Mitt Romney told the NAACP on Wednesday that President Obama has made it worse for African-Americans “in almost every way.”
“If equal opportunity in America were an accomplished fact, then a chronically bad economy would be equally bad for everyone,” Romney told the nation’s leading civil rights group at their national convention in Houston, Texas. “Instead, it’s worse for African-Americans in almost every way. The unemployment rate, the duration of unemployment, average income and median family wealth are all worse for the black community.”
While Obama carried the black vote in a landslide in 2008 and leads Romney 92 to 2 percent among black voters, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released on Wednesday, Romney hopes his economic pitch will resonate with a group that has been disproportionately affected by the economic downturn. He’s made a similar appeal to other voting blocs, such as Hispanics and women.
I seem to remember that during the state of the union address given by that a white man, named Joe Wilson dared to call Obama’s bluff during that address and roundly condemned by the press, democrats and even republicans. But yet, black liberals can boo a white man running for President and that’s okay.
It is just another example of the sick liberal poisoned society we live in. It is racist, and the NAACP should be condemned for fostering this sort of hateful mentality among their members.
This is your last chance. If you blow this, I’m out and you need to be destroyed.
What is it? Repeal ObamaCare on Day 1. Don’t worry about replace, don’t worry about anything else. We will do everything we have to drag your sorry asses over the line this fall, including electing Mitt Fucking Romney.
In return this is what you will do:
Instead of adjourning for pictures and tea and cake to celebrate getting your pathetic asses elected to 2 or 6 years on the government teet, you will immediately pass a one line bill that says, “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (and whatever statute number has to be included) is hereby repealed.”
That’s it. Nothing more, nothing less.
Since Congress meets before Inauguration Day, Obama will still be President. Simply hold the legislation at the desk so the 10 day pocket veto clock doesn’t start. If other parliamentary BS is needed, just do it.
Then as soon as Mitt takes the oath of office, before his speech no one will care or remember, walk the bill up to him at the podium to sign.
If this does not happen, the GOP must be destroyed and a new party built to replace it. We’ve tried the carrot approach (votes, money, volunteers) to change your behavior. Now it’s time to show you the stick.
No more, “oh the other guys are worse” scare tactics. That might be true but it doesn’t mean you are any good.
This is your one job, do it or join the Whig Party in the dustbin of history.
I have to say that I do agree with all of the above. This is what happens when Conservatives and Republican settle for what they can get, instead of what they want to elect. I will say this, as the resident skeptical libertarian of the Blogosphere; if you all think that Mittens is going to rip out Obamacare, you are going to be in for a huge let down. Moderates always settle and compromise, they never take a stand, ever.
As I wrote earlier; from now until election day, is going to be very interesting.
Now for what I think: I believe this to be the biggest set back in American freedom since the McCarthy hearings and the red scare of the 1950’s. I guess I should not surprised, the this out of control federal behemoth that we call Government has always valued the idea of a tax on the American people. I will comment on one thing that I read over at the Weekly Standard, that I linked to above:
It is understandable why President Obama has no interest in framing this election as a referendum on Obamacare. His party already suffered perhaps its worst defeat since the 19th century thanks to his centerpiece legislation. With the Supreme Court’s ruling now behind him, he will have even less incentive to remind voters about Obamacare going forward. As far as he’s concerned, the less the American people think about it, the better.
This means, of course, that the more they think about it, the better it will be for Mitt Romney. It also means (of course) that Romney should encourage them to think about it, reminding them at every turn that this election isn’t merely — or even principally — about the economy; that it’s about something bigger; that we need to repeal Obamacare and replace it with real reform. And he should convey to them what real reform would look like, thereby bringing into the fold those independents who don’t want to go back to the pre-Obamacare status quo. He should start playing to win people’s votes, instead of merely trying not to lose them.
Yes, the fate of Obamacare will be the most important outcome of this election. On some level, the American people know this. There’s a reason why Romney gets standing ovations simply for mentioning repeal.
