Archive for the ‘Democrats’ Category

Democrat Gubernatorial Candidate in Texas, Wendy Davis, just said that she supported open carry as a way to win political support, she didn’t really believe it

by John Lott on Thursday, January 1st, 2015

This is article 600 of 603 in the topic Gun Rights
This past June, Wendy Davis painted herself as being pro-gun on many issues (from open carry to allowing permitted concealed handguns to be stored in people’s cars on college campuses to reducing training for permits).  Democrats, of course, denied the claim that Davis was really anti-gun and just pretending to be pro-self defense.  As the argument went this past summer, from Politico:

Rising Democratic star and gubernatorial candidate Wendy Davis has joined her top Republican rival in supporting a proposed “open carry” law. It would allow people with concealed handgun licenses to wear a pistol on their hip, in full view, while in public.

Davis has said she supports expanding gun rights in Texas. In a statement to the Associated Press, she said that includes open-carry — a position that puts her at odds with her own party but could keep her from alienating gun rights advocates in a deeply conservative state where the Second Amendment is sacrosanct. . . .

Davis, who said she keeps a gun at her home for protection, supported legislation last year to allow college students with concealed handgun licenses to keep their weapons in their cars. She also voted for reduced training requirements to get such a license.

Still, gun rights advocates were skeptical. Texas State Rifle Association spokeswoman Alice Tripp noted Davis’ previous calls for more restrictions on gun show sales and past votes against allowing concealed license holders to carry their guns in classrooms and buildings on college campuses.

“Wendy Davis has a very bad record as far as gun owners go,” Tripp said, calling Davis an “opportunist.”

Abbott spokesman Adviel Huerta expressed a similar sentiment. . . .

But veteran Democratic consultant Harold Cook said Abbott supporters have already tried to portray Davis as anti-gun.

“If the issue isn’t important to you, then it would be smart to take it off the table by saying, ‘Me, too; now let’s go back to talking about education and how we fund road building and the stuff the mainstream of Texas is really concerned with,'” he said. . . .

Well, now Davis says that she really didn’t believe her promise and just said it to get elected.  She told the San Antonio newspaper:

There is one thing that I would do differently in that campaign, and it relates to the position that I took on open carry. I made a quick decision on that with a very short conversation with my team and it wasn’t really in keeping with what I think is the correct position on that issue.” . . .

Note: I am not a big fan of open carry, so it isn’t upsetting to me that she didn’t support it, but saying she did when she really didn’t is the problem.

Go straight to Post

CNN Moves on to New “Scandal”

by Terresa Monroe-Hamilton on Wednesday, December 31st, 2014

This is article 574 of 577 in the topic Media

By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

CNN contributed to the atmosphere in which two New York City police officers were murdered last week. Then, it shed tears for the dead cops. Their contribution included their inaccurate and sensationalized coverage of police confrontations with black criminals. Now, CNN is moving on, as Republicans prepare to take over both Houses of Congress. The new target: a top House Republican who associated with extremists.

CNN wants people to believe the GOP is racked by various New Year’s scandals, including that House Majority Whip Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA) spoke to a pro-white group in 2002. Scrambling to answer to the liberal media mob, Rep. Scalise is putting out various statements, such as that he didn’t know what the group was all about. He said he now finds the group’s pro-white views abhorrent.

But why hasn’t there been a smidgeon of attention on CNN for the fact that Democratic Rep. Danny K. Davis (IL) was honored at the Communist Party’s headquarters in Chicago for a lifetime of “inspiring leadership.”

The Davis “honor” was only two years ago, in 2012. Scalise spoke to the pro-white group 12 years ago.

Welcome to the world of liberal media bias.

Another difference is that Rep. Davis knew precisely what the event was all about. In fact, he was proud of being honored by communists. But that’s not a story, even though communism is still very much alive, having already killed about 100 million people. The North Korean regime, the subject of so much attention in recent days, is run by communists. So is Cuba.

Once again, for the umpteenth time, we are given a demonstration of the liberal media’s double standard. Associating with alleged extremists is only a problem for Republicans, not Democrats.

