Posts Tagged ‘MoveOn.org’

Fearmongering Demagogue Obama Demonizes Prosperity

August 14, 2010

Here’s a story that presents Obama as he really is – a fearmongering, demonizing, demagoguing divider.  There’s no hope, there’s no change, there’s only Obama the Chicago thug.

And what is this evil man who is president of “God damn America” damning here?  Prosperity.  Because how dare you keep Obama’s money.  And the fact that you earned it does nothing to dispel the fact that you are greedy and selfish for wanting to keep more of it.

Obama: An American Against Prosperity
By Lonely Conservative

At a recent fundraising event, not only did President Obama state that prosperous Americans don’t “need” to keep so much of the money they earn, he also attacked the group Americans for Prosperity. It wasn’t just an off the cuff remark, either. He devoted several paragraphs of his speech to disparaging the group, trying to make them sound like the arm of shady foreign corporations out to destroy the American dream. He even threw in another dig at the Supreme Court.

Right now all around this country there are groups with harmless-sounding names like Americans for Prosperity, who are running millions of dollars of ads against Democratic candidates all across the country. And they don’t have to say who exactly the Americans for Prosperity are. You don’t know if it’s a foreign-controlled corporation. You don’t know if it’s a big oil company, or a big bank. You don’t know if it’s a insurance company that wants to see some of the provisions in health reform repealed because it’s good for their bottom line, even if it’s not good for the American people.

A Supreme Court decision allowed this to happen. And we tried to fix it, just by saying disclose what’s going on, and making sure that foreign companies can’t influence our elections. Seemed pretty straightforward. The other side said no.

They don’t want you to know who the Americans for Prosperity are, because they’re thinking about the next election. But we’ve got to think about future generations. We’ve got to make sure that we’re fighting for reform. We’ve got to make sure that we don’t have a corporate takeover of our democracy.

Hmmm. No mention by Dear Leader of the groups that helped get him elected, like Moveon.org, Center for American Progress, or Media Matters, to name just a few. He also never talks about the shady, anti-capitalism, exploiter-of-capitalism George Soros. He’s also full of BS, as it’s quite easy to find out who the Americans for Prosperity are – it’s all right there on their website, and there’s more at the website of the Americans for Prosperity Foundation. But I’m sure whoever wrote Obama’s speech knows all that.

The President of Americans for Prosperity, Tim Phillips responded to the attack on its members:

“With his poll numbers dropping rapidly because of his big government agenda, the President is now making shrill, desperate attacks on Americans for Prosperity and our 1,200,000 AFP grassroots activists across the nation.

Expect to hear more of this rhetoric in the coming months and years. This administration loves calling out anyone who stands up for American traditions and capitalism. Judging from the way they’ve been governing, one could easily surmise that President Obama and members of his party and administration are Americans Against Prosperity. They should start a new group, maybe Soros can fund it. Even if you give them the benefit of the doubt and chalk it off to incompetence, there’s no doubt about the results of the policies they’ve implemented. So whether it’s intentional or not, they certainly are against prosperity for Americans. (Unless, of course, you happen to be a union boss or part of the ruling class. Then they’re all for it, they just don’t want the rest of us to prosper.)

Obama, the ugly liar and hateful demagogue that he is, incites his audience against Americans for Prosperity by saying, “We don’t know who these people are!  They might be foreigners!  Or worse, in the vein of Marxist rhetoric; they might be the bourgeoisie who hire you and give you jobs just so they can exploit you!”

Well, we CAN know who they are, if we set aside Obama’s naked hatred and Marxist class warfare rhetoric.

As an example, we most certainly CAN know Americans For Prosperity isn’t “a foreign-controlled corporation,” with all due respect regarding Obama’s vile lies:

From their legal section:

Americans For Prosperity legally describes itself as an organization that does not accept money from “any foreign source.”  Which would be hard to claim if they were themselves a foreign-owned corporation.

Obama is a liar and a slanderer.  He couldn’t care less about the truth, or about being honest.

