Bombshell – Absolute Proof Uncovered: Paul Ryan Is A Racist With A Secret Racist History!

Update: This “incredibly dumb piece” of race-baiting we wrote about at midnight is gaining attention – as it should.

Eventually the race card will be played with ferocity against R/R and they better be prepared at all the crazy coming their way. Supporters of R/R should be prepared (read the end of our article for suggestions as to how to respond with force not weakness) for the sludge of Obama slime coming their way.

And remember, the race-baiting we write about below comes to you courtesy of Henry Louis Gates.

——————————————————————————————

Keli Goff “political correspondent” of a black oriented website called “The Root” has the political scoop the Obama campaign has been waiting for.

It’s a story with twists and turns and shocking revelations. This is truly a scoop that will roil next week’s Republican convention.

The Root has the scoop of dirt that will destroy Paul Ryan:

“Shortly after it was announced that Rep. Paul Ryan would join the Romney ticket as this year’s Republican vice presidential candidate, I wrote a piece titled, “What We Know About Paul Ryan and Blacks.”

Well, I recently learned of another significant addition to this list.”

Get ready for your Pulitzer and a job at MSNBC”s prime time lineup Keli. Here is surprise twist #1:

“As reported on Twitter by CNN’s Pete Hamby, Ryan said he has a black sister-in-law, but perhaps even more interesting, his “college sweetheart” was African American.”

Shocking!!!!!!! A black college sweetheart!!!!!!!! This is supposed to be good right? This is supposed to be a sign of a modern man unencumbered by racism right? Not quite.

After those revelations Keli Goff examines the great questions of race and racism in America. Keli Goff takes no prisoners as she slices and dices racist Lou Dobbs:

“For years Lou Dobbs was the face of the anti-illegal-immigration crusade. As a result of his seeming obsession with the issue, he became in the eyes of many the face of xenophobia and racism, not to mention public enemy No. 1 of Mexican immigrants. There’s just one hitch to this narrative: Dobbs is married to a Mexican-American woman, meaning that he is the father of Mexican-American children. (His Mexican-born mother-in-law even lives with his family.)

Strom Thurmond is exhumed by Keli for a deserved trashing as well. The old segregationist fathered a black daughter (that no one disputes he genuinely loved and cared for) even as he led the movement to stop integration. The profound Keli asks:

“So then, how could he genuinely care for his black daughter and promote policies that would harm African Americans, and therefore harm her?”

Keli has a response to her own question that will shock gay activists. Gay activists believe that “coming out” to friends and family and the public at large reduces, if not eliminates, anti-gay bigotry. Civil rights activists who fought for black civil rights and integration as a way to bring the races together will also be surprised that according to Keli this strategy is doomed to failure. Keli Goff apparently has a deeper understanding of the human soul and a much more amazing insight into prejudice and bigotry:

“Research has shown that those who hold stereotypes about a particular group of people are unlikely to have those stereotypes altered merely by encountering someone who defies that stereotype. Instead, they are likely to view the individual defying said stereotype as an exception. In other words, it is possible to have a black friend, Asian friend, Hispanic friend or Muslim friend or wife and still exhibit prejudice toward that group. The friend or wife is simply viewed as the exception who is not like the others.”

Thank whatever deity you worship or your favorite scientist for Keli Goff. Such brilliance. Such understand. Such profundity of thought and expression.

Here is the ultimate Keli Goff twist (#2) and proof of Ryan the Racist:

“For the record: No, I am not calling Ryan a racist. I am saying, however, that if you want to know where a politician’s heart lies when it comes to a particular community, it may be best to look at that person’s policies — such as his or her record on civil rights — rather than personal relationships.”

Such generosity from Keli Goff in merely implying, not outright declaring, that white boyfriend to a black woman Paul Ryan is not being explicitly labeled a “racist” by her. She does not think that Paul Ryan is a racist after all. She only implies it.

Who can argue that what we should look at is policies not personal relationships and look at the effect of those policies in order to yell “RACIST”?

Bill Clinton was smeared by Obama Hopium Guzzlers as a racist during the last presidential election cycle. Bill grew up and certainly knew many black people and many black people were his closest friends and supporters. But Keli must think that does not matter.

Bill Clinton policies grew to an unprecedented degree the black middle class. Black youth unemployment was way down during Bill’s terms. Black unemployment was down generally and blacks thrived under “racist” Bill Clinton. [While we’re at it “racist” George W. Bush was probably the best president when it came to fighting AIDS in Africa.]

Compare and contrast. What has the effect of Obama policies been on the black community? We must be imagining that the black middle class is being decimated. We must be imagining that black youth unemployment is soaring. We must be imagining that black communities are being destroyed.

Using Keli Goff’s measure for racism we can only conclude: Barack Obama is a racist. Barack Obama hates black people. Barack Obama hates white people. Barack Obama hates women. Barack Obama hates men. That’s what Barack Obama’s policies tell us Keli.

Share

184 thoughts on “Bombshell – Absolute Proof Uncovered: Paul Ryan Is A Racist With A Secret Racist History!

  1. Admin: this is standard fare for the hard left. When they cannot prove intent to discriminate, they change the rules and try to prove that the policy advanced has a discriminatory impact. Whereupon the other side presents evidence which shows that the adverse impact is the result of unrelated factors. Then rabid leftist gets all puffy, sobs aloud and screams racist. That is why I say false charges of racism are the last bastion of scoundrels.

  2. Since the French Revolution, the mission of the hard left has been to destroy bougeois society and construct a new society of drones controlled by a central authority through fear and intimidation. In order to do so, they attack the fault lines of society in an effort to turn neighbor against neighbor. Their weapons are class warfare, racism and terror. In the movie Dr. Zhviago there is that scene where Uri and Laura come Strelvekoff who has morphed from an idealistic college student to a murderous Bolshevik General. Zhivago point out to him that the village he burned for selling horses to the whites was the wrong village. To which Strekoff replies it does not matter, a village was burned, a point was made. Zhivago replies your point, their village. I think of that when Obama, Clyburn and their ilk called Bill Clinton a racist. This is why I cannot bring myself to call a party who does that “democratic”.

  3. Another possible name occurs to me as I think of it: demonocratic. And, just for the record, that is not an endorsement of the other party. Just a sad comment on what the party of Jefferson, Jackson, FDR, and Kennedy has become during the past four years under messiah obama and a treasonous big media.

  4. Hannity interview with Ryan. Romney told him he he shared his values, and needed him to help fix the problems which are sinking this country. Meanwhile Messiah Obama is not interested in fixing the problems of this country. He is fixated on leveling and hollowing out this country and perpetual power. If I were to create a graphic art depiction, I would have a close-up of our beloved messiah, with that Ipana grin, and on his teeth the words FAILURE. As for Biden, whenever he shows up at a campaign event, they should have a canned laughter machine next to the podium running continuously, so no one made the dreadful mistake of assuming the man was anything more than a standup comedian.

    http://video.foxnews.com/v/1797716109001/exclusive-paul-ryan-on-hannity/?playlist_id=87485

  5. Wbboei, it is amazing that no matter what facts they are presented with the accusation is somehow turned around to an implicit yell of “racism” or a smear implying “racism”. Never is it considered that there are alternate views on how to improve the lot of Americans.

    When Bill Clinton signed welfare reform (after having vetoed legislation until it was shaped to something close to what he advocated when running for president) he was attacked as somehow “insensitive” to the poor. That welfare reform was a political success for Democrats (the “welfare queen” argument had to be retired) and a very big success for welfare recipients who received help to find jobs was something the Clinton haters within the Democratic Party could never get over.

    Clinton’s welfare reform was a very real success. Some welfare recipients needed an extra kick (of losing benefits) to get out of the welfare system. Many welfare recipients had grown afraid of the job market and comfortable in subsistence payments so they needed that push out of the nest to put aside their fears and venture forth into the job market. The Clinton welfare reforms provided job training that was meaningful and worked with the private sector to make sure that jobs were available. But with all that success the critics within the party could not admit they had been wrong and Clinton was right.

    It’s clear that Obama’s economic policies are not working. That Republicans and some Clinton Democrats might have other ideas that might work but are not racist is again something that the rabid DailyKooks refuse to admit. So no matter what “racism” is yelled. In the instance case written about in the article the racism is implied.

    It can never be a policy difference or disagreement of political philosophies. It always has to be racism as if we were still in 1940s America.

  6. As ridiculous as Keli Goff is, some of her readers will probably take the bait. Her “Research has shown…” phrase implies that she is somehow on the side of some arcane scientific reasoning. Obscurantist as such science may be, the reference to science will enthrall the ignorant crowd.

  7. admin: Thanks for the explanation of WJC’s welfare reform, it makes sense. Gingrich recently made it sound like WJC had vetoed the bill several times and the Republicans eventually forced it down his throat, as if WJC didn’t want the work requirement and that was a Republican, and thus his, victory.

    Gingrich is an old fan of partisan politics and has a problem recognizing that WJC worked well with him.

    And thanks for the explanation of the Democratic side too. I was unaware of that.

  8. This is an assessment of HRC’s recent African trip from the “Daily Trust”. It is partly critical, but the criticism is unjustified: the editor scolds HRC for saying that America’s approach, compared to China’s, is to “add value rather than extract it.”

    The editor refers to American policy during the Cold War, which was indeed to extract wealth from the continent and prevent the eastern bloc from getting involved by overthrowing democracies and installing dictators, but fails to recognize that US political and economic policy has changed for the better since then (including on Dubya’s watch). It may be a long time before the US overcomes its Cold War reputation.

    Africa: Clinton’s Africa Trip
    



    EDITORIAL

    Two factors appear to have influenced U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s recent 11-day, 9-nation whistle-stop tour of Africa. The first is U.S. security concerns; the second is part of U.S. ongoing efforts to halt China’s relentless economic forays in a region where it has overtaken the U.S. as Africa’s biggest trading partner.

    There were other issues too, such as HIV/AIDS, campaign against which the American government has voted huge sums of money, expenditure of which she discussed with her hosts; but these were tangential to the real purpose of her diplomatic swings.

    Since the creation of Africa Command (AFRICOM) to oversee U.S. security interests in Africa by the George W. Bush administration, there has been an increasing emphasis on the militarization of U.S. relations with African states as part of its self-declared war on terror and also securing American interests in the face of China’s growing presence on the continent.

    Her first port of call was Senegal, where a smooth transition had just taken place with Macky Sall replacing Abdoulaye Wade as president. The Senegalese armed forces get military aid and training facilities, including joint exercises with the U.S. forces. Moreover, U.S. military cooperation with Senegal recently took on added significance given the crisis in neighbouring Mali where secessionists have overrun the north, and imposed strict Islamic law. The insurgency threatens stability in the entire West Africa sub-region.

    In Juba, South Sudan Clinton spoke on the need for the new country to end its feud and normalize relations with Sudan.

    Clinton’s visit to Uganda and Kenya was to touch base with U.S. allies on the frontline of the battling against Al Shabaab, the Somalia group that the U. S. has included in its list of terrorist organisations. Uganda is the largest contributor to the U.S. -backed African Mission in Somalia (AMISOM); while Kenyan troops have been engaged in hot pursuit of Al Shabaab insurgents in Somalia.

    Aside from security issues in Kenya, Clinton emphasized the need for a free, fair and peaceful election due in March 2013, warning the country’s leaders against a repeat of the postelection violence that rocked it in 2007/8.

    The issue of security dominated her discussions with the Nigerian authorities in Abuja, where she added her voice to the chorus of those who have already told government officials that the use of force alone will not bring an end to the current Boko Haram insurgency that has plagued parts of the country.

    In South Africa economic issues dominated Clinton’s discussions with the authorities, culminating in a business summit. South Africa was reportedly anxious that the US renew the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) under which African exports to the U.S. enjoy certain privileges, including duty exemption. Given its comparatively more developed economy, South Africa has been a major beneficiary of AGOA, in contrast other African states, and would like it renewed after it expires in 2015. Although Clinton never mentioned China by name, China’s role in Africa was a long shadow in her trip.

    Washington has long criticized China’s policy of ‘hear- no- evil, speak-no-evil and see- no- evil’ in engaging African states. She said in a speech in Dakar that the U.S. offered Africa “a model of partnership that adds value, rather than extract it,” a dig at China’s policy towards Africa.

    Clinton’s holier-than-thou stance is deceptive; the continent’s leaders should see through it. For instance, during the Cold War era, it suited Washington’s purpose to look the other way by shoring up unsavoury African leaders such as Mobutu Sese Seko, the ruler of mineral-rich Congo so long as their countries were pro-West and open to exploitation by U.S. multinationals.

    Moreover, Africa did not need Clinton’s patronising lecture on how to engage with China. President Jacob Zuma had warned during the last China-Africa summit in Beijing against a situation where African states only exported commodities to China in exchange for manufactured goods replicating the same old unequal trading relationship that characterized Africa’s relationship with the West.

    For all its perceived faults, China has provided African states with an alternative development model and a source of capital which the U.S. considers as a threat to its interests.

  9. Trouble seems to be brewing for Hillary while she’s been away on her trip. From the “Daily Caller”:

    Clinton, Napolitano mum on open-door immigrant welfare policy

    Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano are mum on why the legal requirements that immigrants and visa applicants not be reliant on government assistance have been watered down, according to some lawmakers.

    The deadline for Clinton and Napolitano to respond to a letter regarding admission of immigrants on or likely to be on assistance programs from senior Republicans on the Budget, Judiciary, Finance, and Agriculture Committees came and passed Monday.

    On Tuesday Alabama Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions, the ranking member on the Senate Budget Committee, blasted the pair for their failure to comply.

    “It is unacceptable that Secretary Napolitano and Secretary Clinton have not seen fit to respond our oversight letter,” Sessions said in a statement. “It is a sound principle of immigration law that those who come to our country should be able to take care of themselves financially, yet this legal requirement has effectively been waived. Under their agencies’ guidelines, an able-bodied, working-age immigrant could receive the bulk of his or her income in the form of federal assistance and still not be deemed welfare-reliant.”

