Posts Tagged ‘nomination’

Democrats Are Demon-Possessed Moral Cockroaches. Not By My Standards But By THEIR Standards.

February 1, 2017

I lived through the eight miserable years of Obamunist tyranny.  I lived through the eight years where a party that calls itself “Democratic” demonstrated again and again that it had NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with “democracy.”  I lived through the mainstream media gang-piling on anyone who in any way didn’t support Obama’s and the Democratic Party’s radical agenda as “obstructionists” and yes, even as “terrorists.”  Not to mention bigots and racists and every other hateful name under the sun.

For the Democrats, Barack Obama was “our president,” the “President of the United States of America.”  And Republicans OWED him their full loyalty and support.

I remember vividly the vicious riots that took place in Washington D.C. the day that Barack Obama was inaugurated as president.  Oh, wait a second.  That never happened.  It didn’t happen until butthurt Nazi liberal Democrats rioted the day Donald Trump was inaugurated. and 230 Democrats were charged with rioting as the protests got evil.

Amazingly, six “journalists” were among the rioters.  Because according to the mainstream media, to be a “journalist” today means to be a propagandist hack who rabidly hates Donald Trump and tries to ignite and incite mass violence against him.  Let’s be clear, they weren’t cleared of rioting because they didn’t riot; they were cleared of rioting because they were “journalists” and therefore allowed to riot.

“Based on the facts and circumstances, we determined that probable cause existed to support the filing of felony rioting charges,” said the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia in a statement about the 230 arrested. The office, which enforces criminal laws in Washington, D.C., would not comment on the actions of the six journalists.

Most “journalists” have dispensed with even any PRETENSE of objectivity.  I love this title because it’s so illustrative of what is going on: “NY Times writer who urged journalists to abandon objectivity to defeat Trump now says media needs ‘new strategy to cover him.’”  Hell, one of the “new strategies” being joining in rioting.  It really doesn’t surprise me at all they would join in the rioting with the rioters.  I can almost hear them saying, “Based on our reporting, you should loot and burn THIS building next!”

In the same way, I remember the day AFTER the Obama inauguration when a million angry activist showed up to protest the very Obama presidency.

Oh, wait.  That was Democrats too.

And I remember how Republicans employed every single vile trick that doesn’t exist in any playbook but the devil’s to obstruct and block President Obama from being able to appoint his cabinent because, after all, Republicans are obstructionists, right???

Oh, crap.  No.  Geez, I’m sorry.  Republicans had most of Obama’s administration in their positions right away.  That spirit of obstructionism and treason where a party that has been voted out of power tries to block every single thing the elected president tries to do is the spirit of Butthurt Nazism a.k.a. the Democratic Party.  It’s Democrats who are blocking and obstructing.   And Democrats, being Democrats, are the ones taking partisan, obstructionist, butthurt Nazi hissy fit to a new level: they are now refusing to do their basic job and even bother to show up at committee hearings.  Because to be a Democrat is to say, “If I violate the Constitution, If I violate the legitimate political process, if I violate the will of the people, I’ll get my wicked way.”

But let’s get back to Obama and the vile, vicious tactics that he inspired as our nations very first “community organizer” president.

Back in 2009 I was pointing out what a total, abject LIE the heart of the Obama promise to America had turned out to be.  This guy was so damn partisan that it was beyond unreal from the moment he took office.  And yet  The New York Times had written of Obama as candidate:

WASHINGTON — At the core of Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign is a promise that he can transcend the starkly red-and-blue politics of the last 15 years, end the partisan and ideological wars and build a new governing majority.

To achieve the change the country wants, he says, “we need a leader who can finally move beyond the divisive politics of Washington and bring Democrats, independents and Republicans together to get things done.”

But this promise leads, inevitably, to a question: Can such a majority be built and led by Mr. Obama, whose voting record was, by one ranking, the most liberal in the Senate last year?

Was Obama EVER a man capable of rising above partisan politics?  No.  Not even CLOSE.  Absolutely not.  As an easy example of that, as a Senator he was one of THE most radical liberal-progressives and unsuccessfully tried to filibuster Samuel Alito for the Supreme Court.  Even Obama’s own party at that point acknowledged that what Obama tried to do was way, WAY too radical.

