Posts Tagged ‘Democrats’

Confessions of the Left

Saturday, November 17th, 2012

His Lips are Moving...

In almost any issue at controversy in the sphere of domestic politics, you can invariably forecast what the radical left is doing, has done, or plans to do by simply listening to what they accuse the Republicans of doing, having done, or intending.  When Howard Dean proclaimed on the eve of the election that the only way Mitt Romney could win would be to steal it, I knew without further deliberation that this was precisely what the left was doing.  When Barack Obama accused Mitt Romney of politicizing the Benghazi attacks, what any observer who had been as astute and sophisticated as a twelve-year-old would have recognized is that this had been precisely what Obama and his administration had already done.  If the mainstream media were half as objective or one-tenth as honest as they pretend to be, they would have noticed this trend long ago, and used it as a “hot tip” on where to focus their investigative talents, but since they’re in league with the left, they merely joined in on the fun.  Whatever a leftists say in public, when they allege some ill motive of their adversaries, you can dependably assume they’ve already done what they now decry.

If you think about it carefully, it extends into every political debate and issue before the country.  Who will forget the obscenely dishonest television commercials that depicted Paul Ryan as wheeling Granny to a cliff and then pitching her over the precipice? Yet with the advent of Obamacare, who really threw Grandma and Grandpa to the wolves?  The simple fact is that the Affordable Care Act, apart from relying on a three-quarter-trillion dollar cut to Medicare, also put into law a panel made up of people with no medical expertise whatever who would determine what procedures seniors could receive as a matter of economic cost-benefit analysis.  These were appropriately termed “Death Panels” by Sarah Palin, who was again spot-on about both the intentions and the effects of the law, but she was derided as a lunatic by the mainstream media and popular culture for having pointed this out.  The problem is that she had been right, and as the law now edges toward full implementation, the facts have become apparent.  Once again, what we can learn from this debate is that the left would do what it accused others of intending, and that the media would predictably help to cover this up.

You can apply this to virtually every argument the left initiates with its accusations of vile intentions on the part of some conservative or Republican.  This election season, the left spent a great deal of time and energy pushing the farcical notion of a “Republican war on women.”  The problem with this is that one party has been undermining women for generations, and it isn’t the Republicans.  More women than ever now live in poverty.  More women than ever must now rely upon government to feed their children.  More women than in the history of America have found themselves unable to maintain independence despite extraordinary efforts to do so.  More women find themselves facing six-figure debt burdens in pursuit of education that provides them with fewer available opportunities.  They see their children less.  They have less time for the things important to them.  How is it possible for Democrats and associated leftists to proclaim that there is a Republican “war on women” when the conditions and culture in which women must now live is worsening?  The real “war on women” has been waged endlessly by Democrats who work to divide families, and who use the whole of their machinery to drive as many women as possible into their welcoming arms. Look at what they’ve done to wreck this economy.  How can it be that they are permitted to get away with this narrative?

It’s not possible to ignore that whatever the Democrats allege, the reverse is almost invariably true, and the ill will they project upon conservatives or Republicans are really simple confessions of their own.  Another area in which this is undeniably true is the matter of race.  No party in history has been so consumed with racism as the Democrats, and no other ideology so thoroughly lends itself to racial demagogues.  They can’t wait to use the race of Susan Rice as an excuse to forgive her of any wrongdoing in the matter of Benghazi, but I am certain that race had absolutely nothing to do with the outcry against Rice’s misleading of the American people.  Whether she was merely following orders, or had been a co-conspirator who had known the truth, her race was no part of the outrage against it.  How am I so certain?  Apart from the fact that I had been outraged by it, but never considered her race, the simple fact is that when Democrats used race as the basis for dismissing criticisms of Rice, I realized they were simply confessing their motives in selecting her for the untidy work from the outset.  I don’t think this way, but I’ve come to learn Democrats do.  They put her out front because she was a woman, and black, and it was expected that they would use this defense when later challenged.  Had they sent Axelrod or Gibbs to the Sunday shows to profess a lie, they could not now hold forth a defense based on race.  Many had wondered why Rice had been made the face for this discussion at all, and herein lies the reason.