    The concerns that Sessions, Judiciary Committee ranking member Chuck Grassley, Finance Committee ranking member Orrin Hatch, and Agriculture Committee ranking member Pat Roberts have is the government’s interpretation of federal regulations prohibiting legal admittance of immigrants “likely to become primarily dependent on the government for subsistence.”

    As the senators detailed in their letter sent on Aug. 6, immigrants can avail themselves of dozens of welfare programs at the time of their application and after without the government deeming them a dependency risk, or so-called “public charge.”

    Food stamps benefits, housing benefits, energy assistance, child care services and many other programs are all inadmissible when determining an immigrant’s risk of public dependency, according to the Department of Homeland Security’s website.

  10. The deadline for Clinton and Napolitano to respond to a letter regarding admission of immigrants on or likely to be on assistance programs from senior Republicans on the Budget, Judiciary, Finance, and Agriculture Committees came and passed Monday.

    On Tuesday Alabama Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions, the ranking member on the Senate Budget Committee, blasted the pair for their failure to comply.

    ==================

    I expect the Clintons had enough experience with such Congressional demands to know just what they’re worth.

  11. The following is a painful read from “American Thinker” but is germane to today’s discussion of the race card. Here, the race card is played once again against HRC, but also against Obama. The allegations of impending white genocide in South Africa may have some basis in reality but, considering Halbert’s high level of conservative spin, I think not.
    =====

    August 22, 2012

    Politics of Racial Division: Hillary and Obama Ignoring Genocide against Whites
    By Alan P. Halbert

    Hillary Clinton, the liberal darling of the left — and lately touted as the replacement for our “gaffe-prone” vice president, Joe Biden — has certainly proven herself to be a team player on Obama’s and the Democrats’ policy of division and opportunism in all things racial. She has just completed a trip to South Africa, where she discussed numerous issues with Maite Nkoana-Mashabane, South African minister of international relations and cooperation. The two politicians issued a joint statement for strategic dialog.

    Here is a partial list of the strategic initiatives they agreed to:

    * the signing of a U.S. $2 billion declaration of intent between the Export-Import Bank of the U.S. and South Africa’s Industrial Development Corporation to provide credit guarantees to stimulate development of South Africa’s renewable energy sector;

    * the establishment of a Global Disease Detection Center in South Africa, co-directed by the U.S. Center for Disease Control and South Africa’s National Institute for Communicable Diseases;

    * a R5.2 million (U.S. $650,000) USAID program for judicial management and leadership program to support South African combating sexual and gender-based violence and build upon best practices that can be shared with other countries in the region …

    You get the idea about what this statement and trip were all about: building ties in a troubled world by reaching out to our global neighbors. What was conspicuously absent was any statement from Hillary or Obama on the atrocities being committed against the Afrikaners in the region. Genocide Watch, an international alliance to end genocide, chronicles the crimes against the Boers by a member organization of the ANC (South Africa’s ruling party in power), and officials of the South African government are prompting Genocide Watch to place South Africa alternately between stage 5 (“polarization”) and stage 6 (“preparation”) of their genocide scale.

    Since 1994, the Boers have been subject to random killings, rapes, and property crimes by members of the Youth League of the ANC and others. Here is an excerpt from their statement by Genocide Watch:
    Over 3000 white farmers have been murdered since 1994. The South African police have not made investigation and prosecution of these farm murders a priority, dismissing them as crimes by common criminals. The government has disbanded the commando units of white farmers that once protected their farms, and has passed laws to confiscate the farmers’ weapons. Disarmament of a targeted group is one of the surest early warning signs of future genocidal killings.

    My personal favorite discussion point between Hillary and South Africa is the two-billion-dollar credit guarantees for renewable energy. Good to know her priorities are straight in elevating a decidedly leftist green international agenda above egregious human rights violations.

    When we have such tyranny and genocide happening in South Africa and Hillary is discussing “green energy,” we certainly know where Obama’s regime is on this issue: namely, tacit approval. A search of the State Departments website did not produce any condemnation for these acts or atrocities.

    For instance, this video should curdle the blood of anyone, much less one from a “black” racial heritage, like Obama. In short, the president of South Africa is singing a song in January 2012 that talks about exterminating the Boers from South Africa. One of the most telling lines in the song is “the cabinet will shoot them with the machine gun.” I hate to break it to Hillary, but when the president of South Africa implicates his own Cabinet in plans for mass extermination, this government is organized to commit genocide.

    And all Hillary can find to talk about is green energy?

    Even worse, the Obama regime has clearly turned an official blind eye to such slaughter in the form of the recently renamed “fact sheets” on the State Department’s website on South Africa. These web pages make no mention of the Boers’ plight — another sign of tacit approval.

    What is even more disturbing is this statement by Hillary on July 24, 2012 at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum Forward-Looking Symposium on Genocide Prevention. She had the perfect opportunity to forewarn and telegraph South Africa at this symposium prior to her August trip, as she specifically mentioned several nations that were on the brink of genocide — but South Africa was conspicuously absent from her litany.

    Third, we are enhancing our civilian surge capacity. We already have personnel trained to analyze conflicts and defuse potentially violent situations. Now we will be using those personnel to focus on atrocity prevention. We have deployed our Civilian Response Corps to countries such as South Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Sri Lanka, and Kyrgyzstan.

    When you factor in the prolific references to “race” by Obama’s surrogates, it makes one wonder what in fact they have in store for this nation. Joe Biden’s recent comment about placing people back in chains is an overt reference to our nation’s racial past.

    However, what is more telling is this video from MoveOn.org, named “REVEALED: THE GOP STRATEGY.” (Hint: it’s racist.) To wit, Obama surrogates are purposely fomenting racial hatred against the GOP and conservatives in this nation. We also have the suppression by the MSM of all the black-on-white assaults and killings in this nation (reported only by Joseph Farah on WND and other conservative outlets).

    It leaves me to wonder whether Hillary’s mission was a fact-finding tour to see firsthand how one actually instigates racial hatred against others. I wonder: would her and Obama’s stance be different if the Afrikaners, the Boers, were anything but white?

    Without belaboring the point, we know the left has a long and bloody history of genocide in the 20th century. I cannot help but wonder what is around the corner when our own government will not condemn these atrocities for what they are.

  12. “If only we could trade presidents”
    ====

    Yes, indeed. Vaclav Klaus does seem to be rational.

    But he ends his argument by saying that the losses we incur in a useless fight against global warming would be great, yet there is no reason to say that.

    The environment-friendly solutions being implemented around him in Europe are a growth factor in Europe’s stagnating economies, just as WJC and HRC have predicted. The Chinese are in on this environmental bandwagon too, much to their economic advantage.

  13. “Romney has zero percent support from black voters:”

    Seems like another rigged poll. I would check the internals and fine print before buying into that.

  14. Leanora: While you’re here, I’d like to ask you what your objections are to Agenda 21. You’ve voiced your fears several times, mainly fearing that we are being forced to follow a path that is detrimental to us, yet without telling us how we could be harmed or in what way we are being forced. The Wikipedia article starts out saying:

    “Agenda 21 is a non-binding, voluntarily implemented action plan of the United Nations with regards to sustainable development.”

    It is also stated that 173 countries have signed on to this statement of principles and action guidance plan. So there is no attempt to force anyone and, considering that the plan is aimed mainly at eliminating poverty, its implementation is intended for impoverished nations which, assuming we get Obama out of office, is not the case of the United States.

    I have heard some people call “sustainable development” a vicious concept that must be avoided. I don’t understand this. If you think ‘sustainable development’ is bad, could you explain please.

  15. In publishing the Halbert article, “American Thinker” proved that it is the conservative cousin of the super-liberal “Time”, “The Nation” and a number of other progressive journals. They all use slices of fact to make a partisan point – which is usually invalid. They are little more than advertising pamphlets for their political parties or candidates, of choice. Halbert refers to Hillary as “the liberal Hillary Clinton”. Now, we all know, had she been as liberal as the article would imply, she would never have been attacked by the Progressive controlled DNC – in 2008. When she was a NY Senator, her willingness to work cooperatively with the Republicans was legendary. She has always been centrist. The real Right Wingers have proven repeatedly that they have serious CDS, and always will.

    Jesweezy, thanks for posting that article. You’re right, it is hard to read, but being fully informed prevents being taken by surprise, as we Hillary supporters were in 2008, when the woman hating (including Pelosi) A-holes in charge attempted to destroy one of their own, in order to award the presidency to Barack, and to ram their agenda down the throats of Democrats and the country. The Halbert article reminds me once again why I really detest the far Right.

    The racism issue will be used in politics as long as it is effective. But, what Kell and others who benefit from stirring up hatred apparently, fail to see is that racism is racism. Whether white against black or black against white. So everything she said about Whites with black friends being the exception – applies to blacks with white friends. Those who want racism to end need to stop being racist. But, I’m not holding my breath for that. Racism benefits those who exploit it – Obama, Al Sharpton, the list is endless.

  16. It turns out the magazine The Root is a creation of ta-da – Henry Louis Gates! Surprise to no one.

    http://shawnpwilliams.com/2008/01/28/henry-louis-gates-launches-the-root-online-magazine-with-news-discussion-and-geneology/

    Gates has been busy since he made false accusations of racism against the Cambridge Police and Officer Crowley. Barack Obama helped Gates by siding against the “stupid” Cambridge police.

    As we noted in the article the black community has been devastated by Barack Obama’s policies. Elsewhere in The Root there is an article about a panel discussion on black unemployment called “As Jobs Vanish, Where Are Blacks Left? – A luminary-packed panel gathered by Henry Louis Gates Jr. shared insights in Martha’s Vineyard.”

    Where else to discuss black unemployment but Martha’s Vineyard?

    http://www.theroot.com/views/jobs-vanish-where-does-leave-blacks

    They convened for the annual Hutchins Forum at the Old Whaling Church in the island’s Edgartown section, at the behest of Harvard University’s W.E.B. Du Bois Institute, of which The Root’s editor-in-chief, Dr. Henry Louis Gates Jr., is the director. Moderated by journalist and author Charlayne Hunter-Gault, the panel included former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers, who is also a past president of Harvard University and a former economic adviser to President Obama; David Simon, creator of Homicide: Life on the Street and The Wire; economist and education researcher Roland G. Fryer Jr.; Constance L. Rice, co-director of the Advancement Project; and Heather Boushey, who is a senior economist at the Center for American Progress.

    More than 200 people, including scholar Lani Guinier and The Wire actors Wendell Pierce, Sonja Sohn and Andre Royo, packed into the sweltering church to hear the discussion. Following opening remarks by Gates, the conversation kicked off with the observation by Summers that “We have a problem of failing our children.” That set the direction of a discussion that focused heavily on education and the effects of the war on drugs on poor communities.

    No mention was made of the disaster which is Barack Obama. The Martha’s Vineyard panel blamed black unemployment on the war on drugs. It’s almost as if that panel was on drugs.

  17. jeswezey – Agenda 21 is just too involved and complicated by now for me to try to explain my feelings in this limited space.

    Allow these democrats to explain what is wrong with it and what kind of life we are facing under its implementation:

    http://www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com/

    If you enjoy freedom and the right to make your own decisions, you could never have asked such a question. I have to presume you don’t know how restrictive or totalitarian a plan it truly is.

  18. turndownobama: “I expect the Clintons had enough experience with such Congressional demands to know just what they’re worth.”
    ====

    Actually, I think Congress has every right to ask these questions and demand answers. However, (i) Hillary has been away for ten days and (ii) she really has nothing to do with such issues. The answers should come from Napolitano and/or the immigration services.

  19. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/79971.html?hp=t1

    Rep. Todd Akin showed he could win a 48-hour standoff with his party. But that feat pales compared with what’s next: Running for a critical Senate seat as a candidate in near total isolation — abandoned by Republicans across the spectrum after his “legitimate rape” remarks and hard-pressed to raise the millions of dollars he’ll need to compete with Sen. Claire McCaskill.

    The defiant six-term congressman believes he’s up to the task, regardless of what the rest of the political universe thinks. And Akin has his reasons, implausible as they may seem in the moment. [snip]

    Akin and his team reckon the party and outside groups may eventually come around to support him, realizing that Republicans can’t afford to lose in Missouri if they want to regain power in the Senate. [snip]

    His party’s presidential candidate wants him to quit. Well-financed Republican outside groups say they won’t spend a dime on him. And virtually every Republican in the Senate, from the powerful leader on down to lowly rank-and-file members, wants a new candidate to take on the vulnerable Democratic incumbent. [snip]

    The next month will be critical for the Republican Party and Akin. After skipping the Tuesday deadline to quit so the party could easily name a replacement, Akin now faces a new deadline of Sept. 25, the latest he could obtain a court order to get off the November ballot.

    Both parties will be watching the polls closely ahead of that date. Top Republicans will be eager to make the case to Akin that he can’t win and has no choice but to bow out for the good of the party.

    Meanwhile, the National Republican Senatorial Committee is closely watching another deadline: Sept. 11, the date on which its $5 million ad buy was scheduled to begin to blister McCaskill from then until Election Day.

    If Akin stays in the race at that point, the NRSC plans to scrap the ad buy. But if the party committee were to cancel the ad buy and later rebook it on behalf of a new candidate, the NRSC would have to pay for the ads at much higher rates, costing the party significant resources that could otherwise go toward another candidate in a tight race.

    All of which adds to a continued sense of urgency among party officials worried that Akin’s blunder could wash away their chances of a Senate majority in the fall.

    Sen. McCaskill knows that the only way she wins reelection is if Todd Akin is her opponent in November,” the NRSC said in a statement.

  20. Even before anyone heard of Agenda 21, their goals were set in stone. The globalists have their own version of the Ten Commandments and they are written on stone tablets in the mountains of Georgia.

    They are called the Georgia Guidestones and they look like this:

    http://www.radioliberty.com/stones.htm

    “The message of the American Stonehenge also foreshadowed the current drive for Sustainable Development. Any time you hear the phrase “Sustainable Development” used, you should substitute the term “socialism” to be able to understand what is intended”.

  21. “I have to presume you don’t know how restrictive or totalitarian a plan it truly is”

    That is exactly the case and that is why I asked the question.

    Agenda 21 is surely holistic in its approach, but holistic does not mean totalitarian. It’s all voluntary. And where are the restrictions?

