Archive for the ‘Democrats’ Category

The Long March Through the Republican Party

by Daniel Greenfield on Sunday, June 8th, 2014

This is article 94 of 94 in the topic Republican Party

The Tea Party’s epitaph has been written. A confident Republican establishment is now prepared to possibly take the Senate in 2014 and then lose it again in 2016 to another wave of historical change.

In its defense the establishment, a motley collection of men paid by special interest groups whose future involves lucrative lobbying and even more lucrative consulting for the midterm election of 2018 where they will run on opposition to HillaryCare, can point to all the stupid and flaky Tea Party candidates who lost winnable elections. And they have a point.

We wouldn’t have to put up with Harry Reid or Chris Coons. Though we would still have Barack Obama in ’08 and ’12 because the establishment ran two men with no ability to appeal to people worried about losing their jobs and homes against a man who could do the “Feel your pain” dance.

The left didn’t start with Obama. It was willing to run a roster of bad candidates with silly beliefs for higher office. And it watched as those candidates crashed and burned outside their urban safe havens. But the left didn’t stop. It didn’t sit back and accept that the Democratic Party’s mainstream candidates would be the best it could get. Instead it doubled down and kept on doing it until it paid off.

It didn’t matter if they became national jokes. It didn’t matter if for a while the left seemed as likely to take higher office as Superman. The left thinks long term.

It built a coalition of its base groups and got them to agree to a single agenda. It got the unions and the NAACP to back illegal immigration and gay rights. It got the environmentalists to back illegal immigration. It got the unions to back the environment. There are tensions, but everyone falls into line even though the single agenda cuts the throats of their own working class voters.

Meanwhile the GOP has no idea who its base groups are and would like them to go away.

The GOP celebrating a victory over the Tea Party is like NBC celebrating a victory over its own highest rated shows. Finally the experts who gave us the Romney Presidency and the De Facto Amnesty talking point will, hopefully, drag the Senate out of Harry Reid’s dead claws long after Obama and the Democratic Party discredited themselves with their own voters and even the media.

And they won’t have to credit the Tea Party for it.

The Tea Party’s role in politics has been flawed, but then how could it have been otherwise. Politics is a professional sport and in the age of television and Twitter, it’s most easily played by people who have been polished by media experts and consultants, who know how to recite talking points and nothing else. And the people most likely to take over have their own agendas.

The left was willing to accept multiple defeats in the short term to build a machine and a momentum that would take it through the system. And it succeeded.

Of course the left had advantages that the right does not have.

1 2 3 4
Go straight to Post

Will the Midterm Elections Repeat History?

by Alan Caruba on Wednesday, June 4th, 2014

This is article 21 of 34 in the topic 2014 Elections

As Americans go to the polls in primary elections to select the candidates that will run in November, the question is how many Tea Party candidates will be among the winners. If there are a significant number among them, my feeling is that the November midterm elections are going to be a bloodbath for the Democratic Party.

There is a point at which even Democrats realize that their President, their party and their policies are harming the economy in general and themselves in particular. Very few families in America do not have someone who is out of work because of what Obama has done at this point. What he has not done is put the economy on the road to recovery.

Ultimately all elections are about jobs and the economy. With 90 million Americans out of work or who have just stopped looking for work, that’s a lot of unhappy voters. Elections tend to work in cycles. When times are good, politicians take credit for it and get reelected. When times are bad they blame the other party and are often rejected.

As we approach the November midterm elections the Obama administration’s political strategy has been to offer an increase in the minimum wage, to talk about equal pay and infrastructure, and to claim that the Affordable Care Act is working.

Raising the minimum wage will reduce new jobs because, at some point, a business needs to make a profit, but If they don’t pay enough, no one will work for them. For all the complaints about Wal-Mark and McDonald’s, these and other corporations employ thousands. Workers at a Toyota manufacturing facility were given the choice of joining the auto workers union and they rejected it.

A nation that has $17 trillion debt Is in no position to talk about spending billions on infrastructure. And the Affordable Care Act—Obamacare—has proven to be an unmitigated disaster for millions who were insured, lost their insurance, and then required to purchase plans they did not like and which cost more.