And so:

However, the truth is that, when they were senators, Obama, Biden, and Clinton all tried to filibuster Justice Alito’s nomination to the court – and other Democratic party leaders such as NY Senator Chuck Schumer reveled in the idea that they were able to block every Bush #43 nomination to the federal courts.

But the Democratic Party went über-fascist radical, and thus the toxic, divisive, polarizing Obama became the nominee of the Democratic Party and ultimately the president.  And the similarly über-fascist radical Joe Biden became vice president; and then the likewise über-fascist radical Hillary Clinton would sure-enough be the following rabid candidate for the Democrat Party machine.

Through his press mouthpiece, Obama as president would ultimately – and cowardly – come to say he “regretted” his decision to be one of the most leftist partisan members of the U.S. Senate when his own damn tactics were brought up in his face to reveal the utter and abject moral hypocrisy that is “Democratic Party.”

So it’s morally evil now to do what Obama did, you see.  Obama ought to be able to do it and get away with it, and later on when it becomes politically inconvenient, well, Obama ought to be able to retreat behind a press secretary mouthpiece and say that he now regrets it.  Such that Republicans have no right to do exactly what Obama himself did.

Let’s go back to Joe Biden: Because We also have the example of Obama’s vice president, Joe Biden who in 1992 said when there was just a POSSIBILITY that George H.W. Bush MIGHT be able to nominate a Supreme Court Justice:

“It is my view that if the president goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and Johnson and presses an election year nomination the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until ever — until after the political campaign season is over.” — Sen. Joe Biden, June 25, 1992

President George H.W. Bush was in office until January 20, 1993.  So Biden didn’t even say this in a presidential election year – the way it was when our Hypocrite-in-Chief Obama demanded the divine right to replace conservative Scalia with a leftist of his choice – rather Biden said the Democrat garbage tactic applied even in the year BEFORE the election year.

Only Democrats are hypocrite enough to not be able to see what abject hypocrite roaches they are.

As we talk about the Republican response to Obama’s selection of Judge Merrick Garland to replace Justice Antonin Scalia in an election year and the consequences of the Republican response today, allow me to take you on a trip down hypocrite Democrat lane from what I wrote at that time:

Democrats have a LONG history of doing the very thing they now claim is so evil:

While Democrats in the upper chamber – including Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York and former Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, both of which called for blocking former President George W. Bush’s nominations – have slammed the GOP for its decision not to consider a nominee until after a new president is elected, Democrats have not always held that stance. The Democrat-controlled Senate passed a resolution in 1960 preventing a recess appointment, much to the dismay of Republicans.

As first reported by The Washington Post – S.RES. 334, also known as Expressing the Sense of the Senate That The President Should Not Make Recess Appointments to the Supreme Court, Except to Prevent or End a Breakdown in the Administration of the Court’s Business – passed the Senate in a 48-33 vote in an attempt to prevent former President Dwight Eisenhower from filling a seat last-minute.

Democrats have frequently played this same game.   New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, now the Senate Minority Leader and leader of all the Senate Democrats, said when a Republican was president that the Senate should not confirm another U.S. Supreme Court nominee under President Bush “except in extraordinary circumstances.”

“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer told the American Constitution Society convention in Washington. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.”

And so this incredibly dishonest claim from Obama and the Democrats is so much nonsense it is beyond unreal: if anything, it IS unprecedented, other than all the damn times THEY did the very thing they now so loudly and dishonestly and hypocritically insist that Republicans would be violating sacred precedent to do.

Let me keep going from my same article on just what hypocrite pieces of dishonest roach filth Democrats are:

Here’s another thing: the Senate is now firmly in Republican hands (after disgraceful Democrats were caught being evil maybe a million times too often).  But when Democrats owned the Senate, they shoved their crap right down the Republicans’ throats and changed the damn Senate rules to do it with a process that was so toxic to the Constitution that it was called “the nuclear option.”

