Obama Media Scrubs Rampaging Cop Killer’s Manifesto

Chris Dorner’s Cop-killing Manifesto professes love for Obama, Joe Biden, Hillary, CNN, Gun Control and a litany of the MarxoFascist agenda – media scrubs it all.

As usual with the Obama State-Media which preaches the narrative that TEA Party Conservative Americans are evil and need to be disarmed – the same media scrubs any and all references or mention that the 22 page screed from the deranged cop-killing vendetta of Chris Dorner is an Obama and MarxoFascist Acolyte.

Sooppermexican does a great job to note the scrub and the exact things Obama’s Leftist media deliberately omit in their reporting of the incident which is already being used to further Obama’s disarmament agenda.  In the ORIGINAL manifesto authored by the cop-killing terrorist Dorner, he professes love and demands respect for Obama; he is anti-gun (dontcha love the irony?); fan of Joe Biden; wants Hillary for 2016; fan of CNN/MSNBC; and supports the gay marriage and amnesty for illegals agenda.

But you will never hear about any of this from the Obama media, because Dorner is simply a foot soldier of their agenda, gone AWOL and into assassination and terrorizing cops and potentially anyone who does not agree with his agenda.

News Media Scrub Cop Murderer’s Manifesto of Pro-Obama, Hillary, MSNBC, CNN, Gay, and Anti-Gun Comments

I’ve been following closely the news story about Chris Dorner, who is now suspected of murdering three people, including one police officer, and shooting another two police officers. He is targeting police and their families for what he says is a corrupt system that robbed him of his name and his life.

You can read all the details here.

However, I started noticing that some of the details the media was talking about didn’t fit the released manifesto I’ve read everywhere. Especially interesting, is that KFI’s morning news regurgitator Bill Handel had mentioned some pro-Obama comments and anti-NRA sentiments in the manifesto.

But these weren’t in the copy that KFI themselves released – see for yourself.

This video from FOX News Los Angeles reports that the manifesto was 22 pages long, while the manifesto released was only 11.

The page where FOX News LA had the manifesto is now deleted. Comments don’t mention the manifesto at all.

KTLA also has the abbreviated manifesto, with this parenthetical: “KTLA has removed the names of a number of officers out of respect for their privacy.”

FOX News reposted the manifesto, with all the names redacted as the authorities asked, but it still doesn’t have the second half.

ABC 7 has also posted a redacted half version of the manifesto.

Being curious, I started looking for a complete copy, but other mainstream news media only had the abbreviated copy.

However, I was able to find a complete copy of the posting, from the website “Crime File News” – the details in it corroborate with the reading that Bill Handel gave on the KFI morning show today.

So why did they edit it?

What’s the difference between posting 11 rambling pages and 21 rambling pages? Look at what’s taken out:

Pro Gun Control:

Who in there right mind needs a fucking silencer!!! who needs a freaking SBR AR15? No one. No more Virginia Tech, Columbine HS, Wisconsin temple, Aurora theatre, Portland malls, Tucson rally, Newtown Sandy Hook. Whether by executive order or thru a bi-partisan congress an assault weapons ban needs to be re-instituted. Period!!!

Mia Farrow said it best. “Gun control is no longer debatable, it’s not a conversation, its a moral mandate.”

Sen. Feinstein, you are doing the right thing in leading the re-institution of a national AWB. Never again should any public official state that their prayers and thoughts are with the family.

Loves Obama:

You disrespect the office of the POTUS/Presidency and Commander in Chief. You call him Kenyan, mongroid, halfrican, muslim, and FBHO when in essence you are to address him as simply, President. The same as you did to President George W. Bush and all those in the highest ranking position of our land before him. Just as I always have. You question his birth certificate, his educational and professional accomplishments, and his judeo-christian beliefs. You make disparaging remarks about his dead parents. You never questioned the fact that his former opponent, the honorable Senator John McCain, was not born in the CONUS or that Bush had a C average in his undergrad. Electoral Candidates children (Romney) state they want to punch the president in the face during debates with no formal repercussions. No one even questioned the fact that the son just made a criminal threat toward the President. You call his wife a Wookie. Off the record, I love your new bangs, Mrs. Obama.

