ON Friday night, the nation’s capital was under a tornado watch. And that was the best thing that happened to the White House all week.
As the president was being slapped by Mitt Romney for being too weak on national security, he was being rapped by a Times editorial for being too aggressive on national security.
A Times article by Jo Becker and Scott Shane revealed that the liberal law professor who campaigned against torture and the Iraq war now personally makes the final decisions on the “kill list,” targets for drone strikes. “A unilateral campaign of death is untenable,” the editorial asserted.
On Thursday, Bill Clinton once more telegraphed that he considers Obama a lightweight who should not have bested his wife. Bluntly contradicting the Obama campaign theme that Romney is a heartless corporate raider, Clinton told CNN that the Republican’s record at Bain was “sterling.”
Covering a humorous W. at the unveiling of his portrait, the White House press actually seemed nostalgic for the president who bollixed up Afghanistan, Iraq, Katrina and the economy — a sure sign that the Obama magic is flagging.
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.
This is unreal and it is the same person. Via Patterico:
This dude is obviously off his rocker. Accusing Michelle Malkin’s cousin of “offing herself” and Malkin of covering it up? How sick! 😡
Patrick Asks:
Two questions come to mind as you review these supremely creepy audio clips:
First: why did the caller make that call now? What does he have to gain?
And second: why did Erick Erickson get swatted last night?
Good questions. Although I will say one thing. Glenn Beck warned us; for that, he was called crazy by the left and by some on the establishment right. Andrew Breitbart warned us too. That this sort of stuff was coming and some dismissed it as fear-mongering. It is not. This is what happens when the left begins to lose the war of ideas; this is what happens when leftist fascists see that they have lost control of the conversation. This is what happens, when Liberals see their President weakened and losing the election. They stoop to this sort of a level.
My advice is simple. Girt your loins, arm yourselves. Prepare for the worst. Keep your faith; if you are truly saved and washed in the Blood of Christ Jesus the Lord. The Devil and his minions on the left cannot destroy you, unless God gives them permission. Let me assure you, that if the Lord continues to tarry, this will only get worse. The left knows no honor any longer and they will stop at nothing to destroy those who disagree with them. As the Christians who were fed to the lions and destroyed; we are standing for that which we know is right. The blessings will come in the life to come.
It is scary, I will admit that, but we must not fear them; that is what they want. They want to silence the right, they want to see the Conservative/libertarian opinions silenced; they want control — just like Al-Qaeda did in 2001. We must not allow that to happen. We are Americans, we have looked in the face of tyranny before and said, “This shall not stand!” We did this in 1941, we did this in 2001 and we can and will do it again. We have the truth, we have the facts and we are right; and they are wrong. We will not submit to their fear.
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.
My friends, this below is the most likely the best article ever written about true Conservatism and the Republican establishment. It is really worth the click through and the read.
It should come as no surprise that the Republican National Committee has been “covertly” supporting Mitt Romney throughout the primaries, as POLITICO recently “revealed.” It was the worst-kept secret in Washington
The RNC has always been the center of Republican insiderism — what the insiders call pragmatism. Consider, back when Roger Stone was at the Young Republicans, in 1975, he hung up a portrait of Ronald and Nancy Reagan in his office. Within hours, the order came down from the chairman’s suite: Take the picture down. At once.
(****)
Many conservatives have, in fact, decided that their beliefs have become permanently inconsistent with Republicanism. This may be more apparent in 2012 than ever before. No offense to Romney, but he is the perfect nominee for the Republican Party in 2012 because he — like the GOP — has adopted a variety of positions over the years in order to acquire power. The Etch A Sketch comment was stunningly accurate.
The “lesser of two evils” argument is now settling over the landscape. Perhaps. The “conservatives have no place else to go” storyline is being pushed. Maybe.
On the other hand, some conservatives now view this election as a clear Hobson’s Choice or possibly a Morton’s Fork. One choice is bad or nothing; the other between two bad options.
Conservatives should be clear-eyed, though. The job of the Republican Party is to deceive conservatives into handing over their support. This does not mean that conservatives can’t arrive at the conclusion that this choice is between the lesser of two evils.