What does AFP want?  It is an evil organization (well, it is if you’re a class-warfare-inciting Marxist) who want to “engage citizens in the name of limited government and free markets on the local, state and federal levels.”

What could be more un-American than an organization that does not want a giant, controlling, fascist, freedom-sucking, totalitarian, nanny state government?

You can’t know who they are.  Unless you spend about 2 minutes looking into them.

Barack Obama – the Big Brother of our time – wanted to keep you from having that terrible responsibility of being able to investigate the truth for yourself.  He wanted his lies to become your truth.  But the evil U.S. Supreme Court prevented him from doing so.  So he demonized them in a speech the same way – and with the same lies – with which he demonized the Americans For Prosperity.

Let me tell you something.  Obama has some pretty giant resources.  The Department of Justice.  The Secret Service.  The Federal Bureau of Investigation, just for starters.  He knows who Americans For Prosperity are.  If there were a single illegitimate thing to say about them, he would have had and used that ammunition.  If Americans For Prosperity were a “foreign-controlled corporation, or a bank, or an insurance company, or whatever Obama falsely and maliciously accuses them of being, if he had any proof whatsoever, this liar and fraud could have and would have produced it.

The Americans For Prosperity is clean.  It is Obama who is just plain dirty.  He is a dirty slandering liar.

Advertisements

Question: Should Democrats Confirm ‘General Betray Us’?

June 23, 2010

General David Petraeus earned the legitimate title of “hero” for his incredible work in leading the surge-based turnaround in Iraq.

A work that Democrats did everything they possibly could to undermine and destroy.

When General Petraeus came to Washington to appear before Congress to defend the progress he’d made in Iraq, the leftist MoveOn.org greeted him with the title, “General Betray Us,” which ran at a vastly discounted rate by fellow liberal attack dog The New York Slimes.

Hillary Clinton told General Petraeus that his progress report on Iraq required “a willing suspension of disbelief,” all but calling Petraeus a liar.

The Senate voted to condemn the “General Betray Us” sliming of David Petraeus.  None of the Democrat presidential candidates supported it.  Obama had voted on another bill half an hour earlier, but didn’t have the courage or integrity to vote to condemn those who attacked a great general at war.  He essentially voted “present” yet again.  And Hillary Clinton literally voted in agreement with MoveOn.org.

And, of course, how did Barack Hussein analyze the Iraq strategy that Petraeus championed?

“I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,” he told MSNBC. “In fact, I think it will do the reverse.”

What did Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have to say about General David Petraeus’ competence to turn around a difficult situation in Iraq?

“Now I believe myself … that this war is lost, and that the surge is not accomplishing anything”

Obama spent his entire seven minutes at the Petraeus hearing whining about how awful everything Petraeus was doing was, in basic agreement with Harry Reid’s words of surrender:

It is to suggest that if the American people and the Congress had understood then that after devoting $1 trillion, which is what this thing optimistically will end up having cost, thousands of American lives, the creation of an environment in which Al Qaida in Iraq could operate because it didn’t exist prior to our invasion, that we have increased terrorist recruitment around the world, that Iran has been strengthened, that bin Laden and Al Qaida are stronger than at any time since 2001, and that the process of Iraqi reconstruction and their standard of living would continue to be lower than it was pre- invasion, that if that had been the deal, I think most people would have said that’s a bad deal, that does not make sense, that does not serve the United States’ strategic interests.

And so I think that some of the frustration you hear from some of the questioners is that we have now set the bar so low that modest improvement in what was a completely chaotic situation, to the point where now we just have the levels of intolerable violence that existed in June of 2006 is considered success, and it’s not.

I mean, Petraeus didn’t accomplish anything in Iraq, and actually added to the needless violence, according to now-President Barry Hussein; he’s a flat-out dishonest liar, according to now-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton; we actually lost the Iraq War during Petraeus’ leadership, according to Harry Reid; and he betrayed this country, according to the leftwing machine that largely got this administration elected. And now this same general is all of a sudden the go-to-guy for these very same Democrats? I mean, excuse me?