On November 21, 2013, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid declared that “unbelievable, unprecedented obstruction” by Republican filibusters had made the confirmation process “completely unworkable.”[1] As a result, he said, Democrats were forced to eliminate virtually all nomination filibusters. […]

For nearly all of its history, proceeding to a final vote on a matter before the Senate required a supermajority.

But not when Democrats stole the show.  No, no, no, the rules of all propriety and decency and civility go right out the damn window every damn time it pleases them.  Just like the Nazi Party and Jews, the Democrat Party calls the Republicans “evil” and then justifies the most wildly partisan and cynical “final solutions.”

Ever since the Supreme Court became a “super legislature” thanks to the wicked Democrat Party, where they ruled by imposing massive societal change by finding “penumbras and emanations” that justified whatever the HELL they wanted to do, the SCOTUS has become a political branch.  And Obama just started another vicious war while blathering dishonest words that he was somehow above doing the very thing he is clearly doing.

Who “fundamentally transformed” “nearly all of the Senate’s history”???  Don’t EVER forget it was the DEMOCRATS.  Just as it was the DEMOCRATS who invented Borking and it was the DEMOCRATS who are the ones who actually FILIBUSTER judicial appointments.  Bill Clinton and Barack Obama BOTH did NOT have a Republican filibuster.  The ONLY two judges sitting on the court who didn’t receive sixty votes are Justice Thomas and Justice Alito.  Because the Democrat Party has been the official party of Butthurt for decades.

If you want to see what “unbelievable, unprecedented obstruction” truly looks like, look at what Democrats have done since Trump got elected.  These butthurt fascists are psychologically unhinged with rabid acts of “obstruction” taking place at every corner that no, you demon-possessed liars, the Republicans NEVER did.

It’s really not the “nuclear option”; it’s the “Harry Reid option”; it’s the “Democrat Party option.”  And it is a GOOD thing Republicans are now willing to use the same tactics Democrats used against them.  And it’s an evil, wicked thing that the mainstream media is FINALLY seeing this as an “extreme tactic” given that they somehow failed to think that way when their beloved Democrat Party was using the tactic to impose their will when THEY ran Washington.

And so, in that same vein, Charles Schumer – now the leader of the Democrat minority – controls a party that literally announced they were going to object to ANYONE Trump nominated simply because on their view, anyone who doesn’t think exactly like they do is “unqualified” to serve.

Democrats actually swore they would filibuster Trump’s nominee even before Trump nominated anyone.

Democrats promise they will use the slander-tactic that they invented now known as “Borking”: This infamous Ted Kennedy slander was the worst of the slanders:

“Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists would be censored at the whim of government, and the doors of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is often the only protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy.”

Robert Bork was a good man and eminently qualified to sit on the Court.  But Democrats are truly breathtakingly evil and hypocritical people.

In the same manner, Justice Clarence Thomas literally faced down the Ku Klux Klan as a child who grew up as the child of a poor sharecropper in a house with a dirt floor – only to find the Democrats’ more evil and more psychotic and more dishonest.  As an example, the modern Klan monsters are BLACK Democrats who were willing to lynch Thomas for the sin of having a white wife.  And Democrats said in their vote, “You don’t get to do that and survive, uppity negro.”  They manufactured the very first “high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves” by finding a backstabbing woman who had followed Judge Thomas from job to job for YEARS only to claim that he sexually harassed her the entire time that she had willingly kept following him.

And so, all the Obama crap about it being beyond the pale for a Senate to treat a nomination to the Supreme Court this way, all I can say in response is that now you get to eat Republican fecal matter right out of the toilet bowl, you wicked hypocrite butthurt LIARS.

When Barack Obama – after trying to community organize a filibuster against Bush SCOTUS appointees – appointed two far-left liberal progressive radicals to the Court, Republicans responded by allowing their nomination to go forward and even allowing their members to vote for her in a spirit of bipartisan compromise.  Because they believed a president ought to have a right to nominate judges out of his philosophy, especially on the Supreme Court, even when they personally disagree with those judges’ philosophy of jurisprudence.

