Read more over at Hotair.com
I’ve always said, we’ve got two political parties, the war party and the stupid party. Right now, the stupid party is really stupid. 🙄
For this gem of a smack down of Donald Trump: (H/T to Mediaite)
https://youtu.be/weHjxfa4bvA
Shepard Smith is correct, we need NATO, no matter what people like Pat Buchanan might say.
This could be bad for Hillary and the Democrats:
A Democratic Party proposal to amend the party’s platform to include more progressive language around abortion rights has outraged Democrats who oppose abortion, with some saying the issue has cost Hillary Clinton their votes.
The fallout centers around a proposal to repeal long-standing legislation that limits federal funds for abortions, except in cases of rape, incest or life-threatening pregnancies — the so-called Hyde Amendment. Some version of this ban has been included in annual federal spending bills since the late 1970s.
The draft platform says Democrats “will continue to stand up to Republican efforts to defund Planned Parenthood health centers” and “will continue to oppose — and seek to overturn — federal and state laws and policies that impede a woman’s access to abortion, including by repealing the Hyde Amendment.”
Kristen Day, executive director of Democrats for Life, said the progressive language on the platform is making the party smaller. “This platform’s language just says (to abortion opponents) you are no longer welcome,” she said. “This has been the general message pro-life Democrats are receiving across the country.”
Day said ever since the Democratic National Committee released its 2016 platform draft July 1, she has gotten calls from Democrats that oppose abortion and say the language is keeping them from voting for Clinton.
Carol Crossed, 72, a retired elementary school professor from Rochester, N.Y., is one of those Democrats.“
They are pro-choice because they don’t want to be infringing their opinion on others,” she said. “Now their platform says if you don’t like abortions, too bad — you are going to pay for it anyway.” – Source: USA Today Anti-abortion Dems outraged by platform change
You have to understand something here; not all Democrats are pro-choice. There are some Christians, who are very devout to their Church. But, because of their background, they are committed Democrats. I know, I used to be one of those kind of people. So, I see where these people are coming from. I mean, these people are put into a very tough position; they are horrified by what the Republican Party is running for President. But, that the same time, they are also horrified at what the Democrats are doing with abortion.
This is what happens, when a political party goes very far to the left, of what it was founded as. The Democratic Party was not founded as a “Progressive Party” in the modern day sense. It was founded as a populist alternative to the Republican Party of old; which favored the businesses tycoons of old.
Needless to say, both political parties have changed greatly as whole. The Republican Party now has many factions; you have the movement grassroots faction, you have the elitist faction; it is a sight to behold. The Democrats, on the other hand; have become this “progressive socialist” party, that seems to be anti-white, anti-police and it is, quite frankly, unnerving to people like myself, who have a keen sense of history to watch a political party like that shift that far to the left.
The Democratic Party and it’s followers, have embraced a strain of progressivism that is intolerance of dissenting views and wishes to prosecute anyone who dares to disagree with them; either by discrediting them or by violence. This is nothing more than left-wing fascism. It is the hallmark traits of communism. I have always said, since about 2007; that the distance between the Democratic Party and the Communist Party and Communist themselves, used to be the width of the Grand Canyon. Now, with the infiltration of the progressive socialists in that political party; that distance is more like a small city block.
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.
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?
I saw this on Memeorandum and my eyes bugged out. 😯
Via Michelle Alexander at The Nation:
Hillary Clinton loves black people. And black people love Hillary—or so it seems. Black politicians have lined up in droves to endorse her, eager to prove their loyalty to the Clintons in the hopes that their faithfulness will be remembered and rewarded. Black pastors are opening their church doors, and the Clintons are making themselves comfortably at home once again, engaging effortlessly in all the usual rituals associated with “courting the black vote,” a pursuit that typically begins and ends with Democratic politicians making black people feel liked and taken seriously. Doing something concrete to improve the conditions under which most black people live is generally not required.