The question is whether either candidate will convey that he knows what this election is really about. Obama can’t say it’s about Obamacare — even though that’s what he considers it to be about — because he’ll lose if he does. Romney so far hasn’t said it’s about Obamacare — perhaps because that’s not what he considers it to be about — even though he’ll likely win if he does.
Regardless, the Court has cleared the field. The stakes are historic. The citizenry will decide.
Yes, and you can bet that Barack Obama will have a army of lawyers to make sure that he remains President too. In fact, that is just what the Boston Globe is reporting:
OLYMPIA, Wash.—President Barack Obama’s campaign has recruited a legion of lawyers to be on standby for this year’s election as legal disputes surrounding the voting process escalate.
Thousands of attorneys and support staffers have agreed to aid in the effort, providing a mass of legal support that appears to be unrivaled by Republicans or precedent. Obama’s campaign says it is particularly concerned about the implementation of new voter ID laws across the country, the possibility of anti-fraud activists challenging legitimate voters and the handling of voter registrations in the most competitive states.
Republicans are building their own legal teams for the election. They say they’re focused on preventing fraud — making sure people don’t vote unless they’re eligible — rather than turning away qualified voters.
Since the disputed 2000 presidential election, both parties have increasingly concentrated on building legal teams — including high-priced lawyers who are well-known in political circles — for the Election Day run-up. The Bush-Gore election demonstrated to both sides the importance of every vote and the fact that the rules for voting and counting might actually determine the outcome. The Florida count in 2000 was decided by just 537 votes and ultimately landed in the Supreme Court.
This year in that state alone, Obama and his Democratic allies are poised to have thousands of lawyers ready for the election and hope to have more than the 5,800 attorneys available four years ago. That figure was nearly twice the 3,200 lawyers the Democrats had at their disposal in 2004.
Romney has been organizing his own legal help for the election. Campaign attorney Ben Ginsberg did not provide numbers but said the campaign has been gratified by the “overwhelming number of attorneys who have volunteered to assist.”
“We will have enough lawyers to handle all situations that arise,” he said.
The GOP doesn’t necessarily need to have a numerical counterweight to Obama’s attorneys; the 2000 election showed that experienced, connected lawyers on either side can be effective in court.
Believe me when I tell you; President Barack Obama and the left have been emboldened by this decision and they will stop at nothing to remain in power. Furthermore, the President knows that if he is to protect Obamacare and everything else he and Congress have worked for; they will have to win the election. So, if you all think that Obama and Co. are just going to let White America, which, by proxy will be represented by Mitt Romney —- roll over them and defeat them, you are crazy. They are now going to be emboldened to, in figurative sense — of course — fight to the death to protect everything that they have worked for in the last 3 years.
Putting it in “Southwest Detroit ghetto” terms: things just got very real. The Republicans must know, the kiddie stuff just ended, and now the real fight is now underway. From today, till election day is going to be a bare knuckle brawl. I just hope that the right; bloggers, writers, news people and the politicos know what they are in for. I also hope they know how to fight it, without getting overly stupid and letting their words and actions get them into trouble. This is not 1957 and if they fight like it is, they will lose and lose badly.
Needless to say, it is going to be a very interesting next couple of months.
Just in case you are not inclined to watch the video, here’s what she said:
“Americans of course responded in very typically American ways to [terrorism], something that many people in the rest of the world had already experienced. We began with a kind of nationalist fervor that was justified as reasonable patriotism.”
“I’d like to point out that we clearly must have been having post-traumatic stress disorder because for about a year after September 11th, there were African-American men walking around the city of New York with N.Y.P.D hats on– that can only be explained as a P.T.S.D. response.”
“The other thing that happens in that moment, I don’t want to miss this, is that a new version of what America typically needs emerge, and that is a racial enemy. Americans in part identify who we are, and who deserves what, through our notions of whiteness and of the racial enemies that are the non-whites.“
“And in this moment, the new racial enemy became not so much Reagan‘s ’welfare queen,’ who was imaginary, but instead this imagined other that is somehow Muslim, or Arab, or Sikh, or something else.”