This ought to tell you a good deal about the real motives and thinking of the left.  They chose Rice as their patsy, if she was one, precisely for her race and sex.  The media would naturally follow the lead as soon as they cried foul on the basis of race or sex, so it could be counted on that what you would have is the spectacle of Lindsey Graham and John McCain, two “old white guys” ganging up on a young black woman.  Naturally, the media cleverly omitted Kelly Ayotte from the picture, despite the fact that she too was a participant in the criticisms from the Senate.  She wouldn’t have fit so neatly into the narrative of racism and sexism.  No, two “old white guys” would suffice.  This is the manner of everything the left does, so that when they come along with an argument or accusation, you can flip it and examine them under its light, nearly always discovering the real truth of the matter.  People of a more conservative viewpoint need to do a better job educating those who don’t know how to recognize these hucksters for what they are, and teach them to perceive it on their own.  People are always a bit skeptical of any politician, and it’s time we exposed them all.  When a Democrat proclaims: “My opponent wants to feed children dog-food,” it isn’t an exaggeration so much as a confession that if left to his agenda, that’s precisely what he will do.

 

 

What Hillary Revealed About Democrats’ Real Thoughts on Israel

Friday, March 2nd, 2012

Friend of Israel?

When America isn’t watching closely, or the event in question appears well away from the bulk of domestic media, occasionally one of the left’s officials will slip up and show their true face.  If you listen to what Democrats in Congress and in the Obama administration say about Israel, you would think they support Israel, and are fine friends of the Jewish state.  The lavish oaths of friendship upon Israel, and swear they have no bigger supporter than the Democrat Party.  That is, if you can believe them.  Ordinarily, it’s tough to prove, but in this case, one of their own has put her big foot in her mouth, all without the help of her slick former-President husband.  None other than Secretary of State Hillary Rodham-Clinton has made a statement that reveals the truth about her party.  Watch this short video:

That’s right.  In this video, when asked by somebody in the audience about the state of politics in the US, and how it is that any Muslims from around the world could trust either party, since both seem to support their enemy, Israel, Mrs. Clinton gives a stunningly honest answer.  For those Americans of any persuasion who had thought the Democrats a friend of Israel, I want you to decipher her answer, because it was clearly intended to intimate a dark secret, and that is that what politicians say in public is one thing, but what they believe may be something else entirely.

Surely you understand that this confirms what I have told you about how the radical left has taken over the Democrat party, and how they now practice an institutional antisemitism that blows kisses to Jews in public, while undercutting Israel ferociously in private.  They view Israel as a problem to be dealt with, and if you’re wise, you’ll realize that historically, this is far from the first time the Jews have been regarded as a “problem” to be solved.  Let’s not beat around the bush about it:  The left hates Israel, and it’s partly because they see a potential ally in the Muslim world, and partly because they view Israel as the obstacle to that alliance.

Just as in the Cold War, Teddy Kennedy was willing to participate in secret talks with Soviet leaders in order to undercut President Reagan, the left will makes it friends anywhere they believe will advance their agenda.  Currently, they look to the Islamic world as another source of support, which is why they have linked up with militant Islamists in some cases, in the furtherance of the so-called “Arab Spring,” but also in support of the so-called “Palestineans.”  What Secretary Clinton describes in her too-candid answer is the mechanism of carrying out a ruse. In public, they must continue to support Israel, for now, but in terms of our actual foreign policy, we are currently very much pro-Islam.

The hardcore left has been pushing in this direction for many years, decades in fact, and what you quickly realize is that they have merely transformed their animosity.  These same America-hating leftists have simply identified Israel as a domino that must fall in order to finally vanquish America.  Once they realized this, it was only a matter of time until they began to form strategic alliances with a militant Islam that views Israel as the Lesser Satan and America as the Great one.  I read an interesting posting on Tammy Bruce’s site by a guest contributor named Shifra, self-described as a Jew who discovered the universe of leftists’ rage against Israel.