Fan of Joe Biden:

Mr. Vice President, do your due diligence when formulating a concise and permanent national AWB plan. Future generations of Americans depend on your plan and advisement to the president. I’ve always been a fan of yours and consider you one of the few genuine and charismatic politicians.

For Hillary 2016:

Hillary Clinton. You’ll make one hell of a president in 2016. Much like your husband, Bill, you will be one of the greatest. Look at Castro in San Antonio as a running mate or possible secretary of state. He’s (good people) and I have faith and confidence in him. Look after Bill. He was always my favorite President.

Anti-NRA

Wayne LaPierre, President of the NRA, you’re a vile and inhumane piece of shit. You never even showed 30 seconds of empathy for the children, teachers, and families of Sandy Hook.

MSNBC, CNN FAN:

Chris Matthews, Joe Scarborough, Pat Harvey, Brian Williams, Soledad Obrien, Wolf Blitzer, Meredith Viera, Tavis Smiley, and Anderson Cooper, keep up the great work and follow Cronkite’s lead. I hold many of you in the same regard as Tom Brokaw and the late Peter Jennings. Cooper, stop nagging and berating your guest, they’re your (guest). Mr. Scarborough, we met at McGuire’s pub in P-cola in 2002 when I was stationed there. It was an honor conversing with you about politics, family, and life.

Willie Geist, you’re a talented and charismatic journalist. Stop with all the talk show shenanigans and get back to your core of reporting.

Loves Piers Morgan:

…give Piers Morgan an indefinite resident alien and Visa card. Mr. Morgan, the problem that many American gun owners have with you and your continuous discussion of gun control is that you are not an American citizen and have an accent that is distinct and clarifies that you are a foreigner. I want you to know that I agree with you 100% on enacting stricter firearm laws

Radicalized by Trayvon Martin Propaganda:

Too bad Trayvon didn’t smash your skull completely open, Zim.

He further praised Ellen Degeneres, H.W. Bush, Tim Tebow, and many hollywood actresses. He’s obviously disturbed.

So should MSNBC and Obama be blamed for this murderous scum targeting cops and their families? NO – but if we applied the same standard that the media does conservatives and Republicans, then each of the people on this list contributed to the radicalization of a murderer who has taken 3 lives.

And why did they edit all of this out? Would they do this for a Tea Party shooter? Somehow I doubt it.

MORE at link.

The Bulldozer Morality of the MarxoFascist Left

Raw emoting rage, stoked by Utopian Leftists will leave nothing but ruin in it’s wake, and they will think they do service to their moral superiority.

 

This essay by Daniel Greenfield is perfectly spot-on in it’s analysis of the zeitgeist of the Marxofascist Utopian Leftists that easily capture the emoting class of America that no longer thinks or knows our history.  It needed to be reblogged here.

On reading his excellent illustration of what we face in America, a bulldozer of vapid redefined morality, I cannot help but think of the scripture that Jesus warned would take place upon His followers at the close of the Age:

 They will put you out of the congregations, but an hour is coming that everyone killing you will think to bear a service before God. John 16:2

Without citing scripture, Greenfield illustrates with scalpel precision, the bulldozer morality of those who would subjugate you.  He points out perfectly that those who see you as evil, think they are serving a higher morality.

All the Morals of a Bulldozer

Daniel Greenfield

To be genuinely outraged about something, you need to actually believe in something. Without principles, outrage is just tactical anger, or bullying in plainer language. Principles, values and codes are universal. That is if you are angry about a dog being mistreated by riding on top of a car, then you should at least be equally angry at dogs being eaten.

If a man shooting another man after a confrontation and not being charged for it angers you, then it should anger you regardless of the color of his skin. For that matter if racism or sexism offends you, then it should offend you regardless of whether it is directed at a woman or a black man who is a liberal or a conservative.