“We became willing to stomach a kind of horrific racial violence in the name of national security. It is something that we have been willing to stomach as a people over and over again in our history.”
“The Patriot Act was not an act of a Republican president acting alone. The Patriot Act was a bipartisan decision by both parties. It was not bought and paid for by corporations; it was bought and paid for by our fear.”
You see folks, this is why I do not vote for Democrats any longer. I was one of the many who were traumatized by the images of 9/11, which ran continuously; which almost drove me to suicide. For this BITCH to insinuate that I am some how a racist, because I still hold some very deep convictions about 9/11 and those who were responsible for it — is a grievous insult to those who died on that terrible day. This woman should be fucking fired from her job. She just shit on the graves of those who perished that day and just spit in the faces of those who lived through that horrible event.
Unbelievable — just damn unbelievable.
UPDATE: I came back to this posting, because I knew I could do better. I figured some serial complainer would bring up the fact that I even mentioned that this woman was black. Okay, so I removed that — but how is it that this sort of disgusting sort of racism towards whites is even remotely tolerated in public discourse? I mean, if a white man had gotten up and said something similar about blacks or Latinos — or yes, even Jews — this person would be derided as a racist or antisemitic. But, yet, this woman, who happens to be black, can spout this sort of idiotic nonsense and it is just perfectly okay. My friends, something is wrong with this damned Country and I mean in a big way. I predict that 30 years from now, if the socialists continue the way they are going — people will be saying that America actually deserved the 9/11 attacks and that White Christians were the true cause of those attacks. Oh wait, they already do. 😡 I’m sorry, but this one gets me fighting mad. 😡 😡 😡
To which one can only reply, “Why the hell didn’t you do it?
Talk is cheap. If Pelosi’s Congress had actually pursued charges against the very real criminality in the Bush White House and had Rove’s pudgy ass frogmarched down Capitol Hill, it might have made the thieves and scoundrels think twice before embarking on their next caper. And even if it didn’t stop the GOPers, it would have at least made clear Democrats were as willing to fight as hard against the GOP agenda as the left did to put them into a majority.
That they didn’t is at least partly why they’re struggling right now to recapture the enthusiasm of the base.
I have to give the woman credit, when she is right — she is right. The no-nothing Democrats, during Bush’s term is why there was a good deal of lackluster support of the Democrats, during the era of Bush. This is why Obama shot forward, because the Democrats knew that if they did not pick someone like Obama, that they would lose to the Republican again in another election. This is sort of the problem that they have right now; just like during the Clinton era — their President is in trouble and the bench is empty. Except, back then they did have Gore, and Edwards and Hillary and Kerry. Now…. they have nobody at all.
It should be a lesson to them, overreach, when it suits your own political interests is never, ever a good idea. Yes, I know the Republicans have done it too and they paid for it in elections too. Now, it is the Democrats turn. I predict that this election coming in 2012 is going to be a wake up call for the Progressive community and to the Democratic Party. They are going to have to make some tough decisions about the future of that party. Because America is not happy with them, neither is their base. The old way of doing things in that Party is not going to work anymore. They need new ideas. The Democratic Party needs to come back to center and start over. This far-leftist way of doing things as failed and failed badly.
It is time for that party to change, and quickly, before that party is relegated to the dustbin of history.
Here is the best ironic quote since President Obama backtracking on closing Gitmo:
President Obama’s claim that he can refuse to deport 800,000 aliens here in the country illegally illustrates the unprecedented stretching of the Constitution and the rule of law. He is laying claim to presidential power that goes even beyond that claimed by the Bush administration, in which I served. There is a world of difference in refusing to enforce laws that violate the Constitution (Bush) and refusing to enforce laws because of disagreements over policy (Obama).