While I’m not Jewish, it comports well with my own knowledge and observations, but more importantly, it reveals how the American left has slowly adopted positions that are now not only antagonistic toward Israel, but hostile to Jewry in general.  For this reason, the only reason I am surprised about Hillary Clinton’s remark is that she would leave that implication hanging so publicly.  The institutional left, of which Hillary is the queen bee, with her Soros-funded career, and her Soros-funded boss, is armed to the teeth with a rage she dare not exhibit.  She can only make not-so-subtle intimations in public, but what is hidden behind the facial expression is the coldly-calculated leftist who knows what expressions in public are too much, and will hurt the cause.  Hillary walked all over that line here, but you should view it as an opportunity to demonstrate the point.

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————

2012: Will The Progressives Run the GOP?

Friday, December 9th, 2011

Bull Moose or Moose Bull?

In 1911, Theodore Roosevelt began his second campaign for President.  Having retired from the presidency in 1909, Roosevelt tried to capture the the Republican nomination in 1912, because he was angry with President William Taft, who had served under Roosevelt as Secretary of War, and had been Roosevelt’s hand-picked successor.  Failing this, he decided instead to run as the candidate of the Progressive Party.  That party is more commonly remembered by Americans as the “Bull Moose Party,” because upon surviving an assassination attempt, Roosevelt announced he was “as fit as a Bull Moose.”  I prefer to drop that label, and focus instead on what the Progressive Party really was: A National Socialist Party that was subsequently rejected by the American people, but in 1912, resulted in a split in the Republican Party that handed the election to Democrat Woodrow Wilson, a Socialist.  It’s useful to understand the political parties of the time in evaluating the 2012 election, because if the past is prologue,  what we may be seeing now is merely a global re-run of the worst parts of the 20th century.

First, let us understand what the Progressive Party of 1912 had wanted to accomplish, and what its platform contained. Here is a sample:

  • A National Health Service to include all existing government medical agencies.
  • Social insurance, to provide for the elderly, the unemployed, and the disabled
  • Limited injunctions in strikes
  • An eight hour workday
  • A federal securities commission
  • Farm relief
  • An inheritance tax
  • A Constitutional amendment to allow a Federal income tax

These may sound familiar to you because all of them have become law in some form or fashion.  These may also sound familiar to you because these were the same ideas on which Woodrow Wilson substantially campaigned.  In fact, with the progressives under the flag of the Republican party in Congress, the progressives in both parties succeeded in putting this agenda through, and Wilson was only too happy to oblige.  In short, the “Bull Moose” Party consisted of the RINOs of their day.  They were the barely disguised fifth column of the main socialist political formation, and they managed to convince enough Americans unaware of their designs to aid them in implementing the first steps in converting our country from a Constitutional republic into a Socialist democracy.

Ask yourself this: How many of the current Republican candidates support the list of measures above?  After nearly a century, the answer is: Almost all modern Republicans accept most of the ideas outlined in the platform of the Progressive party of 1912.  So what was the difference, in 1912, between the Democrat progressives, and the Republican progressives?  The Democrat progressives were the US equivalent of European Communists who came to dominate Russia.  The Republican progressives were effectively the same as the National Socialists that would rise to prominence in Germany.  They were both brands of statism, as I’ve discussed previously.

Weigh this against our current situation.  Today, many conservatives look at Romney, or Gingrich, compare them with Obama and are frequently led to ask:  What’s the difference between leftist progressives and so-called “right-wing” progressives?  The truth is that just like in 1912, the differences are few, and you will note with some disappointment that Woodrow Wilson was able to implement most of the planks of the socialist platform outlined above because he had the support of a large number of progressive Republicans who were just enough to rule the day together with Democrats in Congress.    If this sounds familiar when considering Speaker Boehner, and the rest of the Republican sell-outs in our current House GOP leadership, you’re spot on.  The differences between today’s progressive Republicans and 1912′s “Bull Moose” Party are essentially nonexistent.   When you realize that certain powerful players financed both the Bull Moose and Republican parties in 1912, not as a political insurance policy as is so common these days, but in order to keep them at odds, and thus effectively keeping them at rough parity, giving the election to Democrats.  You can bet that this is what is being done in the US at present.