    I enjoy freedom and the right to make my own decisions, but that includes the right to ask questions.

    I will dutifully peruse the links you provided; however, if you are counting on somebody else to convince me of your opinion, that is a very roundabout way of discussing anything.

    In any event, I always make up my own mind, which is part of the freedom I enjoy, and was just hoping you would use your own words to explain your own opinions.

  22. Leanora: “Any time you hear the phrase “Sustainable Development” used, you should substitute the term “socialism” to be able to understand what is intended”.

    ====

    You see, that is what I meant about the phrase “sustainable development”. Some people, perhaps yourself, want to put it over as a code word for socialism.

    It is true that Europe is socialist and that sustainable development is on everyone’s lips in Europe – but not just the socialists, also the lips of corporations and small business owners: They want their investments to endure and grow, i.e. be sustainable, instead of being thrown out the window like in Obama’s Stimulus.

    So what are we supposed to do, prone unsustainable development? Can’t you see how ridiculous that is?

  23. As Obama and his fellow travellers sink deeper and deeper into the mound of something Bess Truman spent forty years trying to get her husband to call maneure, the comparison to Custers Last Stand becomes inevitable.

  24. Leonora, a Republican running third party is a possibility. But because Missouri has a “sore loser” law none of the candidates that ran in the primary and lost can run third party. Palin endorsed Steelman but Steelman cannot run third party due to the law.

    If Akin gets out and the court (only 2 of the 6 top judges are Republicans so even this might be difficult) grants an order to take his name off the ballot Akin would have to pay the printing costs of the new ballots (presumably the Party would agree to pay those costs). Only then could Brunner or Steelman be named by the Party committee filling the vacancy. But third party for either of Akin’s primary opponents is not possible.

  25. Like this is news to anyone. 😆

    n an interview on Tuesday with conservative radio host Laura Ingraham, ABC News’ White House correspondent Jake Tapper addressed many of the concerns that Republicans have with the media. Tapper said that he was concerned that key issues, like the economy, were being ignored in favor of political issues like Mitt Romney’s tax returns. Tapper said that he hopes the media does not unfairly cover this election and favor one candidate over another, as he says the institution did in 2008.

    Ingraham asked Tapper if he was happy with the substance of political media coverage thus far. Tapper replied that he was not, saying that the state of the nation’s economy and the high unemployment rate are voters’ paramount concerns and that he would like to see “more action taken and more emphasis given to this issue.”

    http://www.mediaite.com/online/jake-tapper-tells-ingraham-media-helped-tip-the-scales-in-2008-hopes-2012-coverage-is-serious-unbiased/

  26. The reference to South Africa is interesting. There is a tendency in elite liberal circles to forget what it was like in South Africa, the roots of the ANC, and to make it up as they go along. It sum, it was not entirely the morality play which we were led to believe. And, as you can see from the American Thinker article, forgetting about Hillary for the moment, the transition was not a case of immaculate conception.

    I know a guy who emigrated here from South Africa. I have gone shooting with him from time to time. He is an Afrikaner. He was a bodyguard for the last white president of that country. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F._W._de_Klerk. He came from a long line of policeman and security people. He is my source for the counter history of that embattled state.

    He grew up in the vicinity the Kimberly diamond mine, aka the Big Hole, which was the largest diamond mine in the world. http://honeymoons.about.com/od/southafrica/ig/Kimberley-Diamond-Mine/ As an Africaner he had little use for the British, but has a grudging respect for Nelson Mandella as a man of vision. He describes quite vividly what it was like in that country in the last days of Apartheid and the aftermath.

    When he was on the police force, they would wake up in the morning and find the corpses of black people hung up on telephone polls with ANC literature sealed on the poll. His captain would send black auxillaries to pull them down, and it was not uncommon for those bodies to be boobie trapped which would kill those auxilliaries. He was very grim in speaking about that part.

    He and his wife lived in a poor neighborhood of a city and there were killings every night. He would sleep with a shotgun in his bed. He said that when he went out on his job in the morning he never knew whether he would be killed and never return home that night. As a bodyguard his role was to jump in front of the political leader and provide a human shield and take down any assailient.

    One day he took a New York Times reporter out to a grassy hill that overlooked two black villages which lay adjacent to eachother and were in a perpetual state of war. Then as now South Africa was comprised of 26 tribes, and war among them was not uncommon. In this instance gunfire reigned back and forth for hours. According to his testimony the police were powerless to stop it. Hence they waited until it finally ended, and then at the behest of the New York Times reporter they drove down to the killing field in the jeep to survey the damage.

    When they stopped beside the bodies, the New York Times reporter asked him to pose next to the dead bodies for a photograph. Sensing the political agenda behind this request, he declined. However another policeman in their retinue relished the idea of getting his name on the world stage, and soon his wish was fulfulled. He appeared on the front page of the New York Times a day or so later. The caption and headline blamed the police for the killings, when in fact the grievances between those particular tribes went back for centuries.

    My dad had a client who was from South Africa. He was a jewish businessman who fled Germany when Hitler took over and founded a thriving lumber business somewhere in that country. One night he and his wife went to dinner with my parents and my dad mentioned an article which appeared in the New York Times that morning. The businessman dismissed the story with the wave of his hand, and told my dad, Don, it never happened.

    If you think about this in the context of the Cuban Revolution a similar phenomenon took place. The New York Times did a series of interviews with Castro while he was still in the mountains with his rebel forces. Whereupon they published a series of article lionizing Castro and casting him as a legitimate democratic leader. When Castro succeeded, murdered thousands, sent others to brutal re-education camps, well before the Bay of Pigs, the New York Times never offered a retraction.

    So when people cite them as authority in this country, it is wise to reflect back on how often they have been wrong about things, that they are promoting a politcal agenda of their own design, and will mislead the public in order to achieve it. Whether that agenda is legitimate or not is a separate matter and will vary case to case. The point is they are not interested in the truth. And that is the same problem we see today in spades in the electoral process.

  27. I never believed in affirmative discrimination anyway. Too many of my friends have been hurt by it – including a nephew who was denied entrance to a university in favor of some ‘other’ whose grades were not even close to his (nephew) level.

    But what Holder is doing is making a complete mockery of the justice department:

    http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/08/21/justice-department-recruits-dwarfs/

    If I was Romney I wouldn’t want the job. Nobody will be able to clean up the mess this administration is leaving behind.

  28. Tapper hopes that the media will not throw another election for Obama but will be fair in 2012? Well, I listened to that interview and I thought his answers were meandering and all over the board. He is a mile wide and six inches deep in my opinion. But assume for a moment that that is a fair construction of what he said, and that Laura was not just putting words in his mouth, the question then becomes this: does a cat bark?

  29. Doran and Kendall Zimmerman, 2009
    76 out of 79 climatologists who “listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change” believe that mean global temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and 75 out of 77 believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in significant human involvement. A summary from the survey states that:

    It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.[12]

    A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (PNAS) reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and drew the following two conclusions:

    (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.[13]

    Farnsworth and Lichter, 2011

    In an October 2011 paper published in the International Journal of Public Opinion Research, researchers from George Mason University analyzed the results of a survey of 489 scientists working in academia, government, and industry. The scientists polled were members of the American Geophysical Union or the American Meteorological Society and listed in the 23rd edition of American Men and Women of Science, a biographical reference work on leading American scientists. Of those surveyed, 97% agreed that that global temperatures have risen over the past century. Moreover, 84% agreed that “human-induced greenhouse warming” is now occurring. Only 5% disagreed with the idea that human activity is a significant cause of global warming.[

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists%27_views_on_climate_change

    There may still be one or two 90 year old Japanese soldiers on a remote island in the south pacific who don’t know that war is over too…

  30. Leanora:

    OK, concerning the first link you provided, it’s a spin piece. Like the little quote on “sustainable development” above, the author tries to make clear terms into code words for things she knows people don’t want. That’s the first paragraph.

    The second paragraph branches off into a completely irrelevant rant about the Chinese, Rumsfeld and a disparate batch of historical incidents, ending with “I’m not against making certain issues a priority”, bundling examples of a few serious issues with “sensitivity to all living creatures”. Sardonic.

    These first two paragraphs tell the reader that the writer (Rosa Koire, to whom you already linked me a few months ago) likes to hear herself talk.

    She then claims that Agenda 21 is based on what she calls “Communitarianism”. As far as I can gather, communitarianism means opting for community interest over individual interest. In fact, this is expressed nowhere in Agenda 21; Koire is making it up.

    Community interest over individual interest is not expressed explicitly in Agenda 21; however, it can be considered an implicit part of Agenda 21 because it is an implicit part of any democratic society in the world: The government acts in the general interest, not in the interests of a small group or individual, or special interest groups as in the US. When government acts in the interests of an individual or small group(s), you have a dictatorship – Saddam Hussein, Mubarak, Khadaffi, Obama, the scions of Wall Street and the City, and so forth.

    Koire: “In a nutshell, the plan calls for governments to take control of all land use and not leave any of the decision making in the hands of private property owners.” Once again, Koire is making it up. It is simply untrue, Agenda 21 calls for nothing of the sort and if you think it does, then show it to me. Koire doesn’t, she simply alleges it.

    Her tirade goes on and on like this, with no actual references to Agenda 21, just allegations and untruths.

    Typical: “U.N. Agenda 21 cites the affluence of Americans as being a major problem which needs to be corrected.” [There may be a reference to wasteful spending and land use by Americans, but I haven’t found that in Agenda 21 either.] “It calls for lowering the standard of living for Americans so that the people in poorer countries will have more, a redistribution of wealth.” I’m sorry, but this is just bullshit. Agenda 21 makes no such observation or recommendation.

    She throws in: “It’s time that people educate themselves…” and I say AOK to that, but letting Koire educate you is the fast track to misinformation.

    She gets down to specifics, saying that “Redevelopment” is a waste of money leading to failed condo projects with “ground floor retail and two stories of residential”, not dense enough to support the retail, plus rezoning of commercial, industrial and multi-residential land to ‘mixed use,’ and places the blame for these failures (which may be real enough) on the idea that “Redevelopment is a tool used to further the Agenda 21 vision of remaking America’s cities.” This is just a statement and allegation with no basis in fact or any connection to Agenda 21.

    She says “With redevelopment, cities have the right to take property by eminent domain – against the will of the property owner – and give it or sell it to a private developer.” Here, she is trying to make an incendiary issue out of something that has always existed everywhere in the world, including the United States, where the constitution specifically grants the right of eminent domain to the Federal Government, assuming that it exists naturally for state and city governments.

    Leanora, when you read things like this, or anything else for that matter, you have to apply some critical judgment and not just swallow it all with the bait. While the failures Koire indicates may be true enough, placing the blame on Agenda 21, and claiming that local decision-makers were somehow forced to apply faulty zoning because of Agenda 21, is simply beyond the pale.

    She laces into “Advocacy – A fancy word for lobbying, influencing, and maybe strong-arming the public and politicians.” Again, code-wording. Now you can’t advocate anything, even bike lanes (which is the example she uses) without being a nefarious stooge of Agenda 21.

    Later: “Slowly, people will not be able to afford single-family homes.” So now the housing crisis had nothing to do with the subprime bubble and predatory lending, unless these things too were dictated by Agenda 21?

    I’ll go on to the next link you provided, but it better be more palatable than Koire and Phyllis Schalfly.

  31. I never believed in affirmative discrimination anyway. Too many of my friends have been hurt by it – including a nephew who was denied entrance to a university in favor of some ‘other’ whose grades were not even close to his (nephew) level.
    ———————–
    Justice Harland called it for what it is in his dissenting opinion when the issue first came before the Supreme Court: reverse discrimination. Interestingly, the doctrine of affirmative action caused a number of luminaries of the ACLU to resign from that organization. Professor Van Alstyne was among them. He say it as a quota–which it most definitely is despite all the Manchurian chatter to the contrary about goals and timetables which seek to finesse their way around the original intent of the 1964 Civil Rights Act which sought to promote color blind equal opportunity, and forbade expressly quotas. The 1972 Amendments codified quotas, and executive orders confirmed it.

  32. Van Alystnes point was that quotas were used in an earlier era to limit access to institutions like Harvard. If memory serves, Dean Langdell of Harvard opposed the confirmation of Brandeis because he was Jewish. The collective memory of that caused Van Alystne who became a professor of law at Duke to quit the ACLU and write scholarly articles opposing affirmative action. Corporations however were willing to embrace it, and treat it as a cost of doing business. The net effect however is to move us away from the goal of a colorblind society, and to substitute color for qualification based on merit. No matter how you slice it, that is the bottom line.

  33. Vice President Biden is trading his claim that Republicans want to put people “back in chains” for some new imagery — this time likening GOP lawmakers to “squealing pigs.”

    The vice president, during a speech in Minneapolis, attacked Republicans on Tuesday over their objections to recent financial regulations.

    “Over the objections where they sound like squealing pigs, over the objections of (Mitt) Romney and all his allies, we passed some of the toughest Wall Street regulations in history,” Biden said, claiming Democrats ensured Wall Street is no longer a “casino.”

    The language follows a trend of amplifying rhetoric on the campaign trail in the run-up to the Republican and Democratic national conventions.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/21/biden-compares-republicans-to-quealing-pigs/

  34. Tampa police say they’ve confiscated bricks and pipes from a rooftop in Tampa, and discovered what they say is “anarchist” graffiti.The anonymous symbol was spray painted, along with the number “99″ in red paint.All of it was found on top of a building at 1000 North Florida Ave., which is at the corner of Florida Avenue and Tyler Street.“We are appreciative that the business owner called us,” Tampa Police Chief Jane Castor said Tuesday afternoon.”Finding those items for us was not a surprise,” she added. “We are just pleased to see the communications process worked the way it did.”Bill Warner is a private investigator who tracks and researches radical groups all over the world. He says the stockpile is a sign of trouble ahead.”These are tactics terrorists use in the Middle East. They will hide bricks in piles in buildings and so forth. They will move into the area start their little protests. Then they will find their pile of bricks and pipes and start busting out windows,” Warner said.

    http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/story/19331507/2012/08/21/police-suspicious-items-found-on-rooftop-prior-to-rnc

  35. Some people, perhaps yourself, want to put it over as a code word for socialism.

    =====================

    Remember how in 2008, words likely to be used against Obama — such as ‘inexperienced’ or ‘unqualified’ — were defined as code words for ‘Black’?

