Traitorous Prez Hussein Giving Aid & Comfort To Terrorists Re: Bergdahl Swap

Barlowe Bayer is an extremely Conservative individual who voted for Willard Mittens Romney in the last election. Although he only did so because Mittens was the better of two bad options. Although the two options were not equally bad.

Hussein was, BY FAR, the worse of the two bad options. We know that even more today (that Hussein was the worse option), what with this Nixonian use of the IRS to target his political enemies, his lying about Benghazi and (most recently) unconstitutionally going around congress and trading 5 Taliban terrorists for 1 scumbag deserter.

For these reasons Barlowe says president Hussein should be impeached. On this topic Barlowe is in complete agreement with the expert opinion of an ex-military man named William Boykin who says President Obama is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors in regards to the Bergdahl swap.

Boykin also says "Jews are the problem" and the "cause of all the problems in the world" and "that President Obama identifies with and supports Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood".

Now, in regards to those three assertions Barlowe is only in agreement with the third one (Hussein identifies with and supports Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood). The first two anti-Semitic sounding comments were picked up by a hot mic. Boykin did not intend them to be heard by anyone except the individual he was speaking with.

Given this fact, Barlowe will respect the Lieutenant General's privacy and forget about the seemingly anti-Semitic comments. If Boykin decides to "come out" and declare himself to be an anti-Semite that is one thing. Until then Barlowe will assume he is not.

In any case, what I'm discussing here is Hussein's traitorous sidestepping of congress in releasing Taliban terrorists from Gitmo. And in exchange from someone who CHOSE to leave his post (deserted). Barlowe is utterly disgusted by these actions and believes Hussein should be removed from office for this reason (one among many).

And then be shipped off to Gitmo himself. Yeah, that is a complete fantasy, I know. But just because there is zero chance of it happening does not mean it isn't EXACTLY what the terrorist-sympathizing Muslim deserves.

As for this Bergdahl wuss, the same goes for him. Lt. General Boykin believes Bergdahl "needs to spend the rest of his life in prison at a minimum" and Barlowe agrees. Send him to Gitmo, or just put a bullet in his head.

Now some may argue that "the 5 Taliban detainees had to be released soon, no matter what [because] when wars end, prisoners taken custody must be released". And these people may also point out that the "5 Gitmo detainees were almost all members of the Taliban [and] none were facing charges in either military or civilian courts for their actions".

To this Barlowe says - why the hell were they not facing charges? Why the hell have we not already tried and executed these 5 Taliban scumbag terrorists who will no doubt return to the battlefield after they are released?

Furthermore, why did this not already happen under former prez Bush? Barlowe has no idea, although he is inclined to believe the reason has something to do with a failure of leadership from the supposed Commander-in-Chief. Both of them... the ex-CIC and the present CIC (Bush and Hussein).

Although, in the case of Hussien, his failures, I am positive, are intentional... because he's a Muslim himself and sympathizes with his "brothers in arms" who are valiantly fighting to bring down the "Great Satan".

Which is why Hussein MUST be impeached. Or should be impeached.

But will he be? I doubt it. At the very least we need to elect a Republican president in 2016. If not... well, we're screwed. America will descend further into Socialism and our Nation (as we know it) will be lost.

TLB #57

Kill All Humans (Except White Conservatives)

Liberals think that Conservatives want to, like the robot Bender on the cartoon Futurama, kill all humans. Except the White Conservatives ones, that is (the females we just want to subjugate). I've been accused of it here on this very blog. I express concern regarding radical Islam and the casualties incurred when they wage jihad on the West; then I suggest some modest measures we might consider to combat it, and, to a Liberal, that translates to me wanting to chuck the Constitution, round up all Muslims and place them in Concentration camps, and then kill every last one of them.

When I express concern about what the Supreme Court might do regarding the definition of marriage, I'm accused of wanting to do the same thing to homosexuals (rounding them up and killing them). I wrote a post expressing my strong disagreement with Liberal politics, and guess what? That means I want to round them up all the Liberals and kill them.

I've never even mentioned the Mexican citizens that have illegally invaded our country, but, never mind that inconvenient fact. I want to round them up and kill them all as well. Perhaps you see a pattern here? Liberals don't like it when you disagree with them. It makes them so hysterical that they immediately jump to hyperbole. They can't engage in rational discussion; they can only accuse you of wanting to murder those who disagree with you.

But I'm sure that only some Liberals react in this manner. Some of them must be capable of rational discourse? Not many, I'm afraid. They all seemed to embrace on the "war on women" meme when Conservatives mentioned their moral objection to killing babies in the womb. If, like me, you weren't surprised when the Boston bombers turned out to be radicalized Muslims, that makes you a bigot. No matter that they turned out to be White. The Left knows you expected them to be dark skinned as well.

