Posts Tagged ‘Democratic Party’

Oxymoronic ‘Democratic Party’ Not Just Party Of Fascism But SUPERFascism. And The Superfascists Are Supporting Hillary Clinton

February 27, 2016

You know what an oxymoron is, don’t you?  It’s defined as a figure of speech that juxtaposes elements that appear to be contradictory.  Famous examples are things like “Jumbo shrimp,” “Genuine imitation,” “Act naturally,” “Computer security,” “Childproof.”  And “Democratic Party.”

Maybe a good example of the oxymoronic Democrat Party would be the oxymoron of “Only choice.”  Because that’s the way the shell game of “democracy” operates.

Consider the delegate count between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders as of today and then allow me to explain what the Sam Hell is going on:

Superdelegates Clinton

The funny thing is that Hillary Clinton BARELY won Iowa – on the basis of coin tosses! – and the delegates were awarded proportionately.  Sanders won HUGE in New Hampshire by 20 points.  And Hillary Clinton again squeeked by in Nevada – on the basis of a card draw, no less! – and again the delegates were awarded proportionately.  So the actual delegate count on the basis of THE PEOPLE VOTING stands at 51 for each, as the New York Times admits in an article since the Nevada Caucus dated February 21 (note: the acknowledgment appears way, WAY down the article):

[…] Mrs. Clinton already has a huge lead over Mr. Sanders in support from superdelegates — elected officials and party elders who each count toward the magic number of 2,383. But superdelegates could switch candidates if Mr. Sanders is the overwhelming choice of regular voters.

For now, Mrs. Clinton is focused on building her lead among so-called pledged delegates — those awarded proportionally by congressional districts from primary and caucus results. Mr. Sanders is aiming to score wins in states like Massachusetts and Minnesota while holding Mrs. Clinton to narrow wins elsewhere. Small margins of victory keep delegate allocations roughly even. A New York Times analysis found that Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Sanders are tied in the pledged delegate count, at 51 each […].

The Sanders campaign and Sanders voters have already expressed how unfair it is and how pissed off they are about this blatant “Democratic” fascism:

Sanders supporters revolt against superdelegates
Outraged by the delegate deficit Sanders faces even after his New Hampshire win, the senator’s backers are taking action.
By Daniel Strauss
02/14/16 06:34 PM EST

Bernie Sanders lost by a hair in Iowa and won by a landslide in New Hampshire. Yet Hillary Clinton has amassed an enormous 350-delegate advantage over the Vermont senator after just two states.

Outraged by that disconnect – which is fueled by Clinton’s huge advantage with Democratic superdelegates, who are not bound by voting results – Sanders supporters are fighting back.

Pro-Sanders threads on Reddit have been burning up with calls for action, with some supporters even reaching out to superdelegates (who are typically Democratic governors, members of Congress, and top state and national party leaders) to lobby them on the Vermont senator’s behalf. Progressive groups are also taking a stand: There are currently two petition campaigns designed to urge superdelegates to reflect the popular vote, rather than the sentiment of party elites.

In one of them, activists are targeting undecided and committed Hillary Clinton superdelegates with a clear message: wait until all the votes are counted before throwing support behind a candidate.

The effort, which will begin this week after polls its supporters to pick which superdelegates to petition first, comes amid growing criticism from Sanders supporters who complain that the game is rigged in the former secretary of state’s favor. […]

So, understand, a “Democratic Party” election is one in which the actual people who vote have absolutely ZERO impact on the election.

They call them “superdelegates,” but what they truly are are “superfascists” from the party of fascism.

A “Democratic Party primary” is a completely rigged game in which the Party apparatus completely controls the outcome.

I’ve been pointing out for YEARS now that the Democratic Party IS the Party of Fascism.  My point was that so-called “Democrats” – these oxymoronic fools who make a grotesque mockery of the very thing they call themselves – are and have been hypocrites to the very cores of their tiny, rabid little roach souls.

