Posts Tagged ‘Republicans’

Shirley Sherrod Never Changed: She’s STILL A Racist

July 26, 2010

It’s really amazing, this fallout from the White House’s involvement in the firing of Shirley Sherrod, and how the mainstream media has used it to demagogue Fox News and conservatives.

Andrew Breitbart is depicted as having “edited” the video of Shirley Sherrod.  They’ve used that word over and over again in an attempt deliberately to convey the fallacious impression that the video was changed and that Shirley Sherrod didn’t really say what Breitbart said she said.

But she said it.  From the transcript:

The first time I was faced with having to help a white farmer save his farm, he — he took a long time talking, but he was trying to show me he was superior to me. I know what he was doing. But he had come to me for help. What he didn’t know while he was taking all that time trying to show me he was superior to me, was I was trying to decide just how much help I was going to give him.

I was struggling with the fact that so many black people have lost their farmland, and here I was faced with having to help a white person save their land. So, I didn’t give him the full force of what I could do. I did enough so that when he — I — I assumed the Department of Agriculture had sent him to me, either that or the — or the Georgia Department of Agriculture. And he needed to go back and report that I did try to help him.

So I took him to a white lawyer that we had — that had…attended some of the training that we had provided, ’cause Chapter 12 bankruptcy had just been enacted for the family farmer. So I figured if I take him to one of them that his own kind would take care of him.

“I figured if I take him to one of them that his own kind would take care of him.”

So let’s just get that out of the way, once and for all.  Shirley Sherrod said EXACTLY what the Breitbart video said she said.  Period.

I might be wrong, but it is my understanding that Andrew Breitbart was sent the portion of video that he released, and that he did not have the entire video (which the NAACP that applauded Sherrod’s firing DID have).

The mainstream media, the NAACP, and the Obama White House has made all kinds of hay out of Sherrod’s saying it wasn’t ENTIRELY about white versus black:

That’s when it was revealed to me that, ya’ll, it’s about poor versus those who have, and not so much about white — it is about white and black, but it’s not — you know, it opened my eyes, ’cause I took him to one of his own and I put him in his hand, and felt okay, I’ve done my job

So Shirley Sherrod says that it’s not ONE HUNDRED PERCENT about white versus black, and that’s supposed to be enough to overcome all accusation that she’s got a huge problem with race?

You see, I’ve still got a problem with her remarks.  We’re supposed to believe that Shirley Sherrod has somehow totally transcended her previous racism, but why should we think that?

From the speech in question itself, contrast this:

The first time I was faced with having to help a white farmer save his farm, he — he took a long time talking, but he was trying to show me he was superior to me. I know what he was doing.

with this bit from the same speech:

You know, I haven’t seen such a mean-spirited people as I’ve seen lately over this issue of health care. Some of the racism we thought was buried. Didn’t it surface? Now, we endured eight years of the Bush’s and we didn’t do the stuff these Republicans are doing because you have a black President.

First of all, yeah, right, Shirley.  You sure didn’t “do the stuff,” did you?

You liar.

If Shirley Sherrod had a shred of personal integrity, she wouldn’t have spouted such patent untruths.  Just take a trip down memory lane to see what a giant lie she spouted.

But my primary point is that this woman started off with a cynical, bigoted, and hateful attitude toward white people – which she revealed in her attitude toward the farmer – and she STILL has a cynical, bigoted, and hateful attitude toward white people.

And she displays that attitude in the very speech in which she’s given so much credit for not being racist.  She tells us in that very same speech that to be opposed to ObamaCare is to be a racist.

And what a racist thing of her to say.

Then she compounds her racist demagoguery with more racist demagoguery.  Here she is denouncing Fox News as a racist white people entity that wants to take us back to “when black people were looking down”:

She said Fox showed no professionalism in continuing to bother her for an interview, but failing to correct their coverage.