  36. Dr Jack, Todd Akin and candidate Romney…

    “Today, Dr. John Willke, a founder of the Pro Life Movement, endorsed Governor Mitt Romney and his campaign for our nation’s highest office,” reads a Romney campaign press release from October 2007. “Dr. Willke is a leading voice within the pro-life community and will be an important surrogate for Governor Romney’s pro-life and pro-family agenda.”

    In that release, Romney is quoted as saying, “I am proud to have the support of a man who has meant so much to the pro-life movement in our country. He knows how important it is to have someone in Washington who will actively promote pro-life policies.”

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/79986.html#ixzz24IDn8QYu

  37. Akin touts support from Dr. Jack

    WASHINGTON — Missouri Republican Todd Akin’s troubled Senate campaign blasted out a letter of support Tuesday from the antiabortion crusader who promoted the theory that victims of rape do not usually become pregnant.

    Akin’s decision to release the letter from Dr. Jack Willke, founder of the International Right to Life Federation, sends a mixed message from the GOP congressman, who has apologized repeatedly for having said “legitimate rape” rarely leads to pregnancy.

    “The pro-life movement and I unequivocally stand with Rep. Akin. How could we not?” Willke wrote in the letter. “Rep. Akin will make the U.S. Senate a safer place for the most vulnerable in our nation.

    http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-todd-akin-touts-support-from-man-who-popularized-theories-on-rape-20120821,0,6626759.story

    If they can’t make Akin go away, he will be an albatross around Romney’s neck…

  38. Should Isaac head for Tampa, the biggest issue will be what to do with the expected 50,000 visitors who begin arriving this weekend, most without their own transportation.

    Jeff Masters, co-founder of weatherunderground.com, has written recently on his blog about the convention and hurricanes.

    “The past three (computer simulations) … have all taken 94L (what the storm was called before becoming a depression) over Florida during the August 27-29 time frame, which I’m sure is making organizers of the Republican National Convention uncomfortable,” he wrote.
    http://www.news-press.com/article/20120822/NEWS0107/308220017/1002/RSS01

  39. In haste, and I don’t have time to check the dates.

    I lived 14 miles from Santa Rosa and was in a group fighting AGAINST a Redevelopment project. Never heard of Rosa Koire. She was not an ally of real on the ground Redevelopment opponents, so far as any of us knew. I only heard of her later, in the sort of context being quoted here. She looks like a front to me.

    Btw the Redevelopment project we were fighting had none of the alleged ‘Agenda 21’ goals. It was all about business and ‘bricks and sticks’ and widening roads and ‘increasing property values’. The people for it were Chamber of Commerce types. We environmentalists were the opposition.

  40. If they can’t make Akin go away, he will be an albatross around Romney’s neck…

    ================

    More from a Romney man who agrees with Akin:

    Fischer last gained notice during the 2012 campaign for successfully organizing a push against Romney’s appointment of Richard Grenell, an openly gay man, to be his national security spokesman. Fischer called Grennell’s sexuality “offensive to God” and took credit for his resignation and for bringing Romney in line with social conservatives once he stepped down.

    Asked for comment on Willke’s views and whether Romney knew of them before seeking his endorsement, a spokesperson for the campaign pointed to Romney’s statements on Akin, but declined to comment on the doctor.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/08/romney-endorsed-by-praised-dr-john-willke-leading-proponent-of-idea-that-rape-lowers-pregnancy-risk/261358/

  41. ” Interestingly, the doctrine of affirmative action caused a number of luminaries of the ACLU to resign from that organization.”
    *******
    I suspect that many of them were Jews who were very aware of what “diversity” and “affirmative action” meant in the 1920s. By the early 1920s, Ivy League colleges that based admissions on merit and competitive testing had a “Jewish Problem”. Harvard was >20% Jewish, Columbia >40%, etc. President of Harvard, A. Lawrence Lowell, proposed geographic “diversity” to solve the Jewish problem. Student were recruited from the Upper Mid-West and West and by the late 1920s, enrollment of Jews was back to single digits.

  42. Update: This “incredibly dumb piece” of race-baiting we wrote about at midnight is gaining attention – as it should.

    Eventually the race card will be played with ferocity against R/R and they better be prepared at all the crazy coming their way. Supporters of R/R should be prepared (read the end of our article for suggestions as to how to respond with force not weakness) for the sludge of Obama slime coming their way.

    And remember, the race-baiting we write about below comes to you courtesy of Henry Louis Gates.

    ——————————————————————————————

  43. Screw the racist crap—we’ve had it. It’s meaningless gutter-level political gaming, worn out and disgusting—a real turnoff. And proof of how yesterday the Dimocrats are.

    Gates is an ass. So is Oglethorpe. The black community of Martha’s Vineyard knows it. They told me so. The black elite, which is mostly what we have here on Martha’s Vineyard, is weary of these old n-shits (their word, not mine) still stirring the shit to extend their tired old out-of-date careers. Yes, the people show up for the speeches, but it’s hollow. It’s skin; it’s not the content of their character.
    Seeing great bumper stickers here on Martha’s Vineyard. Loved this one: the Obama logo with the words “So Yesterday!” … and this one: “Our President: Another National Deficit”

    Of course, there are still the pro-Obummer stickers, but way fewer than ever before! Also, the Dimocrat chatter is truly lame – the old enthuse is gone out of it. Hey, how many times can you recite the same old, same old till your brain goes dead?

    Romney/Ryan, though – that’s new, that’s different, that’s the talk. And I hear, “Hey, he was our governor, wasn’t he? Look how well he worked with the Democrat legislature!”

  44. You’re right Foxy. Tapper is telling Noah about the flood when he talks about MSM and their abuse of power and violation of ethics during the 2008 election.

    lil ole grape, preach it, sister. No sugar coating needed. “Gates is an ass”, and his exploitation of racism – or what he tried to turn into racism – made him money and earned him status in the warped, progressive world.

  45. If this doesn’t turn your stomach, you can swallow anything!

    via politico

    Obama talks about his faith
    By BYRON TAU |
    8/21/12 12:44 PM EDT
    In an interview with the Washington National Cathedral magazine, President Obama discussed how his faith influenced his politics — saying that at the end of the day ‘God is in control.’
    “First and foremost, my Christian faith gives me a perspective and security that I don’t think I would have otherwise: that I am loved. That, at the end of the day, God is in control,” Obama said.
    Obama also tied faith in God to his belief in a compassionate role for government.
    “Faith tells us that there is something about this world that ties our interest to the welfare of a child who can’t get the health care they need, or a parent who can’t find work after the plant shut down, or a family going hungry,” Obama told the magazine.

  46. cont’d

    Is it called “The devil can quote scripture to suit his own purposes?” Or is it just what his buddy Jeremiah Wright said about him: “He’ll say anything to get elected.”

  47. That is why all those guys Jesse Sharpton keep beating this drum.And it is not helping the AA people at all.
    The Clinton’s have done more then Obama and this bunch if they live to be a hundred!! 🙁

  48. He just has to make everything a campaign speech. 😯
    “Faith tells us that there is something about this world that ties our interest to the welfare of a child who can’t get the health care they need, or a parent who can’t find work after the plant shut down, or a family going hungry,” Obama told the magazine.

  49. jeswezey
    August 22nd, 2012 at 7:05 am
    “Romney has zero percent support from black voters:”

    Seems like another rigged poll. I would check the internals and fine print before buying into that.
    &&&&&&&&

    Zero Percent?? Really dude? What about blogs, interviews, etc., where people write, “As an AA who voted for Obama in 2008, I will vote for Romney”. Who is Thomas Sowell going to vote for? What about Condi Rice?

  50. You don’t get pears from a a peach tree.
    “Know them by their fruit”. It’s a matter of fact that Romney has done abundantly well with his time on earth, money being the least important. 🙂

  51. I just get this vibe out and about and reading on Facebook, other blogs, etc that this is gonna be a blow out win for the R & R team. You can feel the resentment, the exasperation with the Obummer and dumbo Biden. People are sick of the way the country is going, they see no HOPE or CHANGE, except that we are going backwards and downhill.

  52. rgb44hrc
    August 22nd, 2012 at 3:28 pm
    ————————-
    The true margin of error in that poll? 100%.

  53. Gates is an ass
    —————-
    The worst kind of ass. A race baiting Harvard Professor ass. They come in all sizes shapes and colors. Larry Tribe is another. He’s next in line for the Supreme Court. Some people contend that they are just vermin with a crimson tinge. I on the other hand, hold them in much higher regard. To my mind, they are the highest evolved specie there is, next to the dodo bird.

  54. The New York Times’ Nate Silver spots a trend: Mitt Romney’s polling fortunes have improved significantly in swing states in the last few weeks. He’s right. Even in last night’s generally poor NBC/WSJ poll (Obama’s overall lead was 4 points in a D+6 sample), the battleground sub-sample had closed to within three points, down from eight in July. And among the survey’s undecided, “up for grabs” population, the president’s job approval rating sat at a measly 34 percent. Last evening we highlighted new Romney-friendly numbers out of Wisconsin and Michigan — states Obama won in 2008 by 14 and 16 points, respectively. Today we’re seeing more polling data from Florida and Nevada:

    A new Gravis Marketing survey shows Mitt Romney leading Barack Obama, 49%-45%, in Florida. Other stats of note: Romney wins both Catholics and Protestants, while Obama wins religious affiliations outside of those two groups, non-affiliated voters, and Jews. This is the latest in a series of strong swing state polls for Romney, and the third consecutive poll showing him slightly ahead in Florida.

    http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2012/08/22/polls_romney_surges_in_florida_in_nevada_virtually_tied_nationally

  55. http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2012/08/muslims-rise-caliphate-imminent-.html
    The Muslims have risen, causing political shockwaves the world over. The ‘Arab Spring’ which started in Tunisia and spread like a wildfire around the Middle East and North Africa has led to previously unfathomable outcomes. It has opened the way for immense potential changes. With decades-old tyrants giving way to ‘moderate Islamists’ in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya, with the struggle for an alternative regime in Syria reaching a climax as the inevitable fall of the Assad regime nears, all eyes are on the Muslim world.
    ____

    Barack Hussein must be very pleased.

  56. admin
    August 22nd, 2012 at 3:40 am

    Wbboei, it is amazing that no matter what facts they are presented with the accusation is somehow turned around to an implicit yell of “racism” or a smear implying “racism”.
    _________

    Totally. I think of this a “neoracism” although it’s really just ugly ol’ racism. It’s an expression of racial hatred toward white people, often with the goal of political or economic gain, by people of color AND by elitist liberal whites for whom prejudice against other “flyover state” whites is a prejudice they can believe in.

    I appreciate the satirical headline of this article 🙂
    The race card is all Obama has left, really.

  57. SHV
    August 22nd, 2012 at 12:38 pm
    ———————-
    Exactly right. Learned Hand alluded to this in one of his essays found in the compilation called The Spirit of Liberty. I think it was in his tribute to Mr. Justice Brandeis.

  58. President OTurd: “Rep Akin missed some science classes.”

    No doubt Akin was an idiot for what he said, at least he apologized and will soon hopefully be replaced by some electable repub to kick out Claire “my kids tell me who to vote for”.

    But OTurd, you apparently missed economic classes, and missed American history classes as well, of course you learned your american history from Wright no doubt, so what’s your excuse for your ignorance?

  59. May I just say this without incurring too much wrath – Ryan just seems like someone I’d like to slap the shit out of. There. I feel better. In making that statement, I don’t mean that Obama is better. I don’t mean that people shouldn’t vote for R/R. I don’t think Obama should be reelected, and, of course, I believe O is someone who needs deserves a slap every bit as much as Ryan, if not more. But – not only do I not like the person-hood concept that Ryan embraces – it smacks of bat shit crazy, but I also don’t like what seems to be his uptight, rigid outlook. For the record, I don’t like Biden either, but something about Ryan’s self-righteousness just chaps me.

    Regarding the religion issue, if the folks close to Romney want him to lose big time – they can just keep up that talk about who or what is and is not acceptable to “God”. Romney is entitled to his faith and religious beliefs, as are his advisers and close supporters, but they don’t need to guide his policies – only his ethics and principles in discharging his duties. Likewise, Obama’s faith in the god of helping kids or whatever tf he said has no place in our government. That answer probably reflected what he wants to see happen, but as far as defining his faith, man, it was a tad garbled. Someone should get the man a legal pad to write down his “true beliefs”. Bottom line, he believes in the state doing everything for people. He believes that people who work should support people who don’t – regardless of why they don’t. And, he believes that the white people owe a big financial debt to black people. He will say he believes whatever those he’s addressing want him to believe. His personal god is himself.

  60. Claire “my kids tell me who to vote for
    —————————————
    It is a guardianship. The brats are the court appointed guardians, Clair (aka Alice the goon) is their ward, and dear old hubby is the lucky one. Whether by death or suicide he has slipped the mortal coil. He was a lucky lawyer.

  61. @guypbenson #Humility MT @markknoller: Of hoop stars, Obama: “very rare I come to an event where I’m like the 5th or 6th most interesting person.”

    Could this PO$ get anymore arrogant?!?! Is it November yet?

  62. Tim, just when you think he has reached the pinnacle of arrogance and self-importance, he takes it a step further. The man’s self-importance borers on self-delusion.

  63. No doubt Akin was an idiot for what he said, at least he apologized [….]

    ===============

    For which statement? Last I saw, he was saying that he didn’t mean there were any “legitimate rapists”. Doesn’t he understand that it’s his idiotic claim that you can’t get pregnant from rape (and therefore anti-abortion bills shouldn’t allow exception for rape?

    (And that part wasn’t any kind of mis-speak or poor wording: lots of cites have shown up of his ilk and even other GOP politicians making that same claim for years.)

  64. The Faith department of Washington Post (-) publishes a hit piece by Associated Press (–) bemoaning the refusal by the Romney campaign to give an exclusive interview to NBC (—)on the Mormon religion–so those three scum bag organizations can savage that religion while ignoring Obama’s muslim ties.