Under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution, the president has the duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” This provision was included to make sure that the president could not simply choose, as the British King had, to cancel legislation simply because he disagreed with it. President Obama cannot refuse to carry out a congressional statute simply because he thinks it advances the wrong policy. To do so violates the very core of his constitutional duties.
Who wrote this rather lengthy piece on executive overreach? No other than that slant-eyed motherfucker —- John Yoo. Yes, that John Yoo. The goddamned John Yoo who told President George W. Bush that torturing terrorist suspects was just perfectly fine and should be sitting in a jail cell to this very damned day. However, because we have a Democratic Party that has no fucking balls and because the Republican Party still kind of thinks that Neoconservatism is just fucking peachy keen; this little slant-eyed puke is still living as a free man.
It is not only that I object to torture. I detest this ignorant piece of shit for another damned reason. This asshole did more to injure, discredit and bring harm to the Conservative and Republican cause than any of the Neoconservatives, hands down. It was because of this man’s actions; suddenly, everyone — including me at the time — believed that ALL Conservatives and Republican believed that torture of prisoners of war was just perfectly fine. Which I now know is horribly wrong. This man has done more to ruin the image of the political party that still believes in restraint of the fiscal, militarist and some, of the social kind. This man and his idiotic thought process is why I have never, and most like will never send the Republican Party a fucking dime and why I choose to call myself a right-libertarian.
So, in closing: John Yoo, shut the hell up, you slant-eyed fool; because nobody, least of all me — honestly gives two shits what you say, think or even feel. Please, just go back to your damned homeland of South Korea and take your goddamned borderline Communist attitudes about Constitutionality with you sir. Because quite frankly, Americans like myself, find your inane bullshit writings idiotic at best.
…..and I say all of the above, in the best Christian manner than I can muster. You’re welcome.
Signed,
A very proud Constitutionalist and right-libertarian
————————-
I mean, I hate to even write stuff like this, in this blunt of a manner. But, I am reading this guy’s crap on NRO and about into the second paragraph, my freakin’ head is about to explode! 😡
Again, the stupidity of this jack ass and the Iraq War debacle was what got my start in blogging about politics in the first place. So, this posting was a long time coming for me.
If I ever had the chance to meet this young man, I would thank him for his bravery. This man gets it, and he sees that the Democratic Party is totally broken. I saw it in 2007 and decided that I just could not support them any longer. This was way before the huge economic melt down of 2008. After that, the deal was sealed for me. Never again would I vote for that party.
So, my hats off to this man for seeing that too:
And the question of party label in what remains a two team enterprise? That, too, is no light decision on my part: cutting ties with an Alabama Democratic Party that has weakened and lost faith with more and more Alabamians every year is one thing; leaving a national party that has been the home for my political values for two decades is quite another. My personal library is still full of books on John and Robert Kennedy, and I have rarely talked about politics without trying to capture the noble things they stood for. I have also not forgotten that in my early thirties, the Democratic Party managed to engineer the last run of robust growth and expanded social mobility that we have enjoyed; and when the party was doing that work, it felt inclusive, vibrant, and open-minded.
But parties change. As I told a reporter last week, this is not Bill Clinton’s Democratic Party (and he knows that even if he can’t say it). If you have read this blog, and taken the time to look for a theme in the thousands of words (or free opposition research) contained in it, you see the imperfect musings of a voter who describes growth as a deeper problem than exaggerated inequality; who wants to radically reform the way we educate our children; who despises identity politics and the practice of speaking for groups and not one national interest; who knows that our current course on entitlements will eventually break our solvency and cause us to break promises to our most vulnerable—that is, if we don’t start the hard work of fixing it.
I have to agree with the man; he is right. The Democratic Party used Barack Obama to get elected, because they had no one else. They threw off Clinton, because they chose identity politics over experience. You see, I remember 2000 and 2004. In 2000, the Democratic Party used a elitist out of touch buffoon, who could not get elected Mayor of a City; much less a President. Al Gore might have been from the south, but he lacked Bill Clinton’s likeability. In 2004, The Democratic Party ran a out of touch, elitist, limousine Liberal who, again, was seen by most as stiff and not of the people. Which he really is not, John Kerry is an incredibly wealthy man.
