Tag: progressive

The Obama Administration’s useful idiots and water carriers

First of all, before you read my screed; go read Ed Morrissey’s. He puts it a bit better than I will. 🙂

Quote:

When Jay Carney was grilled at length by Jonathan Karl of ABC News over an email outlining administration talking points in the wake of the 2012 Benghazi attack, it was not, by the reckoning of many observers, the White House press secretary’s finest hour. Carney was alternately defensive and dismissive, arguably fueling a bonfire he was trying to tamp down.

But Carney needn’t have worried. He had plenty of backup.

He had The New Republic’s Brian Beutler dismissing Benghazi as “nonsense.” He had Slate’s David Weigel, along with The Washington Post’s Plum Line blog, debunking any claim that the new email was a “smoking gun.” Media Matters for America labeled Benghazi a “hoax.” Salon wrote that the GOP had a “demented Benghazi disease.” Daily Kos featured the headline: “Here’s Why the GOP Is Fired Up About Benghazi—and Here’s Why They’re Wrong.” The Huffington Post offered “Three Reasons Why Reviving Benghazi Is Stupid—for the GOP.”

It’s been a familiar pattern since President Obama took office in 2009: When critics attack, the White House can count on a posse of progressive writers to ride to its rescue. Pick an issue, from the Affordable Care Act to Ukraine to the economy to controversies involving the Internal Revenue Service and Benghazi, and you’ll find the same voices again and again, on the Web and on Twitter, giving the president cover while savaging the opposition. And typically doing it with sharper tongues and tighter arguments than the White House itself.

via Progressive Bloggers Are Doing the White House’s Job – NationalJournal.com.

The sad part is, I used to be a part of that side of the fence and yes, I even used to read those blogs. What did it for me was when I began to see that the left was not about objectivity; but rather about propaganda.  Heck, even about Bush they were known to lie and distort the truth. The truth is about Iraq; is that Bush invaded, based upon the intelligence that he had at the time; and he didn’t “trust, but verify.” The truth is, our Government just assumed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, this was because the inspectors and our Government were being given the run around by Saddam and his Government. Now in hindsight, this was a bad choice, by Bush and Congress, of course. However, that is a far cry from Bush actually knowingly lying and allowing four thousand America servicemen to die. My point is that is what the left says about Bush, all the time.

So, now that Obama is in the White House, things switched up. They are in defensive mode of the President. The progressive blogosphere is really the White House’s useful idiots. The White House uses them, but, they keep them at a distance. The reason is, because the White House doesn’t like it, when they have the gall to actually criticize the President, which does happen from time to time. The sad part is that it is really for nothing at all. You think the Democrats or the progressive Blogosphere actually accomplished anything? Heck no! They did not stop the Iraq War. They never got Bush impeached. So, really, the Leftist blogosphere is a joke, in my opinion. Not to mention that they are really a hate-filled group, that defends things that I simply cannot; which is why I left them for good.

Just my opinion.

Other Bloggers, both sides, your milage may vary: The Democratic Daily, CANNONFIRE, No More Mister Nice Blog, Hot Air, The Daily Caller and Hullabaloo

Progressive Obama apologist blogger attacks Sharyl Attkisson

There are no depths or limits that these progressives jerks will not go to, just to defend that marxist moron in the White House.

Via Gateway Pundit, who I rarely, if ever, link to anymore for some very good reasons. But this one warrants mentioning:

Josh Marshall, the editor and publisher of the leftists media site Talking Points Memo, attacked former CBS News reporter Sharyl Attkisson in an article published Monday morning that reeks of sexism.

Attkisson is in the news for her interview with CNN on Sunday in which she revealed that the Democratic Part front group Media Matters for America helped produce news reports for CBS News.

Attkisson also speculated that Media Matters is being paid by donors to wage an attack campaign against her over her reporting that was critical of the Obama administration.

Marshall’s article is headlined How To Make Yourself Sound Nuts 101.

As every feminist knows, the quickest way for a man to dismiss an inconvenient woman is to question her sanity in public.

Marshall insinuates that Attkisson is paranoid because she claimed her computer was hacked. Then after noting her speculation about Media Matters, Marshall says she has,“serious temperament issues.”

Ah, yes, the woman doesn’t know that her place is being subservient to the Soviet States of Obama.

