Posts Tagged ‘minority’

The Democrats’ Nuclear Option Is Treasonous. Don’t Take My Word For It – Listen To Obama And Other Democrats Blast WHAT THEY JUST DID

November 22, 2013

Today we mourn the assassination of John F. Kennedy – a conservative who believed in a) low taxes and b) a strong and in-your-face military that contrary to Democrat cowardice confronted evil – by a leftist/communist/Stalinist thug.

It is ironic that while we mourn the murder of one of our greatest presidents, we also mourn the murder of our democracy after Senate Democrats with Obama’s Stalinist approval invoked the “nuclear option” to “fundamentally transform” the American political system.

Please note that the Republicans DID NOT invoke the nuclear option when they could have done so when they faced the exact same situation from Democrats who were doing the same thing they now demonize Republicans for doing.  The Party of Lincoln stepped back from the fascist precipice that Democrats just dived over – amazingly right after they were caught in the most massive lie and the most massive socialist conspiracy ever to threaten our Republic via the ObamaCare meltdown.

A couple of quotes FROM LIBERAL SOURCES SUCH AS THE NEW YORK TIMES:

Cumulatively, recent developments surrounding the rollout of Obamacare strengthen the most damaging conservative portrayals of liberalism and of big government – that on one hand government is too much a part of our lives, too invasive, too big, too scary, too regulatory, too in your face, and on the other hand it is incompetent, bureaucratic and expropriatory.

And The Hill citing a bunch of Democrats:

“Here we are, we’re supposed to be selling this to people, and it’s all screwed up,” one chief of staff ranted. “This either gets fixed or this could be the demise of the Democratic Party.

“It’s probably the worst I’ve ever seen it,” the aide said of the recent mood on Capitol Hill. “It’s bad. It’s really bad.”

And what do Democrats do during this crisis?  They do what Hitler and Stalin did: they seize dictatorial power.  At the very moment that non-Nazis would have recognized their failure and stepped back.

So what are Nazi Democrats doing?  They are in their “Hitler-in-his-bunker” mode and they want as much damn  Nazi control as they can get.  Because only unelected “judges” that Obama can appoint thanks to their invocation of nuclear warfare in the U.S. Senate to further warp and pervert the meaning of our democracy and our Constitution can save their sorry fascist asses now.

Democrats are, for the official record, the party that BEGAN the vicious partisan warfare over judicial nominations when they invented the term “Borking” to prevent a good man from being a judge.  Now they’re furious that Republicans would dare to do what they started.  So they invoke the nuclear option – which I guarantee you they will decry when Republicans ensure that Democrat tyranny becomes the new national norm.

This is a rule that had endured for 200 years.  And Democrats have just “fundamentally transformed” America’s political system into one of pure lawlessness.  And a lawless hypocrite president endorsed it because he knows that this is his one chance to impose his agenda before the American people have a chance to vote.

Democrats are fascists.  To paraphrase Obama, they are fascists “period.”  “End of story.”  And “no one will be able to take the stink of naked fascism away from the Democrat Party, no matter what.”

We just had the White House Correspondents’ Association and 37 different news organizations decry Obama’s Stalinist propaganda and essentially scream to Obama’s promise of “transparency” that he is a naked liar.  The  American Society of News Editors and the Associated Press Media Editors sent a letter to the White House that underscores the fact that they are finally becoming aware that they’ve spent the last five years as the useful idiots of a genuinely evil man.  “We must accept that we, the press, have been enablers,” the letter says.  “You are only seeing what they want you to see,” we learn.  Which is the essence of Stalinist propaganda.

[Source of below]:

In 2005, Then-Sen. Barack Obama Called For His Colleagues Considering The Nuclear Option To Think About “Protecting Free And Democratic Debate.” SEN. BARACK OBAMA: “Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to think about the implications of what has been called the nuclear option and what effect that might have on this Chamber and on this country. I urge all of us to think not just about winning every debate but about protecting free and democratic debate.” (Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), Floor Remarks, Washington, DC, 4/13/05)

Click Here To Watch

Obama: “If They Choose To Change The Rules And Put An End To Democratic Debate, Then The Fighting, The Bitterness, And The Gridlock Will Only Get Worse.” SEN. BARACK OBAMA: “The American people want less partisanship in this town, but everyone in this chamber knows that if the majority chooses to end the filibuster, if they choose to change the rules and put an end to democratic debate, then the fighting, the bitterness, and the gridlock will only get worse.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Floor Remarks, Washington, D.C., 4/13/05)

Click Here To Watch

Obama: “It Certainly Is Not What The Patriots Who Founded This Democracy Had In Mind. We Owe The People Who Sent Us Here More Than That.” SEN. BARACK OBAMA: “Right now we are faced with rising gas prices, skyrocketing tuition costs, a record number of uninsured Americans, and some of the most serious national security threats we have ever had, while our bravest young men and women are risking their lives halfway around the world to keep us safe. These are challenges we all want to meet and problems we all want to solve, even if we do not always agree on how to do it. But if the right of free and open debate is taken away from the minority party and the millions of Americans who ask us to be their voice, I fear the partisan atmosphere in Washington will be poisoned to the point where no one will be able to agree on anything. That does not serve anybody’s best interest, and it certainly is not what the patriots who founded this democracy had in mind. We owe the people who sent us here more than that. We owe them much more.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Floor Remarks, Washington, D.C., 4/13/05)