    I refuse to read anything published by AP because the head of that organization is on record as being a huge Obama supporter, and like a fish, an organization rots from the head down. The same can be said of NBC-Imelt used them to promote the interests of General Electric and they have been caught in so many lies that were they to take an oath it would not surprise me if the Bible leaped from their hand.

    As Thomas Sowell says, we should not listen to them. They have nothing of substance to add to the national dialogue. Jay Leno who I never had any use for says that Comcast believes the NBC people are expendable. He bemoans this whereas I do not. I say, let the expending begin–and let God sort it out.

  65. My favorite quote from Judge Hand:

    “The Spirit of Liberty is the spirit that is not too sure that it is right.”

  66. Obama: “very rare I come to an event where I’m like the 5th or 6th most interesting person.”
    ——————-
    Interesting to whom?

    If he is interesting, why is it that most people I know hit the mute button whenever he comes on?

    If he is so interesting, why is it that no one listens to his speeches any more?

    If he is so interesting, why is it that he cannot keep pace with Romney on money raising?

    If he is so interesting, why is it that he cannot fill up the auditiorium?

    If he is so interesting, why is it that Putin does not give him the time of day?

    If he is so interesting, why is it that he is always trying to steal credit from other people?

    If you ask me, he is as interesting as a block toilet is to a plummer.

    If you google the world sociopath, you will know all you need to know about the prick.

  67. tim
    August 22nd, 2012 at 11:54 pm
    Funny, I don’t remember NBC
    ———————
    The reason you do not remember is because they never did it. On the contrary, they conspired with the jurnolisters top kill the story. Today, most people I know see them for what they are and want nothing to do with them. The Comcast people must realize the mistake they made in purchasing the NBC Ship of Fools. It would have been far better to have towed that distressed vessel out to sea, and scuttled her. Salvage is out of the question.


  68. “There is a debt of perhaps two trillion dollars out there, owed by governments to governments, by governments to banks, and there is not one chance in hell it can ever be paid back. There is not enough productive capacity in the world, plus enough raw material, to provide maintainance of plant plus enough overage to keep up with the mounting interest.”
    [….]
    I would give us five more years at worst, or twelve at most.”
    — John D. MacDonald’s The Green Ripper (1979)

    TDO:
    Hm. In the mid 1980s Japan was taking over the US economy, weren’t they? Then Bill Clinton got in, and pretty soon people were talking about the ‘rock-solid US economy’.

  69. Sorry I forgot to close italics before adding my own comment.

    Anyway, around 1979 someone was saying two trillion of debt was dooming the economy by 1984 (dum de dum dum). Now it’s several times that much. Wolf! Wolf!

  70. Leanora:

    The second article “How Globalist Domination Happens on a Local Level” is a lot better than the Koire piece. At least there is some information. I don’t understand much of it, but at least there are some specifics.

    The unnamed author explains several emanations of Agenda 21 which he claims are dangerous:

    * The NGO Wildlands Project (WP), with a dastardly focus on preserving the American landscape for “future generations to inherit a continent rich in wildlife, with plenty of room for all species to roam.”

    Personally, I don’t give a crap about this sort of humdrum environmentalism; but the author claims that this may mean less room for humans and there is no evidence for this claim. He says large stretches of land are under restrictions called conservation easements, scenic byways, protected areas, biosphere reserves, and wildlife refuges. So what? If you want to prospect for oil on any of this land, the permits will be granted (provided we get rid of Obama). It’s always been that way, and the UN cannot prevent us from using the land for economic or residential purposes nor, for that matter, can it force us to create scenic byways and the rest.

    * The author goes on to explain how the WTO has made major advances in developing countries with “global import tariffs”. I don’t understand how these advances are bad for the developing countries or for us, except that the World Bank and the IMF are involved and these two institutions are famed for entraining economic devastation in their wake. So I will grant the author a point here: There is something fishy about these “advances” but I don’t see what it is, or how they are forced on us or anybody else.

    The author says in this regard that “National subsidies have turned ‘agricultural commodities’ over to the global Elite International cooperation and recognition of the UN’s superiority in the implementation of their schemes.” I can’t be sure, but I think this means that agricultural commodities are being traded now according to the UN’s principles of equitable commerce, as expressed in Agenda 21. If this is true, I think it is a very good thing: I am very much in favor of equitable commerce, no matter who applies it; and it is a point in favor of Agenda 21, not against it.

    * The author lists the “dangers” of Transition Towns under a Transition Model where “global relocalization agendas are forefront.” These dangers are:

    (i) to “refocus town planning and infrastructure on implementation of Agenda 21.” So what? Is there something bad about this refocusing just as a matter of principle?

    (ii) “Appear to be grassroots operations.” Is this a danger? People shouldn’t get involved in these efforts, or what?

    (iii) “Promote the Peak Oil mythology as an energy scare tactic.” I don’t know what this means.

    (iv) “Support Smart Growth which is code for Agenda 21.” Here we go with code words again, Glenn Beck style. I suppose the author wants the anti-Agenda 21 reader to beware of “Smart Growth” too, so he can implicitly prone Stupid Growth Prevention or something. Go figure.

    (v) “Aspire to control farming, disburse ability to farm, and pressure governmental policies on farming that reflect Agenda 21.” This obscure phraseology seems to mean training farmers, introducing land reform, perhaps organizing farmers to produce what grows best on their land and sells best in market. These are all objectives that individual farmers are hard pressed to achieve on their own, so they are best served by some national or even international assistance. In any event, these are all Agenda 21 objectives and I think they’re pretty good. I don’t see the danger.

    (vi) “Use the hoax of man-made climate change… to impose policy control by building cities that are designed to reduce carbon emissions.” Regardless of what you think about anthropogenic climate change, building low-carbon cities is not a way of imposing policy control – it is the reverse.

    I think what the author wants to say here is that low-carbon construction is most easily achieved by simply imposing low-carbon standards and requirements for new construction and renovation, which is true. He apparently takes this as a bad or dangerous thing because it involves dastardly requirements, whereas individuals are supposed to have the right to do anything they please, without requirements. Personally, I disagree: individuals have no right to screw up the environment or anything else, and governments do have the right to impose standards to the contrary. But furthermore, all evidence at my disposal currently shows that building to low-carbon requirements saves on construction and consumption costs. It is not a danger and is a valid principle of Agenda 21.

    (v) “Securitize local food stores, businesses, healthcare and fuel.” This is a problem? A danger? Come on.

    (vi) “Ensure Smart Growth controls all citizens’ ability to acquire any needs for human survival.” Again, a use of the code word Smart Growth, which is inherently bad just because it is part of Agenda 21, plus the word “controls”, to imply that “all citizens” are being controlled. This is bald spin.

    (vii) “Create internal advocacies that band together to purvey Transition Town propaganda to elected officials and local governments.” Here as with the Koire piece, “advocacy” is taken to be something inherently bad: people should not be encouraged to “band together” to “purvey… propaganda” pressuring the officials they have themselves elected to the local government. In other words, individuals should remain passive subjects of these officials and governments. The underlying contradiction of such an argument stands out loud and clear.

    The article goes on to state such alarming claims as:

    (i) “The EU has adopted regulations that ban the construction of single-family homes beginning in 2020.” The word ‘regulations’ is underscored: How dare the Europeans adopt (gasp) regulations?

    Furthermore, it should be said that no such regulations have been adopted and could never be adopted because “banning” cannot be the object of a regulation. It would be like the electricity regulatory agency banning electricity: that’s simply not its role, it would vote itself out of existence.

    Rather, the decennial objective, as the author himself notes, is to achieve passive “zero-energy” houses that produce as much energy as they consume, through the use of solar panels, perhaps wind energy, modern insulation, and especially high-efficiency electrical appliances. At least one experimental individual home of this kind is being built and tested by a joint Franco-German team.

    I don’t know if such specific endeavors can be found in Agenda 21; but the author’s mention of them implies that they are and, if so, I personally find them innocuous at the very least, and possibly quite positive.

    (ii) At the recent UN Earth Summit, governments and private corporations “pledged to fund the UN’s endeavors toward global governance with a generous $513 billion for Agenda 21 projects.” What’s bad about this? The Agenda 21 projects “will restrict the movements of humans (?), perverse (?) biodiversity and assist the UN in attaining their Millennium Development Goals.” There’s something bad about the MDG, maybe because they were developed by the evil bogeyman, the UN.

    But Hillary Clinton doesn’t think so. The author drives his point home by stating that “Hillary Clinton… supports the incorporation of the Agenda 21 movement,” and quoting her saying that “sustainability won’t happen without business investment. Governments alone cannot solve all the problems we face, from climate change to persistent poverty to chronic energy shortages. That’s why we are so strongly in favor of partnerships.’”

    What are you afraid of in HRC’s statement? The word ‘partnerships’? That’s code for what? Or maybe it’s the words ‘government’ or ‘business’? “Climate change” maybe? Or is it just your primeval, unreasoned fear of anything related to or emanating from Agenda 21?

    The article drones on about Ban Ki-Moon calling for action on the environmental governance agenda and progress being too slow on the sustainable development blueprint. It says the UNEO will “prop up” the sustainable development division of the UN. Nowhere is there any explanation of what might be bad about Agenda 21 or about “sustainable” this or that, even in the highly spun conclusion, which is:

    “Through consolidation of power within the UN, the Agenda 21 scheme is being implemented locally; and finding success as fake grassroots efforts. The global Elite have perfected the art of convincing the general public that sustainability is a good idea.”

    Working in reverse order on this statement:

    Sustainability is indeed a good idea to my mind, and the author offers no argument to the contrary. If the general public is also convinced of this, then all power to us. Power to the people results in genuine, not “fake” grassroots efforts. There is therefore a genuine grassroots effort to achieve the principles and schemes of Agenda 21, which enhances the virtual power of the UN. And I am in favor of it.

    There are doubtless failures along the path plotted out in Agenda 21; but these failures cannot be attributed to the roadmap itself, because Agenda 21 is only a statement of principles and objectives that all the countries in the world have contributed to and signed onto.

    Leanora, I implore you to do some critical thinking when reading articles like this one, or those of Koire or that numbskull Phyllis Schalfly. In this particular article, you have a quote from Hillary Clinton that should give you some pause for thought. Are you really ready to believe that Hillary Clinton is part of some high-flying international elite who wants to undermine the US constitution and individual liberties at home and prevent development at home and abroad for her own personal benefit, or out of her own ignorance?

  71. wbboei: “If you ask me, he is as interesting as a block toilet is to a plumber.”
    ====

    LOL. Gotta hand it to you, you must have been hell on wheels in a courtroom!

  72. freespirit: “…if the folks close to Romney want him to lose big time – they can just keep up that talk about who or what is and is not acceptable to “God”.”
    ====

    Watch out – I got hit the other day for saying Romney’s “God-given rights” were bullshit.

    However, in the specific case of “God-given rights”, I wouldn’t mind if a god-fearing POTUS actually thinks in the back of his head that his god gave people their rights, because that way, we could at least rest assured that the POTUS would respect our rights. In the case of Obama, whose “only god is himself”, as you say, then it doesn’t matter any more if our rights are protected by law, because the god Obama can take away what it gives and screw the law.

  73. “Team Obama breaks precedent to try to spoil Romney’s convention”
    ====

    They do seem to be going to great lengths to draw attention away from the R convention. However, as I remember, it is not entirely unprecedented.

    That is, I remember McCain’s pick of Sarah Palin came just an hour before Obama’s nomination acceptance speech. All the news outfits went scurrying to find shit on Sarah Palin and almost overlooked Obama’s speech. Really took the edge off it for Obama, and McPalin was leading Obama in the polls for the next two weeks before the Sept 15 financial meltdown.

  74. I implore you to do some critical thinking when reading articles like this one, or those of Koire or that numbskull Phyllis Schalfly. In this particular article, you have a quote from Hillary Clinton that should give you some pause for thought. Are you really ready to believe that Hillary Clinton is part of some high-flying international elite who wants to undermine the US constitution [….]

    =================

    Well said. Here’s one point of logic to start with when a source like that accuses Hillary of supporting the alleged villainy. Either Hillary is sadly wrong, or the cause is not as bad as the article says, or Hillary does not really support it (in which case the writer is a liar).

  75. A little bit of good news. Click the link to read the paragraphs I omitted.

    Electoral College Prediction Model Points To A Mitt Romney Win In 2012 (Huff Post Denver via AOL)
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/22/university-of-colorado-pr_n_1822933.html?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D195989

    Ken Bickers from CU-Boulder and Michael Berry from CU-Denver, the two political science professors who devised the prediction model, say that it has correctly forecast every winner of the electoral race since 1980.
    “Based on our forecasting model, it becomes clear that the president is in electoral trouble,” Bickers said in a press statement.

    To predict the race’s outcome, the model uses economic indicators from all 50 states and it shows 320 electoral votes for Romney and 218 for Obama, according to The Associated Press. The model also suggests that Romney will win every state currently considered a swing state which includes Florida, Virginia, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Minnesota, New Hampshire and Colorado.

    The professors’ model shows a very different picture than what current data suggests. Currently, The Huffington Post’s Election Dashboard shows Obama with 257 electoral votes to Romney’s 191 with only six “tossup” states including: Colorado, Florida, Iowa, North Carolina, Ohio and Virginia.

  76. WASHINGTON, Aug 23 (Reuters) – The number of Americans filing new claims for jobless benefits unexpectedly rose last week, suggesting the labor market is healing too slowly to make much of a dent in the unemployment rate.

    Initial claims for state unemployment benefits rose 4,000 to a seasonally adjusted 372,000, the Labor Department said on Thursday. That was the highest level in five weeks. The data keeps pressure on President Barack Obama ahead of his November re-election bid. His Republican challenger is trying to focus voters’ attention on a lofty unemployment rate that has dogged Obama’s presidency.

    Many economists think the Federal Reserve could unveil a new bond buying program to prop up economic growth as soon as its next meeting Sept 12-13, although an improvement in hiring this month could make that less likely.

    The report on jobless claims did have a silver lining, however.