Marshall closes his sexist hit piece with a sneering reference to the Ingrid Bergman film, Gaslight, in which Bergman is slowly driven crazy by her murderous husband by his surreptitious adjustment of the gaslights in their home, among other devices he employs to drive her around the bend.

“Again, if Media Matters’ intention was to gaslight her, they appear to have succeeded in spades.”

Despicable.

This, my friends, is how far the left has gone amuck. If they cannot win the argument against the Conservatives, they stoop to attack them and try to discredit them. I ought to know; I was once among that crowd, and I once did this very sort of a thing towards the right, when I ran my first blog.

I knew it would happen; back in 2007, when I saw Barack Obama jumping ahead in the primary and when I saw how the others were being taken off the ballots, due to some of the stupidity in the State of Michigan, I knew it was coming. I knew that the media was going into the tank for Obama and I knew that the left wing blogosphere would follow and they did.

The Democrats and the progressive blogosphere knew that they could not stop the Iraq War. So, they did the next best thing. They got behind a black man and used that to win the White House. They will do anything to defend him from any sort of a legitimate attack. if playing the race card does not work. They will use this sort of demeaning attack towards women. Because this how the progressive left works, this is their game. The problem is, you have neoconservative bloggers, who do the same very thing. Which is sad, because the right is supposed to be different.

This goes well beyond right versus left; this is about the left protecting something that they worked hard to get; and defending it has no boundaries. What will be interesting to see, is if Hillary gets the nomination; how these same people will cry “Sexist!” if someone goes after Hillary during the primary and/or the general election in 2016.

UPDATE: I just wanted to add some more to this post. There was a time when I actually respected Josh Marshall. His work during the Bush administration era was excellent. However it seems now that Obama is in office, Josh Marshall has taken to writing partisan hit pieces.

I also want it be known, that I normally don’t go around tossing the sexiest card. Because I’m not much into identity politics when it comes to females, nor do I believe in special treatment of the fairer sex. However, this piece by Josh Marshall goes well beyond that. This piece was nothing more than a slander piece against a professional journalist, who happens to be a female.

Josh Marshalls wordage in this piece was nothing more than a flagrant slam against someone of whom he disagrees with politically. It was juvenile, it was uncouth, it was libelous, and it could very well get him sued. Again, I am NOT into tossing around entitlement cards or using wordage like sexist, racist, or anti semetic. However, this piece went overboard in a big way and I think Josh Marshall should be ashamed of himself and apologize to this woman for what he wrote.

Chuck Baldwin on Piers Morgan’s leaving CNN and others

I have disagreed and even let this guy have it in the past for things that he is written. But when he’s right…. he’s right.

Quote:

What I am about to say, I rarely, if ever, say about anyone–even those folks with whom I vehemently disagree. I’ve never allowed myself to let my portion of the public debate get personal. But in the case of Piers Morgan, I am willfully backsliding.

Piers Morgan is an oaf of the highest order. He is a boorish braggart, a wanna-be tyrant, and an overall pompous ass. It was British snobs like Piers Morgan that incited the Colonists to revolt. Just looking at Morgan–as he smugly peered down his nose at us freedom-loving Americans–made me want to go to war with Great Britain all over again.

Now it appears that Piers Morgan will be off the airwaves soon–at least during primetime on CNN. All I can say is GOOD RIDDANCE. I also find it amusing that while Piers Morgan is riding off into the sunset, Alex Jones continues to broadcast all over the place. The Colonists won again. Oohrah!

via Chuck Baldwin — Thoughts On Piers Morgan, Alec Baldwin, Jay Leno, Mel Gibson, The National Media, And Political Correctness.

I guess a broken clock is right once a day. Check out the column, it is quite good.

 

Trader Joe’s drops plan to build store in Portland, Oregon because of black racism

No, this isn’t a joke.

This story comes via TopConservativeNews.com, who notes the following:

Notice that it is perfectly acceptable for black people to oppose the demographic change of their neighborhood. If the races had been reversed, the national media would be screaming “RACISM!”

Consider this statement from the Portland African American Leadership Forum. They “remain opposed to any development in N/NE Portland that does not primarily benefit the Black community.” This would be a national controversy if the races were reversed. They would be denounced as the Ku Klux Klan.

The story via AP:

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — The Trader Joe’s grocery-store chain has dropped a plan to open a new store in the heart of the city’s historically African-American neighborhood after activists said the development would price black residents out of the area.