“I think they should but they won’t. They intended exactly what they did. “They were looking for the result they got yesterday,” she said of Fox. “I am just a pawn. I was just here. They are after a bigger thing, they would love to take us back to where we were many years ago. Back to where black people were looking down, not looking white folks in the face, not being able to compete for a job out there and not be a whole person.”

But yet again, Shirley Sherrod is a racist liar without dignity or character.

This woman says these hateful things about Fox News when the truth of the matter is that:

Fox News didn’t run a report on the controversy until after Sherrod had resigned under White House pressure and after the NAACP had issued a press release condemning Sherrod.

If anything, it appears that it’s BARRY HUSSEIN and the NAACP that wants to keep black people looking down.  THEY were the ones who acted first.  Fox News didn’t fire you, Shirley; Barry’s regime fired you.  And when Fox News reported the story and played the video AFTER the Barry Hussein regime fired you, their “crime” was to assume that the president of the United States and the NAACP were not racists, and were not shockingly incompetent morons.

Fox News’ crime was that it didn’t realize that – to allude to Obama’s Attorney General – that the Obama administration wasn’t “a White House of cowards” on race.

As Shirley Sherrod herself recounts:

They asked me to resign, and, in fact, they harassed me as I was driving back to the state office from West Point, Georgia yesterday,” Sherrod told CNN. “I had at least three calls telling me the White House wanted me to resign…and the last one asked me to pull over to the side of the road and do it.”

Sherrod said the final call came from Cheryl Cook, an undersecretary at the Department of Agriculture. Sherrod said White House officials wanted her to quit immediately because the controversy was “going to be on Glenn Beck tonight.”

Let’s place the blame where it squarely belongs: on a cowardly White House that was willing to toss “it’s own kind” to the wolves out of naked, peeing-on-themselves-in-submissive-urination fear of Glenn Beck and Fox News.

But loathsome race-baiting hypocrites like Shirley Sherrod and virtually every “reporter” on the mainstream media don’t bother to cover the actual facts.

But they’re a bunch of race-baiting liars.  So somehow suddenly the White House’s firing of fellow race-baiter Shirley Sherrod becomes Fox News’ fault.

For the record, it turns out that Shirley Sherrod’s husband himself gave a hard core anti-white speech only a few months ago.

What this story really tells us – besides the fact that the Obama administration is cowardly and despicable – is that you can trust that you will NEVER get the truth from the mainstream media about anything.

You want to see a particularly villainous degree of blatant media hypocrisy?  Watch CNN anchor Rick Sanchez piously declare that “most news organizations do have rules and standards about stuff like this” as he demonized Fox News for playing the video.  Mind you, that selfsame Rick Sanchez while anchor of that selfsame CNN didn’t care about “rule and standards about stuff like this” when he was smearing Rush Limbaugh with false quotes (i.e., not even taken out of context; just plain FALSE) about race.

At least I haven’t heard that this was Bush’s fault.  That’s a first.

Advertisements

Obama Turns To Clinton To Advance The ‘Democrats As Party Success’ Myth As His Economy Turns to Crap

July 17, 2010

Barack Obama is widely seen as a complete failure.  Businesses large and small are turning on him and his incredibly harmful economic policies.  Even former staunch allies such as US News & World Report owner Mortimer Zuckerman and GE CEO Jeff Immelt have turned on him.

His answer?  To turn to an impeached, disbarred, lying and oath-breaking, sexual predator and unconvicted rapist to save a failed president for the sake of the Democrat Party.

From Reuters:

WASHINGTON, July 14 (Reuters) – U.S. President Barack Obama sought on Wednesday to lift sagging confidence in his economic stewardship by enlisting the help of predecessor Bill Clinton, as a leading business group issued a scathing critique of the administration’s policies.

Clinton, who presided over the 1990s economic boom, joined Obama at a closed-door White House meeting with business leaders to encourage job creation and investment, including in clean energy.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a top business group, issued a rebuke of Obama’s economic agenda, accusing him and his Democrats in Congress of neglecting job creation and hampering growth with burdensome regulatory and tax policies.

What this country needs is a return to “it depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.”

