Leftists show their true colors at the news of Nancy Reagan’s passing

This, my friends, is the true colors of the Democratic Party and the leftist base that supports them. This is why I quit voting for them. This is the sort of bile that drove me away from that Party. I was no fan boy of Bush and Co. But, this sort of bile is uncalled for. Which is why I stopped voting for them, supporting them and such.

Check out:  First 30 Minutes: Vile Tweets About Death of Nancy Flow On Twitter – Breitbart

There is no excuse for it, at all. This is why Ronald Reagan left that party.

Update: Seriously Wonkette? I hope the Reagan family sues the crap out of you for this bile.

A brutal take down of the so-called “Conservative Movement”

This is rough, tough, and brutal. I am in agreement with Vox Day on this one, he calls it “Devastating. Absolutely devastating” and he is very much correct. Yes, I know, I have had disagreements with Vox Day in the past. But, on this, he is spot on. (I cannot seem to locate the posts, I may have pulled them.)

This article by a John Kludge over at ricochet basically sums up my feelings as well:

Let me say up front that I am a life-long Republican and conservative. I have never voted for a Democrat in my life and have voted in every presidential and midterm election since 1988. I have never in my life considered myself anything but a conservative. I am pained to admit that the conservative media and many conservatives’ reaction to Donald Trump has caused me to no longer consider myself part of the movement. I would suggest to you that if you have lost people like me, and I am not alone, you might want to reconsider your reaction to Donald Trump. Let me explain why.

First, I spent the last 20 years watching the conservative media in Washington endorse and urge me to vote for one candidate after another who made a mockery of conservative principles and values. Everyone talks about how thankful we are for the Citizens’ United decision but seems to have forgotten how we were urged to vote for the coauthor of the law that the decision overturned. In 2012, we were told to vote for Mitt Romney, a Massachusetts liberal who proudly signed an individual insurance mandate into law and refused to repudiate the decision. Before that, there was George W. Bush, the man who decided it was America’s duty to bring democracy to the Middle East (more about him later). And before that, there was Bob Dole, the man who gave us the Americans with Disabilities Act. I, of course, voted for those candidates and do not regret doing so. I, however, am self-aware enough to realize I voted for them because I will vote for virtually anyone to keep the Left out of power and not because I thought them to be the best or even really a conservative choice. Given this history, the conservative media’s claims that the Republican party must reject Donald Trump because he is not a “conservative” are pathetic and ridiculous to those of us who are old enough to remember the last 25 years.

It is this part here that really sticks out:

Third, there is the issue of the war on Islamic extremism. Let me say upfront that, as a veteran of two foreign deployments in this war, I speak with some moral authority on it. So please do not lecture me on the need to sacrifice for one’s country or the nature of the threat that we face. I have gotten on that plane twice and have the medals and t-shirt to prove it. And, as a member of the one percent who have actually put my life on the line in these wars movement conservatives consider so vital, my question for you and every other conservatives is just when the hell did being conservative mean thinking the US has some kind of a duty to save foreign nations from themselves or bring our form of democratic republicanism to them by force? I fully understand the sad necessity to fight wars and I do not believe in “blow back” or any of the other nonsense that says the world will leave us alone if only we will do that same. At the same time, I cannot for the life of me understand how conservatives of all people convinced themselves that the solution to the 9-11 attacks was to forcibly create democracy in the Islamic world. I have even less explanations for how — 15 years and 10,000 plus lives later — conservatives refuse to examine their actions and expect the country to send more of its young to bleed and die over there to save the Iraqis who are clearly too slovenly and corrupt to save themselves.

The lowest moment of the election was when Trump said what everyone in the country knows: that invading Iraq was a mistake. Rather than engaging the question with honest self-reflection, all of the so called “conservatives” responded with the usual “How dare he?” Worse, they let Jeb Bush claim that Bush “kept us safe.” I can assure you that President Bush didn’t keep me safe. Do I and the other people in the military not count? Sure, we signed up to give our lives for our country and I will never regret doing so. But doesn’t our commitment require a corresponding responsibility on the part of the president to only expect us to do so when it is both necessary and in the national interest?