So Democrats never had to exploit their own Harry Reid-invented “Democrat option” – a.k.a. the nuclear option – to get a vote for Obama’s SCOTUS picks because Republicans respected the process in a way that Democrats have now proven over and over again they are not capable of respecting.  It was Democrats who invented and then repeatedly used the politics of personal slander-destruction against Republican nominees.

Democrats are not human beings worthy of the name; they have abandoned as a matter of wicked philosophy any concept of the imago dei.  Democrats are evolved bugs, and they only capable of bug morality.  You could rescue a cockroach, nurture it back to health, feed it, but the moment it was time to reciprocate, that roach would happily EAT YOU ALIVE.

I have used the word “Nazi” to describe Democrats.  Because a modern-day Democrat IS a Nazi who has TEN TIMES the holocaust horror show in the abortion mills with sixty million murdered human beings.  I started seeing Democrats viciously attacking people who had merely exercised their 1st Amendment right to attend a peaceful campaign rally for the political candidate of their choiceI saw multiple examples of this across the nation.  I came to discover Democrats literally used the same tactics Hitler used in his own rise to power by employing goons and thugs to violently disrupt GOP political rallies.  They did that at the very highest levels, up to Obama, the White House, Hillary Clinton’s campaign.  Do you realize how utterly treasonous to the spirit of democracy, to our Constitution, to our way of life, that is???Democrats today are actually now even MORE violent than the people who still bear the name “Nazi.”  That’s how VILE these roaches are.  So when I call Democrats “Nazis,” it’s NOT merely allegorical, or figurative: it is a statement of proven fact as this Democratic Party has become an utterly rabid, toxic hate machine.

Democrats are people who will say one thing with a self-righteous frenzied rabidity.  How DARE you not support our president?  And then – because abject moral HYPOCRISY is the defining trait of every single Democrat in America – they will just as self-righteously and with just as much frenzied rabidity go back on everything they said when it had been convenient for them to say it.

Conservatives, and just plain ordinary decent people, have got to rise up the way our forefathers rose up against this kind of evil.  And yes, we have to be willing to fight these people on their own vicious terms.  You tried to bring hell to us, and it is past time for us to bring hell home to you Democrats where it truly belongs.

One of the things that most offends me is that, if Republicans win, we install judges who actually follow the Constitution.  But if Democrats win, they install judges who will read their extreme political agendas into every law they want to.    That’s kind of analogous to a football game where one team got to use machine guns against the other team; it creates a rather unequal playing field.  Justice Scalia described this history and issued a warning some years back:

He added that the role of a Supreme Court justice should be interpreting the law, not inventing it.
“Whether it’s good or bad is not my job. My job is simply to say if those things you find desirable are contained in the Constitution,” he said.
Discussing pro-abortion judges who created a right to abortion, Scalia warned her, “Someday, you’re going to get a very conservative Supreme Court and regret that approach.”

Even arch-feminist Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has repeatedly acknowledged that Roe v. Wade went “too far, too fast” and was a terrible decision in terms of our legal process.  She also acknowledged her own Democrat-racist view that Roe v. Wade was to eliminate undesirable members of the populace, or as she put it “populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”

Why shouldn’t an arch-conservative justice not be able to impose a terrible law out of an immoral philosophy the way liberal judges like Ruth Bader Ginsburg did???

That regret Scalia described needs to start happening now.  Democrats need to be viciously punched hard in the face with their own system of interpretation that the Constitution is a “living, breathing document” that means whatever the hell the most rabid right wing judge WANTS it to mean.  When you have one side telling the other that a woman has the right to murder a man’s child and that man has no right whatsoever to stop it but has to support that child if the “mother” somehow doesn’t murder her own child; when you have one side telling the other that homosexuals and transgenders have every right in the book but Christians don’t even have the right to live according to their most deeply held morality according to a Bible that defined our entire civilization for two thousand years – all in rabid violation of every sacred Constitutional principle – something truly depraved and evil has occurred.  And it’s long past time to STOP it.  Thomas Jefferson WARNED this would happen.  And tragically the ONLY way to stop it now is to start fighting fire with fire: If a few right wing justices truly begin to show up who read their OWN intent into the Constitution the way liberal judges have done for decades, it will be the equivalent of what happened when the Allies started reciprocating with the same poison gas the Germans had inflicted on them, such that they both agree to cease-and-desist.