It doesn’t matter that Clinton once recognized that Obama is little more than a Chicago thug.

It doesn’t matter in this Obama-era of race-baiting that Obama played the race card on Clinton.

It doesn’t matter that Bill Clinton subsequently demonstrated that he frankly deserved to be labeled as a racist when he outraged Ted Kennedy by telling him regarding Obama, “A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee.”  Or that Clinton essentially said, “MAYBE joining the Ku Klux Klan was wrong” in honoring the former Kleagle and Exalted Cyclops Robert Byrd.

All that matters in the mainstream media propagandist cesspool is that – while Barack Obama is increasingly recognized to be a complete economic failure and fraud – Bill Clinton is an economic hero who can therefore temporarily restore confidence in Obama and his failed policies until after the November election.

As usual, the media isn’t telling the full truth about Clinton.  Or what happened to create the healthy economy of the 1990s.

The mainstream media is remarkably consistent: you can count upon them to never give Democrats the blame they deserve, and you can count upon them to never give Republicans the credit they deserve, about anything.

Bill Clinton is widely hailed for presiding over a great economy that featured a budget surplus.

But let’s consider a very basic fact:

From the Herald-Journal, January 27, 1984

If you took a quiz on government and were asked who writes the national budget, would you answer “The President” or “The Congress”?

The correct answer is “The Congress.”

The U.S. Constitution says that power belongs to Congress. All through our history, the Congress has exercised that power. The president cannot spend one thin dime that has not been approved by Congress.

Article One of the Constitution of the United States refutes the argument that Bill Clinton should receive credit for his “surplus”.  It was the Republican-dominated CONGRESS featuring promises that stemmed from the Contract with America, that resulted in the healthy budget that Clinton the media gave Clinton credit for producing.  Even though all he did was sign (often after vetoes) that which Republicans had actually produced.

What we don’t get told very was that Bill Clinton did such a miserable job running the country for his first two years in office that he suffered the largest (at least until this coming November) political defeat in American history when the Republicans swept into power over both the House and the Senate.  We’re not told that Republicans continued to be the majority party in both the House and Senate during the years that the media assigned Clinton all the credit.

It was those Republicans who were most responsible for the good times that resulted.  They are most certainly responsible for the budget surpluses that Democrats have congratulated themselves for ever since.  The very first item on the Republicans’ agenda was the Fiscal Responsibility Act.

One quick example of these Republican changes was welfare reform.  In his 1996 State of the Union, after losing even more fights, Bill Clinton was famously forced to admit, “The era of big government is over.”  And Republicans were making that statement true by passing welfare reform legislation and an avalanche of other cost-cutting measures that made a budget surplus possible.

Two welfare reform bills were passed by the Republican Congress, which Clinton vetoed.  Then a third bill was passed by the Republicans, which Clinton finally signed.  The National Organization for Women noted:

“There is little difference between the welfare bill (H.R.4) which the president vetoed in January and the new plan H.R. 3734/S 1795.”

An analysis by Steven Dawson for the Saint Louis University Law Journal observed that:

“In fact, President Clinton vetoed two largely similar prior versions of the bill.”

All rhetoric aside, Bill Clinton was FORCED to sign welfare reform into law by the Republican Congress.  Just as he was FORCED into a balanced budget, and any subsequent budget surplus.

But after being literally dragged into signing it, Bill Clinton took credit for it as though it had been his idea all along.  And the media duly reported that slanted history as a matter of “fact.”

That said, we can also point out that “the Clinton budget surplus” also had a lot to do with budgetary smoke and mirrors.

And like I said, the same media that will never give Republicans credit for something good will never give Democrats blame for something bad.

Consider the last three plus years’ worth of reckless spending.  The Bush administration has been blamed for much of this reckless spending, but it was actually a Democrat Congress that swept into power in 2006 (largely due to what we can now readily see was hypocritical demagoguery over the Iraq War and Hurricane Katrina rather than any economic issue) which proceeded to spend America into the stratosphere:

For the record, the last budget from a Republican President AND a Republican Congress – FY-2007 (passed in 2006) – resulted in a$161 billion deficit at a time when unemployment was 4.6%.  That’s what happened the last time the GOP was in control.