Republicans have to learn that being perceived as pro-white is wrong; being pro-black and/or pro-Red is fine. That’s why Republican Senator Rand Paul (KY) gets praise for meeting with racial agitator Al Sharpton to talk about “criminal justice reform.”

But speaking 12 years ago to a group, started by David Duke, who wasn’t even at the event in question, is now a major scandal for the Republican Party, as defined by CNN.

Davis, of course, is given even more leeway because he is President Obama’s buddy. Davis and Obama were members of the Chicago New Party, a group designed to move the Democratic Party to the left. They appeared together to talk about their shared values.

Jeremy Segal, a disciple of the late Andrew Breitbart, produced a video of Rep. Davis being honored by the communists. No video of Rep. Scalise’s 12-year-old speech has yet surfaced. But it’s bad enough, from CNN’s perspective, that he apparently did speak to the group and that information about the appearance was dug up by a liberal blogger. This makes it a huge scandal.

The stench of the double-standard is made worse by the fact that CNN employs cop-killer apologist Marc Lamont Hill as a paid contributor. Hill sings the praises of convicted terrorist Joanne Chesimard, who was involved in the “execution style” murder of New Jersey State Trooper Werner Foerster. She fled to Cuba to escape justice. Hill’s Twitter page had once been plastered with police mug shot photos of the convicted terrorist.

1 2 3
Go straight to Post

Obamacare co-author says: "we muddled through and we got a system that is complex, convoluted, needs probably some corrections"

by John Lott on Wednesday, December 3rd, 2014

This is article 699 of 701 in the topic Healthcare
Apparently Democrats are reading the polls about Obamacare.  Even after the election are there many Democrats who say that Obamacare is working the way that they claimed it would work? From The Hill Newspaper:

Sen. Tom Harkin, one of the co-authors of the Affordable Care Act, now thinks Democrats may have been better off not passing it at all and holding out for a better bill.

The Iowa Democrat who chairs the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, laments the complexity of legislation the Senate passed five years ago.

He wonders in hindsight whether the law was made overly complicated to satisfy the political concerns of a few Democratic centrists who have since left Congress.

“We had the power to do it in a way that would have simplified healthcare, made it more efficient and made it less costly and we didn’t do it,” Harkin told The Hill. “So I look back and say we should have either done it the correct way or not done anything at all.

“What we did is we muddled through and we got a system that is complex, convoluted, needs probably some corrections and still rewards the insurance companies extensively,” he added. . . .

Go straight to Post

The Movers and Shakers Behind the Ferguson Riots

by Terresa Monroe-Hamilton on Sunday, November 30th, 2014

This is article 193 of 195 in the topic Marches/Protests/Riots

By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton

The Ferguson riots are not what they seem and those behind them are professionals. One of the top organizers of the protesters for the Ferguson riots is Lisa Fithian, someone who was intimately involved in the Occupy Wall Street movement. She has been deemed “Professor Occupy.” In 2005 and 2008, Lisa Fithian, Root Activist Network of Trainers, (2005), Alliance for Community Trainers Inc. (2008), was voted onto the Steering Committee for United for Peace and Justice. United for Peace and Justice is a partner organization of the George Soros linked Institute for Policy Studies. Several Marxist organizations are involved in the UFPJ leadership, but the most influential has been the Communist Party USA.

Lisa Fithian joined the labor movement through the AFL-CIO Organizing Institute in 1993. She is considered a legendary organizer. She also served as a human shield in actions conducted by the International Solidarity Movement in the Palestinian cities of Jenin and Nablus and has accused Israel of “slaughter[ing] Palestinians every single day in Gaza and the Occupied territories.” These are just a few of her credits.

Fithian is known for her statement: “create crisis, because crisis is that edge where change is possible.” Sound familiar? It should, it is straight out of Holder’s and Obama’s playbook, as well as Marxism in general. Fithian was a lead organizer in the infamous 1999 Seattle riots against the World Trade Organization that devolved into violence. She is known for teaching violent tactics as well as community organizing. She specializes in aggressive “direct action” tactics. Fithian previously provided training and support for the controversial ACORN group, National People’s Action, the new version of the Students for a Democratic Society and other radical organizations. She trained somewhere around 600 protesters for Ferguson.

