A lot of people insist we change our name. As we linked to in the article below and in our comments we are still the target of ire and anger. Seems the ObamaRoids who called anyone who supported Hillary in 2008 “racists” and “hags” and “c*nts” are now upset that we have not forgotten their hate and answer it and them with the contempt they have earned and deserve as the failed Obama presidency circles the toilet.
These ObamaRoids about to be wiped out by Preparation H 2016 think we are stupid to use an allegedly outdated name. We’ll answer the ObamaRoids with a quote from a Hillary hating article from a Hillary Hater at the Hillary Hating All White Republic:
But the truth is that this country is 230 years old and has had 43 presidents and not a single one of them has been a woman.
Choke on weight challenged Grover Cleveland bitch-boys and bitches. Bow Down. HillaryIs44.
Bow down Obama bitches! Bow down Obama bitch-boys!
This weekend Obama cavorted on vacation and kissed the ass of an anty-gay killer socialist misogyist Castro brother and few paid attention to Boob Obama because the whole world was waiting for a tweet from Hillary. A fu*king tweet! So bow down Obama bitch-boys! Bow down to Hillary Obama bitches!
So yesterday we get a tweet that we suppose is supposed to scare us. Someone we don’t know and don’t want to know writes to us this threat which is supposed to terrorize us:
@HillaryIs44 Expect me to treat your candidate EXACTLY the same way you treated MINE.
I NEVER forget. I still have my mole acct from 07 too.
Isn’t that pathetic? This Obama hugging loser does not get it. This Obama suck-up better bow down and soon.
That Obama cultist is not alone. As in 2008 the ObamaRoids are back to full hate of Big Pink. At Fark they still hate Hillary and Big Pink but those losers have NOWHERE TO GO but to BOW DOWN BITCHBOYS, BOW DOWN TO HILLARY.
Our contempt is reserved with pleasure at mocking the ObamaRoid bitch-boys and bitches on blogs and Big Media who at the end of 2008 called us “dead-enders”. These bitches compared us to end of World War II Japanese soldiers still fighting a fight they had lost:
Four years after their candidate withdrew from the Democratic Presidential primary, years into her service as Secretary of State to President Barack Obama, a hard core of Hillary Clinton dead-enders continue to fight an obscure twilight struggle for their chosen candidate. [snip]
“As a left-leaning individual at the time, it was the first time I had been able to see the media turn viciously against my candidate,” said Kyle Raccio, who in 2008 was a student volunteer for Clinton’s campaign in California. “As someone who had supported Democrats in the past, I had never seen that before.”
Inspired by Clinton’s “pragmatic centrism” but repelled by the “cult of personality they embraced under Obama,” Raccio couldn’t quite accept the Illinois senator’s nomination.
“I just felt like something was not right,” Raccio says. “I didn’t feel hopeful for the country because we had just elected a community organizer.”
We here at HillaryIs44 were specifically called “dead-enders” by Big Media and the allied ObamaRoids on blogs. But you only lose when you give up bitches. So BOW DOWN bitches and bitchboys – the “dead-enders” have won the war.
Right now Hillary is forced to play “gull then cull”. We are not fans of “gull then cull” because we wish Hillary would gut you outright – but you bitches and bitch-boys are so stupid (you did vote for Boob Obama after all) you won’t know what hit you when Hillary culls your asses.
You bitches and bitch-boys are so stupid you won’t even understand what we’re talking about so you stupid asses will call us “batsh*t crazy” even though we spelled it out for you in 2013. You so stupid. Ha!
The Clintons are infamous for holding a grudge, and with Hillary looking like a prohibitive front-runner for the party’s presidential nomination in 2016, prominent Democrats who supported Barack Obama in 2008 are racing to settle their debts now and make their support for Clinton known early.
And it’s not just run-of-the-mill Obama supporters, but the ones whose support for the young insurgent in 2008 felt like major betrayals to the Clintons. In their book HRC, journalists Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes detail how one of the last acts of the defeated Clinton campaign was to finalize a “hit list” of Democrats who were disloyal, with the degree of treachery ranked from one to seven.
And there’s an almost perfectly inverse correlation between the severity of the blow dealt to Clinton in 2008 and the quickness and eagerness of Democratic VIPs to back her now—the worse the knock then, the bigger and earlier the boost now. Some started more than two years before the Iowa caucuses are held in early 2016.
We’re going to spell it out for you bitches and bitch-boys. These are the possible scenarios for you:
Scenario 1: Hillary wins the nomination and total control of the party, purges your sorry Obama-lovin’ bitch asses, then wins the general election – you lose.
Scenario 2: Hillary wins the nomination, grabs control of the party, and loses the general election – you lose.
Scenario 3: You Kook bitches and bitch-boys deprive Hillary of the nomination, the party dies nationally as it has locally and statewide because of Obama, your Kook candidate loses the election – you lose. And Republicans then control all three branches of government and proceed to pluck your asses – you lose big time.
Scenario 4: You Kook bitches and bitch-boys deprive Hillary of the nomination in order to keep control of the party. In the general election your Kook Obama lovin’ bitch or bitch-boy wins – you… well, Ha! you know that’s not going to happen you dumb asses. If Hillary is not the nominee your candidate will be lucky to win the vote in Alcatraz, the abandoned prison off the coast of California.