What happened when the Democrats took control in January 2007?  Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi passed a FY-2008 budget that had a $459 billion deficit – nearly three times the deficit in the immediately previous Republican-passed budget.  Three times.  And this before the financial crisis that somehow “necessitated” all this massive spending.

Now, that’s a pretty crazy increase under Democrat control.  But you aint seen nothin’ yet.

The Democrats passed a FY-2009 budget with a staggering, mind-boggling, totally reckless $1.42 TRILLION deficit.

The FY-2010 budget approved by Reid and Pelosi and signed by Obama had an estimated $1.6 TRILLION deficit.

The deficit has increased from $161 billion in the last budget before Democrats took control of the Congress (FY 2007) to $1.42 trillion in the most recent fiscal year (FY 2009)—an increase of $1.26 trillion or 782%.

With three months remaining in the fiscal 2009 budget, the federal deficit just officially passed the $1 trillion mark.  Worse yet, Obama borrowed more than forty cents for every single dollar he spent.

We also suffered a budget shortfall of $94 billion in the month of June, which marks the first June in more than ten years (read, “encompassing the entire Bush presidency”).  Bush’s success in raising revenues is bookended by two Democrat presidents who failed.

And now the Democrats aren’t even bothering to pass a budget for the next fiscal year, so they can simply spend without any accountability whatsoever.

The old annual deficits under Republicans have now become the monthly deficits under Democrats:

In the 12 years that Republicans controlled the House, the average deficit was $104 billion (average of final deficit/surplus FY1996-FY2007 data taken from Table F-1 below).  In just 3 years under Democrats, the average deficit is now almost $1.1 trillion (average of final deficit/surplus FY2008 and 2009 data taken from Table F-1; FY2010 data taken from Table 1-3).  Source: CBO January 2010 Budget and Economic Outlook

Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Minority Whip) rightly pointed out on ABC’s “This Week”:

“If you look at the kind of deficit that we’ve incurred over the last three years that the Democrats have been in control of Congress, 60% of the overall deficit from the last ten years has occurred in that period. And frankly with the incurrence of the debt, we’ve seen very little result. That’s why we think we ought to choose another way.”

And yet the media falsely blame BUSH and Republicans for that spending, rather than Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and the Democrat-controlled House and Senate, even though factually speaking the Democrats were ENTIRELY to blame for every single penny that was spent from January 2007 on.  Because our Constitution forbids a president from spending; it is CONGRESS that spends.

I also point out in that article (and many others such as this one) that Democrats were primarily responsible for the disastrous policies that led to the 2008 collapse.  They were basically completely responsible for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and their reckless policies, and then utterly refused to allow any reforms that would have averted the ensuing disaster.

In an honest world, Bill Clinton wouldn’t get anywhere near as much credit as he does for the strong economy of the 1990s.  And Republicans wouldn’t get anywhere near as much blame as they received for the 2008 collapse.

The problem is, our mainstream media advances one outright lie after another.  And the lies become “truth” through sheer repetition.

Obama isn’t calling upon Bill Clinton to actually offer advice on how to turn the economy around; he’s calling Clinton in as a prop.  Bill Clinton was forced to change his failed policies when the Republicans swept into power.  Hopefully, that is exactly what will happen beginning this November.

If You Support Obama, Please Quit Driving, Traveling, Or Using Most Household Products

June 4, 2010

Barack Obama took more money from British Petroleum than any politician over a twenty year period.  In spite of the fact that he had only been in national politics for less than three years.  Barack Obama’s administration approved the project and granted the permit for the doomed BP drilling site.  Barack Obama’s administration helped quash environmental problems and issued an environmental waiver to BP at said doomed site only days before the disaster.  Barack Obama failed to take the disaster seriously and delayed serious action for weeks, fiddling with fundraisers, golf outings, and vacations while the Gulf went to hell.  The Obama administration has continued to delay and waste time pursuing the dotting of the i’s and the crossing of the t’s regarding mindless bureaucratic inanities.