    The data covers the same week looked at by the government for its monthly measure of employment, and showed a slight drop in layoffs from the survey week last month, which is a mildly positive signal for hiring in August.

    http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/08/23/unemployment-claims-highest-in-5-weeks-rise-to-372-000/

  77. Are you really ready to believe that Hillary Clinton is part of some high-flying international elite who wants to undermine the US constitution [….]

    &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

    NO What I believe is she is following orders from her BOSS!!! 🙁

  78. Dear Admin and All,

    I haven’t been around in a while and am trying to understand how we get there from here…

    I read “the new testament” and it’s beautifully written, but I must question the logic of the premise.

    If we are to elect republicans who do not share a single belief with our Hillary,
    (and some here seem to feel that the republican’s “fiscal” policies (also counter to Hillary and the
    principals of progressiveism/liberalism) if enacted, will improve the national economy) and the
    economy improves during their tenure, how exactly does that help Hillary win in 2016?

    The chances that the economy will improve over the next 3-4 years, no matter WHO is elected are very good. We are in the latter
    stages of a world wide economic downturn, which may be reversing or even reversed in three years. In that
    scenario the incumbent party (the republican party) is almost sure to be reelected in 2016. How would this
    help Hillary? Obviously it wouldn’t and it would almost certainly end any hopes of her ever ascending to
    the Oval office.

    Are we looking to elect Republicans because we hope/expect them to screw things up worse than Obama has? That must
    be it, because if they succeed in improving the economy, or if they simply just happen to be in office as things get better
    they will get CREDIT for the economy and be REELECTED. How would a two term Republican presidency benefit Hillary?
    Hillary will be 73 years old in 2020, and may or may not still be in politics, is that the PLAN? The only scenario that
    sees Hillary elected in 2016 if a republican is elected, requires a continued worldwide recession and a continued national
    recession with the same level of polarization between the parties we have seen since 2001.

    Wouldn’t an incumbent Democratic administration, whether or not the world/national economy has recovered, be a better
    electoral environment/platform for Hillary?

    Is this truly a pro Hillary site, and not a hate site, simply an anti-Obama site that is masquerading as a
    site whose members truly believe that Hillary is 44? Isn’t that the goal we are working towards?

    What is stronger, the love for our Hillary and the belief that we NEED her in 2016 to set the country back on the right track,
    or the hate for Obama that could enable 4, 8 maybe more years of republican control of our government? If indeed, “the enemy of my
    enemy is my friend”, which horse would Machiavelli be betting on here?

    No matter how much you cannot stand Obama (and I am one with you all on that count!) and no matter how much you believe he has
    co-opted and corrupted the party of Hillary, Bill and the “true” democrats, is eight years or more of Republican rule really what
    we need? Is eight years or more of Republican rule going to get Hillary into the White House, or have we all abandoned that lofty
    goal?

    I will re-read the “new testament” in hopes that there is an answer there, but I would really appreciate your help in understanding how we get
    there from here…

    Hillary in 2016!!!!

  79. Right now that Hurricane Isaac is headed toward the convention. I would think this will dicourage the Dems from demonstrating. It is one thing to be out there in the sun, but a drenching, I don’t think so. Divine intervention maybe.

    Like I said before is Isaac a curse or a salvation. Still not sure.

  80. admin
    August 21st, 2012 at 11:54 pm
    Wbboei, the Republican Party establishment and the Tea Party and others have cards to play. First, they can tell Akin staffers that if they want a future in Republican Party politics they should leave Akin and his campaign. Senate Majority Leader McConnell can state that Akin will not be assigned committees even if he would win.
    ———————
    Superb analysis. Those are the tools that will be used to convince Akin to do the right thing and step down. We have seen the same thing happen to Democrats who became toxic overnight, were asked to leave, refused to do so, became openly defiant, and then when enough pressure built on them they folded.

    One of those tools, i.e. a stick or carrot extended to staff is germane. However, in this instance, to the extent he is Evangelical, his staff may be too, and in that case they may be harder to reach than normal staffers. Generally speaking, some staffers are willing to deal, and after years of not getting the recognition they so richly deserve, they are inclined to do naughty little things in mens bathrooms–like selling donor lists to whoever for cash. The staff of Larry Craig was known for this, but caveat emptor, you never know who is in the next stall.

    To the larger point, a direct appeal to staff is the stock and trade of lobbyists. One of the inducements is a lucrative lobbying job. Superlobbyist Jack Abramoff made this point and others in an interview with an incredulous Leslie Stahl (who is known for stealing other people’s interviews, etc):

    But the “best way” to get a congressional office to do his bidding – Abramoff says – was to offer a staffer a job that could triple his salary.

    Abramoff: When we would become friendly with an office and they were important to us, and the chief of staff was a competent person, I would say or my staff would say to him or her at some point, “You know, when you’re done working on the Hill, we’d very much like you to consider coming to work for us.” Now the moment I said that to them or any of our staff said that to ’em, that was it. We owned them. And what does that mean? Every request from our office, every request of our clients, everything that we want, they’re gonna do. And not only that, they’re gonna think of things we can’t think of to do.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57319075/jack-abramoff-the-lobbyists-playbook/?pageNum=2&tag=contentMain;contentBody

  81. Isaac was the son of Sarah. He has to be a salvation. 🙂

    I heard that Sarah was asked to speak at the convention, but I’m not sure if it’s true. I hope so.

  82. foxyladi14
    August 22nd, 2012 at 6:29 pm
    here we are in the middle of a horrible recession and Democrats want to run on rape?
    &&&&&&&&

    Well, is Obummer going to run on how well he did getting us out of the recession? Or stemming the tide of foreclosures? Or getting us out of Afghanistan?

    NY Times article about another Oturd stump speech mentioned how the Topic d’jour yesterday was Education. Previously, we had “War on Women”. Etc. They mentioned that the laundry list of “topics” conveniently avoid discussing the 20,000 pound gorilla in the room, The Economy.

  83. TheRealist
    August 23rd, 2012 at 9:42 am
    Dear Admin and All,
    &&&&&&&&&&

    I remember you. Hey, you had your own blog site…what was it called? You still have it up and running?

  84. TheRealist
    August 23rd, 2012 at 9:42 am
    —————————-
    This question has been asked and answered before on this blog.

    The common faith of the people on this blog is that the public good is best achieved when Democrats behave like Democrats and Republicans behave like Republicans. Obama is not a democrat, he is the spawn of Chicago, and through the power struggle that took place in 2008 he became the leader of the party, the Clinton DLC folded, and the party became the totalitarian entity we see today. This raises our patriotic ire.

    Are we to turn the other cheek and say do not criticize him–that is racist? Or, do not question him, he is a democrat. GET ON LINE? Many Hillary supporters did that. But not me, and dare I say it, not us. We cannot and will not bring ourselves to worship a false god. To do that we would have to renounce country, truth and ultimately ourselves. Simply put, he is ruining the country, and the Party is lined up behind him.

    How do you reform an entity which has become corrupt and self serving to a fault. Do you try to do it from within? If so then you will be marginalized because they hold the levers of power and you do not. Or do you point out that the party has been hijacked, point out its faults, and use the levers of power you do have effect an internal change. The democratic party has expelled the white voter, hitched its wagon to a new demographic, and played the race card time and time and time again.

    Jay Cost has written a new book on what has happened to the Democratic Party. It is easy to dismiss what a Republican would say about the Democratic Party as pure partisanship, but the truth is the other party will tell you things about your own party that your own people will not either because they fear ostacision or because they are incapaable of introspection. Jay is an admirer of Bill Clinton by the way. But he sees an arduous path back from the current prescipse, partly because the interests which now dominate the party at first at the public trough and when they get done feeding, there is nothing left for the common good. http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/spoiled-rotten_645061.html

    In my opinion, the last best hope of the Democratic Party is a Clinton restoration is a landslide victory for Romney. This will send the party back to the drawing board filled with questions such as where did we go wrong and what can we do about it? At that point, the Hillary and Bill will have the right answers and reclaim a leadership role. Without that landslide loss, or with an Obama victory, the party will be lost.

  85. That electoral model was encouraging but most recent polls show Obama still slightly ahead in the swing states. albeit within a few % points. Ryan’s has given Romney a de minimis bump.

  86. rgb44hrc-

    Nope, that wasn’t me, never had a blog. I was a NY fundraiser for HRC, and was “targeted” by Ben Smith
    back in ’08 when Politico was gunning for Big Pink.

    wbboei-

    I know I can always count on you to come through with a reasoned and thoughtful response, but I still wonder, where does that leave Hillary in 2016?
    Are you (we?) betting on the fact that “Republicans acting like Republicans” will result in a pendulum swing back to the Dems in 2016?
    Or are we waiting for that election in 2020?
    What are the chances that a Romney administration that sees unemployment recede to 5% or less can be unseated by Hillary or ANY democrat in 2016?
    If the desire is to reform the entire Democratic party, the philosophy you express is right on and I endorse it completely, but if the goal is “Hillary is 44 in 2016”
    I am not as certain.

    This election (to me) smells like 2004, with a wildly unpopular, polarizing incumbent facing a 2 dimensional, mega-rich, patrician with zero charisma.

  87. Leanora: “I don’t know what you think of Glen Beck,”
    ====

    My opinion of Glenn Beck is that he is a right wing nut job who uses code words persistently to try to raise people’s worries about some pet grieve of his own. He prides himself on being self-educated, which I gather means reading only things that he agrees with in the first place, i.e. listening to his own drummer only.

    ====
    “Beck urges more local action against the UN’s Agenda 21.”
    ====

    And that’s supposed to spur me to action against Agenda 21? If anything, quite the contrary. Hillary Clinton urges more local action in favor of the UN’s Agenda 21.

  88. Thanks for posting this wbboei. Looks interesting. I think there were quite a few Hillary supporters who honestly expressed their distaste for Obama in 2008. Some, however, proved to be party people through and through, and returned to the fold. I’m glad not to belong to either party – since I ditched the Dims. Country before Party remains the motto of some of us former Dims – including most of the folks here, I’m sure.

    One disturbing trend I noticed following 2008: In their zeal to distance themselves from Dems, some people took on the Republican philosophy – all of it. I’m not referring to anyone here, necessarily, but some of the Hillary supporters on various blogs give the impression that they no longer embrace any of the values the Dem Party formerly stood for when it was more centrist (when Clinton was in office). Maybe that’s the way they really feel, now. If so, great for them. That’s their right, but you have to wonder when there’s such a total about face on issues.

    I’m not referring to those who supported McCain or now support Romney. Most of us here, I think, realize that we have little other option but to vote for R/R, even though we (or should I say I?) would not have embraced many of their proposed policies several years ago. Maybe I’m making sense only to myself, but, IMO it’s possible to support R/R in order to get rid of O, without becoming true believers of conservative policies. I consider my vote for Romney to be a strategic one – necessary to accomplish the goal of removing Obama. But, if there’s anyone decent to vote for in 2016, who is more liberal, at least on social issues, unless that person is as morally and ethically bankrupt as Obama, I’ll vote for her/him. If it’s Hillary, of course, that goes without saying. Just saying – I won’t abandon my principles and beliefs (and I don’t think others here will, either), and make a total change, any more than I will vote simply out of some former belief in the Dem Principles. That party that I believed in, if it ever existed – is gone, gone, gone – at least for now.

  89. TheRealist: “If we are to elect republicans who do not share a single belief with our Hillary, (and some here seem to feel that the republican’s “fiscal” policies (also counter to Hillary and the principals of progressiveism/liberalism) if enacted, will improve the national economy) and the economy improves during their tenure, how exactly does that help Hillary win in 2016?”
    ====

    Couple of reactions to this.

    First, it is not right to say that Republicans do not share a single belief with Hillary, and specifically in the fiscal matters that you mention. Progressivism does not call for excessive spending and Hillary would never prone constant deficit spending or piling up debt. Republicans and HRC are perfectly in sync on this question. Furthermore

    , Romney being a centrist Republican makes him abhorrent to his right wing just as Hillary being a centrist Democrat makes her toxic to the left wing of the D party. So in both cases, we have centrists who eschew the extremes in their relative parties and are likely to make similar decisions in office.

    As to “how exactly does that help Hillary win in 2016?”, I say that it doesn’t. In fact, I hope Hillary does not run in 2016 because she would go down in flames, perhaps less than any other Democrat, but would lose nonetheless. This is because I think Romney will be a good president, not just a Nobama solution to our current problems, but a president who will pull us out of our current tailspin. If I’m right, then he will be unbeatable in 2016 like Reagan in 1984.

    So, what I am looking forward to is Hillary playing the sidelines like Bill, and preparing a comeback of the FDR party for 2020 where a Clintonista will have a fighting chance to win again. To my mind, Hillary is out of the presidential limelight for good, as she has said.

  90. It is still too early to predict whether the storm could make a direct hit on the city. Forecast models show Isaac’s center following a path that could take it as far west as the Gulf of Mexico and as far east as the Atlantic Ocean by next Monday.

    Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands braced for torrential rains on Thursday as the storm churned waves as high as 10 feet in the Caribbean and threatened to become a hurricane. Some flooding was reported in eastern and southern regions of Puerto Rico as the storm approached.

    Isaac will likely turn into a Category 1 hurricane by Friday as it nears the Dominican Republic and Haiti, according to the National Hurricane Center. It was expected to weaken a little while heading over their island and Cuba, then possibly move on toward Florida as a hurricane by Monday.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444270404577605643222916070.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsTop

  91. jeswezey
    August 23rd, 2012 at 11:47 am
    ———————
    Yes, good reply. Freespirit, too. I’m glad to see our position stated clearly again. This needs to be done from time to time. And thanks to The Realist for urging the clarification.

  92. IMO it’s possible to support R/R in order to get rid of O, without becoming true believers of conservative policies.

    ==================

    Right!

  93. Hillary Clinton urges more local action in favor of the UN’s Agenda 21.

    ================

    Just in the quote posted above about ‘partnership’, or elsewhere?

  94. Are you (we?) betting on the fact that “Republicans acting like Republicans” will result in a pendulum swing back to the Dems in 2016?

    =====================

    Unfortunately, the pendulum seems to be unbalanced. When it swings in a Democratic POTUS, he’s lucky to last one term. When it swings Right, it stays there for 8-12 years or so.