And since when is bringing democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan so much in the national interest that it is worth killing or maiming 50,000 Americans to try and achieve? I don’t see that, but I am not a Wilsonian and used to, at least, be a conservative. I have these strange ideas that my government ought to act in America’s interests instead of the rest of the world’s interests. I wish conservatives could understand how galling it was to have a fat, rich, career politician who has never once risked his life for this country lecture those of us who have about how George Bush kept us safe.

Donald Trump is the only Republican candidate who seems to have any inclination to act strictly in America’s interest. More importantly, he is the only Republican candidate who is willing to even address the problem. Trump was right to say that we need to stop letting more Muslims into the country or, at least, examine the issue. And like when he said the obvious about Iraq, the first people to condemn him and deny the obvious were conservatives. Somehow, being conservative now means denying the obvious and saying idiotic fantasies like “Islam is the religion of peace,” or “Our war is not with Islam.” Uh, sorry but no it is not, and yes it is. And if getting a president who at least understands that means voting for Trump, then I guess I am not a conservative.

This is what you would call a political smack down and it is about time someone said it. This here too, is something that I high agree with:

Lost in all of this is the older strain of conservatism. The one I grew up with and thought was reflective of the movement. This strain of conservatism believed in the free market and capitalism but did not fetishize them the way so many libertarians do. This strain understood that a situation where every country in the world but the US acts in its own interests on matters of international trade and engages in all kinds of skulduggery in support of their interests is not free trade by any rational definition. This strain understood that a government’s first loyalty was to its citizens and the national interest. And also understood that the preservation of our culture and our civil institutions was a necessity.

I put in bold, underlined and turned that quote red to make a point. This above is what happened to the Conservative movement. It started after Ronald Reagan left office and got really crazy after the election and ultimate defeat of George H.W. Bush. After that, Conservationism went straight loony after that. Conservatives have no one to blame, but themselves. They put in a President, who went soft on taxes, and whom proceeded to usher in the “new world order.” and the Reaganites; which consisted of Fundamentalist Christians, like myself — went running for the hills. They knew then, that they had been duped.

Now, this many years later; along comes Trump and he dares to challenge those in the ivory towers that have created what we have now —- and the vultures are out for blood. They know that the current existing state of affairs in Washington D.C. is being threatened and they are doing everything they can to stop Donald Trump.

The question is, can Donald Trump fight them effectively enough to win the nomination?

Video: Romney Rips Trump, Ryan Ducks

My video comments on this, but first the stories:

On Romney’s ripping on Trump, Politico reports:

Mitt Romney opened a new front in the Republican Party’s civil war on Thursday, going after Donald Trump in a scorched-earth speech that eviscerated the Republican front-runner as lacking the temperament, business record and substantive policies to occupy the White House.

Romney immediately said at the outset of his remarks he would neither endorse a candidate nor announce a third presidential bid of his own. Instead, he focused nearly the entirety of his speech on the urgency of stopping Trump.

 “If we Republicans choose Donald Trump as our nominee, the prospects for a safe and prosperous future are greatly diminished,” Romney warned, speaking at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City.

Trump’s economic policies would lead to a sustained recession, Romney charged. “Isn’t he a huge business success and doesn’t he know what he’s talking about?” Romney asked mockingly. “No, he isn’t, and no he doesn’t.”

“He inherited his business. He didn’t create it,” Romney said. “And what ever happened to Trump Airlines? How about Trump University? And then there’s Trump Magazine and Trump Vodka and Trump Steaks and Trump Mortgage? A business genius he is not.”

On Ryan Ducking, Politico reports:

Mitt Romney’s running mate is staying out of the 2012 nominee’s slugfest with Donald Trump.

Paul Ryan told reporters Thursday that he hadn’t even seen a copy of Romney’s speech denouncing Trump before Romney went public. The speaker said House Republicans would work with “whoever the nominee is.”

Ryan, however, did say he “laughed out loud” when Trump said Ryan would “pay a big price” if he couldn’t get along with the billionaire businessman, if he becomes the GOP presidential nominee.

“Sometimes reality is stranger than fiction these days. I don’t really think anything of it,” Ryan said. “I’m a good-natured guy. I get along with everybody.”