 

The grocer, whose stores are found in urban neighborhoods across the nation, said Monday it wouldn’t press its plan, given community resistance, The Oregonian (http://bit.ly/1n7Jyqb ) reported.

“We open a limited number of stores each year, in communities across the country,” it said in a statement. “We run neighborhood stores, and our approach is simple: If a neighborhood does not want a Trader Joe’s, we understand, and we won’t open the store in question.”

The Portland Development Commission had offered a steep discount to the grocer on a parcel of nearly two acres that was appraised at up to $2.9 million: a purchase price of slightly more than $500,000. The lot is at Northeast Alberta Street and Northeast Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard and has been vacant for years.

So, why did Trader Joe’s decide not to build there, well for two reasons:

Critics said the development would displace residents and perpetuate income inequality in one of the most rapidly gentrifying ZIP codes in the nation.

…and the biggest reason? This:

The Portland African American Leadership Forum said the development commission had in the past made promises about preventing projects from displacing community members but hadn’t fulfilled them.

It sent the city a letter saying it would “remain opposed to any development in N/NE Portland that does not primarily benefit the Black community.” It said the grocery-store development would “increase the desirability of the neighborhood,” for “non-oppressed populations.”

Mayor Charlie Hales and the urban renewal agency’s executive director, Patrick Quinton, signed a letter in January that described what they said was the commission’s contributions “to the destructive impact of gentrification and displacement on the African American community.“

Translation:

We don’t want no honkeys in our neighborhood! If you ain’t black, we don’t want your business here!

Now, could you imagine, if a business, who was owned by a black man, wanted to open a store, say in like Troy, Michigan or Rochester Hills, Michigan; which are, for what it is worth, predominantly upper middle class/wealthy class, white neighborhoods and a group of white people starting complaining about it and starting saying that it would cause the neighborhood to go into decline? Man, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson would be all over it!

There would huge protests and it would be all over the media. However, because this is a black thing, and the company is white owned; it is no big deal, nothing to see here, move along. 🙄

This is why I continue to run this blog; regardless of the fact that I make little or nothing on this blog at all, despite the fact that I make little or nothing on this blog, since Google Adsense dropped me. Because this sort of stuff is NOT reported by the national media; least of all by MSNBC and CNN. Fox News most likely will not touch it either, because of the taboo subject.

Furthermore, I believe that the Conservative right just will not touch this one; because they are afraid of being called racists. I do not have such issues. I simply do not care what blacks really think of me; least of all black liberals. Considering what happened to my cousin and myself; I think I’ve earned the right to point this stuff out.

By the way; these are Obama’s people and don’t you ever forget it. 😡

 

Memo to Cass Sunstein: Paranoid This, Dillhole!

This sort of crap right here is what really burns my butt.

Via Reason’s Hit and Run Blog:

The specter of “paranoid libertarianism” continues to haunt American liberals. Hot on the heels of Sean Wilentz’s recent fretting in The New Republic that Edward Snowden, Glenn Greenwald, and Julian Assange have undermined the case for big government by drawing too much attention to various instances of big government malfeasance, former Obama administration official Cass Sunstein has now weighed in with his own contribution to the genre, an op-ed titled “How to Spot a Paranoid Libertarian.”

According to Sunstein, paranoid libertarianism is characterized by such pathologies as “a presumption of bad faith on the part of government officials–a belief that their motivations must be distrusted,” as well as “a belief that liberty, as paranoid libertarians understand it, is the overriding if not the only value, and that it is unreasonable and weak to see relevant considerations on both sides.”

Sunstein tries very hard to make that sound like dangerous and exotic stuff, but in fact what he’s really describing is mainstream American jurisprudence when it comes to such vast areas of the law as free speech, voting, abortion, privacy, and gay rights. In those areas, our judicial system basically operates exactly as Sunstein describes: it subjects government regulations to what lawyers call strict (or intermediate) scrutiny. In essence, judges presume that the government has acted illegitimately when it legislates in such areas, and therefore forces the government to shoulder the burden of proof and justify its actions with extremely convincing rationales. Why do the courts place these government actions under the microscope? To protect the people’s liberty to speak, vote, associate, and enjoy various forms of privacy. One more thing: American liberals overwhelmingly favor this approach in such cases.