It’s child play to notice that the game doesn’t work this way anymore. That the media engages in displays of tactical anger, serious-face inquiries into issues that they are concerned about only when they benefit their side, manufactured outrage that is not based on any deeply held beliefs, but only on the need to score some points.

If Republicans seem slower on the uptake, it’s because their ranks tend to be stocked with old fashioned types who even in their more liberal incarnations still try to maintain consistent values. The mindset that that they confront is alien to all but a few of their opposition political operatives. It is a mindset devoid of any values, operating on a Pavlovian reflex that reacts to talking points without framing them in any larger context.

Media moral bullying follows this course, raising issues that they pretend are vital principles, but stop being so the moment they no longer benefit them. The iron clad value of a moment ago is discarded into the trash a second later. The serious faces relax, the twitter accounts go dead and all the attention is refocused on some truly important issue, like the next iPhone.

It’s not entirely cynical, though it mostly is. The people behaving this way have lost the ability to recognize enduring abstract principles that have an existence beyond their emotions of the moment. They don’t live by rules, rather rules live by them, if they are angry, then their anger is a moral issue, if they are not angry, it isn’t. Emotions are the only moral barometer that people who cannot see beyond the self have.

That makes them natural bullies, their shows of outrage lifting their anger up to self-righteousness. Their tactical anger is part pretense, part real, and even they don’t really know the difference anymore. They have been taught that their momentary moral tantrums make them good people, they have not however been taught to be good people. They believe that they are right because they are angry and that they are angry because they are right. It’s an attitude you can see in traffic arguments, in divorce court and on the evening news.

Like well trained Oceanians, it depends on audiences in colorful Keffiyah scarves and ironic t-shirts who rise eagerly for the daily Two-Minute Hates, shouting against racism, patriarchy, carbon, oil, corporate personhood and logos, gun rights, animal testing, heteronormative bathrooms and any of the endless list of things to be outraged by, without the ability to apply their denunciations to a moral code.

Oceanian propaganda was deliberately inconsistent so that none of its citizens developed a consistent code that might allow them to judge the system even by its own rules. Left-wing talking points tend to be like that, consistently inconsistent, willfully senseless, cultivating an instinct for mob rage, for hours of political analysis, but no steady rules of conduct that would apply to the analyzers.

The only consistent principle that we are good and they are bad. If you understand that Republicans are racists, that a cabal of corporations, zionists and christian fanatics are plotting to take over the country, and that they hate anyone who is different from them, then you have all the context that you need to understand the liberal message. Without that it’s gibberish. With it, it’s simplistic but comprehensible propaganda.

Boiled down to its essence, the liberal message is that we are good people, because they are bad people. The new Democrats sticker which reads, “Not a Republican” aptly sums up this void. It follows that good people cannot be bad and that bad people cannot be good, and once you accept this message, no further ethics or morals are needed. The very goodness of your side is all the moral code you need.

Identity politics substitutes for a moral code, not so much racial politics as racial tolerance politics which holds that liberals are more ethical, because they are more tolerant, better people because they care. The only crime they are ever guilty of is caring too much. Even the Communists and the terrorists were just too outraged by all the capitalism, racism and zionism, and had no choice but to start shooting and starving people.

It’s possible to spend years immersed in this swill without realizing that none of it is moral or ethical, that it’s “They are bad, we are good”  blaring from every radio and television set. Morality and ethics is about principles that apply across the board. When your only principle is that your group is good and your enemies are bad, then not only are you devoid of morals and ethics, but you are incapable of recognizing immoral and unethical behavior except with a gut instinct that your ideology has trained you to discard.

Cognitive dissonance sets in over everything from Communist gulags to Occupy Wall Street rapes, if things aren’t supposed to happen, then they never did. When the ideological good confronts the real world bad, either ideology dies or morality dies. Historically it’s more often been the latter than the former. Just ask one of the good Nazis or good Communists who had decent home lives, loved their children and pets, and kept on believing in everything except right and wrong.