So, in 2008, the Democratic Party basically had Clinton, Edwards, Biden and yes, Obama. There were people in the Democratic Party, who did not want the Clintons back in the White House at all. So, the party rallied behind Obama for a number of reasons. Yes, race was one of the bigger reasons. Also too, I tend to believe that there were people, who Clinton “did dirty” back during his term in office and they wanted revenge; and revenge they got.
It was with the election of President Barack Obama that the Democratic Party went from being a party of the “New Left” to being a party of the “Neo-Left.” That was the whole changing of the guard within the Party. Saul Alinsky’s dream was finally realized. This is the change that Artur Davis is referring to and it is one that is only going to drive more and more people away from the Democratic Party and I do not mean just white people. Minorities, including blacks, are going to wake up and see that they being played like fiddles in that party. The quicker the better, if you ask me.
All what I wrote above, Reagan knew, long ago — he saw the changes that were happening behind the scenes and promptly changed his political stance. Mainly because he saw what was coming down the pike. Reagan saw that the Communists were changing tactics and embracing “social justice” as opposed to party loyalty. So, he left and embraced his Midwestern upbringing. The truth is Reagan did not change; The Democratic Party changed and they have since gotten totally worse.
Again, Kudos to Mr. Davis and I hope he comes to embrace what he knows to be right.
Back before I ran my old blog, which was called “Political Byline”; I used to run a blog called “The Populist.” Well, that blog was hacked, either by some people, who call themselves Conservatives or by foreign entities. I suspect the former, but I tend to think it was the latter. Either way, by the time all that happened; I had become totally disillusioned with the Democratic Party. To be fair to myself; I never much did care for the Democratic Party establishment, this especially after the idiotic Clinton Administration’s nonsense. especially during his second term. Plus, as a Christian; I had not forgotten about the Waco incident.
Anyhow, one of reasons for this disillusionment was the Democrat Party’s treatment of our Military. It has been tepid at best. Proof of this, can be seen right here: (H/T NewsBusters)
Quoting this tool:
CHRIS HAYES: Thinking today and observing Memorial Day, that’ll be happening tomorrow. Just talked with Lt. Col. Steve Burke [sic, actually Beck], who was a casualty officer with the Marines and had to tell people [inaudible]. Um, I, I, ah, back sorry, um, I think it’s interesting because I think it is very difficult to talk about the war dead and the fallen without invoking valor, without invoking the words “heroes.” Um, and, ah, ah, why do I feel so comfortable [sic] about the word “hero”? I feel comfortable, ah, uncomfortable, about the word because it seems to me that it is so rhetorically proximate to justifications for more war. Um, and, I don’t want to obviously desecrate or disrespect memory of anyone that’s fallen, and obviously there are individual circumstances in which there is genuine, tremendous heroism: hail of gunfire, rescuing fellow soldiers and things like that. But it seems to me that we marshal this word in a way that is problematic. But maybe I’m wrong about that.
I don’t write this to trash Chris Hayes, but to pose a question to the Conservative Democrats that actually read this blog and yes, I happen to know that a few of you that do, in fact, read here. Could you imagine a Democrat President giving a speech like this here?:
Not only can I not see a Democratic Party President giving a speech like this; but I would tend to believe that FDR would be chased out of the Democratic Party as a warmonger today! This is my issue with the modern-day Democratic Party; it is as if they are “Brothers-in-arms” with those who crashed those planes into the trade center buildings in 2001. The Liberal Democrats in this country have the attitude that the United States of America is the “great capitalist Satan” of the world and somehow or another deserved the attacks on 9/11. Who else has this attitude about America? oh yes! It is the Islāmic terrorists!
