinton had to have known about and signed off on all this, we naturally assumed. And now here’s evidence that she did: Although the message below is vague, I assume it’s referring to the ban that Google imposed on the video in Africa.

Leaning on corporate cronies to suppress Americans’ speech for political ends would be a disqualifying offense for a candidate in a sane world.

.

.
Fun fact: On the very day that e-mail was sent, the man who made “Innocence of Muslims” was arrested by the feds on a “parole violation.” Hillary’s leisure reading in the weeks before that was interesting too:

.

.
————————————————————————————————————————–

.
Clinton Foundation Discloses Millions In Additional Payments Under Pressure – Big Government

From the Washington Post:

The Clinton Foundation reported Thursday that it has received as much as $26.4 million in previously undisclosed payments from major corporations, universities, foreign sources and other groups.

Thursday’s disclosure is one of a number of instances in recent weeks in which the foundation has acknowledged that it received funding from sources not disclosed on its Web site.

The ethics agreement was reached between the foundation and the Obama administration to provide additional transparency and avoid potential conflicts of interest with Hillary Clinton’s appointment as secretary of state.

The agreement placed restrictions on foreign government donations, for instance, but the foundation revealed in February that it had violated the limits at one point by taking $500,000 from Algeria.

There was one entity clearly associated with a foreign government that provided speaking fees, of $250,000 to $500,000 for a speech by Bill Clinton: The energy ministry in Thailand.

The U.S. Islamic World Forum also provided $250,000 to $500,000 to the foundation for a speech by Bill Clinton, according to the new disclosure. The event was organized in part by the Brookings Institution with support from the government of Qatar.

In addition, the list is studded with overseas corporations and foundations.

They included the South Korean energy and chemicals conglomerate Hanwha, which paid $500,000 to $1,000,000 for a speech by Bill Clinton.

China Real Estate Development Corp. paid the foundation between $250,000 and $500,000 for a speech by the former president. The Qatar First Investment Bank, now known as the Qatar First Bank, paid fees in a similar range. The bank is described by Persian Gulf financial press as specializing in high-net-worth clients.

The Telmex Foundation, founded by Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim, provided between $250,000 and $500,000 for a speech by Hillary Clinton.

Read the rest of the story here.

.

.

Thanks To Leftist Assclowns, Baltimore Shootings Spike 70%, Murder Rate Up 42%

Baltimore Shootings Spike 70%, Murder Rate Up 42% – Clash Daily

.

.
Gee, I wonder why this would happen? Don’t expect this to get better anytime soon.

BALTIMORE – Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake called the city’s recent spike in violence “disheartening” Thursday as police work to address a dramatic increase in homicides and nonfatal shootings.

“It’s extremely frustrating,” the mayor told reporters at a news conference. “It is disheartening, but I am still resolved to continue to reduce violent crime in our city.”

Rawlings-Blake said the city’s faced spikes in crimes in the past and police have been able to successfully reverse them. She said she’s “confident” police do so will again.

The city’s had 98 homicides so far this year, which is 42 percent higher than over the same period in 2014. Nonfatal shootings are up more than 70 percent with at least 19 people shot on Tuesday and Wednesday.

Read more: Baltimore Sun

.

.

Planned Parenthood: Advising high school girls to try abstinence is despicable

Planned Parenthood, of course makes BIG money from “choice”, so, they are heavily invested in promoting a culture that leads to teen pregnancies. Talk about despicable! And just as despicable is how this piece at Seventeen magazine played the “Sexist” Card

A few days before prom at Lincoln High School in Manitowoc, Wisconsin, posters started popping up in hallways. They weren’t advertising fun things to do after prom, or the newest prom theme. But instead, an entirely sexist message — that girls should be worrying about how to “protect their character” on prom night.

Oh! The horrors! advising girls that having sex on prom night might have negative consequences. Can’t have that can we? I mean consequences do not exist according to the left. Character matters in reality, and yes, so do consequences. But the left, again, would rather ignore the connection between behavior and consequences. Can you say moral retardation?

Thanks Barack… Regime Granted Amnesty To Accused Child-Sex Criminal

Amnesty Granted To Child Molesting Camp Counselor Known As ‘Papa Bear’ – Daily Caller

.