So, yes, voters, Democratic and Republican, are ready to reject incumbents in Congress seeking reelection if they voted for Obamacare and are giving evidence of liking candidates who express Tea Party movement ideals. And let’s not ignore the growing role of independent voters who are deciding the outcome of elections.

There is, moreover, a vast, often unspoken, dissatisfaction with President Obama for a variety of reasons. Chief among them is the realization that he lies about everything. Second term Presidents have received so much public exposure that it is human nature to grow tired of them. This aversion, in Obama’s case, is heightened by a long succession of scandals, the latest of which is the failure of the Veterans Administration to provide the services and care expected.

When you add the gun-running fiasco of “Fast and Furious”, the first scandal to erupt and those that followed, voters are less inclined to be forgiving. The 2010 midterm elections increased the Republican control of the House of Representatives. The 2014 elections are likely to cede control of the Senate to the GOP. The Republican Party will have a relatively short window of time to take dramatic action such as the repeal of Obamacare to make its mark before 2016.

Click to continue reading “Will the Midterm Elections Repeat History?”
Go straight to Post

Why Gridlock is a Good Thing

by Dr. Robert Owens on Monday, June 2nd, 2014

This is article 181 of 184 in the topic US Constitution

Gridlock is one of the greatest blessings bestowed upon us by the Framers.  It is a natural result of the checks and balances built into the system to stop any temporary majority from fundamentally changing the country.  If it wasn’t for the checks and balances FDR would have completely socialized the country back in the 1930s.  If it wasn’t for them now BHO would simply impose his agenda on us.  Wait a minute I think he is. 

Living as the occupants of an occupied nation those of us who believe limited government, personal freedom, and economic liberty are good things have to face up to the fact that a cadre of political savants who advocate for the collectivization of the American experiment have maneuvered their way into the halls of power.  They have captured the media, the unions, Hollywood, and a large segment of education.  The elections have been gerrymandered into a parody of democracy.  Political Correctness dries up free speech and affirmative action uses racial quotas and discrimination while saying they are doing it to increase integration. 

It takes a conspiracy theory wrapped in a spiral of silence to pretend the foregoing isn’t true.  Every day the regime is bent on fundamentally changing this country from a representative republic founded upon respect for the laws of nature and of nature’s God into a centrally-planned social safety net.  Our education system spends more money per capita than any other, and instead of academic superstars we produce illiterate whiners with high self-esteem.
The borders are open to a mass migration from the third world.  Free trade has gutted our industrial base.  Our foreign policy is in tatters as the conquerors of the republic allow our ambassadors to be murdered, our citizens to be unfairly imprisoned, and our national interests to be sacrificed for hidden goals and secret agendas. 

America the beautiful where have you gone?  From sea to shining sea your people watch as the alabaster cities rot into bankrupt hulks where socialism has failed.  At the same time those who exemplify and lead the destruction of the once proud land of the free and home of the brave point to the very instrument which provided the opportunity for humanity to excel in the bright sunshine of freedom. 

Seeing gridlock not as a brake upon the ambitions of temporary ruling factions to establish themselves as permanent oligarchies, President Obama attacks the structure of government as created by the Framers of the Constitution. 

One of the greatest mistakes ever foisted upon this country by the progressives was the passing of the 17th Amendment to the Constitution.  This change to the Constitution was pushed through in the early days of the 20th century finally becoming law in 1913.  This amendment took the election of U. S.

1 2 3
Go straight to Post

Florida Dem congressman gets high Marx: We’ve proved Communism works

by Doug Powers on Thursday, May 22nd, 2014

This is article 19 of 34 in the topic 2014 Elections

If “we’ve proved that Communism works” doesn’t appear quickly in a GOP ad against Florida Dem. Rep. Joe Garcia, they’re doing it wrong:

“Let me give you an example, the kind of money we’ve poured in,” he said. “So the most dangerous — sorry, the safest city in America is El Paso, Texas. It happens to be across the border from the most dangerous city in the Americas, which is Juarez. Right?”

“And two of the safest cities in America, two of them are on the border with Mexico,” Garcia continued. “And of course, the reason is we’ve proved that Communism works. If you give everybody a good government job, there’s no crime.”