To be a “Democrat” today means to have a profound distrust and hostility to the actual will of the American people.  They have no respect for “democracy.”  Rather, they have a militant, rabid religious devotion to GOVERNMENT and the raw, naked exercise of the POWER of government OVER the people.

I take you back to 1 Samuel 8 and what we find out about the nature of expanding human government.  The people had GOD as their King, but God wasn’t enough for them; they wanted a human king to be their Savior and deliver them.  When the prophet Samuel heard this from the people, he was deeply troubled and went to his God.  And God said to Samuel, ” “Listen to the voice of the people in regard to all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from being king over them” (1 Samuel 8:7).

Here’s the full passage from 1 Samuel 8:

6But when they said, “Give us a king to lead us,” this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the Lord. 7And the Lord told him: “Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. 8As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you. 9Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will claim as his rights.”

10Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who were asking him for a king. 11He said, “This is what the king who will reign over you will claim as his rights: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. 12Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. 15He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. 16Your male and female servants and the best of your cattlec and donkeys he will take for his own use. 17He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. 18When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, but the Lord will not answer you in that day.”

19But the people refused to listen to Samuel. “No!” they said. “We want a king over us. 20Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles.”

21When Samuel heard all that the people said, he repeated it before the Lord. 22The Lord answered, “Listen to them and give them a king.”

The people rejected God and wanted massive, unstoppable human government tyranny.  And the “Democratic Party” was born.

Psalm 70:5 declares, “But I am afflicted and needy; Hasten to me, O God! You are my help and my deliverer; O LORD, do not delay.”

That message has been radically rejected by modern “Democrats.”  No, they have put their faith in the message, “I’m from the Government and I’m here to help…”

That’s what being a “Democrat” means today; it means exalting the power of Government over the American people and even over God Almighty.  If you are a “Democrat,” God is NOT your Savior; Government is your Savior.  You place all of your trust in the power of Government to save you and you will ultimately burn in hell along with the wicked Government you have worshiped and exalted.

Being “Democratic” BY DEFINITION means having no trust whatsoever even in the voters of your own damn PARTY, let alone the nation.  NO!  Your trust is in a group of demon-possessed bureaucrats – THAT’S what “Democrat” actually means, “DEMOnic bureaucrat” – whom you worship as your gods and whom you trust as your Savior and your Lord.  And you trust these depraved human beings not only to run the State that you worship in place of God, but to even appoint (that’s the actual word, rather than “elect”) the leader who will represent the God you worship as your version of the Antichrist until the real one comes and you WORSHIP him just as the Bible declares you wicked people will soon do.

So go “vote,” “Democrat.”  Like it matters to anybody in your damn party, a party whose sole and solitary purpose is to deprive the American people of their liberty and their freedom.


Democrats and Obama: Watch Deep Unease Turn To Despair

September 11, 2008

As the Politico reports, things aren’t happy in the People’s Socialist Republic of Obamaland:

“It’s more than an increased anxiety,” said Doug Schoen, who worked as one of Bill Clinton’s lead pollsters during his 1996 reelection and has worked for both Democrats and independents in recent years. “It’s a palpable frustration. Deep-seated unease in the sense that the message has gotten away from them.”

Hmm.  Democrats nominate THE most liberal member of the United States Senatefor the second time in a row – and then try to demonize a man who has always been regarded as a political moderate into some kind of card-carrying member of “the vast right wing conspiracy.”  And then wonder what went wrong?

Albert Einstein once defined insanity as “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”  What else would you call the modern Democratic Party? (more…)

Why Hillary Clinton Needs to Stay In Race To Be Good Democrat

May 10, 2008

Should Hillary Clinton drop out of the race for the Democratic nomination?

Should she put her own self-interests aside, put her party first, and yield to Barack Obama?

Well, let me ask a parallel question: should Democrats have put aside their own partisan interests aside, put their country first, and stopped undermining the war in Iraq and making false charges about the economy?