I would submit that we pass a law today that when Donald Trump is out of office, the next president will not have to face the kind of garbage that I have documented above.  That any Senator who tries to Bork or Thomas a nominee for the Supreme Court will go to prison and face hard time for abusing the power of the office through slander; to pass a law banning the filibuster or the nuclear option; to ban executive orders that defy the law and the clear intent of the Congress that alone is supposed to have the power to make the law, the way Obama kept imposing; that sort of thing.  I believe we should pass a constitutional amendment limiting the time of a Supreme Court appointment to a specified period of years.  And I say “After Trump” because Obama got to enjoy this power for eight years, and it is only fair and legitimate that the people that Democrats pissed on get to piss on them now.

I WARNED you liberal progressives that eventually a right wing president would come along who would make you scream in anguish; I IMPLORED you to stop being naked fascists.  But for eight years you allowed Obama to ram his agenda through by imperia fiat.  And now the shoe is on the other foot, because to quote Obama, “Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, WE won.”  And so if President Donald Trump issues the following two executive orders: one declaring the Democratic Party is the party of treason and terrorism; and the other being the “Hunt Every Democrat Down with Dogs and Burn Them ALIVE Act,” then you shouldn’t even have the damn right to request an extension to the two-minute head start before we unleash the dogs.

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, MoveOn.org 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 MoveOn.org 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.

 

Hillary Clinton’s Next Move

June 4, 2008

Although Barack Obama holds all the required delegates, Hillary Clinton still holds a lot more cards than most liberals want to acknowledge.

People have been debating Hillary’s end-game strategy for some time.  Obviously, with Obama ostensibly clinching the magic number of delegates, Hillary’s strategy must necessarily begin to reveal itself.

One of the guests on June 3rds Larry King Live was Kamala Harris, the District Attorney for uber-liberal San Francisco.  She said, “I have faith in Democrats to do the right thing,” expressing her Obama-camp hope that Hillary Clinton will swiftly do the best thing for the Democratic Party and fold up her campaign tent.

Well, I sure don’t.  I count on Democrats to do the most self-serving thing imaginable, and then spin their self-centeredness with the smarmy rhetoric of, ‘It’s a far, far better thing I do…’.

Larry King asked Wolf Blitzer, “The pundits all said she was going to withdraw tonight.  What happened?”

You see, too darn many in the media – who couldn’t be more in the pro-Obama camp if they were on his payroll – have been telling us what Hillary should do, and would do, in a further effort to pressure her to drop out so their Golden Child could win.

Arianna Huffington was also on the program, talking of the wonder of having a black man as the nominee near the anniversary of Martin Luther King, Jr’s “I have a Dream” speech.  She also said that Barack Obama’s candidacy marks “the end of the fear of God,” which just goes to show just how godless liberals have actually become.

The fact that Obama has now lost state after state by the largest margins ever seen by a nominee of either political party, and the fact that Obama lost South Dakota last night by near double digits when everyone predicted he would win it handily doesn’t fit into the media narrative.  So they ignore it, or “put it in context” in an Obama-favoring way.

Meanwhile, Bill and Hillary Clinton have been increasingly becoming frustrated with being treated like Republicans.  Everything they say is spun in an unflattering way.   Every flaw is magnified, while the media quickly spins the positive side of their liberal darling’s every problem in the interest of “providing context.”  Nasty stories are published  about them that generate a lot of negative attention even though they have little in terms of substantiation to them. that sort of thing.  Republicans have been experiencing this sort of treatment for years.

Heck, the very fact that Hillary Clinton even spoke last night was spun by the media as somehow constituting a slap in the face of Barack Obama on the night of  his “historic victory.”  It was given to the Obama campaign to oh-so-magnaminously say that they didn’t consider it an insult.  Oh, Barack; you’re so… so wonderful!