Obama is rather like Oliver Hardy blaming British Petroleum like it was Stan Laurel: “Well, that’s another fine mess you’ve gotten me into!”  But the fact is that Obama was up to his eyeballs in this mess from the inception.

One example of the time-wasting bureaucratic idiocy that is so characteristic of shockingly poor leadership was the sand berms that Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal demanded.  Jindal spent weeks urging the federal government to construct sand berms that would protect the coastland and the vital marshes from oil seepage, but ran into one federal government delay after another.  He wanted some two dozen temporary berms, but the federal government dithered and then dithered some more.  Eventually the feds said they would allow six such berms.  And would only pay for one.  And that they wouldn’t allow any construction until after an environmental impact study.  While lethal oil began to contaminate the coastlands and marshes.

“It is clear the resources needed to protect our coast are still not here,” Gov. Jindal said.  “Oil sits and waits for cleanup, and every day that it waits for cleanup more of our marsh dies.”

44 days after the disaster, Obama graciously allowed Louisiana to construct six berms.  You know, the-build-a-barn-after-the-horses-left thing.

Jon Stewart absolutely skewered Obama’s incompetence by playing videos in which Obama vows “not to rest” until he solves the BP disaster, intermixed with video footage of all the useless garbage he’s been up to.

Jon Stewart link 1

Jon Stewart link 2

And then there’s the “never let a good crisis go to waste” thing.  Obama has handled this crisis more as a political problem than a national disaster from the outset.  And in Barack Obama’s brand of politics, you demagogue and you pander to leftist special interests.  And thus:

Obama: US must end its dependence on fossil fuels
3:16 PM on 06/02/2010
JULIE PACE, Associated Press

PITTSBURGH (AP) — Seizing on a disastrous oil spill to advance a cause, President Barack Obama on Wednesday called on Congress to roll back billions of dollars in tax breaks for oil and pass a clean-energy bill that he says would help the nation end its dependence on fossil fuels.

Obama predicted that he would find the political support for legislation that would dramatically alter the way Americans fuel their homes and cars, including placing a price on carbon pollution, even though such legislation is politically divisive and remains bogged in the Senate.

“The votes may not be there right now, but I intend to find them in the coming months,” Obama told an audience at Carnegie Mellon University. “I will continue to make the case for a clean energy future wherever and whenever I can, and I will work with anyone to get this done. And we will get it done.”

Obama said the country’s continuing dependence on fossil fuels “will jeopardize our national security, it will smother our planet and will continue to put our economy and our environment at risk.” […]

“The time has come, once and for all, for this nation to fully embrace a clean energy future,” the president said. […]

Obama also used the speech to lash out at Republicans with partisan rhetoric, saying they have mostly “sat on the sidelines and shouted from the bleachers” as he’s tried to restore the economy.

And thus Obama, who couldn’t be more responsible for this disaster without being the guy who blew up the platform, resorts to his constant stream of demagogic bullcrap.  It’s those Republicans who are responsible, you know: “The fact that I took all that BP campaign money, and then paid BP back by securing environmental waivers, and then paid BP back some more by letting BP broadcast the message that everything was under control and it was just a minor technical problem, nothing to worry about, is beside the point.  Republicans are evil, and they are to blame for everything.”

Mind you, Obama doesn’t have anything even close to a consistent energy position; to have that, he’d have to be an actual leader rather than a mere politically opportunistic demagogue.  Thus only a couple of months ago Obama was the one who ENDED the ban on offshore drilling (hint: not Bush):

From NPR, March 31, 2010:

President Obama announced the end of a decades-old ban on oil and gas drilling along much of the U.S. Atlantic coast and northern Alaska on Wednesday, as part of an effort to reduce foreign imports and win support for an energy and climate bill.