Click Here To Watch

In 2005, Biden Called The Nuclear Option The “Single Most Significant Vote” In His “32 Years In The Senate” And “An Example Of The Arrogance Of Power.”  SEN. JOE BIDEN: “Mr. President, my friends and colleagues, I have not been here as long as Senator Byrd, and no one fully understands the Senate as well as Senator Byrd, but I have been here for over three decades. This is the single most significant vote any one of us will cast in my 32 years in the Senate. I suspect the Senator would agree with that. We should make no mistake. This nuclear option is ultimately an example of the arrogance of power. It is a fundamental power grab by the majority party, propelled by its extreme right and designed to change the reading of the Constitution, particularly as it relates to individual rights and property rights. It is nothing more or nothing less. … We have been through these periods before in American history but never, to the best of my knowledge, has any party been so bold as to fundamentally attempt to change the structure of this body.” (Sen. Joe Biden, Floor Remarks, Washington, D.C., 5/23/05)

Click Here To Watch

Biden: “I Pray God When The Democrats Take Back Control, We Don’t Make The Kind Of Naked Power Grab You Are Doing.” BIDEN: “Isn’t what is really going on here that the majority does not want to hear what others have to say, even if it is the truth? Senator Moynihan, my good friend who I served with for years, said: You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. The nuclear option abandons America’s sense of fair play. It is the one thing this country stands for: Not tilting the playing field on the side of those who control and own the field. I say to my friends on the Republican side: You may own the field right now, but you won’t own it forever. I pray God when the Democrats take back control, we don’t make the kind of naked power grab you are doing. But I am afraid you will teach my new colleagues the wrong lessons.” (Sen. Joe Biden, Floor Remarks, 5/23/05)

Click Here To Watch

Reid, In 2005: “The Filibuster Is Far From A Procedural Gimmick. It’s Part Of The Fabric Of This Institution … Senators Have Used The Filibuster To Stand Up To Popular Presidents, To Block Legislation, And, Yes, Even, As I’ve Stated, To Stall Executive Nominees.” SEN. HARRY REID: “The filibuster is not a scheme and it certainly isn’t new. The filibuster is far from a procedural gimmick. It’s part of the fabric of this institution we call the Senate. It was well-known in colonial legislatures before we became a country, and it’s an integral part of our country’s 214-year history. The first filibuster in the United States Congress happened in 1790. It was used by lawmakers from Virginia and South Carolina who were trying to prevent Philadelphia from hosting the first Congress. Since then, the filibuster has been employed hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of times. It’s been employed on legislative matters, it’s been employed on procedural matters relating to the president’s nominations for Cabinet and sub-Cabinet posts, and it’s been used on judges for all those years. One scholar estimates that 20 percent of the judges nominated by presidents have fallen by the wayside, most of them as a result of filibusters. Senators have used the filibuster to stand up to popular presidents, to block legislation, and, yes, even, as I’ve stated, to stall executive nominees. The roots of the filibuster are found in the Constitution and in our own rules.” (Sen. Harry Reid, Floor Remarks, 5/18/05)

Click Here To Watch

Reid: “Some In This Chamber Want To Throw Out 214 Years Of Senate History In The Quest For Absolute Power. … They Think They’re Wiser Than Our Founding Fathers. I Doubt That That’s True.” SEN. HARRY REID: “For 200 years we’ve had the right to extended debate. It’s not some procedural gimmick. It’s within the vision of the founding fathers of our country. They did it; we didn’t do it. They established a government so that no one person and no single party could have total control. Some in this chamber want to throw out 214 years of Senate history in the quest for absolute power. They want to do away with Mr. Smith, as depicted in that great movie, being able to come to Washington. They want to do away with the filibuster. They think they’re wiser than our founding fathers. I doubt that that’s true.” (Sen. Harry Reid, Floor Remarks, 5/18/05)

Click Here To Watch

Then-Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY): “If You Cannot Get 60 Votes For A Nominee, Maybe You Should Think About Who You Are Sending To Us To Be Confirmed…” CLINTON: “So this President has come to the majority in the Senate and basically said: Change the rules. Do it the way I want it done. And I guess there were not very many voices on the other side of the aisle that acted the way previous generations of Senators have acted and said: Mr. President, we are with you. We support you. But that is a bridge too far. We cannot go there. You have to restrain yourself, Mr. President. We have confirmed 95 percent of your nominees. And if you cannot get 60 votes for a nominee, maybe you should think about who you are sending to us to be confirmed because for a lifetime appointment, 60 votes, bringing together a consensus of Senators from all regions of the country, who look at the same record and draw the same conclusion, means that perhaps that nominee should not be on the Federal bench.” (Sen. Hillary Clinton, Floor Remarks, 5/23/05)

Click Here To Watch

Clinton Expressed Hope That The Senate Would Reject The Nuclear Option And “Remember Our Founders” And “Maintain The Integrity Of The U.S. Senate.” CLINTON: “And I just had to hope that maybe between now and the time we have this vote there would be enough Senators who will say: Mr. President, no. We are sorry, we cannot go there. We are going to remember our Founders. We are going to remember what made this country great. We are going to maintain the integrity of the U.S. Senate.” (Sen. Hillary Clinton, Floor Remarks, 5/23/05)

Click Here To Watch

Advertisements

Why Do We Have Islamic Terrorism AND What Should We Do About It?