The following video shows anti-capitalist radical Lisa Fithian training Chicago union teachers on how to stage their arrests for the camera in 2011:

Fithian is far from alone in her Revolution organizing. She is joined by the likes of Code Pink, RevCom, the New Black Panthers, Socialist Party USA, etc. The ACLU has been in the mix from the beginning as well, along with SEIU. The UN also became involved, along with national LGBT organizations, climate environmentalists, amnesty groups, pro-Palestinian organizations, Christian social justice groups and Planned Parenthood.

LGBT organizations represented include the Human Rights Campaign, Lambda Legal, National Black Justice Coalition, National Center for Lesbian Rights, National Center for Transgender Equality, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Action Fund, National Queer Asian Pacific Islander Alliance, National Center for Lesbian Rights Action Fund and PFLAG National.

Amnesty International sent a “13-person human rights delegation” to the town to “examine” potential human rights abuses, in what they refer to as an “unprecedented” move by deploying in the United States. Many other groups joined in, such as Tauheed Youth Development Life, the Organization for Black Struggle (OBS), the Moorish Science Temple, the Coalition Against Police Crimes and Repression and the Universal African Peoples Organization (UAPO). No radical party would ever be complete without the Socialist Workers Party as well.

Pro-Palestinian groups included: St. Louis Palestine Solidarity Committee, Organization for Black Struggle, U.S. Palestinian Community Network, Muslims for Ferguson, US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation, Council on American Islamic Relations – St.

1 2 3 4
Go straight to Post

So why did Rep. Ron Barber go to court to demand that 133 of the 240 ballots cast in the wrong precinct be counted?: Because those were the Democratic votes

by John Lott on Sunday, November 30th, 2014

This is article 46 of 46 in the topic 2014 Elections
This is really a hilarious legal argument.  I have read a number of news reports on this recount battle because Barber’s race was one that gun control advocates really pored a lot of money into.  But there is only one article that actually mentioned that Barber’s lawyers were only calling on 133 of the 240 ballots cast in the wrong precinct be counted.  Barber’s loss is a real blow for them.  From the Nogales, Arizona newspaper:

. . . Barber’s campaign is challenging 133 ballots it says were wrongly rejected because voters went to the wrong polling site. State law says that if you vote at the wrong site, your ballot will not be counted.
But Barber’s campaign says every vote should count – and blames the problem on poll workers who neglected to tell voters they were at the wrong site.
Last week, the Pima County Recorder’s office said 240 votes were rejected in the CD2 race because people voted at the wrong place. So why isn’t Barber’s campaign insisting all 240 be counted?
I asked Rodd McLeod, who works with Barber’s campaign, that last week.
After asking him if the 133 voters are known to be Democrats; he said no. “I assume they’re a mix of Democrat, Republican and Independent.”
Later in the conversation he said, “It wouldn’t shock me if they were mostly Democrats, obviously.” . . . .

Ron Barber’s campaign wants to count votes that will go his way and they do not want to count votes that will not go his way.

That’s why we have a battle over 133 ballots in court and not 240.
I can’t blame the campaign for making every effort for their candidate, but I resent them wrapping themselves in the flag and telling us “every vote must count” when they really don’t believe that at all. . . .

Go straight to Post

Truth and Consequences of the 2014 Elections

by Terresa Monroe-Hamilton on Thursday, November 13th, 2014

This is article 43 of 46 in the topic 2014 Elections

By: Roger Aronoff
Accuracy in Media

President Obama has doubled down on his latest lie—that last week’s elections were not a repudiation of his policies and governance. The pollsters and the media missed the mark as well, by a long shot. The election was a clear repudiation of an out-of-control, dishonest, incompetent, and corrupt administration. While the voters may not love Republicans, a majority of them recognized that they are the only hope of stopping the Obama agenda, which is disastrous for this country on many levels.

Even when Obama said on CBS’s “Face the Nation” last Sunday that “The buck stops here,” meaning he accepted some responsibility, he added that it was really about his messaging and skills of persuasion, not his policies, his incompetence, or his radical agenda. He also said that the meaning of the election was that the American people just want Washington to work, and that he is committed to that.