The phrase, “chickens coming home to roost” seems to be a popular one these days, so let me allude to it here: the Democratic Party has been selfishly seeking power against the best interests of their country for the past four years, and it is frankly their just desserts that a Democratic candidate should not come to personify total political self-centeredness.

There is no question that Barack Obama must be given the Democratic nomination. It has nothing to do with his wins or with his votes; but everything to do with the fact that his most ardent supporters are the worst kind of people, who would come unglued and destroy the Democratic Party if they don’t get their way. Hillary Clinton’s supporters – the working class, Catholics, and senior citizens – are more likely to roll up their sleeves and support the other candidate.

It is frankly amazing to me that “the candidate of hope and change” is presiding over such a bitter partisan contest without anyone pointing out the massive contradiction, and that his voters are the type of people who have literally threatened riots in Denver if they don’t get their way. It goes to show what a cynical – and completely phony – campaign platform the whole “hope and change” thing is.

But let me get back to the Democrat’s selfish undermining of the best interests of the country they claim to love above all else. I challenge Democrats to tell me when Republicans so bitterly denounced a Democratic President at war, with their troops on the ground. Vietnam? No. Korea? No. World War II? No. World War I? Again, no. You’ve got to go back to the Civil War when the pro-slavery Democratic Party was so upset over a President going to war. We have presented a divided front to the encouragement and emboldening of our enemies. I can’t even begin to imagine what would have happen if the Republican Party had tried to undermine the war effort while FDR was fighting Nazis and Japanese Imperialists.

The United States had a vote on the Iraq War resolution. And it passed by a substantial majority in both branches of Congress (296-133 in the House and 77-23 in the Senate). In the Senate, 29 Democrats supported the resolution, with only 21 voting against it. The Iraq War resolution actually passed by a wider margin in both branches than the Gulf War resolution in 1990.  There is a long record of Democrats acknowledging and affirming the key elements of the Bush White House’ position on Saddam Hussein and Iraq.  Yet, incredibly, Democrats began to turn against the war and use it as a “wedge issue” the moment they began to sense that it was beginning to become unpopular.

It didn’t matter that CIA director George Tenet (whom Democratic President Bill Clinton had appointed) – speaking for the overall military and civilian intelligence community – said that the consensus view was that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. It didn’t matter than every major intelligence service in the world held the same view. It didn’t matter that the United Nations was inherently incompetent, or that countries such as France and Russia – opposing every meaningful resolution to enforce insepctions in the UN – had been bought by Saddam Hussein with funds and powers granted by the corrupt oil for food program. None of that mattered. Democrats began to literally undermine their president and routinely call him a liar and a war criminal.

Keep in mind that the first priority of enemy psychological warfare program is to undermine the credibility and character of the enemy’s leader. We attempted to do that with Saddam Hussein before we invaded in Gulf War I. We attempted to do that with Slobodon Milosivitch before we attacked Bosnia under President Clinton. The Democrats tried to do that with President George Bush after we attacked Iraq. Whose side were Democrats on? They were on their side. It is a matter of fact that they were NOT on the American’s side.

When Senate Majority leader Harry Reid said, “This war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything,” on 20 April 2007, the story was picked up by al Jazeera and eagerly devoured by our emboldened enemies. In spite of Harry Reid and his Party, history has proven that the surge has been a very successful strategy for the United States. It is a despicable shame that he attempted to undermine it without even giving it a chance to work.

Representative James Clyburn, the House Majority Whip (and the number two Democrat in the House of Representatives) summed it up pretty well when he said that success in Iraq would be bad for Democrats. That’s an incredible statement, which communicated to the whole world that the Democratic Party was so invested in defeat in Iraq as a political strategy to undermine Republicans that good news in Iraq amounted to bad news for Democrats.