Hillary is looking to gain momentum on the campaign trail as the primaries move out of Iowa and New Hampshire and into states like South Carolina, where large pockets of black voters can be found. According to some polls, she leads Bernie Sanders by as much as 60 percent among African Americans. It seems that we—black people—are her winning card, one that Hillary is eager to play.
And it seems we’re eager to get played. Again.
It gets better, go read this one. She spares no expense in gutting the Clintons. It’s that good.
Others: Mother Jones, Washington Post and Slantpoint
I figured this was coming:
For the past painful year, the Republican presidential contenders have been bombarding Americans with empty propaganda slogans and competing, bizarrely, to present themselves as the least experienced person for the most important elected job in the world. Democratic primary voters, on the other hand, after a substantive debate over real issues, have the chance to nominate one of the most broadly and deeply qualified presidential candidates in modern history.
Hillary Clinton would be the first woman nominated by a major party. She served as a senator from a major state (New York) and as secretary of state — not to mention her experience on the national stage as first lady with her brilliant and flawed husband, President Bill Clinton. The Times editorial board has endorsed her three times for federal office — twice for Senate and once in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary — and is doing so again with confidence and enthusiasm.
Mrs. Clinton’s main opponent, Senator Bernie Sanders, a self-described Democratic Socialist, has proved to be more formidable than most people, including Mrs. Clinton, anticipated. He has brought income inequality and the lingering pain of the middle class to center stage and pushed Mrs. Clinton a bit more to the left than she might have gone on economic issues. Mr. Sanders has also surfaced important foreign policy questions, including the need for greater restraint in the use of military force.
In the end, though, Mr. Sanders does not have the breadth of experience or policy ideas that Mrs. Clinton offers. His boldest proposals — to break up the banks and to start all over on health care reform with a Medicare-for-all system — have earned him support among alienated middle-class voters and young people. But his plans for achieving them aren’t realistic, while Mrs. Clinton has very good, and achievable, proposals in both areas.
The third Democratic contender, Martin O’Malley, is a personable and reasonable liberal who seems more suited for the jobs he has already had — governor of Maryland and mayor of Baltimore — than for president. Source: Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Nomination – The New York Times
It is basically over now for Barnie; the NYT carries a good deal of weight with the establishment left. I just do not see Barnie Sanders beating Clinton now.
Others: JustOneMinute, Politico, The Daily Caller, Advocate, Business Insider, The Slot, Mediaite, New York’s PIX11, The Week and Washington Post
Seems like the liberal intolerance thing is getting a little close to home now. For what it is worth, Wyandotte, Michigan is about 10 miles to the south of me. This was in the local paper here.
Via News Herald:
Jazmyn Bencik isn’t afraid to speak up when she sees something she perceives as wrong.
That’s exactly what she did recently when she saw something she thought was insensitive against her race.
Bencik saw a member of the Southgate Community Players post a photo of himself titled “Puerto Rico Suave” on Facebook. The theater group was preparing to put on “West Side Story,” which closes this weekend.
Bencik, who at the time was a board member for the Wyandotte Community Theater, thought using white actors to portray Puerto Rican characters was wrong. She was even more offended when she found out several cast members were using spray tans to appear “brown.”
“It’s highly offensive to use excessive spray tan like that,” Bencik said. “It’s the equivalent of using yellow or black face.”
She said she commented on the photo and was nearly immediately attacked for her feelings.
“It was racially insensitive and personally offensive,” she said. “I was told that they weren’t likely to get that many Puerto Ricans to try out for a play in Southgate. Then I suggested they take into account casting difficulties in the future.”
Phillip Rauch, president of the Southgate Community Players, said Bencik’s feelings are off base.
“We don’t use black face,” he said. “We are actors putting on a show. That’s all it is. Using spray tan is nothing more than part of the costume.”
Bencik said she was willing to leave it at that, having spoken her mind. But it didn’t end there for her.