His loyalists in the media took a bit of a different position. The view of MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski and Chuck Todd, along with numerous other analysts, was that the real problem was the Democrats’ rejection of President Obama in the period leading up to the election. Very few incumbent Democrats wanted anything to do with Obama, but the belief of those journalists and analysts, taking their cue from the White House spin machine, was that if the candidates would have only embraced the President and his great “success” with the economy, they would have done much better. But those who did embrace him, for the most part, lost anyway. Some were shockers, such as the governor’s races in the very blue states of Maryland, Illinois and Massachusetts.

Remember, Obama said that while he wasn’t “on the ballot this fall…make no mistake: These policies are on the ballot, every single one of them.” And the voters clearly agreed, either by the way they voted, or their decision to stay home.

The big question following the 2014 November elections is, what will both sides do now? For the GOP, the dilemma is said to be that they need to show that they can govern, and not just obstruct and say no. Without women, blacks and Latinos, we are told, the GOP can’t win another presidential election. So they must move to the left. However, a Gallup poll taken after the election shows that by a 53% to 36% margin, Americans “want GOP legislators in Congress to have more influence over the country’s direction than Obama during the next year.” The voters are saying to the GOP, show us what you’ve got.

At the state level, the Republican wave was even more dominant. According to the website, Vox, “Republicans now control state government outright in at least 24 states, one more than they did before the election. They control at least 66 of 99 state legislative chambers nationwide. And they cut the number of states with total Democratic control from 14 to seven —the lowest number since the Civil War.”

The dilemma for Obama is that he either has to drop the hand grenade of amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants in this country—which by all indications he plans to do—or risk, as Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) said, a “civil war” in the Democrat Party.

Click to continue reading “Truth and Consequences of the 2014 Elections”
Go straight to Post

The Democratic Party’s Civil War is Here

by Daniel Greenfield on Sunday, November 9th, 2014

This is article 145 of 145 in the topic Democratic Party

There are really two Democratic parties.

One is the old corrupt party of thieves and crooks. Its politicians, black and white, are the products of political machines. They believe in absolutely nothing. They can go from being Dixiecrats to crying racism, from running on family values to pushing gay marriage and the War on Women.

They will say absolutely anything to get elected.

Cunning, but not bright, they are able campaigners. Reformers underestimate them at their own peril because they are determined to win at all costs.

The other Democratic Party is progressive. Its members are radical leftists working within the system. They are natural technocrats and their agendas are full of big projects. They function as community organizers, radicalizing and transforming neighborhoods, cities, states and even the country.

They want to win, but it’s a subset of their bigger agenda. Their goal is to transform the country. If they can do that by winning elections, they’ll win them. But if they can’t, they’ll still follow their agenda.

Sometimes the two Democratic parties blend together really well. Bill Clinton combined the good ol’ boy corruption and radical leftist politics of both parties into one package. The secret to his success was that he understood that most Democrats, voters or politicians, didn’t care about his politics, they wanted more practical things. He made sure that his leftist radicalism played second fiddle to their corruption.

Bill Clinton convinced old Dems that he was their man first. Obama stopped pretending to be anything but a hard core progressive.

The 2014 election was a collision course between the two Democratic parties. The aides and staffers spilling dirt into the pages of the New York Times, the Washington Post and Politico reveal that the crackup had been coming for some time now. Now the two Democratic parties are coming apart.

Reid is blaming Obama. The White House is blaming Reid. This isn’t just a showdown between two arrogant men. It’s a battle between two ideas of what the Democratic Party should be.

Senate Dems chose to back away from Obama to appeal to Middle America. Obama wanted to double down on his 2012 strategy of energizing the base at the expense of moderate voters. Reid and his gang are complaining that Obama didn’t back away far enough from them. Instead he reminded voters in the final stretch that the senators were there to pass his agenda. Obama’s people are dismissing them as cowards for not taking him to battleground states and running on positions even further to the left.

Reid’s people think that Obama deliberately tied them to him and that’s probably true. It’s not just about Obama’s ego. His campaigns and his time in office were meant to showcase the progressive position that the only way to win was from the left. Obama and his people would rather radicalize the Democratic Party and lose, than moderate their positions and stand a chance of winning.