History has proven that it was Hillary Rodham Clinton, and the entire liberal establishment who demagogued and demonized the Iraq War, who were the liars. The surge strategy and the Iraq war that General David Petraues led was such a monumental success that Joe Biden (rather appropriately nicknamed Joe “Bite Me” by General Stanley McChyrstal’s staff) tried to claim credit for it, saying:

[Iraq] “could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You’re going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You’re going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government.”

Democrats never admit how terribly wrong and in fact shockingly immoral they were when they did everything they possibly could to undermine General Petraeus and the Iraq War. But that doesn’t mean they won’t cynically and hypocritically take credit for both Iraq and Petraeus now. That’s just the kind of weasels Democrats are.

David Petraeus was the general that Democrats and their leftist allies despised.  Petraeus was Bush’s general.  Petraeus was “the surge general.”  And the fact that the same liberals who hated Petraeus are now cheering Obama’s selection of him makes me want to barf.

All I’m doing here is pointing out that by the twisted, vile, hypocritical, loathsome standards by which Democrats evaluated General Petraues, there is no way they should confirm him now.

They should find someone like the Pied Piper of fairy tale lore and confirm him instead.

And if Democrats do in fact now vote to confirm the man they attacked, it will be an open acknowledgment that they were rabid little treasonous vermin back in 2007.

Update, June 30, 2010: Democrats unanimously voted today to confirm as a matter of fact that they were treasonous liars in 2007.

Rabid, Frothing, Anti-Conservative Mainstream Media Once Again Shows How Full Of Hypocrisy They Are

April 5, 2010

As usual the most recent flare-up began with Obama, the most polarizing President in history.  He says jump, and his rabid reporter rodents ask, “How high?”

(CBS) President Obama has noticed the “vitriol” in the nation’s political atmosphere these days and says it’s time both sides cooled it.

In a brief interview with “The Early Show” co-anchor Harry Smith Thursday before they shot some hoops on the White House basketball court, Mr. Obama called the extreme nature of some of the barbs directed his way on conservative talk shows “troublesome.” He also said he’s “concerned about a political climate in which the other side is demonized” – an observation meant for both Republicans and Democrats.

The remarks came in response to Smith telling him he’s been listening to talk radio and “the kindest of terms you’re sometimes referred to out in America is ‘a Socialist.’ The worst of which I’ve heard is — called ‘a Nazi.”‘

Asked by Smith whether he’s “aware of the level of enmity that crosses the airwaves and that people have made part of their daily conversation” about him, Mr. Obama replied, “Well — I mean, I think that — when you’ve listened to Rush Limbaugh or Glen Beck it’s …”

“It’s beyond that,” Smith interjected.

“It’s pretty – apparent,” the president continued, “and — it’s troublesome. But — you know, keep in mind that there have been periods in American history where this kind of — this kind of vitriol comes out. It happens often when — you’ve got an economy that is making people more anxious and people are feeling that there’s a lot of change that needs to take place. But that’s not the vast majority of Americans.”

We don’t know what Harry Smith was going to say after, “It’s beyond that.”  It would seem he was going to point out the obvious fact that a LOT more people than just Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck listeners are white hot angry with Obama, based on all the polls.  I would further point out that as someone who routinely listens to both programs I am fairly certain that neither Limbaugh or Beck have EVER called Obama a “Nazi,” and that in point of fact Obama is quite actually demonizing Limbaugh and Beck in making that implication.

Obama says we should cool the “vitriol,” and then immediately starts vitriolically demagoguery conservatives.  I would tell Obama that if he doesn’t like vitriol, maybe he should stop using it so damn much.  And if he doesn’t like demonization, why won’t he quit demonizing?

You want to know who DID specifically label the president a Nazi?

You want to hear another one?  How about MSNBC anchor Keith Olbermann, who, in a rant specifically directed at George Bush said:

“There is a dictionary definition, one word that describes that toxic blend.  You‘re a fascist—get them to print you a T-shirt with “fascist” on it.”