If he loses in November, his own show on MSNBC awaits.

For the record, I don’t really know what the hell he’s talking about, but who cares — awesome ad material. Get on it, GOP! The only potential downside is that it might win him a few extra progressive votes.

– See more at:

Go straight to Post

MSNBC Joins With Democrats to “Grow Hope”

by Roger Aronoff on Monday, May 19th, 2014

This is article 547 of 570 in the topic Media

We have often noted how NBC, and its cable-news sister network MSNBC, form a virtual arm of the Democratic Party. Now, with the creation of their new “Growing Hope” website, MSNBC has abandoned all pretense of being an actual news network, and has completely joined forces with the Democratic Party. The site operates as a Democrat voter haven, full of positive messages that tout the value of belonging to the Left and decry the faults of being a conservative. Some of these messages are quite explicit.

Lean Forward, an MSNBC motto developed in 2010, morphed into a campaign theme President Obama adopted in his 2012 campaign, and has come to mean, Vote Democratic.

The opening line on the website is, “Growing Hope is MSNBC’s invitation to Americans to share their hopes for change around issues that impact our communities.” It is something the network has taken on the road to various universities, inviting students and others to “engage with the brand and share their hopes for change around issues that impact their communities.” It sounds innocuous enough.

Instead of being a news network, however, NBC, through MSNBC, has transformed itself into part of President Obama’s Organizing for Action, the successor organization to Obama for America and, prior to that, Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign. With this new website, MSNBC takes positions on almost every issue, and in seemingly every case, they side with the Democrats, and take shots at Republicans. And as the 2014 mid-term elections near, this partisanship will only get worse.

For example, a visitor to the May 14 web page for Democrats is greeted with the headlines “Bill Clinton stars in new TV ad” and the photo essay “The agenda setters: Senate Democrats.” Clearly, Democrats are the types to “Lean Forward.”

A trip to the Republican MSNBC web page, however, reveals the deep-seated disgust that this news organization has for this party. “The great GOP #fail on women,” assails readers as the headline piece, with the photo essay “GOP tries not to rock the boat at CPAC.”  On the sidebar is the story, “Immigration remains ‘nuclear bomb’ for GOP.”  MSNBC is trying to drive home the message that, demographically, the GOP can’t win over minorities such Hispanics, or reach out to women.

“And therein lies the problem for the GOP, which has struggled to recruit and elect Republican women for decades,” states the headline story on Republican women. “No women are polling in the top 10 for potential Republican presidential candidates two years after the party identified outreach to women as a weakness.” Is it a coincidence that the Democratic frontrunner is herself a woman?

The source for the piece, a post-doctoral fellow at Duke University, Danielle Thomsen, theorizes that this gender disparity is because the GOP doesn’t want moderate female candidates, they only want conservative ones. “Here are a few graphs to illustrate how ideological extremism in Congress, and particularly in the Republican Party, has influenced the types of state legislators who run for Congress,” states Thomsen on her website. “…because Republican women have historically been to the ideological left of their male counterparts, I suggest that the rightward shift of the GOP has had a disproportionate effect on Republican women,” she writes.

Click to continue reading “MSNBC Joins With Democrats to “Grow Hope””
Go straight to Post

What Difference Does It Make?

by Bob Livingston on Monday, May 19th, 2014

This is article 439 of 457 in the topic Government Corruption
What Difference Does It Make?


Hillary Clinton, in deflecting to Congress over her role in the cover-up of the Benghazi arms-to-al-Qaida-terrorists gunrunning scandal, famously replied, “What difference does it make?” Let’s see.

In December 2012, a scant three months after four Americans were killed while running guns to al-Qaida-linked terrorists in Libya, the Secretary of State reportedly fell and suffered a concussion. She was hospitalized for three days. A month later, the State Department pronounced her fit. Now, Bill Clinton claims it took Hillary Clinton “six months of very serious work” to recover from a “fainting spell” and subsequent concussion and blood clot.

Six months of very serious work implies intensive physical or occupational therapy, meaning she likely suffered a stroke or serious head injury. What difference does it make?