The left isn’t interested in being a political flirtation. It nukes any attempt at centrism to send the message that its allies will not be allowed any other alternative except to live or die by its agenda.

Obama deliberately sabotaged Reid’s campaign plans, as Reid’s chief of staff discussed, because that strategy involved disavowing Obama and his legacy.

1 2 3
Go straight to Post

Contemplating Election Day, and Beyond

by Terresa Monroe-Hamilton on Tuesday, November 4th, 2014

This is article 40 of 46 in the topic 2014 Elections

By: Roger Aronoff
Accuracy in Media

While polls suggest that November 4th should be a very good election for Republicans—by most accounts they will take control of the Senate and increase their majority in the House—doubts remain. For one thing, as it is often said, the only poll that counts is the one taken on Election Day. But with many states offering early voting, and in some cases, such as Colorado, mail-in voting only, it is more than just Election Day that can determine the outcome. Among the other factors not reflected in the polls are third-party candidates, voter fraud and media bias.

The mainstream media, as always, are firmly in the corner of the Democrats. In the run-up to this year’s election, one would hardly know that the Obama administration has been caught up in scandal after scandal—from the IRS to Veterans Affairs to Benghazi (“phony scandals,” as the media and the administration label them)—or that the President’s approval rating has been dismal, to the point that almost none of the Senate candidates want the once-popular President anywhere near their state. In fact, the news has been so bad for the Democrats that the three major broadcast network news shows barely acknowledged the elections. In fact, ABC’s World News Tonight went nearly all of September and October without a single story on the mid-term elections.

We have documented the incestuous relationship that exists between the media and the Obama administration, providing the Democrats with a built-in edge.

Last May, Accuracy in Media published a special report by James Simpson titled “Voter Fraud: An Existential Threat to America,” that detailed many of the ways that Democrats have been incorporating voter fraud into their election strategy. Simpson concluded, “Voter fraud, and the corrupt political infrastructure that facilitates, or at best ignores it, is an existential threat to our American Republic.” And we have seen many more examples in the days and weeks leading up to this election.

Here, for example, is the latest video from James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas, in which several Democratic campaign workers encouraged people they believed to be non-citizens to vote. There have been credible stories about voting machines in Chicago and Maryland in which votes intended for Republicans ended up registering as votes for Democrats.

In addition, the Obama Justice Department has done what it could to block common-sense voter ID laws, claiming that they disproportionately disenfranchise minority voters. But the evidence suggests there is a need for such laws. It’s not just people misrepresenting who they are when they show up at the polls, but as columnist Mona Charen recently cited, there are millions of voters who are registered to vote in more than one jurisdiction, and there are felons and dead people who should have been purged from voting registers in many states.

And what if, in spite of all this, Republicans do very well in the elections, and seize significant majorities in both houses of Congress? Would that show that these concerns were without basis, or rather that the victory was so sweeping that even the media and voter fraud couldn’t overcome it? Perhaps we’ll never know.

But a discussion on CNN on Monday night suggested what the media’s spin might be in case of a Republican victory.

Click to continue reading “Contemplating Election Day, and Beyond”
Go straight to Post

Why Vote?