Which brings me to our president. If you question any of his policies it must be because he is African-American. It couldn't possibly be because you take issue with those polices, the same way you did when they were espoused by the WHITE Liberal president Bill Clinton!

Additionally, if, like me, you respect our nation's laws and think people of other countries shouldn't be able to cross our borders without prior approval and obtain employment without a social security number or (at the very least) a green card, that makes you a racist.

And, God forbid you're a Christian who adheres to the teachings of the Bible when it comes to the definition of marriage. Clearly God said it wasn't just a contract between two people, no matter their sex. You're a homophobe if you want to keep marriage the way it is and support the laws on the books (DOMA).

So, seeing as I support the second amendment that must mean I dream of shooting dead all humans that aren't like me, right? Absolutely not. Do I want to convince more people that my way of thinking is the way to go? Yes, I do. But that's human nature. Failing that, hopefully we can meet in the middle. It's called compromise, a concept many Liberals clearly do not understand.

No, "stamping out" Liberalism does not sound like compromise, but that (a prior post title of mine) was hyperbole intended to attract readers and spark a discussion. As I pointed out in the post, I do not believe Liberalism can be eliminated entirely. But at least tone it down Liberals! Compromise with us! But I don't know if those on the fringe (the far, far Left) will ever see reason. I do not know if they are capable of compromising. I fear not.

TLB #33

Deport All Muslims?

I've heard calls from the Right in light of the Boston bombing to deport all Muslims. Or to not let any more people who identify as Muslim into the country. Now, the Left, of course, has taken great exception to this discriminatory and ridiculous idea (THEIR adjectives). Me, I can understand why my fellow Right-minded compatriots feel this way.

Now, I do not believe it could be possible, but perhaps we should think twice before allowing a Muslim identified immigrant entrance? Maybe, if Muslim religious types who are already in the country display any signs of radicalization we could deport them?

Maybe we should consider passing legislation to make this possible. I've heard that the older brother (the one who is now dead) posted videos to his YouTube account indicating he was radicalized. I also heard that the Russian Government contacted our government and specifically told us something might be up with these two brothers. Apparently our government types did an investigation and concluded there was no reason for them to act. In regards to that I say, WTF?

This looks to me to be another example of the incompetence of the Hussein Administration. Also, for the record, I'm just asking questions, so no need to accuse me of being bigoted toward Muslims. I'm just concerned about doing all we can to prevent future tragedies.

One of the things we might do is to get rid of Hussein and the Hussein incompetents. If we wait until the next election it might be too late. Can the case be made that the Boston bombing is yet another debacle over which Hussein could be deported from the White House (impeached)? In my opinion Congress should most certainly investigate.

TLB #32

George W Bush's Lie-Berry

"Lie-Berry" is how Bush pronounces "library", according to Liberals, for whom Bush bashing will never get old. They are, predictably, using the occasion of the ribbon cutting of his presidential library to mock and make fun of him.

But the fact remains that the Clinton administration failed to get bin Laden. They had the opportunity and made several lame attempts when it suited Clinton; he lobbed some missiles in the general vicinity of bin Laden to distract our citizens from their preoccupation with Bubba's BJ in the White House.

So the Clintonites left that problem behind for the incoming Bush administration to deal with. And vandalized the White House before turning it over. Removing all the Ws from the computer keyboards as a "prank", I heard. And now Bubba is one of the most beloved ex-presidents? It's ridiculous IMO.

George Bush struck back and expelled al Qaeda from Afghanistan and Iraq, dealing them a serious blow that lead to our not being attacked for the remainder of Bush's first term and the entirety of his second. Bush did a good job keeping us safe, unlike Obama, under whose watch there have been numerous attacks, the bombing in Boston being the latest.

It is, in my opinion, indicative of the incompetence of the Obama Administration. On all fronts. The Hussein administration is doing abysmally when it comes to the economy, and equally abysmally when it comes to protecting us from the radical Muslims that wish us harm.

Instead of making fun of GWB, the Liberals should be thanking him. I think the mocking is just to cover up the fact that their community-organizing president has done such a bad job "presidenting". What they're saying is "don't pay attention to the incompetent in the White House".

And, while George Bush was president and the Liberals ridiculed him - what they were really saying was, "ignore the fact that Bubba failed to get bin Laden. Instead of doing his job he spent his time taking advantage of interns". Liberals should be too ashamed of both Bubba and Hussein to ridicule GWB, but Liberals clearly have no shame.

TLB #31

Is George W Bush a War Criminal Or A War Hero?

There are those on the Left that say George W Bush illegally invaded Iraq and authorized waterboarding/torture of terrorists - and is therefore a war criminal.

Then there are those on the Right who say ex-President Bush did what was necessary and kept us safe by going on the offensive against the terrorists in Afghanistan and in Iraq (where the leaders of those two respective countries gave the terrorists safe harbor).

So, George W Bush - war criminal or war hero?

TLB #10