And the Clintons – who benefited from that same media bias for years – certainly deserve the talionic justice of experiencing the other side.

Bill Clinton got a chance to erupt a bit about the instantly famous Vanity Fair hit piece:

“You know he didn’t use a single name, cite a single source in all those things he said. It’s just slimy. It’s part of the national media’s attempt to nail Hillary for Obama. It’s just the most biased press coverage in history. It’s another way of helping Obama. They had all these people standing up in this church cheering, calling Hillary a white racist, and he didn’t do anything about it. The first day he said ‘Ah, ah, ah well.’ Because that’s what they do– he gets other people to slime her. So then they saw the movie they thought this is a great ad for John McCain– maybe I better quit the church. It’s all politics. It’s all about the bias of the media for Obama. Don’t think anything about it.”

“But I’m telling ya, all it’s doing is driving her supporters further and further away– because they know exactly what it is– this has been the most rigged press coverage in modern history– and the guy ought to be ashamed of himself. But he has no shame. It isn’t the first dishonest piece he’s written about me or her.”

“Anytime you read a story that slimes a public figure with anonymous quotes, it oughta make the bells go off in your head. Because anytime somebody uses those things– he wrote the story in his head in advance, and he just goes around and tries to find some coward to say whatever they want to say, hoping to get some benefit out of it. It didn’t bother me. It shouldn’t bother you.”

Does this sound like the tone of a man who just can’t wait to patch things up with the Obama campaign for the good of the Democratic Party?  Bill Clinton is mad as hell about Obama’s character assassination by proxy and the biased liberal media elite that piles on.

Don’t think there aren’t a lot of sour grapes packed into that Clinton w[h]ine.

So the same media that has been saying that Hillary Clinton should drop out of the race for months is now predicting that she will drop out in order to show that she is a loyal Democrat.  The implication, of course, being that if she doesn’t drop out she will be revealing that she is a traitor to the Democratic Cause.

And so we come to the Lanny Davis open letter:

Dear Senator Obama,

We write you because we believe it is very important for the Democrats to win back the presidency in 2008.  To do so, we must field the strongest possible ticket for the Democratic Party.  We believe the 2008 election could be close.  And your selection of a vice presidential candidate may make the difference between victory and defeat.

We write to urge you to select  Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to be your choice for vice president because we believe that she would be, by far, the most qualified and strongest candidate to be your running mate.

Both you and Senator Clinton during this campaign have demonstrated strengths in different segments of the electorate and in different parts of the country. Together,  you stand the best chance of making U.S. history not once but twice — the first African American president and the first female vice president since the founding of our great nation.

We know this is ultimately your decision on who is to be your running mate.  But with the greatest respect, we ask you to select Senator Clinton in recognition of the more than 17 million Democrats who supported her at the polls and who, in combination with your more than 17 million supporters, would form the base of a successful presidential campaign in the November election.

Lanny Davis was on the June 3 Larry King Live program claiming that Hillary Clinton would certainly never attempt to force her way onto the Obama ticket.

But Davis’s letter “polite advice” to the Obama campaign provides the narrative for Clinton’s future moves.

Hillary Clinton is perfectly poised to say, “If the Obama camp wants to reconcile the Democratic Party, they know how to do it.  And I have already expressed my willingness to serve on the ticket for the good of the Party and the good of the country.”

If Barack Obama refuses to allow Hillary on the ticket, and loses the election as her supporters don’t turn out for him, well, who’s fault is that?

Hillary doesn’t have to drop out of the race, because she still has the ostensibly selfless cause of standing up for the rights of Michigan and Florida voters to have their votes fully counted.  She can push this thing all the way to the DNC convention in August.

Hillary has the twin option of either forcing her way onto the Democratic ticket, or else allowing Obama to twist in the wind while her supporters stay home or actually vote for McCain so she can run in 2012 – and she can do either one while claiming to be trying to do the best thing for the Democratic Party and the will of the Democratic voters.

It is a widely acknowledged fact that Barack Obama does not want Hillary Clinton (and Bill too, of course) as his running mate.