The same is true of the liberal media, of course, as is demonstrated in a Harvard study and reported under the headline, “Negative U.S. media linked to increased insurgent attacks .” Not that these people care. They would rather see the country in ruins than under the governance of a Republicans.

But we have liberal media reporters like CNN’s Bob Franken saying, “But many experts say that designating this a civil war will undermine U.S. support even more, which might explain why so many Democrats are jumping on the bandwagon.” I can’t help but get stuck on that “undermine U.S.” part.

I will always wonder what would have happened had the United States presented a united face. Would our historic allies begun to come around to our side? Would our enemies have been as emboldened and confident that the United States could be defeated? Would the critics of America have felt as justified in demonizing America had so-called “Americans” not said all the same things that they were saying?

Do Democrats want a good economy? Not right now, they don’t. They want a BAD economy so they can use it as an issue in the upcoming elections.

Apart from the fact that they economy didn’t actually start struggling until Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi took over the Congress – which controls the purse strings – we have extremely negative and downright deceitful comments coming from Democrats to insure the economy remains in the doldrums. The fact of the matter is the economy has not been in recession, and recent economic indicators are pointing that the economy may very well be improving.

Fox News offered a little dose of reality in its story when it revealed the unrelenting bias in the media. “Over 78 percent more negative news stories discussed a recession when the economy under a Republican was soaring than occurred under a Democrat when the economy was shrinking.” According to the report:

During the 2000 election, with Bill Clinton as president, the economy was viewed through rose-colored glasses. According to polls, voters didn’t realize that the country was in a recession. Although the economy started shrinking in July 2000, most Americans through the entire year thought that the economy was fine.

But over the last half-year, the media and politicians have said we were in a recession even while the economy was still growing.

Gas prices are going up. The economy is slowing. Talk of recession is seemingly everywhere. While the majority of people rate their personal finances positively, consumer confidence in the economy has plunged to a 16-year low, well below what it was during the last year of the Clinton administration when we were in a recession…

The media’s focus on the negative side of everything surely helps explain people’s pessimism. In a recent interview Fox’s Neil Cavuto claimed this bias “is all part of the media’s plan to get a Democrat in the White House.”

The report was based on the findings of University of Maryland senior research scientist John Lott, Jr.

It is perfectly appropriate for the party not in power to claim that they have a better solution for the economy. Frankly, such a debate is good for the country. But what is profoundly wrong is to demonize an economy in order to artificially bring down consumer confidence and create a perception of pessimism rather than a perception of confidence. Nothing is more important for the success of a national economy than perception!

The same Democrats who made it illegal for Americans to drill for domestic oil or build refineries now demonize Republicans for the energy crisis. The same politicians who wouldn’t let us drill in the Atlantic, wouldn’t let us drill in the Gulf of Mexico, wouldn’t let us drill in the Pacific, wouldn’t let us drill in Alaska now claim the energy crisis is Bush’s fault! Democrats told us 10 years ago that we shouldn’t drill in Anwar because it wouldn’t do us any good for 10 years. Now, 10 years later, they’re STILL saying that we shouldn’t drill in Anwar because it won’t do us any good for 10 years.

Had we fully developed our own massive domestic energy resources, we could have long-since freed ourselves from having to involve ourselves in what Democrats love to call “war for oil.” Were Democrats to walk or ride their bikes everywhere they went, this position would be slightly less hypocritical. As it is, their refusal to allow for any sensible American energy policy guarantees that we will be fighting in the Middle East for years to come.

Hillary Clinton is the quitessential Democrat – she only cares about her own power, and she is perfectly willing to pander, demagogue, or lie to advance her agenda. Let everything else be damned.

The completely anti-democratic tendency of the Democratic Party – brought to life in the super delegate rule – means that neither candidate can win the necessary number of delegates to secure the nomination on their own. One way or another, the nomination will be decided in some “smoke filled room.”

So you go, girl. Keep on running. Show us what Democrats are really like.