Sure, those candidates will immediately gather unto themselves the Hillary-Hater Kook vote. They might even weaken Hillary enough to bring about a Robert Kennedy style late candidate like the Cambridge Cherokee Elizabeth Warren or maybe even fashion don’t Michelle Obama – but the end result is the GOP wins – BIG.
So BOW DOWN BITCH-BOYS and BITCHETTES! The woman you mocked, smeared and slandered in 2008 as a has-been, a racist (yup you bitches and bitch-boys will help elect a “racist”), a “hagina”, a “loser”, an “old bag”, the “past”, a “dynasty”, “clinton-bush, clinton-bush, clinton-bush”, a Wal-Mart director, a “unitary executive”, a “corporatist”, a “Wall Street” shill, “Shillary”, “Hitlery”, “cankles”, “cackles”, – she has a new moniker – “Preparation H”.
“Preparation H” will get rid of America’s ObamaRoids. So BOW DOWN BITCHES, BOW DOWN. And bend over.
In April of 2007 we began to publish. We did so because of our alarm that Barack Obama was treated with kid gloves by the Hillary Clinton 2008 campaign. We also noted that it was “progressives” and Big Media, not Republicans, that hated Hillary the most and attacked Hillary the most profoundly. We are now about a week away from our anniversary. We are as worried now as in 2007 about Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.
It’s almost impossible to discount the reports that Hillary will announce Hillary Clinton 2016 tomorrow (maybe even today). It is a grievous mistake for Hillary to do so.
Why announce this early? We denounced the attempts by Obama henchmen for Hillary to announce last year right after the elections. We won that fight. Indeed, the news result from that battle was that Hillary would announce in July. We still think July is too early but it is better than April. Why the rush?
The paycheck hungry also want Hillary to announce early. For them it’s not about her, it’s about their paychecks and plumping up their bank accounts.
Impatient Hillary supporters also want Hillary to announce early. That is an insufficient and injurious reason to announce.
We hear the extra foolish reason given that, well, Hillary needs to get a campaign in place in order to answer attacks on her. This is entirely wrong.
In recent day several Republicans have PRAISED Hillary. Once Hillary announces that ends. The moment Hillary announces every Republican candidate for president will begin his or her announcement of candidacy with an attack focused on Hillary not Obama. In addition these Republican candidates will finally realize thatthe way to defeat and destroy Hillary is to attach her early and often to Barack Obama.
Think Clinton’s Having a Bad Time Now? Wait Until She’s a Candidate
She’s being scrutinized, but she’s not having to answer questions. That luxury ends the day she launches. [snip]
The twin controversies are prompting certain Clinton allies to lament that if she had only announced her presidential campaign earlier, her operation would be able to do a better job at damage control. “We’ve had our head up our ass,” one anonymous Clinton adviser told Politico.
But in reality, her decision to wait until April to launch a campaign has been an overall boon to her prospects—allowing her to avoid weighing in on numerous controversial issues that are dividing her party. Indeed, Clinton’s stalling tactics are a sign that she understands the political environment better than the critics realize. [snip]
Far from being unable to respond to the criticism, as a noncandidate she boasts an entire organization—Correct the Record, an arm of the Democratic opposition research firm American Bridge—that’s devoted to pushing back against her unfavorable coverage. [snip]
If she was a candidate, she’d be constantly grilled on the campaign trail over her conduct. She’s hoping that, when she announces in the spring, the furor over these controversies will have died down.
By contrast, prospective Republican presidential candidates have been grilled over Obama’s Christianity, support over a DHS funding deal, or inconsistencies over Common Core, even as Clinton has faced minimal scrutiny of her policy positions during the same period. [snip]
Meanwhile, Clinton has been able to dodge questions over her positions on issues at a time when there are growing divides within her party. She headed the State Department during its Keystone XL review, but has diligently avoided commenting on the merits of the pipeline’s construction. She hasn’t been pressed to take sides on liberal icon Elizabeth Warren’s pet initiatives—higher taxes on the wealthy, tighter banking regulations on Wall Street, and opposition to global trade deals.
Most significantly, she’s been mercurial about her position on an emerging nuclear deal with Iran that many of her party’s rank-and-file members are struggling to support. She hasn’t yet responded to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech before Congress, which warned of the dangers of the president’s diplomacy. She’ll eventually have to take sides, but she has the luxury of time in devising her position.
“Most likely, she’ll be muted. She’ll wait and see what happens with the negotiations. I don’t think you’ll hear her say something substantive for now, one way or another,” said one pro-Israel official with ties to Clinton.
For a sign of how difficult the issue is for Clinton, just look at the contradictory responses she gave when asked about the American response to Iran’s nuclear program. In an August 2014 interview with The Atlantic‘s Jeffrey Goldberg, Clinton said, “I’ve always been in the camp that held that they did not have a right to enrichment.” But, as Goldberg wrote this week, the reported proposal being discussed is one that would “legitimate Iran’s right to enrich uranium” as a principle. After Obama pitched the benefits of his administration’s Iranian diplomacy in his State of the Union, Clinton announced her support to the president’s approach in Canada: “Why do we want to be the catalyst for the collapse of negotiations?” One month earlier, she told one of her top donors, Haim Saban, at the Brookings Institution that “no deal is better than a bad deal.” What gives? [snip]
“There’s no question she’s better off not being a candidate now. To me, that goes without saying,” said Democratic pollster Mark Mellman. “As soon as she’s a candidate, she’ll find people who used to like her who don’t.“
Sen. Lindsey Graham, a possible 2016 Republican presidential contender, said the United States should put off a final nuclear agreement with Iran until after the U.S. election and said Democrat Hillary Clinton could get a better deal.