Then there was Sheldon Drobny, the financial power behind the ultimately failed liberal radio station Air America.  He writes that “Very few Americans know that Prescott Bush, our president’s grandfather, supplied Nazi Germany with such assistance.”  Based on what historical source?  Lyndon LaRouche, socialist meathead.  In the same article, Air America’s founder says:

The corporate masters and their current spokesman, George W. Bush, promote a dangerous policy of pre-emptive warfare.  They use exactly the same excuses Hitler used to sell to the public his maniacal desire to conquer Europe.  The real power for Hitler came from his corporate backers, who willingly supplied him the tools to execute his plan, their reward being profit.

You want to know which major political power player really was a Nazi in every single sense of the word?  Try George Soros.  The guy who has funded The Center for American Progress, MoveOn.org, Democracy Alliance, America Coming Together, and Media Matters.  There are other liberal organizations such as the Fund for America and the Tides Foundation.

Anyway, Chris Matthews apparently heard Obama talk about conservative “vitriol” and the name “Rush Limbaugh” and took it as a command from his messiah who makes his leg tingle to demonize Rush Limbaugh for whatever Matthews could twist as being “vitriolic.”  And the evil-monger word of the day became “regime.”

Rush Limbaugh, Chris Matthews and the ‘regime’ question
By: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent
04/03/10 8:08 PM EDT

On Friday, I asked Rush Limbaugh for his response to President Obama’s description of him as “troublesome” and of his program as “vitriol.” Limbaugh told me he does not believe Obama is trying to do what is best for the country and added, “Never in my life have I seen a regime like this, governing against the will of the people, purposely.”

By using the word “regime,” Limbaugh was doing something he does all the time: throwing the language of the opposition back in their faces. In the Bush years, we often heard the phrase “Bush regime” from some quarters of the left. So Limbaugh applied it to Obama.

Apparently some people didn’t get it. On MSNBC, Chris Matthews appeared deeply troubled by the word. “I’ve never seen language like this in the American press,” he said, “referring to an elected representative government, elected in a totally fair, democratic, American election — we will have another one in November, we’ll have another one for president in a couple years — fair, free, and wonderful democracy we have in this country…. We know that word, ‘regime.’ It was used by George Bush, ‘regime change.’ You go to war with regimes. Regimes are tyrannies. They’re juntas. They’re military coups. The use of the word ‘regime’ in American political parlance is unacceptable, and someone should tell the walrus [Limbaugh] to stop using it.”

Matthews didn’t stop there. “I never heard the word ‘regime,’ before, have you?” he said to NBC’s Chuck Todd. “I don’t even think Joe McCarthy ever called this government a ‘regime.'”

It appears that Matthews has suffered a major memory loss. I don’t have the facilities to search for every utterance of Joe McCarthy, but a look at more recent times reveals many, many, many examples of the phrase “Bush regime.” In fact, a search of the Nexis database for “Bush regime” yields 6,769 examples from January 20, 2001 to the present.

It was used 16 times in the New York Times, beginning with an April 4, 2001 column by Maureen Dowd — who wrote, “Seventy-five days into the Bush regime and I’m a wreck” — and ending with a March 6, 2009 editorial denouncing the “frightening legal claim advanced by the Bush regime to justify holding [accused terrorist Ali al-Marri].”

“Bush regime” was used 24 times in the Washington Post, beginning with a January 22, 2001 profile of Marshall Wittmann by Howard Kurtz — who noted that Wittmann served as “a Health and Human Services deputy assistant secretary in the first Bush regime” — and ending with an October 6, 2009 column by Dana Milbank which quoted far-left antiwar protester Medea Benjamin questioning whether the Obama administration “looks very different from the Bush regime.”