Then we had the Gulf of Mexico disaster, and suddenly “the end of a decades-old ban” suddenly became a brand new ban.  And the politician who accepted more BP-bribe money than anybody is suddenly shooting out demagoguery onto the airwaves the way that damn hole keeps shooting out oil into the ocean.

It’s not like Obama is an actual leader who needs a consistent policy; rather, he’s a pandering constantly-in-campaign-mode weasel who will say or do anything to gain a momentary political advantage.

And, of course, Obama also demonized oil companies.  Not just British Petroleum, the one actually responsible for paying Obama all those campaign contributions and creating the disaster, but ALL oil companies.  Because oil is as evil as Republicans.  And Democrats want to stop oil at all costs.

Forget the fact that this disaster was caused by Democrats who kept pushing oil companies further and further away from shore, into more and more and more dangerous conditions, until a disaster was inevitable.  Every single Democrat who has helped stopped oil drilling on the coastal shelf or – better yet, on our land – is partly to blame for this disaster.

Unless you don’t think we need oil.

But if you don’t think we need oil, the stop the hell using it.

Let me just put it this way: if you support Barack Obama, quit traveling.  Do not drive your car, do not take the bus, do not fly, do not get on a boat.  Because it’s finally time that you were consistent: ending oil means no oil.  So don’t use it.

Go to this site and make sure you don’t use any of the household products that contain oil, too.

My advice to you Democrats is just to move out of your house with all those evil oil products and live in a hole.  Don’t use a shovel to dig your hole – because it was made using oil – just scratch at the dirt with your fingernails.

Turn off your computer, too.  Because it’s got oil products, too.

And just climb in that damn hole and stay there.

Heck, maybe we could plug the hole in the Gulf with Democrats and have the best of all possible worlds.

Why Have Republicans Jumped Out To Largest Lead EVER Over Democrats?

June 2, 2010

Something is building and growing.  And it is in response to the total failure of Democrat control.

June 1st, 2010
Republicans Jump Out To Historic Lead In Gallup Generic Ballot
Posted by Sean Trende

Gallup’s generic polling shows the number of voters saying that they would vote for Republicans rising three points from last week, while the number saying they will vote for Democrats dropped four pointsThe 49%-43% lead for the Republicans is the largest that the pollster has ever recorded for the partyMoreover, Democratic enthusiasm for voting this fall fell a point, while enthusiasm among Republicans stayed about fifteen points higher.  This indicates an even wider lead for Republicans once Gallup imposes a likely voter screen this fall.

There’s any number of reasons for this:  the public’s perception of Obama’s response to the oil spill, the shaky stock market performance last week, continued concern about the economy and spending.  The bottom line is that, despite what is perceived as an underperformance for the Republicans in PA-12 a couple of weeks ago, there are still plenty of Democrats in trouble for this November.

Keep up the good work, Democrats.

At the rate you’re going, there may not even BE any Democrats soon.  Because you suck, and people are starting to figure that out.

In addition to the fact that oil is pouring into the ocean at a rate that defies comprehension (we’re up to four times the calamity that the Exxon Valdez created with no end in sight), our banks that anchor our economy are bleeding out nearly as badly:

May 24, 2010
What recovery? Bank failures double this year compared to 2009

Although the federal bailout stabilized the banking system, bank failures are continuing at at rapid clip. Check out the latest federal tally. More than twice as many banks and savings and loans have been seized by regulators this year as in the same period last year: 73 in 2010, and 33 in 2009.

Banking analysts have long been warning us to expect a bumper crop of failures among small- to medium-sized community and regional banks this year. Many of the big banks that teetered on the edge of collapse had made bad bets on exotic mortgage securities. But most of the smaller banks are feeling the effects of residential mortgage foreclosures (such at the one pictured here) and, increasingly, commercial property loans going bad.

The Associated Press sums it up thus:

With 78 closures nationwide so far this year, the pace of bank failures is more than double that of 2009, which was already a brisk year for shutdowns. By this time last year, regulators had closed 36 banks. The pace has accelerated as banks’ losses mount on loans made for commercial property and development.