The South Carolina Republican sharply criticized President Barack Obama’s negotiating skills in talks to contain Iran’s nuclear program. The only candidate he mentioned by name as being able to do better was the Democrats’ presidential favorite.
“I think Hillary’s experience would make her a very effective president, I think, if she were to win,” Coburn said Wednesday during a meeting with msnbc reporters and editors in New York. “First of all, she’s been on the inside of politics for a long time, so she knows the inside game inside and out. She also knows the relationship game. Her husband was great at it.” [snip]
“She was a good senator,” he said. “She worked across the aisle. She kept her word. She became knowledgeable about a lot of issues while she was a senator. So she did that job well,” Coburn continued.
And while Republicans have focused on trying to discredit Clinton’s four years as the nation’s top diplomat, Coburn had almost nothing but praise and compared her favorably to her successor, John Kerry.
“I think history overall will probably show that she did a more than adequate job, with a couple of blips, as secretary of state. Better than the secretary of state we have now, for sure. So there’s nothing wrong with her qualifications,” he said.
It’s true that “Republicans who were once positive” about Hillary will now return to their necessary political positions. We certainly don’t blame Republicans for opposing a political opponent. That’s their job.
Trading Favors: Why the GOP Is Helping Hillary Clinton
A deal in Congress would extend the Children’s Health Insurance Program, a key part of the Democratic frontrunner’s legacy as first lady.
Improbable as it may sound, House Republicans are on the verge of approving, without much fanfare, a major priority of Hillary Clinton’s.
When Clinton ran for president in 2008, she touted her role as first lady in “designing and championing” the Children’s Health Insurance Program, or CHIP, which provided coverage for millions of children whose parents did not qualify for Medicaid but could not afford private insurance. At the time President Clinton signed the law in 1997, it constituted the largest expansion of government-funded children’s health insurance since the enactment of Medicaid in 1965.
On Tuesday, Republicans unveiled legislation that would extend CHIP for another two years, without spending cuts or changes of any kind. [snip]
Count on Clinton to tout CHIP again during her 2016 presidential run, especially considering the bipartisan effort it took to create it. Along with Bill Frist, the Republican former Senate majority leader, Clinton co-authored an op-ed last month in The New York Times urging Congress to extend the program. “This is an opportunity to send a message that Washington is still capable of making common-sense progress for American families,” they wrote.
Many Republicans have been more than fair to Hillary since 2009 after they saw the full horror of Obama. Hillary’s problem once again will not be Republicans who do what they should be doing – which is to attack without restraint the opposition candidate. Once Hillary announces honest Republicans will do their job. No more praise of Hillary. After an announcement Republicans will voice darker views of Hillary. So why should Hillary announce this early?
Clinton’s Rough Road Ahead The liberal base and the media will work together to make sure she isn’t crowned as the Democratic nominee. [snip]
Journalists looking for a good story, whether it truly exists or not, will endeavor to find a challenger and create a David and Goliath narrative, even if it means building David up to the point when he could be a realistic threat to the front-running Goliath. If there are multiple candidates auditioning for the David role, the media will size up each contender and then hype the one that seems most plausible as the real threat to Clinton.
Finally, the ideologues, the true believers, those who endeavor to spurn the good for the perfect, will promote one or more alternatives to put pressure on Clinton to move to the left at the time she is trying to maintain her general-election viability while steering toward a center-left course. Someone will emerge to coalesce disenfranchised ideologues, hoping to reach a critical mass that will attract journalists’ attention.
Who will push Clinton into shape? The deadness of the Democratic contest has led to a situation in which the political world is trying to create an artificial rival for the former Secretary of State. The New York Times, for example, has declared the press to be Clinton’s stand-in opponent.
“With no other powerful Democrats likely to run against her, Hillary Rodham Clinton’s toughest adversary for her party’s presidential nomination in 2016 has now become clear,” the paper wrote last week. “The news media,” the paper concluded, is Clinton’s only real opponent.
That is not a natural state of affairs; a candidate’s toughest adversary should be his or her rivals. And it is not the proper relationship between the press and candidates. Yes, that relationship can be adversarial, but a reporter is not an opposing candidate, and can’t act that way.
Big Media will attack Hillary as soon as she announces. For at least eight months, having no credible competitor, it will be Hillary bouncing around with nothing to do but answer Big Media attacks.
Understand that fact. Hillary will have nothing publicly to do for at least eight months because she will not have an opponent worthy of attention – as long as Hillary does not announce. The moment Hillary announces her primary opponent will be Big Media and Hillary will whittle herself away like a patient with tuberculosis at the Magic Mountain. Big Media can’t wait for Hillary to announce. Big Media is impatient. But Big Media and impatient Hillary supporters and Hillary job-seekers are not as impatient as Hillary Haters on the left:
The Left Is Building a Movement of Movements to Pressure Hillary
With Elizabeth Warren declining to run, progressives are taking matters into their own hands—with her platform, and her support. [snip]
This week, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee announced that a petition it launched calling for the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee to campaign on a populist platform has been signed by 5,000 current and former elected leaders, as well as Democratic Party officials, union leaders, and progressive activists. These include twenty-five members of Congress, such as Senator Harry Reid, Representatives Bonnie Watson Coleman, Alan Grayson, Donna Edwards, and Barbara Lee, plus former Senator Tom Harkin. The petition—which was posted below a page header that reads ReadyforBoldness.com, and rides above a shooting star—begins, “We want the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee to campaign on big, bold, economic-populist ideas that tangibly improve the lives of millions of Americans.”