“When I went to practice for our group I was told what I had said was wrong,” she said. “I don’t understand what I did wrong. I was speaking my own opinion.”
She said members of the board told her that she shouldn’t have spoken out on the issue since she was also on the Wyandotte Community Theater board of directors.
“They told me that especially because I was the social media director that I shouldn’t have spoken out,” she said.
That night, Nov. 10, she was removed from having access to the Facebook page for her group. She said she received a letter the next morning notifying her that she was relieved of her duties with the organization.
There you have it folks, liberal intolerance at it’s finest. Jonah Goldberg was on to something:
Southern Future reports:
The American “March of Progress” towards equality ran into a brick wall this week as segregationists won at the polls in the largest city in Dixie. The people of Houston, Texas (which is now just 26% White – down from 62% in 1970 – due to the US policy of demographic displacement) overwhelmingly rejected a broad equality measure pushed by Democratic Party leaders and homosexual activists. Anti-egalitarians focused their campaign on opposition to bathroom integration, supporting traditional sex-based segregation of public bathrooms. The Human Rights Campaign, a Left-wing gay advocacy group, called the vote “a devestating blow to equality.”
This is a good thing, and I am very glad to hear about it. 😀 This is what we are up against folks.
It seems that the “social justice” crowd is at it again, trying to subtly suggest that because Detroit has a white Mayor, that blacks are being discriminated against.
Downtown Detroit has been fashionably in redevelopment and undergoing resurgence since the economic downturn, but not everyone is feeling welcome.
With its shiny new facades on chic eateries, cafes and microbreweries, the bright transformation and new attitude has often been called “New Detroit.” It’s all a point of pride for Mike Duggan, the first white mayor elected in 40 years who took office last year. His efforts ranging from urban landscaping to lowering the crime rate to incubating booming businesses have brought new hope for the Motor City—consistently plagued for decades with scandals, crime and blight.
Yet, many black Detroiters are crying foul, saying Detroit is becoming a tale of two cities; while young, white residents enjoy a stylish, prosperous downtown, black business owners say they are being systematically forced out of business.
Not everyone is buying that little lie however:
Charlie Beckham, Detroit’s Group Executive for Neighborhoods, who invited the first group of business owners to talk, is adamant there is no effort to push out black businesses. Instead, he said, the economy has changed, and people are repositioning.
“There are plenty of successful black business owners doing the right thing. They scratched and saved and paid their workers before they bought the Cadillac,” said Beckham, who has served six mayors since the late Coleman Young, the city’s first black mayor. “The responsibility is on us. When you’ve had a month-to-month lease for 25 years, and you get pushed out of your lease or when you lose your property because you didn’t pay your mortgage or taxes, that’s just bad business.”
Meanwhile, Smith negotiated a lease with new building owners and Spectacles is staying put. Mo’ Better Blues, which in October won a $50,000 Motor City Match grant from the city of Detroit, is celebrating its grand opening in another downtown location on November 7. The Mongos continue to run Café D’Mongo’s Speakeasy, a downtown bar/restaurant.
“We’ve got to tighten up in this new environment,” Beckham said. “Buy the building. Negotiate a strong lease. If the economy goes up or down, you will not get pushed out. Is there still racism? Yes. But we can’t let that be an excuse.”
Here’s what I wrote in the comments section of this story:
Amazing, the same people that are largely responsible for the downfall of my great city are now @!$%#ing because they’re not being allowed to do it again. How quaint.
The truth is, if you don’t have the money to be in business, you shouldn’t be in business to start with! NO ONE is entitled to anything! If you can’t hang with the big dogs, get off the porch!
Racist? No. Racial Realist? Yes.
If you ain’t got the flow to be in business, than take your broke black a$$ on down the road and let someone who does have the building, it is just that simple.
Amazing how blacks think that they’re entitled to everything. This is what happens when you give them special treatment. Give them an inch and they try to take a mile.
I stand behind that comment 100%.