The progressives have always used their friends in the Republican party to undermine conservatives.  This is not a new tactic or practice, and in this sense, Ross Perot was much the same thing, with his runs in ’92 and ’96.  Those of you who believe the establishment wing of the Republican party would rather see Barack Obama elected than to let conservatives into power must understand that this would not be the first time such things have happened in electoral process in the United States.

This is done for no other reason than to prevent the rise of a populist conservative in the Republican party.  The progressive would win every election if they could, and they do their level best to carry that out, rigging both parties with firmly progressive candidates.  That way, while they would prefer the Democrat progressive, the very worst outcome they expect to see is a Republican progressive.  You and I are the rabble to be kept in line with appeals to patriotism, faith, and unity.

In 1992, Ross Perot arose to run on behalf of the “volunteers,” who were roughly analogous to the Tea Party today.  He was doing so well at one point that he suspended his campaign, which was enough to prevent him from winning, but not enough to allow Bush to win: He still  siphoned off enough of the electorate to give Bill Clinton a plurality.  It worked so well that in 1996, they brought him back for a second round.  Dole was a weak candidate, but Clinton had significant problems, so a little insurance was needed. Once again, Bill Clinton failed to achieve a majority of the popular vote, winning with a plurality instead. While not as stark as in 1992, it was clear that without Perot in the race, there was at least some chance Bob Dole could have won.

You might ask what any of this has to do with Teddy Roosevelt and the Progressive Party.  My answer to you is that conservatives are being set up again.    The progressives aren’t finished, and they intend to win in 2012 irrespective of the Republican Party primaries.  Enter Americans Elect.   As I’ve explained before, Americans Elect is a group that is seeking to put a candidate on the ballot in all fifty states in 2012.  They’ve not yet picked a candidate, who will be picked later on-line, but this candidate will almost certainly seek to appeal to the disaffected Tea Party types.  The purpose of that candidacy will not be to win, but to divide the center-right and allow Obama to be re-elected.  Their candidate will pose as the modern-day variant of the “Bull Moose” party, and in many ways, it will be.  Be prepared for this to play out. Increasingly, you may notice the Americans Elect ads on sites around the Internet.

All of this is contrived.  I see no way to overcome the progressives of either party in the 2012 election without some radical new thinking about our remaining choices.  Mitt Romney is currently attacking Newt Gingrich as not being conservative.  This is roughly akin to a singularity calling the kettle “black.”  While Newt certainly has his warts, Willard has more.  The conservative base generally recognizes this, which accounts for Gingrich’s meteoric climb since the beginning of Cain’s fall.   Conservatives and Tea Party folk  are looking for a real conservative, and while they are forced to overlook many flaws in Gingrich to see him as a conservative, they look at Romney and see what has been widely described in conservative circles as “Obama Lite.”  No conservative wants to vote for such a prospect, and that they’re willing to turn to Gingrich speaks volumes about their displeasure with Romney.

As this blog has reported, many of these same conservatives and Tea Party patriots would have preferred Sarah Palin to the lot of those still now in the race.  The reason for the ups and downs of the primary season thus far is largely due to the fact that conservatives are seeking a single candidate upon which they can all agree.  They look around the party, and they notice flawed candidates, and while no candidate is ever perfect, they simply see little to recommend in the ones now offered.  The worst part is: They’re right.

If you think conservatives are being set up, I have a suspicion you’re right.  Karl Rove is still out there stirring the pot, and whether he’s a Romney guy, or he’s banking on some late entry, he’s not finished either.  He represents the same progressive wing of the Republican party, so there’s little doubt but that where Rove is, trouble can’t be far behind.

Beware the “Bull Moose” or any reasonable facsimile thereof.  Be sure that a late entry isn’t designed to lead you to slaughter.  The progressive wing of the Republican party isn’t a friend to conservatives, never mind Tea Party folk, and while I have no advice to offer you on candidates to support, I nevertheless remain convinced that the progressives of the Republican party would rather assure Obama’s victory than to let an actual conservative win.  It now falls to you to decipher who that may be.  Progressives favor progressives, and they stick together irrespective of party.  The Republican progressive view themselves as the “loyal opposition,” and in this you should recognize with which ideology their loyalties lie.  It isn’t free market capitalism.  It isn’t conservatism.