Now, remember that the first half of last year was the DEPTHS of the recession.  And it’s more than twice as bad this year as it was during those depths of the recession.

The only thing worse than having Republicans run things is having Democrats run things.  Only Democrats run things so much worse that America compares to a Swiss watch under Republicans.

Democrats do one thing well: they demagogue better than anybody in the world.  But lest we forget, during the period when the economy truly went into the crapper, between 2006 and 2008, it was under the total domination of Congress by Democrats.  Add that to the fact that it was Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that created the becoming disaster for the very reasons that banks are still struggling (idiotic mortgage policies) that the Democrats owned lock, stock and barrel.

Meredith Whitney accurately predicted the economic meltdown when a lot of other “experts” were saying buy, buy, buy.

Here’s what she said in July of last year:

Unemployment is likely to rise to 13 percent or higher and will weigh on the economy for several years, countering government efforts to stabilize the banking industry, analyst Meredith Whitney told CNBC.

And a year later, does it appear that the government has stabilized the banking industry?  NOT EVEN FREAKING CLOSE!!! The factors that Whitney cited in predicting 13% unemployment are happening before your very eyes.

Looking at 13% unemployment coming up, all I can think of is Al Pacino in Scarface: “Say hello to my little friend!

As bad a year as Bush had (thanks to Democrats who refused to do anything about the mortgage security crisis created and sustained by Fannie and Freddie), unemployment was 7.6% when Bush left office.

What was it the last month statistics were available, under Obama’s, Pelosi’s, and Reid’s terrible misrule?  9.9%.  And that after a massive failed stimulus that Obama promised would keep unemployment under 8%.  Obviously, it did nothing of the sort, but our children’s children’s children’s children will still be paying off a $3.27 TRILLION black hole of debt anyway.

Did somebody say “debt”?

Tyler Durden at ZeroHedge wrote on May 25:

This means that as of this moment, assuming the new debt were to settle today, the US has $13,031,095 billion in debt: congratulation America – you have now passed lucky $13 trillion in total debt. But don’t worry, we won’t stay here for long. At the current rate of issuance, $14 trillion will be passed in 8 months, and $15 trillion in another 7. By the end of 2011, we estimate total US sovereign debt to be about $15.5 trillion.

Democrats tore into Bush tooth and nail over his increase of the national debt.  That said, it took George Bush eight full years to increase the debt by $4.89 trillion.

Right now, under Barry Hussein, it is $13.o28 trillion.  Which is to say that Obama increased the debt by more than $2.4 trillion in only fifteen months.  That will be more than $3.4 trillion in just over two years in office.  By the end of 2011, after less than three full years in office, Obama’s share of the debt will be $4.9 trillion.

Which is to say that Obama will have racked up as much debt as Bush did in eight years in only three.  Obama is increasing the debt at nearly three times the rate that Bush did.

Which goes back to what I said about Republicans being bad – unless you compare them against Democrats.

Over the past thirty years, Democrat Congresses have increased the debt 2.4 times as much as have Republican Congresses.  Another way to put it is that Democrat Congresses have spent 137.7% more than Republican Congresses.

We are hurtling toward a disaster that will create a collapse that will ultimately make the Great Depression look like a walk in the park.  The United States of America is going to completely implode – and no one will bail us out when it happens.

You want to watch your kids starve to death before your eyes?  Elect Democrats.  Because that would be the kind of “change” you can truly “hope” for.

Democrats With TWICE The Time Still Managed To Lose Health Care Summit

February 26, 2010

The breakdown as to the time spent talking at the health care summit:

Democrats: 114 minutes
Republicans: 110 minutes
Barack Obama (uber Democrat): 119 minutes

Which means that for every one minute Republicans were allowed to speak, Democrats allowed themselves more than 2 minutes to speak.

How bipartisan of them.

Obama by himself spent nine more minutes talking than he allowed the 17 Republicans combined to have:

“President Obama pledged to “listen” at the outset of his much-ballyhooed bipartisan health care summit on Thursday. Turns out he meant he’d be listening to his own voice.”