Perhaps Matthews missed all of those references. If he did, he still might have heard the phrase the many times it was uttered on his own network, MSNBC. For example, on January 8 of this year, Democratic Rep. Joe Sestak said that, “In George Bush’s regime, only one million jobs had been created…” On August 21, 2009, MSNBC’s Ed Schultz referred to something that happened in 2006, when “the Bush regime was still in power.” On October 8, 2007, Democratic strategist Steve McMahon said that “the middle class has not fared quite as well under Bush regime as…” On August 10, 2007, MSNBC played a clip of anti-war protester Cindy Sheehan referring to “the people of Iraq and Afghanistan that have been tragically harmed by the Bush regime.” On September 21, 2006, a guest referred to liberals “expressing their dissatisfaction with the Bush regime.” On July 7, 2004, Ralph Nader — appearing with Matthews on “Hardball” — discussed how he would “take apart the Bush regime.” On May 26, 2003, Joe Scarborough noted a left-wing website that “has published a deck of Bush regime playing cards.” A September 26, 2002 program featured a viewer email that said, “The Bush regime rhetoric gets goofier and more desperate every day.”

Finally — you knew this was coming — on June 14, 2002, Chris Matthews himself introduced a panel discussion about a letter signed by many prominent leftists condemning the Bush administration’s conduct of the war on terror. “Let’s go to the Reverend Al Sharpton,” Matthews said. “Reverend Sharpton, what do you make of this letter and this panoply of the left condemning the Bush regime?”

Oops. Perhaps Joe McCarthy never called the U.S. government a regime, but Chris Matthews did. And a lot of other people did, too. So now we are supposed to believe him when he expresses disgust at Rush Limbaugh doing the same?

In other words, at the very, very worst, the left can really only accuse the right of doing the very things that the left themselves have repeatedly done.  They are in effect saying, “How DARE you be loathsome vile cockroaches like us!  WE’RE the loathsome vile cockroaches in this country.  That’s OUR THING!!!”

If the mainstream media were in any way honest, they would be reporting, “Left accuses right of being nearly as vile as left.”  But they AREN’T honest.  So they report Bart Stupak’s receiving hateful phone calls from the right after voting for ObamaCare, but ignore the fact that Stupak received hateful phone calls from the left when he said he would vote against ObamaCare.

The media is largely comprised of fundamentally dishonest people distorting the actual picture due to very-left-of-center political ideology and worldview.

The mainline media does this crap so often it’s beyond amazing.  They report mere contrived allegations of “right wing” violence even as they ignored documented facts of left wing violence.  As one example, it was widely presented in the media that Rep. Emanuel Cleaver was spat upon at a tea party rally.  It was assumed as a fact even though there was no actual evidence of spitting, and even Rep. Cleaver refused to claim that he had been spat at.  No matter: the demagogic allegation was enough.

Then there was the Sarah Palin “crosshairs” charge.  Sarah Palin used “targets” to “threaten” Democrats in vulnerable districts.  Oh, how the media frothed over THAT.  Of course, the same media that reported again and again that Sarah Palin was a dangerous extremist refused to report on the fact that both the Democrat Leadership Committee and the Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) had used crosshair symbols on THEIR maps.  As opposed to Sarah Palin, who had actually merely used surveyor’s symbols.

And Sarah Palin’s “reload” comment was every bit as “hateful” or “inciting” as Barack Obama’s “Fired up!”  His statement was properly understood in context, while Sarah Palin’s statement was stripped of context and demonized, but a fundamentally dishonest media.

Most of the mainstream media are not journalists.  They are propagandists.

And the double-standard they constantly fall back upon is demonic.

Civil War Within GOP? Democrats Ignore Log In Their Own Eye

November 4, 2009

I occasionally turned on CNN last night during the elections.  They couldn’t go three consecutive minutes without somebody mentioning the “civil war” within the Republican Party.

Particularly as it became more apparent that the Democrat in the NY-23 race was poised to win the district – as the ONLY Democrat victory in an otherwise complete smackdown by the GOP – pundits speculated on the “fracturing” in the Republican Party.

And, of course, we should listen to these people.  After all, they correctly predicted that the Republican Party was clearly dead after the 2008 elections.  I mean, they obviously know what they’re talking about, right?