In this writers opinion, the Republican Party has not been a real Conservative party since around the time that Senator Berry Goldwater decided that the lobbyists were a bit too much and decided to not run for another term. Since that time, anyone who dared run as a true conservative, like Pat Buchanan; has been cast as an extremist, a racist, an anti-Semite and so on. Only reason Ron Paul lasted as long as he did, is because he was the only person in that part of Texas that actually could get elected. Besides that, Ron Paul’s supporters in his district know him well and have voted for him for years. That is because his district is filled with true Conservative Christians.The reason why Ron Paul never got elected is because the Neoconservatives or the Rockefeller Republicans have controlled the Republican for many years.
Either way, the article is great and it tells the truth about the Republican Party. Sad thing is, the Republican Party will never change; this is why Sarah Palin was quickly kneecapped. She was running against the Republican establishment in Alaska and when you that, you pay the price; same goes for Paul, Buchanan, and many others. I will not be voting for Obama, that is for sure. But, I will not be voted for a RHINO like Mitt Romney. He is very much a Republican establishment candidate — or as I like to call him, George W. Bush — with really nice hair. 😛
Needless to say, I am voting libertarian; because I am not about to be blamed for either of these piss poor excuses for Presidential Candidates, least of all the one who claims to be a Conservative.
First off, let me say this; I do not believe that the Tea Party movement itself was racist at all. In fact, it never was a centralized movement. In most movements, like the Tea Party movement; there will be people who do things that do not represent the movement as a whole.
A quick search of Google Images brings up quite a few racist signs and images:
and this is not racist Michelle? (even though it is misspelled...)And this is not racist?
Here is the one that really bothered me, and this dude ended up in jail for this too:
A "Death to Obama" sign... But, that's not racist, so says Michelle Malkin
Nope, No racism here! Only thing missing here is the N-word and that makes okay, according to Michelle Malkin
This image was used on signs and passed around in e-mails, by Tea Party supporters. (I know, I used to see it on facebook and in e-mails I would get from other Tea Party supporters. That until I told the idiots to quit sending me racist crap like that….)
But this is not racist according to Michelle Malkin (Willful blindness much Michelle?)
Again, let me be clear; I am not calling the entire Tea Party movement racist as a whole, that is collectivism and this blogger is not a collectivist. In other words, I do not dismiss the movement in it’s entirety, as racist; but I will say that there were people who were carrying racist signs, not to mention doing stuff like this:
This is Chris Broughton, and yes, he is black, and he is a Ron Paul fan and yes, he was carry an assault rifle at a Obama event. My question is why? I think I know the reason and I think you do too. But, the Tea Party is just peaceful people... Most of them anyhow...
My point to this posting is this; The OWS crowd are a violent group and yes it does include anarchists, who do try and blow up bridges. However, the Tea Party is not without its own individual nuts and looney tunes, who did bring a tarnish to the good name of the Party. Not to mention all of the infighting that went on with various groups.
However, my more intellectual point is this; to what end was all of this even done? I mean, the Republican Party did not change one wit. Oh sure, there were a few Senators who were elected as result of the grassroots surge. However, the Republican Party’s coronation of a Mormon George W. Bush is telling; and let me tell you something, if you think for one second that Mitt Romney is going to rip out Obamacare, you are crazy. Oh sure, he will remove the mandate and anything else that seems to infringe on basic American rights. However, I do not believe that he will remove the entire package.
Which makes me have to really wonder aloud, what exactly did the Tea Party accomplish; outside of the rhetorical flourishes? Absolutely nothing. Government is still there and it is still imposing upon our basic human rights. All of those borderline racist signs, all of the verbal clashes, all of the excitement were for naught.
This was not to hurt Michelle Malkin herself; but it was to point out the Republican/Conservative/Fox News/Sean Hannity right’s willful blindness to the racism of the Tea Party — which was, and is still there very much so, to this very day.
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’.
It seems that Samantha Power has gotten a new job.
“Yid with a Lid” reports:
Only Barack Obama! Today the President tried to show he was a friend of the Jews with a beautifully crafted speech Holocaust Museum. Showing his words mean nothing, also today Samantha Power began work today as chair of President Barack Obama’s new Atrocities Prevention Board. If you don’t remember Ms Power she once called for a US force to invade Israel and force through a “peace settlement.” Powers also had some unflattering things to say about about America’s Jewish population during the 2008 campaign
How long do you think it will be before Powers uses that board as tool to de-legitimize Israel?
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.