  95. In my opinion, the last best hope of the Democratic Party is a Clinton restoration is a landslide victory for Romney.
    =====================

    Well, a landslide defeat for Obama, caused by a large defection of Left voters to the Greens or some such third party.

    Then, Romney screwing up and becoming an easy target for Hillary in 2016.

  96. Rove: The 2012 Battle for the ‘Undecided’
    Conventional wisdom holds that the parties’ bases will determine the election. That’s far from the whole story..

    By KARL ROVE
    Conventional wisdom holds that with such a small number of voters still undecided, this presidential contest is a base election like 2004, with both candidates focused on turning out their respective party’s hard-core supporters. Like much conventional wisdom, there’s some truth in this. But it’s far from the complete story.

    First, there are nearly as many undecided voters today as in other recent elections. Gallup’s managing editor told Politico on Aug. 9 that his organization’s polling finds 6%-8% of voters are undecided. At this point in 2008, 10% were undecided in Gallup’s tracking poll. In 2004, the figure in the CNN/USA Today/Gallup tracking was 8% and in 2000, 9%.

    Second, some voters are weakly committed to their choice and could flip. For example, in the July 8 Washington Post/ABC News poll, 24% said they were undecided or could change their minds. In a close race, these voters are the principal source of potential movement. So both sides are working hard to identify and either reinforce or persuade them.

    Swing voters are not the only source of movement in the electorate. Less than 60% of eligible voters generally bother to register and turn out. In 2008, 57.48% of the voting-age population turned out, the highest since 1968, when turnout hit 60.84%.

    Different groups are affected differently by a campaign’s back-and-forth. For example, households with incomes less than $50,000 were 45% of the turnout in 2004 but just 38% in 2008, according to exit polls. Republicans were 37% of the vote in 2004 but only 32% in 2008. Rural Americans were a quarter of the 2004 turnout but 21% four years later. Both camps are organizing to generate higher turnout, but to the reluctant voter their messages and themes may be more important than their get-out-the-vote efforts.

    Conventional wisdom is also wrong that 2004 was a base election. President George W. Bush could not have won re-election by only appealing to the GOP base.

    His campaign sought to maximize Republican turnout, split independents, and steal more Democrats than Sen. John Kerry stole Republicans. Mr. Bush nearly erased the gender gap, earning 48% of women voters (remember “Security Moms?”), increased his African-American support by 22%, and won 44% of Hispanics. To the extent each side focuses on its base, it’s focusing on something that is by definition only a part of their party.

    Both candidates will have difficulty converting the other side’s supporters and undecided voters because both have high negative ratings. The Pollster.com average of President Barack Obama’s favorable-to-unfavorable ratings is 48.1% to 45.4%. Gov. Mitt Romney’s is 41.6% to 46.9%.

    While Mr. Romney’s negatives are higher, he has room to grow because 9.3% of respondents don’t have an opinion of him, as compared to 6.8% not having an opinion of Mr. Obama.

    Mr. Romney’s negatives are also easier to reverse. Mr. Obama’s, by contrast, are related to his performance in office, especially on the economy. A July 16 CBS/New York Times poll found 46% of voters (and 53% of independents) saying that his economic policies “will never improve” the economy. That’s a very harsh assessment.

    Only 38% of registered voters in Monday’s NBC/Wall Street Journal poll thought Mr. Obama has “good ideas for how to improve the economy,” and 43% of adults said in a July 8 Washington Post/ABC News poll that Mr. Obama’s handling of the economy was a “major reason to oppose” his candidacy.

    Mr. Romney’s negatives are more diffuse. Is he really an outsourcer of jobs to China? A rich “vampire capitalist?” Is he “weird,” to use a favorite epithet of Mr. Obama’s top strategist, David Axelrod?

    These are the negatives of the unknown. At next week’s convention in Tampa, Mr. Romney will have a very big stage on which to begin dispelling these negatives by providing voters a stronger sense of who he is and what he’ll do.

    The moment is coming when what each candidate says about himself and his plans is more important than what he says about his opponent. After a brutal summer of negative exchanges between the candidates, voters are increasingly asking what Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney are each going to do for America.

    In this area, Mr. Romney has a decided advantage, since Mr. Obama doesn’t even pretend to offer a second-term vision. Mr. Romney’s pick of Rep. Paul Ryan as his running mate exemplifies the GOP standard-bearer’s desire to make this a campaign of big ideas.

    Having a governing agenda gives the Romney campaign a significant advantage entering the fall. If pursued with clarity and vigor, it should be enough to win over voters who remain up for grabs—and with them, the election.

  97. We are in the latter
    stages of a world wide economic downturn, which may be reversing or even reversed in three years. In that
    scenario the incumbent party (the republican party) is almost sure to be reelected in 2016. How would this
    help Hillary? Obviously it wouldn’t and it would almost certainly end any hopes of her ever ascending to
    the Oval office.

    =====================

    Excellent points throughout!

  98. Bucking protocol, President Obama and the Democrats are planning a full-scale assault on Republicans next week during their convention.

    Presidential candidates have traditionally kept a low profile during their opponent’s nominating celebration, but Democrats are throwing those rules out the window in an attempt to spoil Mitt Romney’s coronation as the GOP nominee.

    It started a week or so again when Debbie Wasserman Schultz announced she would hold a “counter-convention” in Tampa during the GOP convention. Then Joe Biden announced an appearance. Now Obama has announced he’ll be campaigning in Iowa and Colorado during the convention, while Michelle Obama will appear on Letterman on the same night Ryan will deliver his speech.

    It is the Chicago Way :evil;

  99. Jobless claims rise again:
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-23/jobless-claims-in-u-s-climb-for-second-week-to-one-month-high.html

    Am I to believe that some of you would prefer four more years of this misery merely to make it easier for Hillary to win? Are you that obsessed with her? Please don’t make Hillary a cult figure while the country is going to Hell! Think of your fellow Americans – losing their homes, searching for jobs, having to accept charity – and help vote this administration out of Washington as soon as possible! That should be first on the agenda.

  100. Yes! Preach it.

    “Well, a landslide defeat for Obama, caused by a large defection of Left voters to the Greens or some such third party.

    Then, Romney screwing up and becoming an easy target for Hillary in 2016”.

  101. Think of your fellow Americans – losing their homes, searching for jobs, having to accept charity – and help vote this administration out of Washington as soon as possible!

    ====================

    You seem to assume that a Republican administration would really improve things for fellow Americans at that level. When has any Republican administration lately done that? The economy under Reagan and Bush Sr tanked till Bill restored it, then tanked again under Bush Jr.

  102. It has been brought to my attention that some of the people I had teamed up with during the 2008 campaign have decided to go back to the Democrats to support Barack Obama in 2012. That of course is their right as Americans, and I won’t argue that point. However, it just seems so incongruous to me to join back with the very same people who perpetuated the worst outbreak of sexism and misogyny of my adult life. Are we just going to let that sexism be swept under the rug? Are we going to have it stand for the record that the party of women used the very tools that they say they support to run off the women who tried to make it to the top?

    There is no question that the Democrats used whatever it took to win in 2008, and that included vicious sexist attacks against Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin, and they never used their bully pulpit to speak up against these attacks. You can view the two videos in the right column that illustrate a sampling of what went on in 2008.

    I became a Democrat and married myself to that party for 40 years. The only reason I chose that party is because I believed that they put women’s advancement and interests front and center. When I saw what happened in 2008, I felt duped and betrayed. But you don’t need to read my account of it. Anita Finlay wrote a book that describes what went on better than I ever could. 4 million people left the Democratic party over this turn of events. Many of us found our way to each other, and there are tons of blogs and websites that have been writing about it ever since. But don’t take my word for it. Go over to The Crawdad Hole or Peacocks and Lillies, just to mention a few, and check out their extensive blogrolls. We are a large community and we keep speaking up.

    http://womenwintoo.blogspot.com/2012/08/we-cant-let-history-of-2008-be.html

  103. Leanora-

    Please note the title of this site, and that neither party has presented a sure fire remedy for another 4 years of “misery”…

    We are hoping that WHOEVER gets elected in November will be sitting on a podium in January 2017 as Hillary takes the oath as the 1st female President.

  104. TheRealist
    August 23rd, 2012 at 11:28 am
    ——————————–
    If Romney wins the 2012 election by a landslide, then it will strengthen the hand of the Clintons and elevate the stature of this blog. The leftists who now control the party will claim it is the handiwork of those who are democrat in name only and press for a continuation of the policies that produced the defeat. More sensible people will look for deeper explanations, and a way for the party to redeem itself with the American People.

    In that case, it is reasonable to assume that this blog will change course in response to more favorable trade winds, help people understand what went wrong, and the warning signals which were ignored along the way. Bill has written a book on what needs to be done to save this country, so the blueprint has already been written.
    In short, once we get over this hump–assuming we do, I rather suspect that this blog will return to themes more congenial to your thinking.

    At this point, it is an imponderable whether Hillary will run in 2016. It depends on whether she wants to do it, how fast the public falls out of love with the Republicans, and how soon the Democratic Party regains its bearings. The economy will be a huge part of it as well. If she does, then this blog will become pivotal to that effort. If she does not, it will at least play an important role in sorting out the cause and effect of the loss, and restoring the Clinton vison of the party, which is pro-people and pro-country.

    , then a struggle for the heart and soul of the Democratic party is likely to ensue. The hard left will seek scapegoats, whereas others will want to examine the history that led up to the debacle, and the warning signs that were ignored along the way. In addition,

    reaction of the hard left forces within the party will so what the hard left always does in such situation, which is to look for scapegoats. Others within the party will be inclined to take a more rational and objective

  105. wbboei
    August 23rd, 2012 at 12:58 pm
    TheRealist
    August 23rd, 2012 at 11:28 am
    ——————————–
    If Romney wins the 2012 election by a landslide, then it will strengthen the hand of the Clintons and elevate the stature of this blog. The leftists who now control the party will claim it is the handiwork of those who are democrat in name only and press for a continuation of the policies that produced the defeat. More sensible people will look for deeper explanations, and a way for the party to redeem itself with the American People.

    In that case, it is reasonable to assume that this blog will change course in response to more favorable trade winds, help people understand what went wrong, and the warning signals which were ignored along the way. Bill has written a book on what needs to be done to save this country, so the blueprint has already been written. In short, once we get over this hump–assuming we do, I rather suspect that this blog will return to themes more congenial to your thinking.

    At this point, it is an imponderable whether Hillary will run in 2016. It depends on whether she wants to do it, how fast the public falls out of love with the Republicans, and how soon the Democratic Party regains its bearings. The economy will be a huge part of it as well. If she does, then this blog will become pivotal to that effort. If she does not, it will at least play an important role in sorting out the cause and effect of the loss, and restoring the Clinton vison of the party, which is pro-people and pro-country.

  106. tdo: “The economy under Reagan and Bush Sr tanked till Bill restored it, then tanked again under Bush Jr.”
    ====

    Point well taken. But neither Reagan with his Reaganomics nor either of the Bushes had any grounding in economics or business. The result of Reaganomics was to gift the economy to the rich and develop a class of super-rich who lived well in the Decade of Greed, letting the underlings live off the “trickle-down”. Dubya eliminated the trickle-down and invented the You’re On Your Own (YOYO) economy. Obama invented the idea of redistributing the wealth, that is, taking more away from the middle class, making them poor, and then putting the poor on food stamps and our grandchildren in debt to the ears.

    Thinking that Romney, just because he is a Republican, has the same economic theology as the Republican presidents before him, is a kind of bigotry. That is, Republican = tanked economy, thus Democrat = economic boom.

    Romney has a plan and I think it is viable. Just about everything he’s proposed thus far sounds good to me. He’s not like Reagan nor like the Bushes: One testimony to this is the fact that the right wing of the R party is displeased with him, whereas they adored Reagan and the Bushes.

  107. Just about everything he’s proposed thus far sounds good to me….and he’s proposed almost everything from both sides over the past 8 years.

    Which inspired this piece from Bloomberg;

    “…Mitt Romney is no ordinary politician. His ideological positions are entirely flexible and his capacity for pandering enormous. His platform reflects what he thinks will help him get elected, not necessarily what he will do if elected.”

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-27/does-mitt-romney-have-a-secret-economic-plan-.html

  108. This is from Glenn Reyonlds @ Instapundit.com

    “The Democrats apparently think they have hit the jackpot with Todd Akin’s moment of stupidity, but I’m not so sure. How, exactly, are they going to take advantage of Akin’s blunder? By talking ceaselessly about abortion. . . . If there is one thing we can say with certainty this year, it is that the overwhelming majority of voters don’t want to hear about the social issues. They want to know how we are going to climb out of the four-year economic funk that has been the Obama administration. If undecided viewers tune into the Democratic convention and hear all about abortion, and tune into the Republican convention and hear all about the economy, Romney will win in a landslide. And, by the way, Republicans should help drive this contrast by saying nothing–and I mean, absolutely nothing–about any social issue.”

  109. • turndownobama
    August 23rd, 2012 at 12:04 pm
    IMO it’s possible to support R/R in order to get rid of O, without becoming true believers of conservative policies.
    ==================
    Right!
    =================================
    WRONG.

  110. On vacation at relatives in WA and they only have dial-up and it can’t handle Big Pick or much of anything else on the nets. Will have a lot to read and comment on come late Saturday.
    I see a lot of the pink crew is still missing…

    Be back in a few days.
    Miss my Pinkers.

  111. IMO it’s possible to support R/R in order to get rid of O, without becoming true believers of conservative policies.
    ==================
    Right!
    =================================
    WRONG.
    =================
    To support Hillary, we have to believe the policies of those who opposed her policies (and who impeached Bill)? Or did you always support those conservative policies?

  112. Foxy, you are spot on. After the sexism and misogyny that occurred against HRC in 2008, with not one word of protest by the DNP, I’ve got nothing but contempt for most of the current Dem leaders. And, to have given Obama the nomination – by taking away Hillary’s votes to give to him; paying off her Super Delegates; treating her and Bill like outcasts, when they had done more for the party than anyone, including Teddy’s obnoxious self. I fail to see how anyone could find anything to respect in the party as it currently is.