But if Obama blinks under the pressure, and accepts Hillary Clinton on the ticket, one thing you can bet is that the media headline WON’T be “Obama Appeases Clintons.”

That, you see, would be spinning right; and the media only spins left.  So it would be worded something like “Obama Unites Divided Party” instead.

Hillary’s Pennsylvania Win Has Media Snivelling

April 23, 2008

Last night’s Democratic primary in Pennsylvania is worth commenting on. A 10-point margin of victory against a candidate who spent three times more in the state is obviously significant.

Why can’t Barack Obama – the candidate of sweeping hope and change – close Hillary Clinton out? It’s a question being taken up by more and more pundits. Obama threw the kitchen sink at Clinton – spending-wise – and ended up with a double-digit loss in a major state. The 200,000 vote margin in Pennsylvania also gives Hillary Clinton a legitimate claim to boast that she has obtained the nationwide popular vote.

Back in 2000, the Democrats mantra was “Every vote should count!” But here we are completely excluding the votes in Florida and Michigan? It’s just part of the self-serving pretzel-logic of the Democratic Party.

Obama has now lost 7 of the 10 biggest states in the country, including all 4 of the major battleground states that could go either Red or Blue in November.

As it stands, there is no no way either candidate can win enough delegates to take the nomination outright. Whoever wins will win because the super delegates hand the election to one or the other. In this race, neither candidate genuinely has the right to claim that the super delegates “owe” their vote to one or the other, precisely because the super delegates aren’t beholden to any specific “rule” that tells them how to vote one way or the other.

The conventional wisdom holds that the super delegates will crown the candidate that has the best chance of winning in November. But who is that? Obama has won twice as many states. But many of those states were awarded by caucuses – a byzantine process very nearly as un-democratic as the super delegate rule itself. Hillary Clinton has won more large states. She won Florida, won California, won Texas, won Ohio, won Pennsylvania. And she has certainly had the recent momentum in the last few major states – but how much of that recent momentum has been her own, and how much was handed to her by Obama’s stumbles? Finally, both candidates are nailing down their respective bases, but both would need to hold on to the other’s base in November in order to have any chance of winning the general election.

And it appears to me, at least, that if either candidate is “snubbed” by the super delegates, well, to coin a movie title, “There Will Be Blood.”

My own sense is that the super delegates will award the nomination to Barack Obama simply because elite liberals, the ideological “Moveon.org”-types, and blacks would raise more of a tantrum than the working-class whites, the seniors, and the women in Hillary’s camp.

In other words, the barometer will ultimately be “PC,” rather than the calculus of “electibility,” that determines the nominee. If I am correct in my assesment, this bodes ill for Democrats: because PC guarantees that the side that gets snubbed will have hard feelings, just as it always has against everyone else on whom it’s been played. There will be lifelong Democrats who will vote for McCain, or simply not vote at all, mark my words.

At times, MSNBC’s Hardball coverage of the election revealed some genuine bitterness over Clinton’s victory.

Keith Olbermann quoted Donna Brazile as saying, There is a group around Senator Clinton that really wants to take the fight to the convention. They don’t care about the party. It scares me, and that’s what scares a lot of superdelegates.

Chris Matthews – on the very same night that Hillary Clinton wins a 10 point victory in a major state – analogizes the Hillary Clinton campaign to the Titanic, and points out that “The iceberg’s name is Barack Obama.”

Tom Brokaw all but wrote Hillary’s campaign obituary, saying she’d go as far as she could before she finally hit the wall.

There was one exchange that I found especially revealing in its “journalistic implications”:

Christ Matthews: It’s not just the Clinton forces continue to change the score sheet and the scoreboard itself, they reserve the right to do it again and again and again.

Tim Russert: Yes. Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and Terry McAuliffe have one thing they want: Hillary Clinton to be the Democratic nominee. And they’ll use any path that’s available to get there….That’s what it is all about — those are the rules according to Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton and Terry McAuliffe.

Chris Matthews: Mulligan after mulligan after mulligan.