Politically, I consider myself a paleoconservative, rather than a libertarian. However, I do harbor a deep mistrust of my Government; and I have since 9/11. My mistrust of the Government proceeded Barack Obama. I was one of the wise people, who knew for a fact, that absolutely nothing would change in Government, with a change of political parties.

So, Cass Sunstein can take his or her, (I don’t know which) condescending, elitist, attitude towards those of us who still believe in civil rights, liberty and the Constitution of the United States of America and shove it where the sun doesn’t shine! 😡

As the writer I quoted above said, much of what this Sunstein, which sounds like a Jewish last name, by the way —- is disparaging, is a staple among liberals, who actually care about such things, such as civil rights and the like. Funny how that works, isn’t it? How ironic is it, that some immigrant from a nation of jewelers would take a swipe at true American values, such as liberty.

It is this sort of idiocy, that fuels people like David Duke and his ilk; and rightfully so. What more can one expect from the same group of people, who put the Savour of this World, The Lord Jesus Christ on the cross?

 

 

MSNBC’s Phil Griffin is full of it

As you all know, since the 2012 elections, I have been in a bit of a funk, when it comes to blogging about politics. Well, this little story here has, at least for a few moments snapped me out of that funk. In other words, put your seatbelts on; because I am about to let it rip!

MSNBC’s Phil Griffin is so full of crap, that it literally should be oozing out of his ears! Check out what this douche canoe said in an interview with the New Yorker: (H/T HotAir.com)

In his office Griffin insists: “I think we’ve never had an ideology. An ideology is a single thought across all programs. We’ve never had that.” As evidence, he mentions the spirited on-air debates in 2010, pro and con, concerning whether the Bush tax cuts should be allowed to expire. “Obviously I hire people who fit the sensibility,” Griffin says. “We do stay true to facts. You have to build your argument. That’s why I call it a sensibility.” …

As for Fox News, “I think they do have an ideology,” Griffin says, “because every Republican who’s in trouble goes on that network to be taken care of…They’re owned by News Corp., which is Rupert Murdoch. Roger Ailes runs it, and he comes out of the Republican Party.” Griffin adds: “That’s fine. They’ve done an incredible job over there. They’ve been very successful. They drive a lot of the conversation.”

They must pay that man a whole bunch of money to sit there and lie like that with a straight face. Here is the straight truth about that they are biased, a good deal and they proved it in 2008 and in 2012. I know this for a fact; because I used to watch that network, back when it had a shred of credibility.

As most people know, that read this blog on a regular basis; I was not always a Paleoconservative. I, at one time, was a left-of-center and pretty much a Democratic Party voter — albeit a very skeptical one. I voted for Gore in 2000, I voted for John  Kerry in 2004. My Dad is a retired general motors employee and a card-carrying member of the UAW. My family basically would be considered Roosevelt/Truman/Kennedy Democrats. Although my Mother did vote for Reagan the first time in 1980.

After a year of basically writing as a left of center, and admittedly carrying water for the Anti-Bush movement on my blog called the Populist; I really began to see that the Democratic Party was, quite frankly, losing it’s mind. The whole anti-Bush movement was becoming a parody of itself and quite frankly, accomplishing nothing at all.

Furthermore, I began to see in 2008 that MSNBC, a network that I watched regularly, go straight into the tank for Barack Obama, when he was running for President. In fact, this became such an issue for me, that it got to the point where I could not stand watching the network any longer.  This was right around the time of Keith Olbermann’s infamous “Shut the hell up!” moment.

My questions for Phil Griffin are these:

  1. If your network is not following a political agenda, why did they cancel Tucker Carlson’s show?
  2. If your network is not following some sort of a political agenda, why did you sack Keith Olbermann for continuing to pursue in getting the Iraq War stopped and for criticizing the Obama Administration’s continuing of Bush polices that do trample on civil rights?
  3. If your network is not pursuing a political agenda, why did Pat Buchanan get sacked from your network as a commentator?
  4. If your network is not pursuing a political agenda, why is there not a Conservative with a show on MSNBC?

I have a shiny dollar bill that says that Mr. Griffin cannot and will not answer these questions.

The truth is that after Tim Russert died, MSNBC went from a mildly passive left of center stance to an “All-in” proactive, progressive stance with little or no objectivity at all. Anyone who believes anything other than this, is either an idiot or wildly misinformed. I ought to know, I used to watch that silly network.