“Mitt and I are very close friends. We have talked about lots of things over the days and weeks,” Ryan added. “But I am not sure exactly what he is going to say. He feels the need to speak out on behalf of the Republican Party.”

My thoughts on these two:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7KSuFxRSW0?rel=0

By the way, I am listening to Chris Christie’s presser. He didn’t resign or withdraw support. He called the presser to answer questions and respond to calls for his resignation. He isn’t resigning.

Why David Duke’s praise could be bad for Donald Trump

This could be bad for Donald Trump. Donald Trump has somehow or another earned the praise by one of the most controversial figures in society. This guy here, the story via BuzzFeed: (H/T to Memeorandum)

The Audio:

The Story:

David Duke, a white nationalist and former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard, is urging the listeners of his radio program to volunteer and vote for Donald Trump.

“Voting for these people, voting against Donald Trump at this point is really treason to your heritage,” Duke said on the David Duke Radio Program Wednesday, referring to Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. “I’m not saying I endorse everything about Trump, in fact I haven’t formally endorsed him. But I do support his candidacy, and I support voting for him as a strategic action. I hope he does everything we hope he will do.”

Duke then urged his followers to call Trump’s campaign headquarters to volunteer.

“And I am telling you that it is your job now to get active. Get off your duff. Get off your rear end that’s getting fatter and fatter for many of you everyday on your chairs. When this show’s over, go out, call the Republican Party, but call Donald Trump’s headquarters, volunteer. They’re screaming for volunteers. Go in there, you’re gonna meet people who are going to have the same kind of mindset that you have.”

Earlier in his broadcast, Duke called Trump’s victories in Nevada and South Carolina a “historic day.”

The American Spectator, who doesn’t seem to be a big fan of Trump says thus:

I would be shocked if Wolf Blitzer doesn’t bring this up in the debate and if he doesn’t then one of his opponents must.

If Trump disavows Duke unequivocally then he’s OK (unless he calls Duke a great guy a few days later). But if Trump dodges the question or hesitates then there’s an opening. The question is which Republican rival will take it.

But given that Trump has gotten away with accusing former President Bush of lying about WMDs and blaming him for 9/11, it’s not beyond the realm of possibility Trump could get away with having Duke’s support in the GOP primaries. So let’s assume Teflon Don survives the praise of David Duke and wins the Republican nomination. You can bet Hillary Clinton will be broadcasting David Duke’s voice to every African-American, Latino and other minority voter in the country from now until election day.

As much as I hate to admit it, that is painfully correct. If Trump does not say something that would disavow Duke’s praise; he could very well lose the general election. Because if there is one thing that the Democrats do well, and that is race issues. Where the Republicans and Conservatives, with the notable exception being the neoconservatives; are more tolerant of people like Duke — the Democrats are not at all. Which is quite ironic, considering the Democrats were the ones who tried to keep blacks from voting, many years ago.

However still, Donald Trump needs to take a firm stand on this and if he wants to be elected, publicly and forcefully reject any sort of endorsement, whether implied or direct, for any sort of group that is commonly associated with bigotry and hatred of any sort at all. If Mr. Trump wants to win the election, this is what he must do and I mean quickly.

Other Blogs: The Hill, Talking Points Memo, RedState, Political Wire, Nashville Scene, Business Insider, American Spectator, Mediaite and The Resurgent

 

Rand Paul calls it a day and goes home

Sad thing, but, I knew it was coming.

The Video is at CNN.

The Story via Politico:

Rand Paul dropped out of the 2016 president race on Wednesday, short on cash and support, two days after finishing with under 5 percent in the Iowa caucuses — less than one quarter of the support his father had drawn four years earlier.

The Kentucky senator, who pitched his libertarian-infused brand of conservatism as transformational for the Republican Party, will exit the national stage and instead run for reelection to the Senate. His moment in the 2016 campaign never materialized.

“Brushfires of Liberty were ignited, and those will carry on, as will I,” Paul said in a statement.

Paul told senior staff about his decision on Tuesday. Other staff were notified Tuesday evening and the entire Paul campaign was told via a conference call on Wednesday morning at about 8:45, according to a campaign source. In that call the Kentucky senator talked about smaller government, continuing his fight for “liberty” and the Fourth Amendment.