Last week, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio called for similarly big, bold, economic-populist ideas, from a podium at Gracie Mansion. On Thursday, de Blasio announced that he, with a coalition of progressives he had convened, would in May put forward a template for how best to conquer inequality, and then ask presidential candidates to respond. (He said it would parallel the GOP’s 1994 Contract for America.) De Blasio and his allies in the project, progressive activists and lawmakers including Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio and Governor Dannel Malloy of Connecticut, offered no specific policy suggestions, but spoke of their “vision.” The mayor talked of changing the national conversation, of “making sure income inequality is at the forefront of the national discussion.” A reporter asked if Hillary Clinton, the presumptive Democratic nominee, had been involved in the gathering. De Blasio replied that her team had not been a part, but that he expected every candidate, including Clinton—were she to decide to run, he was careful to say—to speak to the matter.
“Anyone who runs for president should talk about big economic ideas that will help rebuild the middle class.”
These Kooks will devote themselves to hammering Hillary the moment she announces. Then in November 2016 the Republican candidate for president will appropriately use every Hillary statement in favor of the kooks to hammer her on Youtube and all the various tools of the Internet age.
The Kooks want Hillary to announce early not only to attack her but so they will have time, time, to develop a candidate from the left. The sooner Hillary announces the more time the left has. Right now the candidates against Hillary are mosquitoes. Chaffee, Webb, O’Malley are too weak to win but they can rally the opposition against Hillary within the Obama Party sufficient to take her down or move her to the losing left fringe alongside them. The Left wants control over the party not necessarily a win in the general election.
Once Hillary announces it will be 2008 again. Once Hillary announces Big Media will attack Hillary. Once Hillary announces the left kooks will attack Hillary. Once Hillary announces the Obama Dimocratic Party establishment will attack. Harry Reid is ReadyToAttack now:
Top Senate Democrat joins push for populist campaign agenda
(Reuters) – The top Democrat in the U.S. Senate on Tuesday joined a grassroots effort from the progressive wing of the party to encourage presidential candidates to adopt populist policies as they begin their campaigns.
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada is among more than 5,000 lawmakers and party leaders who have signed on to the Progressive Change Campaign Committee.
Two weeks ago it launched a “Ready for Boldness” campaign that aims to ensure the eventual Democratic presidential nominee supports policies such as expanding Social Security retirement benefits, breaking up big banks and debt-free higher education.
All of the issues have been championed by Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, but she has said repeatedly she will not seek the party’s nomination. [snip]
“Being bold is the only way I’ve ever known how to win,” Reid said in a statement.
The PCCC has trained volunteers in the early-voting states of Iowa and New Hampshire, who will attend town halls and campaign events to press Democratic candidates about where they stand on key progressive issues.
We’ll translate for you: there is an army of Kooks trained and operated by establishment Kooks primed and ready to attack Hillary Clinton for months until their candidate of choice rears his/her head to attack a weakened Hillary directly. So why exactly is Hillary announcing this early?
Ted Cruz’s presidential effort is getting into the shock-and-awe fundraising business.
An associate of the Texas senator, a recently announced presidential candidate, tells Bloomberg that a cluster of affiliated super-political action committees was formed only this week, and among them they are expected to have $31 million in the bank by Friday.
Moneybags Jeb Bush and his own shock and awe strategy of a blockbuster $$$ announcement just took a hit too. This amount of moolah keeps Ted Cruz in the game even if Jebby tops well over $100 million in his first cash haul report.
“As I have said all along, I believe it is in everyone’s best interest to find a peaceful way to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons,” Paul said on March 3.
“As to Rand Paul, I like Rand a lot,” Sen. Graham told Fox News’s Greta Van Susteren on Monday. “But at the end of the day, his foreign policy is to the left of Barack Obama.“
Graham noted that Rand Paul was the only senator in September 2012 to vote against Graham’s resolution saying that containment would not be the policy of the United States — that the U.S. would not allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon. The resolution passed 90-1, with Paul providing the only no vote. [snip]
“I don’t think the best way to negotiate with the Iranians is to have the one senator who would be okay with a nuclear Iran to go in to take Obama’s place.”
April asserts itself as the “cruelest month” once again. This is the month the very many Republican candidates for president realize they must announce if they are to have sufficient time to organize a campaign and fund-raise a serious run for president. Today it is Rand Paul announcement day. Jeb Bush got the jump on them all late last year and a short time ago it was Ted Cruz’s turn.
In the past we’ve had some nice things to say about Rand Paul (“stand with Rand”) and some painful things to say about the “wackadoodle two-headed dentist”. On candidate announcement day, today and in the future, we will examine the positive and negative aspects of the debutant. Like a shooting gallery in a circus arcade, as the metallic ducks slide by we will take shots at them along with our impressions of how their opening day went.
So what are the positive aspects of Rand Paul?
We like that Rand Paul realizes and articulates very clearly that the 2016 elections will be about change. Deep and profound changes in American government policy and organization are needed and Rand Paul articulates that very well.
We really like that Rand Paul articulates his vision of how government should work in a schematic way. It’s fine for conservative candidates to say that they want the government to “follow the Constitution”. It’s fine for conservative candidates to say they want to govern with “conservative principles”. But what does that mean?