This is the reason Chris Hayes cannot call our Military dead Heroic men and women. Because it goes against his entire leftist DNA. Because the left hates our Military, hates the values that our Military stands for and quite frankly hates this Country for what it truly is.
That is the Democratic Party of the 21 century and I want zero to do with it, at all. 😡
The really sad thing is; is that Ron Paul and most, if not all, of the Paleo-Conservative right agree with this guy and his furry Progressive friends. Which is why Ron Paul never, ever be President of the United States. Ron Paul and the Paleoconservatives want to take us back to prior to World War 2 and leave the Jews to Hitler and put the WASP’s back in charge. Sorry guys, we lost that battle. We have to come to the 21 century. The quicker the better, I say.
Update:This liberal blogger comes right out and says it. Hey, at least he is honest about it. Although, I tend to suspect that the irony of what he wrote is lost on him. It is because of the deaths of soldiers past; on battlefields domestic and abroad, he is free to even write that sort of tripe. Again, just another perfect example of why I told the Democratic Party to piss off and voted my principles — and no, I do not mean Republican either. Hell, the Republican Party has not been a true, small Government Conservative Party since Reagan left office and the Neoconservatives took power. Even Reagan was not truly a small Government Conservative either. He believed in small Government; when it was convenient.
Egypt’s National Council for Women is campaigning against the changes, saying that ‘marginalising and undermining the status of women would negatively affect the country’s human development’.
Dr Mervat al-Talawi, head of the NCW, wrote to the Egyptian People’s Assembly Speaker Dr Saad al-Katatni addressing her concerns.
Egyptian journalist Amro Abdul Samea reported in the al-Ahram newspaper that Talawi complained about the legislations which are being introduced under ‘alleged religious interpretations’.
Most people in the US, especially Democrats, believe that the Obama Birther Movement was started by Republicans and or the Tea Party. They believe it is a smear campaign aimed to tarnish the image of their hero of change. But they may be shocked to learn that the Birther Movement was actually started by former President Bill Clinton and Hillary back in 2008.
Bettina Viviano was a vice president with Amblin Enterntainment, Steven Spielberg’s company, before launching her own film production company in 1990. In 2008, Viviano was asked to produce a documentary about voter fraud within the Democratic Party. At the time, she says she was not a Democrat or a Republican and in fact had never voted in an election. She went into the project with the sole purpose of producing the best and most accurate documentary possible.
During the documentary process, Viviano says that she quickly became aware of just how dangerous and insidious the Obama campaign was. A number of the Democrats she interviewed refused to appear on camera and told her that their lives and property had been threatened by people working with the Obama campaign.
She also heard former President Bill Clinton say that Obama was not eligible to be president because of his lack of birth records. In fact, she said it was common knowledge around many top Democrats. Bill Clinton has often said that he would go public with the information when the time was right.
Before that could happen, his close friend and head of the Arkansas Democratic Party, Bill Gwatney was murdered in his office and then someone told Bill that he was next if he said anything about Obama’s eligibility. In the video below, she said that Clinton was not intimidated until someone associated with the Obama campaign told him that his daughter Chelsea would be next if he opened his mouth. From that point on, the Clinton’s remained silent about Obama’s birth certificate or lack thereof.
Normally, I would not give a story like this the time of day; but I put nothing and I mean nothing past Barack Obama. I remember that murder story and at the time, I sort of thought about what was said above, but I figured maybe it was explainable. But, I have to say; no motive? Something stinks here and I believe this might be actually true or at least partially true. I believe an Congressional Investigation into this is warranted, however, I will not hold my breath, least I turn blue and croak.
I really think that it is time that the Republican Party finally grew a pair of gonads and actually started taking this whole eligibility thing seriously. Because if this President actually did this; who is to say that another President, like a Republican one could not do it. An investigation by the FBI should be conducted; unless of course, the FBI is in on it too. Which would have to be, seeing they are the ones who clear someone to be President in the first place.