by Alan Caruba on Monday, November 3rd, 2014

This is article 39 of 46 in the topic 2014 Elections

By Alan Caruba

Every election is “the most important” for the simple reason that it has the potential of making our lives better or worse.
What makes elections scary is that votes are cast by people who often have paid little attention to the events, issues, policies or the candidates involved. Casting a vote requires knowing something about the times in which one lives and the persons promising to make them better.
“In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a congress.” That’s John Adams, our second President, a Founding Father, and though I suspect he was joking, I also suspect he was half serious.
It is our nature to never be satisfied with whomever we elect to high office. A nation is very fortunate to have someone come along to truly demonstrate a vision and leadership. It doesn’t happen that often.
The political pundit, Larry J. Sabato, said, “Every election is determined by the people who show up.” He is about to be proven right again. The reason Barack Obama was reelected was that Republicans stayed home. If you recall, it was a close election.
It has brought us to Tuesday’s midterms and they are likely to demonstrate that it has taken six years of Obama for his incompetence, his far Left ideology, and his lies to have finally penetrated the skulls of those who thought it was a great idea to elect a black President no matter who he was. These idiots will replace that thought with how great it would be to elect the first woman President whether she is qualified or not.
Too many people think there is no real difference between the candidates and the parties they represent. We never seem to learn how wrong that is. Jarod Kintz, writing in “99 Cents for Some Nonsense”, said “Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil. Next time, go all out and write in Lucifer on the ballot.” Candidates and the policies they support do matter. Not voting is to concede victory to those who you don’t support.
As Peggy Noonan, a former aide to Ronald Reagan, author of seven books, and columnist for The Wall Street Journal reminds us, “Our political leaders will know our priorities only if we tell them, again and again, and if those priorities show up in the polls.”
The priorities in the midterm elections come down to the economy, national security, healthcare, and a list of others on which “climate change” does not even appear. The cliché is that “people vote their wallets”, but that is exactly what they should do. A President and/or administration that does not govern in a way that generates more economic growth and jobs is doing harm to the nation.
The Democrats have failed to generate a healthy economy, preferring one entirely dependent on the federal government.

Click to continue reading “Why Vote?”
Go straight to Post

How Ben Bradlee Attacked Republicans for Fun and Profit

by Terresa Monroe-Hamilton on Friday, October 31st, 2014

This is article 144 of 147 in the topic History

By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

Ben Bradlee was a Democratic Party insider who commented during his paper’s coverage of the Reagan administration’s Iran-Contra affair that “This is the most fun we’ve had since Watergate.” He saw the controversy as a way to bring down another Republican president. It worked with Watergate, which brought down Richard Nixon. It didn’t work in Reagan’s case.

Bradlee despised Accuracy in Media’s (AIM) founder and then-chairman Reed Irvine because he exposed how Bradlee used The Washington Post as a weapon of political war. No amount of praise for the late “legendary” Post executive editor will erase the facts behind Bradlee’s partisan and political legacy. He was an example of what’s wrong with journalism.

It’s fine to praise Bradlee as a good father and family man. But the idea that his leadership of the Post is something to be admired is crazy.

Bradlee, a former JFK confidante, was one of the leading anti-Reagan journalists during the time that Reagan had taken on the herculean task of confronting the Soviet Evil Empire. Reagan had taken office in the wake of the disastrous Jimmy Carter presidency, which saw the rise of communism in Central America and the overthrow of the pro-Western Shah of Iran, who was replaced by the anti-American Islamic zealots bent on developing nuclear weapons, which we still face today.

At AIM, based on various surveys and studies, we estimated that Democratic partisans numbered around 80 percent of those working for our Big Media at the time. Many were at the Post.

Before Reagan, of course, Nixon was the big enemy. The anti-communist former congressman had laid the basis for his runs for national office by helping to expose Soviet spy Alger Hiss in the State Department, and a communist network inside the U.S. government. Many liberals, even to this day, think Hiss was innocent or that the evidence against him is still in dispute. One of Bradlee’s reporters on the Watergate story was Carl Bernstein, whose parents were members of the Soviet-controlled Communist Party. Bernstein would later write an article for Rolling Stone magazine about alleged CIA manipulation of the press. We at AIM knew where he was coming from and why he had it in for Nixon.

President George W. Bush also became a Post target, especially when his former press secretary Scott McClellan came out with a book, What Happened, about how the administration supposedly led the nation into an “unnecessary war” in Iraq. Never mind that The New York Times recently reported that weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq.

At the time, we called it “The Network Behind the Bush-bashing Book,” and found a laundry list of interesting characters. McClellan’s publisher, Peter Osnos, had been a foreign correspondent for The Washington Post and the newspaper’s foreign and national editor. He had begun his career as an assistant to I.F. Stone, the pro-communist “journalist” named as a Soviet agent of influence, who was the uncle of Weather Underground communist terrorist Kathy Boudin. Every book that Osnos published included a dedication to Benjamin Bradlee, I.F. Stone and Robert Bernstein, the former head of Random House.

The McClellan book, published in June 2008, didn’t do much damage to Bush, who was finishing out his second term.

1 2 3
Go straight to Post

Featuring YD Feedwordpress Content Filter Plugin