Candidates for president should articulate very clearly how their principles and visions work for everyday Americans. For liberals/progressives this is very easy to do. If there is a problem of any sort, no matter how minute, no matter how personal, the liberal/progressive has a new law or a new government intervention to fix the problem.
For conservatives the problem is that they have to not directly address the problem at hand but to warn about how in the future every government intrusion/solution whittles away at liberty of the individual. For conservatives concerned about fiscal probity every government intrusion/solution also has a price tag and the conservative flails against the demand to “do something now” with “look at the cost”.
For libertarian Republican Rand Paul the solution is to have “the least government that is necessary” which is a good counter to the liberal/progressive “as much government as we want”. For both sides the mantras fail, the visions fail, and that’s why Americans go back and forth between the two visions even as the liberals/progressives/government interventionists intrude further and further into every detail of life.
For liberals/progressives today’s solution requires solutions to the solutions and then solutions to the solutions to the solutions. It’s a mousetrap that never gets completed because the mouse always outwits the trap maker. The liberal/progressive requires impermeable doors on airplane cockpits post 9/11 only to discover that that same impermeable door can also be used to protect a miscreant pilot.
Against the ever growing power of government and government intrusion, always for some great reason, comes Rand Paul. For Rand Paul every government attempt to make something better only ends in things getting more fouled up. For Rand Paul every government do good intervention means the problem does not get solved, the problem only becomes more complicated.
Rand Paul can thank Barack Obama for any success Rand Paul has achieved and will achieve. Barack Obama has not only demonstrated that government is not always the solution, Barack Obama is a poster child for the Reaganesque proposition that all too often the government is the problem.
For Rand Paul and his libertarian brethren the test is how to communicate the “best government is the least government” message. The “great communicator” Ronald Reagan did it. We doubt Rand Paul will.
Rand Paul simply does not have the skill set of Ronald Reagan. Rand Paul does not even have a good grip on the issues of interest to Republican primary voters. On illegal immigration reform, Rand Paul is Eric Cantor. On foreign policy and Israel, despite all denials, Rand Paul is Ron Paul. Rand Paul is a Ron Paul only a Ralph Nader could love.
As we watched, and we did watch, today’s Rand Paul announcement we came upon the same conclusions we have previously about the candidate. Something is just not right.
Rand Paul spoke from a teleprompter today but he still has not mastered that skill. Rand Paul was reading instead of communicating.
Rand Paul read his lines as if he had to speak above the roar of the crowd. But their was no need to do so because the staging of the event oddly kept the excitement of crowds out of the picture. Rand Paul was surrounded by flags but stood alone. The crowd seemed to be far away. The noise and fervor of the crowd was oddly at bay.
It was odd. In some odd way Rand Paul reminded us of the Cambridge Cherokee, Elizabeth Warren. Both are fervent as snake oil salesmen who really believe their snake oil will cure the maladies described. But the snake oil, like Obama Hopium, only gets you drunk.
Rand Paul also oddly resembles GermanWings co-pilot Andreas Lubitz. We can see him in the cockpit. We can also hear the Republican Party leadership trying to break down the cockpit door.
What do white evangelicals, Muslims, Mormons, blacks, conservative Republicans, and immigrants from Africa, South America, and Central America all have in common? They’re less likely to support gay marriage than the average Californian. [snip]
The owners of Memories Pizza are, I think, mistaken in what their Christian faith demands of them. And I believe their position on gay marriage to be wrongheaded. But I also believe that the position I’ll gladly serve any gay customers but I feel my faith compels me to refrain from catering a gay wedding is less hateful or intolerant than let’s go burn that family’s business to the ground. [snip]
A relatively big digital mob has been attacking this powerless family in rural Indiana, but I don’t get the sense that its participants have reflected on or even thought of these questions. I don’t think they recognize how ugly, intolerant and extreme their actions appear or the effect they’ll have on Americans beyond the mainstream media, or that their vitriolic shaming these people has ultimately made them into martyrs. I fear that a backlash against their tactics will weaken support for the better angels of the gay rights movement at a time when more progress needs to be made, and that they’re turning traditionalists into a fearful, alienated minority with a posture of defensiveness that closes them off to persuasion.
We detest bully boys and bully boy tactics. It doesn’t matter if the bully boys wear brown shirts or rainbow shirts… blue shirts or red shirts.
We’re disgusted. Not discouraged, not resigned, disgusted.
Why? Sample the news stories of past few days, weeks, months, as they appeared on one day.
On one day this week Vladimir Putin threatened nuclear war over Crimea, Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia. That was not all, “Russia has threatened to use “nuclear force” to defend its annexation of Crimea and warned that the “same conditions” that prompted it to take military action in Ukraine exist in the three Baltic states, all members of Nato.” Anyone think NATO, under current leadership will fulfill it’s treaty obligations to the Baltic States and defend them if strong leader Putin attacks? Anyone think still occupied Crimea will be an issue for the craven West?
On the same day two Muslim women in New York City were arrested because they plotted bomb attacks against the United States. These Muslim women planned attacks in and against a democratic country where women are free in order to defend a religion and political movement that despises women (and gays).