 

Obama Proposes, Senate Disposes

Sunday, October 2nd, 2011

Help Me Out, Dick!

It’s typical of the kind of thing you expect to see in an election year with an ailing economy.  President Obama is out on the campaign trail, trying to push what he’s calling a “Jobs Bill” but which is in fact just another re-hash of the failed 2009 Stimulus bill, with some bonus tax increases tacked on.  The political heat attached to this bill is significant, and the legislation seemed to take forever to find its way to both chambers of Congress after the President proposed it.  For the moment, it appears that the President’s own party in the Senate simply isn’t interested in going along.  Among Democrats, it’s running into increasing opposition, and while this goes on, the debt “super-committee” continues to hammer out the details of deficit reduction while Democrats continue to insist on hiking taxes first.

All of this signals a deepening crisis for the president, who is struggling against sliding approval polls and intransigent members of his own party.  Increasingly, he’s begun to look very much as a president under siege, and Obama’s lack of executive experience prior to his election in 2008 is beginning to show.  More and more, he’s taken on the appearance of a ranting child, making demands of Congress in deference to his own political fortunes while they are left to struggle against an electorate that is increasingly hostile to the president’s plans and policies.  Senate Democrats aren’t foolish, and with more than a third of them up for re-election in 2012, there’s an uptick in defections from the Obama Administration’s legislative priorities.  In short, they know where their bread is buttered, and in the near term, it’s won’t be by the fellow at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue.

Senate Democrats notice that while they’re stuck in Washington DC wrestling with the President’s unpopular legislative proposals, he’s out on the golf course, or more notably, out on the campaign trail, exhorting the Congress to “pass the bill. Pass this bill. Pass this bill now!”  In what can only be a sign of the coming election’s influence on votes in the Senate, Majority Whip Dick Durbin, D -Ill, is letting it be known that he does not have the votes for the so-called “jobs bill.”  He’s currently blaming the lack of action on the few Democrats from oil-producing states who are therefore opposed to the new taxes on oil producers in this legislation.  As ever, when Democrats can’t find the support for a bill among their own members, they begin to immediately evaluate which RINO Republicans are eligible to defect from a party-line stance against new taxes.  With Mitch McConnell leading the Senate Republicans, they’ll probably yield at least a few votes for the Democrats.

Still, the hopeful sign in all of this is how difficult Obama is finding the job of pushing through this bad legislation.  It’s popular among unionists, government employees, and of course the radical left, but there isn’t any public outcry of measurable volume to support the legislation, and the Democrats are having a hard time ginning it up.  Obama is pushing it out on the campaign trail, but he isn’t exactly drawing large and enthusiastic crowds these days, so it’s having a limited effect.  It’s becoming evident that Obama is a failed president, and most of the country has essentially given up on him. Now it seems some in his own party are beginning to walk away too, issue by issue, and vote by vote.

Of course, don’t count him out yet.  He still possesses all the power and capacity of any president, and his reach is long.  You can bet the arm-twisting is beginning in earnest now, as his team decides who will be walked off the plank.  As his time begins to run out, Obama is becoming increasingly shrill, but the state of the country may immunize at least a few of them against the calls for party unity.  If he fails to get the support among Democrats, expect to hear him ratchet up the pressure on Republicans, trying to drive a few of the weaker-kneed variety into a bit of “bi-partisanship,” which when said by a Democrat to a Republican, means only surrender.

Abandoned on the Field as the ‘Nobles’ Surrender

Thursday, August 4th, 2011

The Betrayal of False Compromise

The talking points prevailing in the wake of the debt ceiling debacle would have you believe that this deal had been a compromise, and the best for which conservatives and Tea Party ought to have hoped possible.  At the end of the debates lies a truth concealed by all the fluff:  There was no compromise in this debate; one side prevailed, but it wasn’t the Tea Party.  In a betrayal reminiscent of the movie Braveheart, when the Scottish nobility deserted the field, abandoning William Wallace to defeat, Republican leaders likewise abandoned the Tea Party, not for compromise, but in infamy by betrayal and surrender for the sake of their own hides.