When you take a bulldozer to traditional values, what takes its place is bulldozer ideology, the expedient virtue of bulldozing things and the virtue of whatever rises in their place. Once you believe in the bulldozer, then you must also believe in whatever mess follows in its wake, otherwise you are forced to take a long hard look at the virtue of the bulldozer. And once that happens, you are one step away from becoming a reactionary clinging to traditional values.

What has grown in the wake of the bulldozer is bulldozer ethics, situational ethics that justify the virtue of bulldozing things as a vital moral principle, disguising their appeal in calls to fairness, justice, decency, tolerance and a thousand other virtues that they never practice across the board.

Bulldozer values call forth explosive faux moral tantrums at anything that stands in front of the bulldozer. These tantrums can be seen on the late night news, on the front page of the New York Times, which long ago stopped relegating its moral tantrums and special pleading to the editorial page, on liberal blogs and a thousand other places. They don’t however represent moral or ethics, only the virtue of the bulldozer– the virtue of power.

The country must know about Romney’s dog riding on top of the car. Why? Because it shows that Romney is a bad person. They must not know about Obama eating dogs, because it might make him ‘wrongly’ seem like a bad person. The only consistent value here is that of the bulldozer. Obama is driving the bulldozer, and so he must be protected, just the same way that the media protected Clinton in his own private war on women and their right to say no to being groped or propositioned, because back then he was driving the bulldozer. When Clinton briefly got in the way of Obama’s bulldozer, then the media bulldozed him.

There is genuine anger over Romney’s dog on their side, not because they care about dogs, though they often do, in the same detached way that they care about the Third World, but because they already believe that he is a bad person. Any anecdote that makes him a bad person feeds their anger. It isn’t an outrage based on principles, but on their burning hate for anyone who stands in front of the bulldozer. They already know that all such people are bad, any story that reinforces this feeds into an existing anger, much the same way that people who hate Jews, Christians, the Chinese, women or dog owners feed off selective incidents that fit their narrative. And they mistake their shoddy bigotry for moral outrage.

When your only moral value is that of the bulldozer and its destructive rampage, then you have all the moral values of your chosen instrument. The moral tantrums are destructive, rather than constructive, they never seem to fulfill their stated mission of healing America and making it a better place (unless you consider provoking multiple racist attacks over the Zimmerman case to be that) but like driving a bulldozer into someone’s house, they make them feel good.

And that is what it’s really all about. The ego. The moral power of the self. The destruction of the old by people who are convinced that they are the new order. That they are the young, even when they are old. That the destruction they leave in their wake is really construction. And that anyone who thwarts their destructive impulses is the enemy and that destroying him is an absolute good.

These are the morals of the bulldozer and the values of liberal America.

***

Obama’s Message and Platform Influenced By Extremism

Some think he’s the equivalent of the Political Second Coming.

Some of us are beginning to wonder if he’s the equivalent of something else.

In the continuing fallout from the revelations about Obama’s choice in immersing himself and his family in the anti-American, racist and extremist views of his longtime mentor and Pastor; Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the question of how much of Wright’s views have shaped and influenced Barrack Hussein Obama’s views?

It appears, quite a bit.

From Barrack Hussein Obama’s book “The Audacity of Hope”, to his own campaign platform of “Hope” and ‘Change” – it is now obvious that Jeremiah Wright Jr. has been an inspiration and lightning rod for Obama’s ideas and campaign.

How could he not be after two decades of Sundays with the kind of anti-American Black Nationalist sermons that we are now watching and seeing? How can one, whom by CHOICE decides to convert from non-devout Islam, be baptised, be married and have your children baptised in a church for two decades – NOT be influenced by the messages and ideas preached from the pulpit? His pastor certainly endorses Obama in almost messianic terms:

“There is a man here who can take this country in a new direction,” Wright said during his Jan. 13 sermon.