The elites are pushing Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush to be their respective party’s nominees. Both are statists and part of the American monarchy with family ties to the Council on Foreign Relations, the oligarchy that runs the U.S. State Department and the World Bank (i.e., the elites who control the world). That means whichever is elected will mean more of U.S. expanding empire and growing U.S. fascism beyond what we’ve seen over the past three decades. Both of them will work to advance the neocon agenda and U.S. hegemony.

According to the June 2014 issue of the American Journal of Public Health, there have been 248 armed conflicts in 153 locations around the world since World War II ended. The United States launched 201 of them. During the 20th century, coinciding with the rise of U.S. hegemony, there were 190 million deaths directly and indirectly related to war, more than in the previous four centuries.

War is just one of the ways governments steal from their people. Wars benefit the elite, while the people are slaughtered and impoverished.

If either Jeb Bush or Hillary Clinton is elected, what difference does it make?

Barack Obama’s immigration department released tens of thousands of criminal illegal aliens last year. This number includes 193 murderers, 426 guilty of sexual assault, 303 kidnappers, 1,075 guilty of aggravated assault and 16,070 drunk drivers. Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush and most of Congress publicly proclaim they want to set them on a path to citizenship. What difference does it make?

An influx of illegal aliens will drive down wages, leave millions more Americans unemployed and hasten the slide of America into a socialistic, Third World backwater. What difference does it make?

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agents were specifically told not to comment on the release of the 36,000 criminal illegals. What difference does it make?

Doubling down on the President’s efforts to turn the U.S. into a Third World backwater overrun by foreign criminals, the Obama regime has signaled it may take executive action to halt deportations of illegals whose information turns up in Federal immigration databases when they are booked for crimes. Think I’m exaggerating? A House Judiciary Committee report shows that criminal illegal aliens released by the regime between 2009 and 2011 went on to commit 19 murders, three attempted murders and 142 sex crimes. What difference does it make?

The U.S.

1 2 3
Go straight to Post

The Democratic Party’s Brain Damage

by Daniel Greenfield on Sunday, May 18th, 2014

This is article 141 of 143 in the topic Democratic Party

In 2008, Democrats insisted that Senator John McCain was too old to be president. At a rally introducing Hillary Clinton, Congressman John Murtha criticized him for even running. “It’s no old man’s job,” he said.

Obama and Kerry used language suggesting that McCain was senile. Left-wing activists claimed that could die of skin cancer at any moment. Late night comedians turned McCain’s age into a target.

McClatchy headlined a story, “Some wonder if McCain’s too old and wrinkly to be president.”

There are no stories in which reporters ask passerby if Hillary is too old and wrinkly to take 3 AM phone calls.

In Newsweek, Anna Quindlen, a fanatical Hillary supporter, wrote that, “The senator’s pursuit of the presidency reminds me a bit of those women who decide to have a baby in their late 50s.” If she has any objection to Hillary’s pursuit of the presidency while pushing 70, she hasn’t written about it.

By October, spurred by repeated media attacks on his age, 34 percent of Americans said that McCain was too old to be president. The sharp spike in the poll numbers over one month showed how effective the Democratic age smear was.

Had McCain been elected, he would have taken office at 72. If Hillary Clinton wins, she’ll be 69. And age is suddenly no longer an issue. Neither is health.

Quindlen emphasized that McCain couldn’t lift his arms over his head. No one is going to ask how flexible Hillary Clinton is in body (the political flexibility of the woman who opposed and supported nearly everything at one time or another is already renowned).

The problem as it turned out was not that McCain was old. It was that he was a Republican.

Slate ran an article claiming that McCain’s brain would go bad over the next eight years, but discussing the state of Hillary’s brain is out of bounds. Late night comedians won’t be making jokes about how old Hillary is or how confused she gets in the morning.

Those jokes could only be made about a man who was three years older than she is now.

It’s outrageous to question the medical consequences of Hillary’s “traumatic brain injury” which took her six months to recover from after passing out and falling down while boarding a plane. But ridiculing Bob Dole’s dead arm, an injury he suffered while dragging one of his men into a foxhole out of enemy fire during WW2, or McCain’s inability to lift his arms or perform certain tasks after they were broken by his torturers, was part of the game.