.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) knew last year that an illegal alien California camp counselor known as “Papa Bear” was being investigated on child molestation and child pornography charges but did nothing about it, Iowa U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley claims in a letter sent to DHS Sec. Jeh Johnson on Wednesday.

Edgar Covarrubias-Padilla was arrested May 7 and charged with four felonies including child molestation and the distribution of child pornography. According to local news reports, authorities believe that Covarrubias-Padilla also produced child pornography.

Covarrubias-Padilla recently worked as a night counselor at Walden West, an environmental science camp near San Jose. Besides the recovery of 600 child porn images from his computer, Covarrubias-Padilla has been accused of sexually abusing a 10-year-old boy. The Santa Clara County Office of Education told Grassley’s office that it had received over 100 phone calls and 50 emails from parents concerned that their child may have been victimized. Covarrubias-Padilla worked at two other camps over the past two years.

In his letter to Johnson, Grassley stated that whistleblowers with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) — a DHS sub-agency — claim that the federal authorities knew as early as Nov. 17 that Covarrubias-Padilla was being investigated for child sex abuse charges.

Yet, nothing was done about his DACA status until his recent arrest, Grassley claims.

The whistleblowers claim that on Oct. 8, 2012, Covarrubias-Padilla applied for amnesty protection under President Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. His amnesty and work eligibility were scheduled to last through this month, at which point he would have been allowed to re-apply for the program.

“These allegations are deeply troubling because, if true, they suggest that DHS was aware for months or years that Mr. Covarrubias-Padilla posed a public safety threat to the children he was monitoring, yet took no action to revoke his DACA authorization,” Grassley, a Republican, wrote to Johnson.

“These allegations are particularly alarming because they suggest that Mr. Covarrubias-Padilla would not have been placed in a position to abuse and exploit children had DHS properly vetted DACA recipients,” Grassley added.

Grassley has recently shed light on other cases involving felonious DACA recipients. One particular egregious case of DHS failure was Emmanuel Jesus Rangel-Hernandez. Rangel-Hernandez was slated for deportation following a 2012 marijuana charge. He applied for amnesty under DACA in Feb. 2013, and his application was approved in Aug. 2013. But the application was approved even though U.S. Customs and Immigration Services (USCIS) was aware that Rangel-Hernandez was gang-affiliated. Gang members are not eligible for DACA status.

After Grassley raised questions about Rangel-Hernandez’s case, USCIS admitted in a response letter that it erred in approving his DACA application and ensured that steps were taken to prevent gang members from being given amnesty in the future.

In his latest letter to Johnson, Grassley asked 11 questions about Covarrubias-Padilla’s DACA application, immigration status, and known criminal history.

He asked for a response by May 29.

Grassley also sought information on how ICE and USCIS coordinated and shared information about Covarrubias-Padilla.

“Did USCIS know or have reason to know that ICE was investigating Edgar Covarrubias-Padilla in connection to crimes involving either possession or distribution of child pornography or child exploitation, including molestation?” Grassley asked.

“If Edgar Covarrubias-Padilla was under investigation by ICE, please provide the procedures in place for when, and in what manner, ICE would have notified USCIS.”

.

.

Leftist Astroturf Update: Ferguson Protesters Protest Not Getting Their Checks For Protesting

Ferguson Protesters Protest Not Getting Their Checks For Protesting – Weasel Zippers

On May 14, protesters, upset with not being paid their promised checks for protesting, protested outside MORE, Missourians Organizing For Reform and Empowerment, an ACORN organization which had received funding through George Soros to fund the protests.

.

.

.
They even started a hashtag, #cutthechecks, to demand their money:

.

.
Some folks had apparently been paid like Deray McKesson, and others hadn’t, causing further discord.

.

.

.

.

.

.
This protester indicates those who protested for more money were paid $2700 to stop making a fuss, but it would then impact the ability to protest over the summer in #Ferguson:

.

.
Update: More Proof Of Paid Protesters: Ad Asking For Protesters To Travel To Protest, List Of Payouts To #Ferguson Protest Organizers

.

.

Does anything serve as a better illustration of the moral retardation of the Left than their views on abortion and the death penalty?

I would think not, and it seems that Doug Powers agrees

Sally Kohn, moral retardation 101