During a Christmas sermon, Wright tried to compare Obama’s upbringing to Jesus at the hands of the Romans.

“Barack knows what it means living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich white people,” Wright said.

Is it now any wonder why fellow Black nationalist Nation of Islam’s Louis Farrakhan shares similar sentiments about Barrack Hussein Obama and proclaimed him as the “savior” of America and the world?

No. The answer is simple, these men endorse Obama because Obama best represents their own views.

In typical political spin and skill, Obama says he does not agree with what his pastor has said, yet Obama saw fit to attend this man’s congregation and subject himself to these views for 20 years. There is no way possible, that someone who who had such a deep association with such a radical who is in fact Obama’s spiritual advisor, who preaches a hate-America Afro-centric gospel was not influenced by the message this 40 year career pastor has been preaching. An ideology Obama willingly allowed himself and family to sit through for years and become deeply involved in. The Blame White America First mindset explains Michelle Obama’s statement that she has never been proud of America until her husband began winning primaries. It explains Obama’s promise to yank America out of the War on Jihadists and sit down to tea with the Iranians and Syrians. After all, Obama believes that America should not think itself “superior” in interactions with other countries.

Obama’s Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago taught a doctrine of anti-Americanism and anti-White racism that squarely blamed America for 9-11.

“In the 21st century, white America got a wake-up call after 9/11/01. White America and the Western world came to realize that people of color had not gone away, faded into the woodwork or just “disappeared” as the Great White West kept on its merry way of ignoring Black concerns.”

As the Wall Street Journal notes today:

Hearing Mr. Wright’s venomous and paranoid denunciations of this country, the vast majority of Americans would walk out. Instead, Mr. Obama and his wife Michelle have presumably sat through numerous similar sermons by Mr. Wright.

Indeed, Mr. Obama has described Mr. Wright as his “sounding board” during the two decades he has known him. Mr. Obama has said he found religion through the minister in the 1980s. He joined the church in 1991 and walked down the aisle in a formal commitment of faith.

The title of Mr. Obama’s bestseller “The Audacity of Hope” comes from one of Wright’s sermons. Mr. Wright is one of the first people Mr. Obama thanked after his election to the Senate in 2004. Mr. Obama consulted Mr. Wright before deciding to run for president. He prayed privately with Mr. Wright before announcing his candidacy last year.

Mr. Obama obviously would not choose to belong to Mr. Wright’s church and seek his advice unless he agreed with at least some of his views. In light of Mr. Wright’s perspective, Michelle Obama’s comment that she feels proud of America for the first time in her adult life makes perfect sense.

Much as most of us would appreciate the symbolism of a black man ascending to the presidency, what we have in Barack Obama is a politician whose closeness to Mr. Wright underscores his radical record.

Obama’s press spokesman Bill Burton said, “Sen. Obama has said repeatedly that personal attacks such as this have no place in this campaign or our politics, whether they’re offered from a platform at a rally or the pulpit of a church. Sen. Obama does not think of the pastor of his church in political terms. Like a member of his family, there are things he says with which Sen. Obama deeply disagrees”.

Obama described the pastor as “an old uncle who sometimes will say things that I don’t agree with.”

Well, this begs the question: how much of the “social gospel” of this racist Anti-American pastor DOES Obama agree with? The litany of sermons and political ideas of Jeremiah Wright Jr. indicate a man who lives and breathes what he believes and preaches. Are we to assume Obama disagrees with all of Wright’s social gospel views and sermons yet attended willingly for two decades and named this man as his “spiritual advisor and mentor”??

I remember the absolute insanity that the Democrats went beserk in 2000 over when then-candidate Bush spoke at Bob Jones University, with the equivalency made that anyone who even spoke at the college as beholden to their views. Can we not apply that same sentiment to Obama’s fellowship with a known racist and anti-semetic congregation that he wilingly attended for two decades?

Besides, you aren’t going to call someone a “spiritual advisor” and “mentor” if you do not agree with their main ideology. Yet somehow, Obama expects us to.