We can question the health of war veterans, but not of a career politician.

There will be no stories about how wrinkled Hillary’s skin is. No one will ask her if she can tie her shoes. Or if she can use Twitter without an assistant. Or whether she forgets things sometimes.

But if a Republican in his late sixties or early seventies becomes a candidate, then the switch will flip and suddenly asking those questions will become fair game.


The issue isn’t Hillary’s brain. It’s that Democrats don’t consider themselves accountable in the same way that they expect Republicans to be.

1 2 3
Go straight to Post

‘Phony scandal’ update: Meet more ‘low level’ IRS employees in Cincinnati

by Doug Powers on Friday, May 16th, 2014

This is article 296 of 307 in the topic Taxation/IRS

Last year, back when Lois Lerner was still talking, she said the IRS targeting of Tea Party organizations was initiated by “low level” rogue agents in Cincinnati.

Judicial Watch, doing the work that the national media would be doing if we had one, obtained more emails about this particular “phony scandal.”

One of those “low level” IRS employees in Cincinnati is named Sen. Carl Levin, who put heavy pressure on the IRS to slam the door on conservative groups:

The newly released IRS documents contain several letters and emails revealing an intense effort by Levin and IRS officials to determine what, if any, existing IRS policies could be used to revoke the nonprofit exemptions of active conservative groups and deny exemptions to new applicants. In a July 30, 2012, letter, Levin singles out 12 groups he wants investigated for “political activity.” Of the groups – which include the Club for Growth, Americans for Tax Reform, the 60 Plus Association, and the Susan B. Anthony List – only one, Priorities USA, is notably left-leaning.

As the 2012 presidential election drew nearer, Levin sent a series of letters to the IRS intensifying his campaign against predominantly conservative nonprofit groups:

Read the whole Judicial Watch report here. Levin buried IRS officials with paperwork — possibly employing the time-honored bureaucratic warfare tactic known as “you’ll do what I’m implying if you want this to stop.”

A flashback reminder of another “low level” rogue IRS employee in Cincinnati:

New IRS emails released by the House Oversight Committee show staff working for Democratic Ranking Member Elijah Cummings communicated with the IRS multiple times between 2012 and 2013 about voter fraud prevention group True the Vote. True the Vote was targeted by the IRS after applying for tax exempt status more than two years ago. Further, information shows the IRS and Cummings’ staff asked for nearly identical information from True the Vote President Catherine Engelbrecht about her organization, indicating coordination and improper sharing of confidential taxpayer information.

The Cincinnati office was bustling with activity in D.C.

Judicial Watch notes something that should trouble a greater percentage of Congress than it currently does:

As with Ben Rhodes’ Benghazi-related talking points email, Judicial Watch obtained a more complete version of this IRS email chain than was provided to a congressional committee.

Maybe some in Congress don’t care to demand all the IRS documents because it would be old news — after all, they wrote a lot of them.

Go straight to Post

Democratic Party considers Internet voting in 2016 election

by Jim Kouri on Wednesday, May 14th, 2014

This is article 23 of 27 in the topic 2016 Elections

Democrats are seriously considering using the Internet for voters to cast their ballots in the 2016 presidential election saying such a process will help their party’s new president, according tonews reports on Saturday.

The party leaders during a recent Democratic National Committee meeting in Iowa claimed Internet voting would make it easier for their constituents to cast their ballots including military voters serving overseas.

The DNC claims they’ve interviewed their registered voters who have said they experienced difficulty in casting their ballots. The interviews were conducted during a “listening tour,” a phrase invented by Hillary Clinton while she ran for New York’s senate seat.

Those touring the country during this so-called “listening tour” include party activists, members of various labor organizations, caucus members, and election campaign consultants.

But such a revision to the nation’s election system will be difficult once the debate takes a more prominent place within political dialogue. Several experts in law enforcement, computer science and social media are suspicious of the Internet being used to choose political leaders especially when it comes to national elections.

“These Democrats are the same people who were behind the Obamacare website fiasco that is still being remedied at a cost of hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars. They couldn’t even get an enrollment website functioning properly so how do we trust them to getInternet voting problem-free,” said political strategist Mike Baker.