    I think the idea of the Dem party from back in the day, which truly struck a chord for many of us – although it meant something personal and different to everyone – represented something that the people who remained or returned don’t feel comfortable leaving. IMO, however, their loyalty is to the idea of something – not to anything real or concrete. There’s little left to inspire loyalty in the Dem Party, for me, at least. As you say, it’s their right, but I don’t get it.

  113. turndownobama
    August 23rd, 2012 at 12:35 pm
    You seem to assume that a Republican administration would really improve things for fellow Americans at that level. When has any Republican administration lately done that? The economy under Reagan and Bush Sr tanked till Bill restored it, then tanked again under Bush Jr.
    *******

    Believe it or not, I was not political during those years. I found politics to be boring. My husband and I worked, purchased a home and enjoyed our lives during those years. It wasn’t until 2006 or so that we began to notice changes. They started in our neighborhood as several stores changed owners and a few closed down for good. Then some of our friends and family members lost their jobs. Then our neighbors moved away because they could no longer afford the taxes.

    I’m not trying to write a biography here, but things were definitely better during the Reagan, Bush Sr, Clinton and part of GW administrations. Times have never been as bad as what I see around me now. If you didn’t see improvement when Reagan took over from Carter, then I don’t know where you were looking.

    I am willing to give the republicans a chance. They can’t make it much worse than it is now.

  114. 😆 😆

    RE-POST from

    2012 DNC Convention Schedule.

    4:00 PM – Opening Flag Burning Ceremony.

    4:05 PM – Singing of “Gawd D_am America ”
    led by Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

    4:10 PM – Pledge of Allegiance to Obama.

    4:15 PM – Ceremonial ‘I Hate America’ led by
    Michelle Obama.

    4:30 PM – Tips on Dodging Sniper Fire, Hillary
    Clinton.

    4:45 PM – RAP duet ‘Whitey Is_A_Racist’ sung by
    Luis Farrakhan and Sheila Jackson.

    5:00 PM – UFO Abduction Survival Tips by, VP Joe
    Biden.

    5:15 PM – Nancy Pelosi presents speech on ‘Ethics’
    in Politics.’.

    5:30 PM – Bill Clinton and Eliot Spitzer Speak on “Keeping
    Your_Ho Quiet”.

    5:45 PM – Tribute to All 57 States.

  115. Maybe you didn’t notice that you have posted anti-Clinton
    propaganda on this Hillary site, but I hope others do.

  116. TheRealist
    August 23rd, 2012 at 3:38 pm

    Maybe you didn’t notice that you have posted anti-Clinton
    propaganda on this Hillary site, but I hope others do.

    &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

    Lighten up it is a joke Bill and Hill would both laugh at it. 😆

  117. A provision of ObamaCare is set to punish roughly two-thirds of U.S. hospitals evaluated by Medicare starting this fall over high readmission rates, according to an analysis by Kaiser Health News.

    Starting in October, Medicare will reduce reimbursements to hospitals with high 30-day readmission rates — which refers to patients who return within a month — by as much as 1 percent. The maximum penalty increases to 2 percent the following year and 3 percent in 2014.

    Doctors are concerned the penalty is unfair, since sometimes they have to accept patients more than once in a brief period of time but could be penalized for doing so — even for accepting seniors who are sick.

    “Among patients with heart failure, hospitals that have higher readmission rates actually have lower mortality rates,” said Sunil Kripalani, MD, a professor with Vanderbilt University Medical Center who studies hospital readmissions. “So, which would we rather have — a hospital readmission or a death?”

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/23/more-than-2200-hospitals-face-penalties-for-high-readmissions/#ixzz24OwcxF00

  118. August 23rd, 2012 at 3:38 pm

    Maybe you didn’t notice that you have posted anti-Clinton
    propaganda on this Hillary site, but I hope others do.

    &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

    Lighten up it is a joke Bill and Hill would both laugh at it. 😆

    Admin please if this offends remove it. thank you. 🙂

  119. 😆 😆 Love that Meechelle

    Michelle Obama, speaking yesterday at a campaign event in Florida:

    So that one new voter that you register in your precinct — think about it — that one neighbor that you get to the polls on November the 2 I want you to understand, that could be the one that makes the difference. That one conversation, that one new volunteer you recruit, that could be the one that puts this over the top.

    The presidential election this year is November 6.

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/michelle-obama-get-polls-november-2_650573.html

  120. turndownobama
    August 23rd, 2012 at 3:07 pm
    IMO it’s possible to support R/R in order to get rid of O, without becoming true believers of conservative policies.
    ==================
    Right!
    =================================
    WRONG.
    =================
    To support Hillary, we have to believe the policies of those who opposed her policies (and who impeached Bill)? Or did you always support those conservative policies?
    Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    You’re talking generalities and the true believer’s ptv (Eric Hoffer)
    I am not nor have I ever regarded party membership as a religion.
    I choose the candidate who stands agreeably on certain issues. None of them ever agree perfectly on all issues with my opinions and preferences.  As for Hillary, she has worked with many Republicans and made compromises where necessary. That’s politics.

  121. Do you believe this guy? 😆

    This evening at the president’s “NBA heroes” fundraiser in New York City, featuring Michael Jordan and Carmelo Anthony, Barack Obama was star struck.

    “It is very rare I come to an event where I’m like the fifth or sixth most interesting person,” President Obama said, according to the pool report. “Usually the folks want to take a picture with me, sit next to me, talk to me. That has not been the case at this event and I completely understand.”

    Keep reading…

  122. IMO it’s possible to support R/R in order to get rid of O, without becoming true believers of conservative policies.
    “…………………………………………..
    Yes,, of course! I MISREAD possible for impossible …. Whew, sorry!

  123. TheRealist, regarding your question(s) at http://www.hillaryis44.org/2012/08/22/bombshell-absolute-proof-uncovered-paul-ryan-is-a-racist-with-a-secret-racist-history/#comment-389675

    We can only provide general principles that we believe lead to success not a detailed calendar of events. Wbboei ably responded to some of your questions and we have in the past published articles on why both a Democratic Party and a Republican Party (along with the occasional third party movement) are needed in order to produce good policies.

    As to your questions about Hillary Clinton this in particular is a discussion that we have had before and no doubt will have again. First of all we respect and greatly admire Hillary Clinton and we have great affection for her. But we do not worship her. We do not think Hillary Clinton is infallible. And we certainly would not jump off a cliff if Hillary asked us to although we would respect her sufficiently to listen to what she has to say and why she would want us to jump off said cliff. We would consider her arguments and then make a reasoned analysis about jumping.

    And specifically if Hillary Clinton would run as Obama’s Veep we would not vote for her or Obama. And here is why which answers some of your broader questions and points which question our “logic”:

    The reason why we support Hillary Clinton is because we believe that she (and Bill Clinton) have good policies. It’s that simple. And that pretty much answers all your questions and suppositions.

    No one can game out what is going to happen in the next few months with any real clarity let alone the next few years. What we do is we look at the strategic landscape. What we look to is good policy.

    When Obama became president we “hoped” for the best. We hoped we would turn out to be totally wrong. But we knew he would be a miserable failure because we believed our analysis of many years was on target.

    When we rail and mock “applauding seals”, and we cannot fully express our contempt for this sort of person, it is because they generally turn out to be unprincipled and unthinking. These barkers differ from each other only in the brand of Hopium they guzzle but they applaud without thought or principle for whatever side they find themselves to be on at a particular time. We not only criticize the “other” side but when necessary we will criticize those on “our” side. This is not true for applauding seals. For instance the Obama supporters at DailyKooks and what passes for the “left” these days now make excuses for what they would quickly denounce if it was anyone else other than the object of their cult adoration.

    When you have no principles, or the experience and hard work required to turn those principles into something real, you usually fail. Barack Obama has never had any principles and certainly none that he has worked hard for – other than advancing himself. This type of flim-flam man can escape justice for a long time but eventually the slow grinding wheels flatten the con men.

    As to Hillary’s chances for becoming president, the fate of what once was the Democratic Party (it is now the Dimocratic Party of corruption and treachery without principles or leaders of character), a President Romney, 2016, etc., we can only say this.

    If Mitt Romney succeeds in winning election the Dimocratic Party will have a lot of decisions to make. They will have to decide if they want to remain the Obama Dimocratic Party or return to the principled Democratic Party of Hillary Clinton/FDR. We are not very optimistic about this. We believe it will take another thrashing in 2014 to begin to bring some sense to the party.

    Further, another thrashing in 2014 will continue to purge the party of those Obama enablers who have brought us to the current situation. Will it be a tough time for those not in the Republican tent? Yes, it will be brutal. But the punishment is deserved and necessary. You cannot do what the Obama enablers in the Democratic Party did in 2007/2008 and not expect punishment. These Obama Dimocrats ignored the rank and file in order to force their will on the Party. This is horrendous treachery which will have to be paid for and brutally so. This must never be allowed to happen again and the punishment of total destruction is necessary and deserved.

    As to how this helps Hillary Clinton that really should not be the question. The first priority is the country.

    But “how this helps Hillary Clinton” is a fair question and we answer it with two words – principles, policy. We are not as sure as you are that the economic recovery is on the way. The economy is in great difficulty and even the CBO is warning about another recession and we still don’t know what will happen in Europe or if Iran decides to bomb Saudi oil facilities. If Mitt Romney has the principles and the policies that bring about prosperity and everyone, not just a few, are doing much better economically and socially then he will deserve reelection in 2016.

    If a President Mitt Romney fails to bring prosperity to all and the economy remains stagnant or worse he will deserve to be booted out. If the Democratic Party is resurrected by then and purged of the Obama enablers such that the American people feel the party is redeemed then Hillary Clinton will be a force to contend with. The answers to the questions about the economy and policies as they will be in 2016 no one knows. But again principles inform us better than guessing games and our hopes and wishes.

    We believe that President Hillary Clinton would stand her ground on principles and that she would seek common ground on how to get there (just like Bill did). It’s those principles and policies which we believe lead to success. We support Hillary because she shares our principles and has usually proposed good policies in the past. If a President Romney has the same respect for principles and policies as Hillary then he will be a success. If not he will fail.

    Notice, it is principles and policies that matter to us. We do not believe in personality politics nearly as much as the principles, policies, and coalitions organized to better the country.

    What we do know is that having a corrupt, treacherous leader who also happens to be a boob is not good for the country. Any Party that supports such a person deserves destruction.

    Finally, and this too has been a discussion that has taken place over many years, is a fallacy in your comment which some continue to make. That fallacy is that somehow Obama is “good” or “better” for those whose principles are aligned with the policies of the now defunct Democratic Party. In the New Testament we noted our opposition to much of what Obama has done. We stated why and how destructive those policies have been. There was a time when those in the “left” would have been in solid agreement with our opposition to the entire Obama agenda.

    Health care was sold as somehow fulfilling the FDR/Democratic Party agenda but we called it what it is: a massive monstrosity designed to force Americans to give their money to insurance companies for insurance they will never get because of the high deductibles and all this will be enforced by the tax power and agency of the U.S. government.

    On issue after issue Barack Obama cannot be trusted. Obama cannot be trusted by his “friends” or his foes. Obama simply cannot be trusted.

  124. TwoGirls
    August 23rd, 2012 at 9:08 am
    A little bit of good news. Click the link to read the paragraphs I omitted.

    Currently, The Huffington Post’s Election Dashboard shows Obama with 257 electoral votes to Romney’s 191 with only six “tossup” states including: Colorado, Florida, Iowa, North Carolina, Ohio and Virginia.
    &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

    If HuffPo says Obama allegedly has 257, I can only imagine he must be a LOT further away than 13 electoral votes. AS IF….huffpo would not shill for their Golden Sheep.

  125. The GOP has decided to put these things in their platform – an audit of the federal reserve and an attempt to get the country back on the gold standard!

    I can’t get on this site because I don’t want to register. I’ll post it anyway for anyone who wants it.
    http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/06ebfdaa-ed3f-11e1-83d1-00144feab49a.html#axzz24PPQ8rmi

    I can’t believe they want to bring back the gold standard. That would be incredible if they can do it.

    Personally I’m afraid that when they open Ft. Knox, they will find it empty. The thieves have been at it for years!

  126. LOL Obama thinks he has the woman vote all sewed up Hmmmm. not so sure 🙂

    Thttp://www.buzzfeed.com/dorsey/the-paul-ryan-gun-show-has-arrivedhe Paul Ryan Gun Show Has Arrived

  127. Presidential candidates have traditionally kept a low profile during their opponent’s nominating celebration, but Democrats are throwing those rules out the window in an attempt to spoil Mitt Romney’s coronation as the GOP nominee.

    It started a week or so again when Debbie Wasserman Schultz announced she would hold a “counter-convention” in Tampa during the GOP convention. Then Joe Biden announced an appearance. Now Obama has announced he’ll be campaigning in Iowa and Colorado during the convention, while Michelle Obama will appear on Letterman on the same night Ryan will deliver his speech.
    ***************

    Gee, the total in attendance may be somewhere around 666.

    ***************

    wbb,

    Akins didn’t drop out.

  128. lil ole grape
    August 23rd, 2012 at 4:38 pm

    ADMIN! Wondreful post!It ought to be your main article, not just here in comments!

    &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
    Amen 🙂

  129. Dear Admin-

    Thanks for the wholly unexpected, typically well reasoned and pragmatic response to my post(s)
    The only point I would dispute is that I only mentioned the possibility that things would improve
    over the next several years. The world is in a precarious place and no one knows whether or not
    this is the dawn or dusk of the global economy.

    I applaud (but not like a performing seal!) your laser-sharp focus
    on the issues at hand and your always ahead of the curve analysis of the political landscape.
    There can be no doubt that whatever happens in November, Big Pink will be the one place where
    policies and principles will be the guiding force and your insight and savvy will cut through the
    fog of hopium, no matter who is blowing it… From one “Realist” to another, Thank you!

    Hillary in 2016

  130. Admin,
    What it going on here? Have Mrs. Smith and half a dozen other pinkers been banned???
    That is the claim they are making. If so, what was the offense? Geez, I miss a week of comments and all hell breaks loose. A quote: “Pink is becoming DailyKos on steroids” :O

Comments are closed.