A January 2007 Chicago Tribune article, Obama spoke of the pastor as a spiritual mentor and role model who helped keep his priorities straight and his moral compass calibrated.

“What I value most about Pastor Wright is not his day-to-day political advice,” Obama said. “He’s much more of a sounding board for me to make sure that I am speaking as truthfully about what I believe as possible and that I’m not losing myself in some of the hype and hoopla and stress that’s involved in national politics.”

In Obama’s book “Dreams from My Father,” he recounts that when he met Wright, the pastor warned that getting involved with Trinity might turn off other black clergy because of the church’s radical reputation.

The Tribune profile said that while Wright and Obama do not often talk one-on-one often, the senator checks with his pastor before making any bold political moves, including in 2006, when considering a run for the White House.

Wright cautioned Obama not to let politics change him, but he also encouraged him to dive in, win or lose.

So what ARE Obama’s true beliefs besides the nebulous idea of “change”?

Mona Charen asks the question and has the answer:

I am coming to believe that Barack Obama is one of the greatest con artists we’ve seen. His entire campaign has been about “coming together,” a post-racial consensus, etc. Any mention of his middle name was immediately condemned as ignorant fear-mongering. He has played the role of racial unifier with great skill and finesse.

But there is a great deal of evidence out there that he is anything but. The Reverend Wright is exhibit A. Mrs. Obama is Exhibit B. But there’s lots more. Here is a piece by John Batchelor about some of Obama’s other connections. For example:

William Ayers is the second Chicago figure to consider in the political profile of Mr. Obama. William C. Ayers, known as Bill Ayers, is notorious as a terrorist bomber from the 1970s who, on September 11, 2001, in the New York Times was quoted as finding “a certain eloquence in bombs.” Now, at 62, Mr. Ayers, a former aide to the current Mayor Richard M. Daley, is an established professor of education at the University of Illinois in Chicago. Importantly, Mr. Ayers and his wife, the equally notorious Weatherman terrorist Bernardine Dohrn, hosted a crucial meet-the-candidate event in their Hyde Park neighborhood home in 1995 when Mr. Obama, also a Hyde Park resident, was sounded out by vital citizens, among them the retiring state senator Alice Palmer for the 13th District.

Obama’s book is strewn with hints of his far left sympathies, as when he tells an African cousin who complains about the hardships of life in Kenya that things are no better in America. Or when he suggests that the lives of poor black young men in the inner city are blighted by white racism. He never says it explicitly, but it’s there.

He has been very friendly with Rashid Khaladi, the fierce anti-Israel professor who took Edward Said’s post at Columbia.

My own theory, FWIW, is that Obama acquired his far left views at least in part to make himself as authentically black as he could to compensate for having a white mother. His mother, of course, was very left herself. But looking the way he does, and having been raised among only white people (mother and maternal grandparents) he felt the need to better identify with his black heritage. That struggle is what the book is all about.

One can have sympathy for his psychological predicament . But that sympathy certainly does not extend to electing him president of a country that I sincerely believe he does not love.

I think Obama is entirely unqualified for the presidency. He was obviously attracted to the Black Power and racist diatribes coming from this Pastor Wright, and CHOSE to attend this church for the last 20 years. He even discussed his first meeting with Wright in his Memoirs, and the Wright he describes there is the same anti-American Wright we are now witnessing on Youtube and ABC News. This alone is enough evidence to indicate that this man has been steeped in hating everything this country stands for, which explains why Obama is so popular among the extremist far left.

How in the world could people come to the conclusion that a man indoctrinated into the world of hate Wright constructed for his church, could somehow “heal” America’s racist past? That he will “change” this country for the better? I’m sorry, a person doesn’t immerse himself into such a racist world as Wright’s without absorbing some, or all, of the hate and racism he preaches in that world.

We do well to be wary of the lamb-like speech coming from Obama, a man who has as his mentor and spiritual advisor, a pastor who speaks like a dragon.