This posting about Obamacare by a liberal progressive blog is very telling

It is very telling about the mentality of the progressive left towards anyone, who has any sort of money or success.

Quote:

I see the New York Times has published yet another article about very privileged people whining about the ACA.

In this case, said article features a couple making $100,000 a year who, under the ACA, will be paying $1,000 a month for health care covering themselves and their two sons. Take it away, Dean Baker:

Here they are with a front page story telling us about the tragic situation of the Chapmans, a New Hampshire couple making $100,000 a year who will have to spend $1,000 a month for insurance with Obamacare. This would come to 12 percent of their income. The piece tells readers:

“Experts consider health insurance unaffordable once it exceeds 10 percent of annual income.”

That’s interesting. If we go to the Kaiser Family Foundation website we find that the average employee contribution for an employer provided family plan is $4,240. The average employer contribution is $11,240. That gives us a total of $15,470. Most economists would say that we should treat the employers payment as a cost to the worker since in general employers are no more happy to pay money to health insurance companies than to their workers. If they didn’t pay this money as health insurance then they would be paying it to their workers in wages.

A couple of years ago, when my ex-husband and I were paying for health insurance under COBRA, we were shelling out something like $1,200 a month for just the two of us — and we were making far less than 100K a year. In fact, we were earning more like half that.

Enough already. In the real world we live in, $1,000 a month for good health insurance for a family of four in the top quintile of U.S. household income is pretty damn good. Upper middle class people, quitcher whining already — and New York Times, please stop enabling this nonsense.

via The New York Times and the ACA: the yuppie whine-athon continues by Kathleen Geier | Political Animal | The Washington Monthly.

I say it is telling, because it is the flawed mentality of the progressive left. Anyone who does not accept the idea that Obamacare is the perfect solution the problems of our Nation’s healthcare system are derided as whiners. Which is, in my opinion, a bunch of bullcrap.

This healthcare fix, was nothing short of a disaster. But, to this Obama apologist, the “yuppies” or those who actually work for living; ought to just shut and take what they’ve gotten. It is a flawed mentality and it will cost the Democrats votes in 2014 and 2016; I can assure you of that one.

I think it goes without saying; but this Democratic Party of my grandparents, and even of my parents era — is not the Democratic Party of today. Heck, this modern post-2008 Democratic Party is not even the same party that I voted for in 2000 and in 2004. Needless to say, I will not voting for that party any longer. Because the Democratic Party and the progressive movement as a whole, have proven to me, that they really do not give a darn about those of us, who usually want to work and those of us, who would like our own personal freedoms. It is a sad thing to say about a party, that Ronald Reagan once called the honorable party.

Needless to say, that honor left that party long ago.

Others: JustOneMinute, American Power, Pirate’s Cove, NewsBusters, Ed Driscoll, The Lonely Conservative and Eschaton

Video: Charles Krauthammer gets it right

This comes via The Corner:

http://youtu.be/WmvILtDMDgM

He is, of course, talking about the budget deal. The budget deal that everyone else hates. I say l let ’em hate it. The corner says this:

“The only choice of those who would reject the deal would be to go up until the deadline of January 15th,” he said on Special Report, “and the only leverage Republicans would have would be to shut down the government.

“We tried that in October. It was a disaster,” Krauthammer said, arguing that that the news stories in January would have been about such a shutdown, not Obamacare’s continuing problems. Rejecting the spending deal, he said, would have been “mindless.”

Krauthammer praised the GOP for taking the deal, lauding them for preserving 70 percent of the sequester cuts over the next two years and ending the “endless extension of unemployment benefits.”

I said the same thing back when the shutdown was happening; it was a bad idea. Why punish those who are just going to work everyday? It was a stupid idea. Ted Cruz did not have a plan, once he took the House Republicans into the ditch.  This compromise was a smart idea, and it will buy the Republicans some time, till after the election. Hopefully, the new ones coming in will play the right political game and not the wrong one again.

 

 

Quote of the Day

This is a standout quote; mainly, because it is so darned true.

Leftism is not a politics; it is a psychology. A psychology of resentment, which is then transitioned (like your insurance plan) into a vague politics of opposition against society, which, being sufficiently large, powerful, and vague, can stand in for one’s personal anger against God.