The reaction to the two Muslim potential killers from an American woman senator? Censorship. That disgusting woman senator from California, Dianne Feinstein, thinks that the thing to do is remove the “Anarchist Cookbook”and terrorist publications from the internet. It’s freedom hating censorship in the name of freedom. Think this silly censorship will work? Instead of a call for a vigorous defense of freedom in national policy and destruction of the totalitarian movements which propel the Putins and the Muslim killers, we get a futile call for censorship that at best will not work. We will not defeat this Muslim terror mentality with hashtag Twitter campaigns nor internet activism censorship. Did #BringBackOurGirls bring back those girls?
On the same day as the above events occurred we also saw continued attacks against a pizza store because the owner surmised they would not cater a gay wedding if they were ever asked. What person, gay or straight, would cater their wedding with pizza?
It wasn’t about pizza of course. The pizza shop in Indiana was collateral damage in a bigger fight against anti-gay institutional discrimination and the rights of conscience (which have been a fundamental bulwark in every movement for freedom in this country) guaranteed under the First Amendment.
How foolish was this “fight” on the part of gay activists? The very powerful gay boss of one of the most powerful companies in the world, Apple, denounced Indiana and a new religious rights law and threatened to economically deprive Indiana of Apple dollars. Think about that. The economic powerhouse Apple is led by a gay man who opens Apple stores in the most anti-women and anti-gay Muslim countries yet the target of his gay ire is Indiana because the presumed anti-gay wedding non caterers are Christian.
When will the gay rights movement target Muslim bakeries and ask them to cater gay weddings? When will some proud gay black man walk into a business owned by a member of Chicago’s Nation of Islam and demand his gay wedding be catered by anti-gay anti-Christian anti-woman Louis Farrakhan?
What disgusts us about the gay activist attacks against Christianity is not so much the hypocrisy of the protection of gay killing Muslims and gay killing Muslim countries. What is particularly disgusting is the totalitarian mind control exhibited by the supposed defenders of gay rights. And we issue this warning to our allies that support gay rights: “the whole world is watching”.
“The whole world is watching” is typically used by freedom movements to advance on the moral high ground. But in this case, “the whole world is watching” is more of an ominous threat. In many of the Muslim countries the gay rights movement in the United States is watched with loathing (and yes this is despite the fact that many of the Muslim countries have huge closeted gay populations within them and even some not so closeted (think dancing boys of Afghanistan) gay populations). They’re watching the gay movement in America and see the intolerance of the gay movement here and prepare.
In Russia the anti-gay movement is as intolerant as the gay movement in America is becoming. An Associated Press poll finds that anti-gay bigotry is gaining ground in Russia and new laws against gays are on the rise. The gay movement in America and the West should remain on the high ground of tolerance and freedom not on the mind control totalitarian repression of opposing views. Don’t become what you fought against Gay America.
So, as a pizza shop was under attack for expressing an idea, not doing or not doing anything, but for the expression of a thought, Yemen too was in the news. In Yemen Muslim nuts fight Muslim nuts. In Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Egypt, Yemen, Kenya, throughout the Middle East and every Muslim Country and beyond “the world is on fire”, as Speaker of the House John Boehner said.
What was the Obama response to a world on fire? Gasoline!
The thing that no one, supporter or opponent, can deny about the Iran deal is this: Under the agreed “framework,” after ten or 15 years, Iran will be permitted to develop all the nuclear weapons it wants. This agreement is not, as the White House claimed it would be, a deal to stop Iran’s nuclear weapons program. It is merely a way to manage and delay it. [snip]
The principle is simple. Crazy, violent, apocalyptic, militaristic, expansionist sponsors of terrorism are not to be trusted with the atom bomb.
An Iranian bomb would also mean the end of nonproliferation efforts. [snip]
This deal leaves the entire Iranian nuclear weapons production line in place. Iran will even be permitted to continue spinning thousands of centrifuges and enrich uranium, though not at the level needed for a bomb. Assuming they don’t cheat, which they always have. [snip]
Iran’s decades of illegal work on a nuclear weapon is now officially legitimized.
“I’m a little puzzled by the political agreement,” said Olli Heinonen, a previous inspections chief at the U.N.’s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency. “You’re going to leave Iran as a threshold state. There isn’t much room to maneuver.”
Iranian Defector: ‘U.S. Negotiating Team Mainly There to Speak on Iran’s Behalf’
An Iranian journalist writing about the nuclear negotiations between the United States and Iran has defected. In an interview Amir Hossein Motaghi, has some harsh words for his native Iran. He also has a damning indictment of America’s role in the nuclear negotiations.
“The U.S. negotiating team are mainly there to speak on Iran’s behalf with other members of the 5+1 countries and convince them of a deal,” Motaghi told a TV station after just defecting from the Iranian delegation while abroad for the nuclear talks. The P 5 + 1 is made up of United States, United Kingdom, Russia, China, France, plus Germany.
France felt the Americans were keeping France and the other negotiating partners in the dark about the talks. Rather it being P5+1, it has really been the U.S. only talking to Iran. And the French negotiators complained in private the Americans were trying to “force them to make concessions on issues like the number of centrifuges allowed or sanctions.
The French ambassador to the US tweeted his displeasure at the beginning of March, “We want a deal. They need a deal. The tactics and the result of the negotiation should reflect this asymmetry.”
None of Iran’s nuclear facilities — including the Fordow center buried under a mountain — will be closed. Not one of the country’s 19,000 centrifuges will be dismantled. Tehran’s existing stockpile of enriched uranium will be “reduced” but not necessarily shipped out of the country. In effect, Iran’s nuclear infrastructure will remain intact, though some of it will be mothballed for 10 years. When the accord lapses, the Islamic republic will instantly become a threshold nuclear state.