One reason I think this discussion is so important is because the manipulation of the term “terrorism” this way permits and bolsters (even if unintentionally) an extremely ugly, destructive, and toxic worldview, one which the Editor-in-Chief of Commentary Magazine, John Podhoretz, vividly expressed last night on Twitter when discussing the firing of Keith Olbermann by Current TV:
That’s about as overtly racist a statement from a media figure with a platform as you’ll see (and the it’s-just-a-joke excuse is obviously irrelevant: just imagine analogous “jokes” about how disfavored journalists would be punished at The Jerusalem Post, or Black Entertainment Television, etc.). To Podhoretz, Al Jazeera is filled with Arabs and Muslims, which means: The Terrorists (for many years after 9/11, that was virtually official U.S. governmentpolicy). Podhoretz is the same person who wrote a New York Post column in 2006 lamenting that in the early stages of the Iraq War, “we didn’t kill enough Sunnis in the early going to intimidate them and make them so afraid of us they would go along with anything,” suggesting that the big U.S. mistake in the war was allowing “the survival of Sunni men between the ages of 15 and 35.” Remember, though: it’s those Muslims who are The Terrorists (when influential American “terrorism experts” start talking about the John Podhoretzes of the world as terrorism advocates, and about “Shock and Awe“, the assault on Fallujah and the bombing of Gaza as terrorism, and about Ronald Reagan as a “state sponsor of terrorism” for his funding of El Salvadoran death squads and Nicaraguan contras, and about the parties responsible for the assassination of Iranian civilian scientists as international terrorists, then I’ll start to take the honorific more seriously).
I have no doubt that most respected “terrorism experts” would find Podhoretz’s comment about Al Jazeera repugnant. But the mentality on display here — and it’s quite pervasive (which is why this is one of the few remaining forms of overt bigotry that provokes no real sanction) — finds nourishment in the constant discussion of Terrorism, the Supreme Evil, as: acts of violence by Muslims directed at us (but not violence by our own government or those of its allies directed at Muslims).
The above is exactly why the libertarian crowd hates the Zionist crowd with a passion. This is why I am not a huge fan of John Podhoretz and his ilk. It is because they can make statements like this, without any repercussions. If someone, who is not a Zionist made a similar statement about Israel and Jews; they would be excoriated from one end of the blogosphere to the other. Mr. Glennwald has a very good point and I think everyone on the Jewish Conservative side of the political isle, ought to take a hard look at this and take it very seriously. If the Zionists want respect, they have to learn to respect others. Because not all Arabs out there are terrorists; just like not all blacks are murders, robbers, and so forth —- not all white people are robe and hood carrying Klansman. Some black liberals might think that, but I digress. Furthermore, not all Jews are evil bankers trying to overthrow the Country. See? It goes both ways. Someone needs to tell Podhoretz to keep his damned bigotry towards Arabs to himself.
Also too; anyone who believes that Jews can be insulted like this, and can get away with it —- ought to have a nice long talk — with Rick Sanchez.
Just a thought.
Cookie Consent
We use cookies to improve your experience on our site. By using our site, you consent to cookies.
Used to monitor number of Google Analytics server requests
10 minutes
__utmb
Used to distinguish new sessions and visits. This cookie is set when the GA.js javascript library is loaded and there is no existing __utmb cookie. The cookie is updated every time data is sent to the Google Analytics server.
30 minutes after last activity
__utmc
Used only with old Urchin versions of Google Analytics and not with GA.js. Was used to distinguish between new sessions and visits at the end of a session.
End of session (browser)
__utmz
Contains information about the traffic source or campaign that directed user to the website. The cookie is set when the GA.js javascript is loaded and updated when data is sent to the Google Anaytics server
6 months after last activity
__utmv
Contains custom information set by the web developer via the _setCustomVar method in Google Analytics. This cookie is updated every time new data is sent to the Google Analytics server.
2 years after last activity
__utmx
Used to determine whether a user is included in an A / B or Multivariate test.
18 months
_ga
ID used to identify users
2 years
_gali
Used by Google Analytics to determine which links on a page are being clicked
30 seconds
_ga_
ID used to identify users
2 years
_gid
ID used to identify users for 24 hours after last activity
24 hours
_gat
Used to monitor number of Google Analytics server requests when using Google Tag Manager
1 minute
_gac_
Contains information related to marketing campaigns of the user. These are shared with Google AdWords / Google Ads when the Google Ads and Google Analytics accounts are linked together.