“Can you imagine hundreds of thousands of votes suddenly lost forever in cyperspace? And without proper screening who is to say someone voting online is really the person they claim to be?” Baker asks.

Some believe that hackers will be able to create havoc online by illegally gaining access to the websites’ administrative areas and manipulate the voter tallies in order to benefit certain political candidates.

“Hackers have displayed enormous prowess illegally gaining access to government and private sector cybersystems. There have been reports of hackers accessing Defense Department data protected by state-of-the-art security. Can you imagine the shenanigans that will occur if systems are setup for important national elections?, notes cybersecurity and assets protection expert Joseph Wollen.

Detective Samuel Locksley, a 15-year cyber investigations expert, believes that allowing online instead of in-person voting will open the door to even more illegal aliens voting and therefore nullifying the votes of American citizens, as reported in an Examiner news story.

“I really believe we’ll open the door to foreigners living illegally in the country swaying elections. We’ll also open a Pandora’s box that allows people living in other countries to vote in U.S. elections and American politicians will suddenly pander to non-citizens who possess their own agenda,” Locksley claims.

Go straight to Post

Illinois Democrats Queasy About $100 Million Library for The One!

by John Lillpop on Wednesday, April 30th, 2014

This is article 969 of 1004 in the topic Obama

Not so very long ago, the world was seemingly in the clutches of “Obama mania,” an inexplicable form of dementia that turned otherwise sophisticated and intelligent folks into babbling fools when it came to the subject of Barack Hussein Obama.

This tragic “dumbing down”  of America led to the election, and reelection, of the most destructive man in US political history.

Barack Obama, otherwise known by mainstream media freaks and other low information mongrels, as The One has wreaked considerable damage on American sovereignty, culture, military defenses, moral values, and the economy, while almost single-handedly turning the “American Dream” into a bad joke.

Unfortunately, until quite recently, it seemed as though Obama would succeed in bluffing his way through the presidency despite his anti-American ideology, world class incompetence, and habitual lying.

It was as though the heavens had conspired against America in order to saddle our great nation with second-rate governance and deplorable moral decadence.

But, alas, it appears as though the Obama bubble has burst, or at least been pierced, by reality.

For example, Democrats in Illinois are having serious second thoughts about absconding with $100 million in taxpayer funds to erect a monument to abject failure: That would be the Barack Obama library!

As reported:

Illinois Democrats are backing off an effort to give $100 million in a push to land President Obama’s presidential library and museum—following accusations of voting “shenanigans” and nasty Chicago-style politics, not to mention the state’s dire financial situation.

A Democrat-led House committee approved the money last week at an out-of-town hearing in Chicago with no Republicans in attendance. They instead relied on a procedural move that allowed them to use votes from a previous meeting.

“What they did last week was under-handed and sneaky and offers further proof that they no longer can be trusted with taxpayer money,” said House Republican Leader Jim Durkin.

State GOP Rep. Dwight Kay said his previous vote shouldn’t count because he was only a temporary member of the committee, beyond Democrats breaking their own House rules.

“This is typical Chicago politics at work,” he said. “The Chicago Democrats knew I wouldn’t support spending $100 million that we don’t have on a presidential library, so they decided to violate their own rules and cast my vote anyway.”

The deal has even taken a drubbing in the local editorial pages.

“A state that is nearly broke has no business spending $100 million on a potential Barack Obama presidential library,” says an editorial in the “Throw in some parliamentary procedure shenanigans and the Obama presidential library is quickly becoming the typical Illinois government story—spend money that isn’t there and do it in a sneaky way.”
The editorial also points out the recent presidential libraries for Bill Clinton and the Bushes were built entirely with privately-raised funds.

The state has roughly $7 billion in past due vendor bills and a $100 billion shortfall in its employee pension programs. And the situation is so serious that Governor Quinn wants to make permanent a roughly 3-year-old tax increase, which was set to expire next year, to avoid having to make drastic budget cuts.

Click to continue reading “Illinois Democrats Queasy About $100 Million Library for The One!”
Go straight to Post

Featuring YD Feedwordpress Content Filter Plugin