That’s a long way from the standard set by President Obama in 2012 when he declared that “the deal we’ll accept” with Iran “is that they end their nuclear program” and “abide by the U.N. resolutions that have been in place.” Those resolutions call for Iran to suspend the enrichment of uranium. Instead, under the agreement announced Thursday, enrichment will continue with 5,000 centrifuges for a decade, and all restraints on it will end in 15 years. [snip]
The proposed accord will provide Iran a huge economic boost that will allow it to wage more aggressively the wars it is already fighting or sponsoring across the region. Whether that concession is worthwhile will depend in part on details that have yet to be agreed upon, or at least publicly explained.
To quote Winston Churchill under remarkably similar circumstances after Munich: We have suffered an unmitigated defeat. And just like in 1938, our national leader is painting it as a victory over the warmongers without any recognition that he’s just set loose the real warmongers, and what follows will be disaster and ignominy.
We’re disgusted with good reason(s). Allies we thought better of now act more like the totalitarians they oppose. At every level the West and its ideals of tolerance and freedom are in retreat. A party and party leadership we once respected follow the treacherous leader into managed decline of America and all the dread consequences that will bring about.
But we’re not despondent, dispirited, despairing.
For Christians, Good Friday is not because it is particularly “good”. It’s more “solemn”. On “good” Friday the founder of their religion was crucified. The “lamb of God” on a gibbet much like a butchered Passover lamb is not a pretty sight. But the idea of “good” comes from the sacrifice for humanity and the promise of the Resurrection on Easter Sunday and a latter resurrection for humanity through His sacrifice.
So we’re not despondent, dispirited, or despairing, although we are disgusted. We’ll take the disgust on this Good Friday and hope that things get better soon. It won’t be Sunday. But a better day is sure to come. It can’t get worse.
As it turns out, the speech by Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu wasn’t the communication to Congress that got the Obama administration most upset. Today’s Wall Street Journal reveals in a report from Adam Entous that Israel’s intelligence service had penetrated the talks with Iran, both through human intelligence and signals intelligence. That allowed Israel to make an international case against the emerging deal in an attempt to derail Barack Obama’s desperate desire to reach a rapprochement with Tehran.
And even that didn’t generate the most ire in the White House. No, that came when Israel had the temerity and the nerve to inform a group considered by the Obama administration as a dangerous gathering of subversives … right down Pennsylvania Avenue from the West Wing….
European governments, especially France, helped Israel get the details about Obama’s anti-Israel Iran treacheries. Obama did not want congress to know and Israel told congress so Israel is the bad guy???
“People feel personally sold out,” a senior administration official said. “That’s where the Israelis really better be careful because a lot of these people will not only be around for this administration but possibly the next one as well.”
As many know by now, yesterday at the Obama Dimocratic convention there was at least a strong minority, but to our ears a strong majority, which did not want the word “God” restored to the platform. The same numbers did not want the Obama Dimocratic platform to mention that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel or that Hamas is a terrorist organization which should be at least shunned, or that Israel’s borders are no longer the 1967 borders (something Barack Obama has already demanded Israel accept). [snip]
It was clear that many Obama supporters were content to leave out a reference to God in the platform and most importantly stab Israel in the back. [snip]
Barack Obama, according to Jim Vandehei, personally demanded the anti-Israel attacks be included in his platform. Mitt Romney could have used Obama’s platform changes to great effect in Florida. Mitt Romney could have targeted warnings about Obama’s anti-Israel hatred to every American that supports Israel. But Romney only commented briefly about Obama’s anti-Israel convention and then the issue disappeared into a campaign binder somewhere.
The Barack Obama authored attack on Israel at his very own convention is not the first time, nor the last time, Obama has attacked Israel. A few days after the anti-Israel attacks authored by Barack Obama we wondered “Anyone seen Mitt Romney?”
It’s September 11, 2012. The date has a certain resonance for Americans. For Obama it’s “Hate Israel Day.”
In Egypt the American Embassy was attacked, the stars and stripes torn down. The flag of Al-Qaeda, the killers of Americans on 9/11, was raised in Old Glory’s stead.
It’s imperative that Mitt Romney make sure that Americans know what happened at the DNC when it comes to Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, the softening towards HAMAS, and the borders of Israel. Mitt Romney has a new hammer to pound on these important issues.
Mitt Romney must declare in a most public way that Barack Obama must be forced to change his mind and be forced to be “present” and not his usual “not present”. Mitt Romney must demand that Barack Obama stop his campaign of hate against Israel and meet with the Israeli Prime Minister.
Mitt Romney must declare in a most public way that Barack Obama clear his schedule and meet with Benyamin Netanyahu at this crucial time. Mitt Romney should immediately declare that he is willing to meet with Netanyahu on September 25 or on a mutually convenient date this month. [snip]
Cruz: Imagine a President Who Stands Unapologetically With Israel
Yeah, just imagine.
Ted Cruz received a standing ovation at the world’s largest Christian university today, Liberty University, when he asked the students to imagine, instead of a president who “boycotts Prime Minister Netanyahu,” one who “stands unapologetically with the nation Israel.”
I say as a Jew, thank God Israel has conservative Christian allies. Because if it had to rely on the liberals most of my fellow Jews associate themselves with, Israel would be sunk.