August 4, 2008

This ostensibly comes from a respected German psychiatrist named Dr. Emanuel Tanay:

A German’s View on Islam

A man, whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War II, owned a number of large industries and estates. When asked how many German people were true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our attitude toward fanaticism. ‘Very few people were true Nazis,’ he said, ‘but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories.’

We are told again and again by ‘experts’ and ‘talking heads’ that Islam is the religion of peace, and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the spectra of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.

The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honor-kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. It is the fanatics who teach their young to kill and ! to become suicide bombers.

The hard quantifiable fact is that the peaceful majority, the ‘silent majority,’ is cowed and extraneous.

Communist Russia was comprised of Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant.

China’s huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people.

The average Japanese individual prior to World War II was not a warmongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across South East Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians; most killed by sword, shovel, and bayonet.

And, who can forget Rwanda, which collapsed into butchery. Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were ‘peace loving’?

History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points: Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence. Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don’t speak up, because like my friend from Germany, they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.

Peace-loving Germans,Japanese,Chinese,Russians, Rwandans, Serbs, Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many others have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late.

As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts; the fanatics who threaten our way of life.

Lastly, anyone who doubts that the issue is serious and just deletes this email without sending it on, is contributing to the passiveness that allows the problems to expand. So, extend yourself a bit and send this on and on and on! Let us hope that thousands, world wide, read this and think about it, and send it on – before it’s too late.

Emanuel Tanay, M.D.
2980 Provincial St. Ann Arbor, MI 48104

Liberals want us to think that terrorism began because George W. Bush took the oath of office. It’s not true. Islamic terrorism has been an exponentially-building phenomena that began over 60 years ago in Egypt. Their numbers, their attacks, and their influence have been growing stronger and stronger, regardless of what political party the president of the United States happened to belong to.

We can remember the Tehran hostage crisis in 1979. We can remember the truck bomb attack that killed 243 U.S. Marines in Lebanon in 1982. We can remember the numerous attacks that took place during the Clinton years (e.g. the first World Trade Center bombing, the U.S.S. Cole bombing, the simultaneous bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa, etc.).

Liberals also want us to think that militarily responding to the 9/11 terror attack has only increased the numbers of terrorists. While this is probably technically true, it is equally true that America’s declaring war on Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan in WWII also increased the number of German and Japanese conscriptions, or that the anti-slavery American North’s fighting against the pro-slavery South resulted in more Confederate conscriptions. Should we have therefore not fought in those wars?

Israel has been the subject of more terrorism than anyone, and they have learned through years of experience that they are safest when they fight back with massive force.

Another myth that many (thankfully not all) liberals want us to think is that Israel is the reason for or the cause of terrorism. This article by Dr. Tanay mentions some of the numerous conflicts that have been and are going on in the Islamic world today that have nothing to do with Israel.

FrontPage Magazine in its October 8, 2007 edition pointed out that:

“some 11,000,000 Muslims have been violently killed since 1948, of which 35,000, or 0.3 percent, died during the sixty years of fighting Israel, or just 1 out of every 315 Muslim fatalities. In contrast, over 90 percent of the 11 million who perished were killed by fellow Muslims.”

There is a murderous spirit of violence that has seized Islam, and ignoring it will avail no better than ignoring a deadly cancer.

I vividly remember staring at my television screen in anger and horror as tens of thousands of Palestinians danced in the streets upon learning about the 9/11 attack. I remember the name of Osama bin Laden became the most popular name in Pakistan, Turkey, and several other Islamic states until the name was banned by the governments.

The United States, like Israel, will continue to be the subject of attacks (“the Great Satan”) whether we fight or whether we bear our throats to the enemy. 9/11 was not merely a “crime”; it was an act of war by a global enemy numbering in the tens of thousands who have declared war upon us. And it was an attack of “total war” against an unarmed civilian population.

Should the U.S. go to war against terrorists?

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed – the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks – said after his capture that the American response was so massive and so deadly that he doubted if al Qaeda would ever attack America on its home soil again. It was only after the United States attacked Iraq that Iran suspended its nuclear weapons program. And the “surge” strategy of sending thousands of troops against terrorist insurgents resulted in overwhelming victory in a war that liberals declared had been “lost.”

Robert Heinlein said it this way:

“Anyone who clings to the historically untrue — and thoroughly immoral — doctrine that violence never solves anything I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler would referee. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor; and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and their freedoms.”