Willing to risk nothing, the Republican establishment has become an increasingly intractable part of the Beltway Axis.  Like the nobles in the movie, they’re taking their special privileges and carve-outs in exchange for their complicity and silence.  For an outcome to be considered a compromise implies that both parties to the exchange ought to have obtained an equal measure of consideration for their parts, in trade for a yielding of approximately equal value.  There can be no compromise where one’s position isn’t ultimately advanced, and any examination of the much-ballyhooed Budget Control Act reveals that for their part, the Republicans accepted complete capitulation with a few face-saving bones thrown their way.  None should be so foolish as to accept these bones for anything other than an insult, and the injury done by this act will exceed by many times the few strings of rancid gristle left to the Tea Party are more cause for anger and despair than for celebration.

Let’s consider what this bill has wrought:

  • A new ‘Super-Congress’ that ultimately answers only to the establishment
  • A total of $917 billion in ‘cut’s the vast bulk of which occur some time in the future
  • A failure to sufficiently reduce deficit spending – credit rating downgrades now seem inevitable
  • A failure to first pass a Balanced Budget Amendment out of both houses
  • A failure to make anything other than token cuts to FY 2012 or 2013
  • A virtual guarantee on the expiration of the so-called “Bush Tax Cuts” in January 2013(after the election)
  • A complex process of ‘triggers’ that allows politicians to shrug their shoulders and disclaim responsibility
  • A guarantee that for at least two years, Barack Obama will continue to spend your money and your future

Now, I’d like to contrast this with what was gained, in exchange, as the nobles quickly scurry from the field of battle, trumpeting “victory” as the advancing tide of Longshanks‘ Army descends upon us to put an end to our ‘uprising’:

  • A vote on a Balanced Budget Amendment with too many loopholes and no guarantee of passage
  • More than $7 Trillion in additional debt
  • A greater proportion of the budget going to service that debt, and at higher rates
  • A brief respite from the harangue that Republicans hate people

This is what the Republican ‘nobles’ quit the fight to achieve by way of so-called  ‘compromise’?  Why bother? Why not simply slap the shackles and chains upon us themselves?  For all intents and purposes, that is precisely what they have done, because this new law does nothing to immediately begin the process of changing our course to something closer to sustainability.  This bill does nothing to preserve the value of the dollar or the credit-worthiness of our government.  This bill is a disaster unmitigated by the bare bones we’re being fed as scrap from the establishment’s table.  Those in the Republican leadership in DC,  who call this bill a ‘compromise,’ are simply concealing what it really is:  Complete betrayal, and unconditional surrender.

Now, there are those conservatives who are still looking for some scrap upon which to rest the premise that this ‘compromise’ has been anything but a disaster, but the proof will be in the final tally of its effects, and from any angle I view it, the alleged benefits are more smoke and mirrors, and the detriments are vast and self-defeating.

There can be no compromise on first principles without an effective surrender.  In this case, what the Republican leadership has accomplished is to deliver the Tea Party and conservatives to the adversary.  For this monstrous betrayal, what have establishment Republicans received?  For all intents and purposes, even they have received nothing, except some temporary restraints in the vile language ordinarily hurled against them.  The target of that defamation is now almost solely the Tea Party, or Sarah Palin.

Compromise offers a potential good, when that’s what it is, but when it’s mere surrender dressed up as ‘pragmatism,’ you had better stand opposed to it.   In this entire miserable battle, only one politician of national prominence continued to rail against these so-called ‘compromises’, and she was berated by Republican operatives and leftists in the media for her trouble.  She warned and cajoled and prompted and yet, at the end of the day, they ignored her, and youSarah Palin stood in as William Wallace in this debate, and the turncoats in the GOP did their level best to deliver her to Edward the Longshanks.  The good news is that we and she survived the engagement, but a new battle is looming.  Don’t leave her on the field as she’s the only prospective presidential candidate who’s stepped onto the field without reservation.  She’s defended your honor and your good name.  It’s time to return the favor.  It’s time to begin to rally to those who dare to put their names at risk, because such people are few, and we know who they are, so if we believe in all that we claim, it’s long past time that we at least stand up to say so.