That Israel was a massive applause line for Cruz is a sure sign Republicans will make support for the Jewish state a central theme of their primary campaigns, and of the upcoming contest with a Democratic candidate.
Against the backdrop of the tsunami of trouble he has unleashed, Obama’s pledge to “reassess” America’s relationship with Israel cannot be taken lightly. Already paving the way for an Iranian nuke, he is hinting he’ll also let the other anti-Semites at Turtle Bay have their way. That could mean American support for punitive Security Council resolutions or for Palestinian statehood initiatives. It could mean both, or something worse.
Whatever form the punishment takes, it will aim to teach Bibi Netanyahu never again to upstage him. And to teach Israeli voters never again to elect somebody Obama doesn’t like.
Apologists and wishful thinkers, including some Jews, insist Obama realizes that the special relationship between Israel and the United States must prevail and that allowing too much daylight between friends will encourage enemies.
Those people are slow learners, or, more dangerously, deny-ists. [snip]
For Israel, the consequences will be intended. Those who make excuses for Obama’s policy failures — naive, bad advice, bad luck — have not come to grips with his dark impulses and deep-seated rage.
His visceral dislike for Netanyahu is genuine, but also serves as a convenient fig leaf for his visceral dislike of Israel. The fact that it’s personal with Netanyahu doesn’t explain six years of trying to bully Israelis into signing a suicide pact with Muslims bent on destroying them. Netanyahu’s only sin is that he puts his nation’s security first and refuses to knuckle under to Obama’s endless demands for unilateral concessions. [snip]
Most troubling is Obama’s bended-knee deference to Iran’s Supreme Leader, which has been repaid with “Death to America” and “Death to Israel” demonstrations in Tehran and expanded Iranian military action in other countries. [snip]
Yet Netanyahu, the leader of our only reliable ally in the region, is repeatedly singled out for abuse. He alone is the target of an orchestrated attempt to defeat him at the polls, with Obama political operatives, funded in part by American taxpayers, working to elect his opponent.
They failed and Netanyahu prevailed because Israelis see him as their best bet to protect them. Their choice was wise, but they’d better buckle up because it’s Israel’s turn to face the wrath of Obama.
Ted Cruz is probably not going to win the Republican nomination. But Ted Cruz already is a winner because of his support of Israel and because he will force support for Israel to one of the top issues in 2016.
Born into slavery as one of the youngest of thirteen children of James and Elizabeth in Ulster County, New York, in 1797, Sojourner Truth’s given name was Isabella Baumfree. As almost all of her brothers and sisters had been sold to other slave owners, some of her earliest memories were of her parents’ stories of the cruel loss of their other children. [snip]
In 1843, she changed her name to Sojourner Truth – her name for a traveling preacher, one who speaks the truth – and left New York. She traveled throughout New England, where she met and worked with abolitionists such as William Lloyd Garrison, and Frederick Douglass. Her life story, The Narrative of Sojourner Truth: A Northern Slave, written with the help of friend Olive Gilbert, was published in 1850.
While traveling and speaking in states across the country, Sojourner Truth met many women abolitionists and noticed that although women could be part of the leadership in the abolitionist movement, they could neither vote nor hold public office. It was this realization that led Sojourner to become an outspoken supporter of women’s rights.
In 1851, she addressed the Women’s Rights Convention in Akron, Ohio, delivering her famous speech “Ain’t I a Woman?” The applause she received that day has been described as “deafening.” From that time on, she became known as a leading advocate for the rights of women. She became one of the nineteenth century’s most eloquent voices for the cause of anti-slavery and women’s rights.
NoLimits.org will "keep you up to date with news about issues on which Hillary took a lead and we know you care so much about," group President Ann Lewis said in an e-mail to as many as 2 million people culled from the Clinton campaign database.
Because No Limits is a registered nonprofit, "it cannot do anything political. It has to be nonpartisan," said Lewis, a longtime senior adviser to Clinton.
In Clinton's job as secretary of state for President Obama, her political dealings are highly restricted.
For example, she shut down her political action committee.
Some, like Democratic consultant and former Bill Clinton aide Chris Lehane, dismiss talk that the group could be a springboard for Clinton to try again for the White House in, say, 2016.
"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar," Lehane said. "I think this is just [a] group of folks who developed relationships in an intense [electoral] environment and want to stay together."
But the University of Virginia's Larry Sabato countered: "Whenever a group like this says it's not a political organization, you just know it is."
"Maybe [this] is Hillary's answer to Obama's new 'change' group that controls his golden mailing list. Maybe it's a way for Secretary of State Clinton to mobilize backing for her objectives at the State Department," he said. "And maybe [it's] a standby committee of supporters in case Hillary decides to get back into elective politics."
Democratic consultant Hank Sheinkopf said NoLimits.org is "one way to make sure that she - and/or the former President - still have political leverage."
Hillary World-Wide January 26, 2009
Secretary of State Hillary R. Clinton Meets Afghan Women Lawyers. Secretary of State Hillary R. Clinton met today at the State Department with fourteen prominent Afghan women judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys. These jurists were in Washington to participate in a training program arranged by the Department’s Public-Private Partnership for Justice Reform in Afghanistan. Secretary Clinton told them: "Your American friends greatly admire your bravery and courage. It is your work in the tough environment of Afghanistan for women lawyers that will bring real reform and the rule of law to the Afghan people. As President Obama made clear yesterday in his first foreign policy announcement, we are committed to supporting your efforts to bring security and stability to your country."