Keith Olbermann: And yes, it really is not just a moving goalpost but the proverbial movable feast of goalposts. You put it anywhere you want. And remember – and the other thing about is, as much as we might look at it with astonishment or you know, amazement maybe that especially in that — that core group of women supporters, that group we mentioned earlier, that is so adherent to Hillary Clinton, this particular action of moving the goalpost, the actual act of redefining the game as it goes along, is perceived as one of her greatest strengths.

Republicans, of course, could have told everyone 16 years ago that the Clintons didn’t care about anybody but the Clintons; that they would deceive, distort, mischaracterize, and use deceptive media tactics that could have come right from the mafia in order to win. But the liberals who loved Clintonian tactics when they were successfully employed against Republicans are suddenly finding that they have no stomach whatever for them when they are employed against someone they like.

Keith Olbermann underscored the media’s fidgeting over the prospect of Democrats mud-wrestling themselves right out of viability, saying, “Yes, I really like the image of superdelegates moving quickly, because, so far, they have been glacier-like, in any respect, in any direction.” Most any other time, of course, journalists love the idea of dirty laundry being constantly hung out for them to sniff. Most of the time, they wouldn’t want anybody to step in and end this endless twisting in the wind. But this fight is clearly different for them.

One writer pointed out on 24 March 2008, “And prominent pundits are saying so. Last Friday, just about an hour after the Richardson endorsement event, two top writers for the Politico, an influential website, posted a news article-cum-editorial arguing, accurately, that Clinton has almost no numerical case to make. Another uber-pundit and conventional-wisdom shaper, this one at Time, posted 14 reasons why Clinton should consider withdrawing. And so it was that the week that began with Obama on the ropes ended with Clinton being urged out of the ring.”

Jonathan Alter of Newsweek offered the objective title, “Hillary Should Get Out Now.”

I particularly like the New York Times editorial for 23 April 2008, “The Low Road to Victory.” Laura Ingraham – rightly – points out that these New York Times people couldn’t get enough dirty laundry out of the Catholic Church, that the continued to demand one mea culpa after another. And they certainly didn’t mind throwing a clearly dirty mud ball at John McCain by all but accusing him of a sexual affair in addition to other illegitimate behavior with a female lobbyist. But now they don’t have the stomach for any more negative news to damage Democratic candidates. They are clearly sorry they endorsed Clinton at this point. They didn’t know who the liberal darling would turn out to be.

The editorial begins, “The Pennsylvania campaign, which produced yet another inconclusive result on Tuesday, was even meaner, more vacuous, more desperate, and more filled with pandering than the mean, vacuous, desperate, pander-filled contests that preceded it.”

Another inconclusive result?” A 10 point victory? These people have clearly become unhinged over the Democratic campaign. And they couldn’t show their bias much more nakedly.

And it ends: “It is getting to be time for the superdelegates to do what the Democrats had in mind when they created superdelegates: settle a bloody race that cannot be won at the ballot box. Mrs. Clinton once had a big lead among the party elders, but has been steadily losing it, in large part because of her negative campaign. If she is ever to have a hope of persuading these most loyal of Democrats to come back to her side, let alone win over the larger body of voters, she has to call off the dogs.”

In other words, PLEASE, OH PLEASE PLEASE, WON’T SOMEBODY STOP THIS UNDERMINING OF OUR BELOVED DEMOCRATS? WE OBJECTIVE JOURNALISTS JUST CAN’T STAND IT ANYMORE!”

But I close with the extremely relevant question of MSNBC anchor, Joe Scarborough, who said on last night’s Hardball: “Hey, Harold [Ford], let’s pretend we’re in the Democratic cloakroom. We are two uncommitted superdelegates and we just found out Barack Obama lost Pennsylvania. We are talking and I say to you hey, man, I’m concerned about this guy. He’s been in Pennsylvania for seven weeks. He has had $9 million, he’s crushed Hillary Clinton as far as the ad wars go. But he can’t close the deal. He can win now, and we are in a Democratic cloakroom, I would then say those Republican bastards are going to kill him in the fall. What do we do?

Indeed.