For months, Paul struggled to gain traction or garner attention in a race that has been dominated by Donald Trump and Ted Cruz. Paul hadn’t registered in double digits in any national poll since May, after he had led some surveys in 2014 and had been declared the “most interesting man” in Republican politics.

Paul had initially been viewed as a stronger contender than his father, former Rep. Ron Paul, who ran for president in 2008 and 2012 on a narrow libertarian appeal. The younger Paul had hope to build on the libertarian grassroots base that had poured tens of millions of dollars into the elder Paul’s campaigns and expand it to more mainstream Republicans.

In the end, he was able to do neither.

Rand Paul’s biggest problem is that he is not his Father and because of that hardcore Ron Paul supporters are leery of him. Paul also tended to flip-flop a bit. He also was very anti-trump and that did not help him one bit.

Other Blogs: American Spectator, Advocate, Morning Consult, Shot in the Dark, Outside the Beltway, addictinginfo.org, Business Insider, CNN, Maryland Scramble, Vox Popoli and New York Times,

Microsoft to tally up caucus numbers

Drudge is promoting this one big time. Looks like Microsoft is helping out in Iowa.

Anyhow, here’s the story via the Hill:


Microsoft volunteered to provide the technology to help tally up the results of Iowa’s caucus, free of charge. Now it will be put to the test Monday night.

The contests in both parties are expected to go down to the wire. And the spotlight will be on precinct officials who have been trained on a new Microsoft app, which is meant to cut down on human error and speed up the reporting process.

Both the Republican and Democratic parties in Iowa have expressed strong confidence in Microsoft, dismissing late suspicion of corporate influence from the campaign of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) early last week.

Party officials have said no errors have been spotted in caucus dry runs. But the Sanders campaign has created its own backup reporting system, as has the Hillary Clinton campaign.

“It will be interesting to see what happens if and when there are discrepancies between the Microsoft system and either Democratic or Republican campaign tabulations,” Iowa State University professor Mack Shelley said.

Some would say that this smacks of corporate influence in elections. But, I really don’t see that, I mean, it would be worse. It could be the Government involvement. We all know what a disaster Mitt Romney had with that software he used. So, this might be a plus.

The 2016 Presidential Race Begins: Iowa caucuses are today

The first step of the 2016 election starts today.

Video:

The Story via Fox News:

As Iowans prepare to cast the first votes in the presidential nominating process Monday, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders hoped to defy the polls and pull off upset victories in Monday night’s caucuses.

After months of campaigning and more than $150 million spent on advertising, the race for supremacy in Iowa is close in both parties.

Among Republicans, the latest polls show real estate billionaire Donald Trump holding a slim edge over Cruz. Cruz, who became the first major candidate from either party to enter the presidential race 315 days ago, has pinned his hopes to a sophisticated get-out-the-vote operation. Cruz has also modeled his campaign after past Iowa winners, visiting all of the state’s 99 counties and courting influential evangelical and conservative leaders.

“If you had told me 10 months ago that the day before the Iowa caucuses we’d be in a statistcal tie for first place I would have been thrilled and exhilarated,” Cruz told Fox News late Sunday.

The Republican caucus is also the first test of whether Trump can turn the legion of fans drawn to his plainspoken populism into voters. The scope of the billionaire’s organization in Iowa is a mystery, though Trump himself has intensified his campaign schedule during the final sprint, including a pair of rallies Monday.

I predict that Trump will come in first, with Cruz second and Rubio third on the Republican side. On the Democrat side, I think that one could be a surprise. Sanders has a good deal of support, while Hillary has the name and the money. So, that one is a toss. It will be interesting to see to say the least.

Audio: Obama talks about Iowa, Hillary, Sanders and 2016

The full audio:

The Story via Politico:

Barack Obama, that prematurely gray elder statesman, is laboring mightily to remain neutral during Hillary Clinton’s battle with Bernie Sanders in Iowa, the state that cemented his political legend and secured his path to the presidency.

But in a candid 40-minute interview for POLITICO’s Off Message podcast as the first flakes of the blizzard fell outside the Oval Office, he couldn’t hide his obvious affection for Clinton or his implicit feeling that she, not Sanders, best understands the unpalatable pragmatic demands of a presidency he likens to the world’s most challenging walk-and-chew-gum exercise.