A divided party: Progressives threaten Democratic lawmakers
By: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent
11/03/09 2:39 PM EST

MoveOn.org is sending out emails today seeking more contributions for its campaign to defeat any Democratic senator who does not fully  support Obamacare. Yesterday the left-wing activist group asked members to contribute “to a primary challenge against any Democratic senator who helps Republicans block an up-or-down vote on health care reform.” Today, MoveOn reports that it has received $2 million in pledges in less than 24 hours. “It’s a clear sign of how angry progressives would be at any Democrat who helps filibuster reform,” MoveOn executive director Justin Ruben writes in the new email.

“The larger the war chest we can offer a potential challenger, the stronger the signal we’ll send to conservative Democrats,” Ruben continues. “So we’re setting a huge new goal: $3 million in total pledges by the end of the week. That’s plenty to launch a serious primary challenge.”

MoveOn is already planning radio ads targeting Louisiana Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu and Arkansas Democratic Sen. Blanche Lincoln over the health care issue.

MoveOn’s new campaign comes amid much discussion in the political world of divisions among Republicans, with many analysts reading the presence of third-party candidates in New York’s 23rd District and in New Jersey, and coming primary battles in Florida and elsewhere, as proof of deep, and perhaps disastrous, divisions inside the GOP. One publication recently dubbed it a “nightmare scenario” for Republicans. But MoveOn’s new threat of primary attacks on Democratic lawmakers suggests that the story might be a bit one-sided. Democrats who stray from progressive orthodoxy might be in for big trouble — and the divisions inside the Democratic party might be just as big a deal as the problems inside the GOP.

And other names, such as Joe Lieberman’s, need to be added to the list.  Democrats publicly threatened to strip him of his chairmanship if he blocked the liberal agenda.

NY-23 wasn’t so much a civil war within the GOP as much as it was an example of the stupidity of the 11 county Republican apparatchiks who seemingly chose Scozzafava’s name out of a hat, rather than choosing a candidate who in any way reflected the makeup of the party within the district.  And I personally believe that Hoffman’s defeat will cause both the Republican Party and the conservative movement in general to learn some lessons.

Lessons that the morning after clearly reveal that Democrats will not learn.

Barack Obama won Virginia by six points in 2008.  Virginia hadn’t elected a Republican for governor in 12 years.  And both Virginia Senators are Democrats.  It wasn’t a “purple state”; it was a state that was deeply into the process of becoming a BLUE state.  And yet the Republican candidate walked away with the governorship by an 18 point spread.

In New Jersey, it was even worse.  Obama won that state by 16 points.  New Jersey has been a reliably Democrat state for decades.  Republican Christie’s cheat-proof 5-point win is like a political earthquake.

To make the defeat even more alarming for Democrats, the Republican in Virginia won independent voters by a 66-30 margin, and the Republican in New Jersey won them by a 60-30 margin.  Independents are becoming more conservative, not more liberal.

Let’s see.  When was the last time anything like this happened?  Oh, yeah – 1993 – the year before the worst political defeat for either party in history.

Republicans get paranoid about the prospect of an Orwellian 1984 scenario occurring as big government liberals usurp more and more power away from the people and into the government.  If they are halfway smart, Democrats will start getting paranoid about the 1993 scenario happening again.

Update, November 10, 2009:

Kos and Effect

Daily Kos blog founder Markos Moulitsas is telling his fellow liberals to ditch the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee because the money could be going to moderate Democrats who voted against the House health care bill.

Moulitsas writes: “Skip any donations to the DCCC. Their first priority is incumbent retention, and they’re (necessarily) issue agnostic. They’ll be dumping millions into defending these seats. Instead, give to those elected officials who best reflect your values.”

The Politico calls it “a dangerous little challenge to the Democratic establishment… the GOP is loving the Kos post.”

DCCC Chairman Chris Van Hollen tells Fox News, “It would be a mistake to take any measures that would jeopardize a large and vibrant Democratic majority.”

And, yeah, I’m sure the GOP IS loving the Kool-aid Kos post.  I know it brings laughter and merriment to my heart.

Just another little tidbit to lay to rest the mainstream media-created propaganda that the Republican Party is the one on the verge of meltdown.