“[The] one thing everybody understands is that this job right here, you don’t have the luxury of just focusing on one thing,” a relaxed and reflective Obama told me in his most expansive discussion of the 2016 race to date.

Iowa isn’t just a state on the map for Obama. It’s the birthplace of his hope-and-change phenomenon, “the most satisfying political period in my career,” he says — “what politics should be” — and a bittersweet reminder of how far from the garden he’s gotten after seven bruising years in the White House.

The caucuses have a fierce-urgency-of-now quality as Obama reckons with the end of his presidency — the kickoff of a process of choosing a Democratic successor he hopes can secure his as-yet unsecured legacy, to keep Donald Trump or Ted Cruz or somebody else from undoing much of what he has done. And he was convinced Clinton was that candidate, prior to the emergence of Sanders, friends and associates have told me over the past 18 months.

“Bernie came in with the luxury of being a complete long shot and just letting loose,” he said. “I think Hillary came in with the both privilege — and burden — of being perceived as the front-runner. … You’re always looking at the bright, shiny object that people haven’t seen before — that’s a disadvantage to her.”

He also spoke of Bernie Sanders:

Obama didn’t utter an unkind word about Sanders, who has been respectfully critical of his administration’s reluctance to prosecute Wall Street executives and his decision to abandon a single-payer health care system as politically impractical. But he was kinder to Clinton. When I asked Obama whether he thought Sanders needed to expand his horizons, if the Vermont senator was too much a one-issue candidate too narrowly focused on income inequality, the presidente didn’t dispute the assertion.

Gesturing toward the Resolute Desk, with its spread-winged eagle seal, first brought into the Oval Office by John F. Kennedy, Obama said of Sanders: “Well, I don’t want to play political consultant, because obviously what he’s doing is working. I will say that the longer you go in the process, the more you’re going to have to pass a series of hurdles that the voters are going to put in front of you.”

Then he added: “As you’ll recall, I was sitting at my desk there just a little over a week ago … writing my State of the Union speech, and somebody walks in and says, ‘A couple of our sailors wandered into Iranian waters’” — and here he stopped to chuckle in disbelief — “that’s maybe a dramatic example, but not an unusual example of the job.”

As much as I hate to say it; President Obama is correct about that one. The office of the President of the United States is a very difficult job and it requires someone who can handle the job. While Bernie Sanders might be a respectable person and all; if I were voting in a Democratic Primary, there is no way that I would vote for Bernie Sanders, I would most likely vote for Hillary Clinton. Because she has already been there and she seems, for a Democrat, a bit more reasonable, than Bernie Sanders.

Needless to say, being an ideologue is great; if you are an activist or even maybe a Senator. However, when you are the commander and chief, that is a whole other ballgame and there is a certain amount of pragmatism is required in that office, if you actually want to succeed at the job.  You have to remember, when you are President; you are President of the people of the United States of America, not just the President of the people who voted for you. You have to take into account everyone, not just those who voted for you. This is why I am not too keen on Ted Cruz; he is an extreme ideologue on the right, where Bernie Sander is an extreme ideologue on the left.

This is where I think Donald Trump might just be the more pragmatic candidate, who might just be able to get things done in DC and put aside some of this partisan rancor that has become so terrible under Bush and Obama. Now, if we could just work on his humility and get him to stop retweeting stuff like this here.

Other Bloggers: Vox, The Daily Beast, USA Today, Yahoo Politics, John Hawkins’ Right Wing News, Mother Jones, Talking Points Memo, Hot Air, The Daily Caller, Washington Post, ABC News, Shakesville, Slantpoint and The Week – Via Memeorandum

Not everyone is impressed with Donald Trump

I know I said I would vote for Trump in the primary. But, now, I dunno, after reading this one.

Check out: Patterico’s Pontifications » I Will Never, Ever Vote for Donald Trump: A Rant

It points some serious issues with Trump.

Edited to add: I knew that Trump was a flip flopper, when it came to many issues. It is a valid point to make. Good on Mr. Fry for doing so.