Obama acknowledged the massive disparity and the massive unfairness of the meeting this way:

“You’re right, there was an imbalance on the opening statements because – I’m the president.” Half the room laughed. “I didn’t count my time in terms of dividing it evenly.”

But that’s not the whole story.  Oh, no.  Obama not only gave himself more time to talk than all the Republicans combined, but he also gave himself more time to talk than all the other Democrats combined.

And Obama spent most of his time attacking the points made by Republicans, who were rarely ever allowed to respond and defend themselves as Obama dictated the event.

Throughout the event, Obama – ever the ideological moderator – remarked while Republicans were getting one of their rare chances to speak that they were behind the time schedule.  At one point while Republican Senator Dr. Tom Coburn was speaking Harry Reid said, “Mr. President, if I could just say, I’m not an expert on much but I am filibusters and we’ve got 40 members of Congress here.”  But the problem CLEARLY wasn’t Dr. Coburn and it clearly wasn’t the Republicans.  Rather, the problem was Obama and his “Help! I’m talking and I can’t shut up!” problem.

Still, as unfair and partisan as it was, it was still the closest by far and away that Democrats have been “bipartisan.”

The Democrats took unfair partisan advantage and cheated.  But the Republicans still kicked their asses today.

From Don Surber’s Daily Mail:

Rave reviews for Republicans

Their sampling of quotes:

CNN’s WOLF BLITZER: “It looks like the Republicans certainly showed up ready to play.” (CNN’s “Live,” 2/25/10)

CNN’s GLORIA BORGER: “The Republicans have been very effective today. They really did come to play. They were very smart.” (CNN’s “Live,” 2/25/10)

BORGER: “They took on the substance of a very complex issue. … But they really stuck to the substance of this issue and tried to get to the heart of it and I think did a very good job.” (CNN’s “Live,” 2/25/10)

BORGER: “They came in with a plan. They mapped it out.” (CNN’s “Live,” 2/25/10)

CNN’s DAVID GERGEN: “The folks in the White House just must be kicking themselves right now. They thought that coming out of Baltimore when the President went in and was mesmerizing and commanding in front of the House Republicans that he could do that again here today. That would revive health care and would change the public opinion about their health care bill and they can go on to victory. Just the opposite has happened.” (CNN’s “Live,” 2/25/10)

GERGEN: “He doesn’t have a strong Democratic team behind him.” (CNN’s “Live,” 2/25/10)

THE HILL’S A.B. STODDARD: “I think we need to start out by acknowledging Republicans brought their ‘A Team.’ They had doctors knowledgeable about the system, they brought substance to the table, and they, I thought, expressed interest in the reform. I thought in the lecture from Senator John McCain and on the issue of transparency, I thought today the Democrats were pretty much on their knees.” (Fox News’ “Live,” 2/25/10)

THE WEEKLY STANDARD’S STEVE HAYES: “I think to me the most important thing to come out of the morning so far is that Republicans have spent a great deal of time talking with great passion, and I think eagerness about their plans, detailing the plans that until this morning them Democrats had been saying didn’t exist. Well, you now see, I think, in great detail that Republicans do have plans, that they care about the same issues and that they feel passionately about it.” (Fox News’ “Live,” 2/25/10)

My take is this is health insurance is a boring topic that has shown just how boring and dull this president is. He is hopelessly lost in the Land of Actuarial Tables, where co-payments and deductibles reign.

I’m beginning to see why he keeps flogging this dead horse: He has nothing closer to a unicorn than this; it is all he knows.

There’s a lot more than that.  TPM provides another slew of liberals who basically give the Republicans the win including this one:

“I think it was a draw, which was a Republican win,” said Democratic political consultant Dan Gerstein. “The Republican tone was just right: a respectful, substantive disagreement, very disciplined and consistent in their message.”

If Democratic strategist Dan Gerstein says it was a draw, it was a Republican ass-kicking.

There were several moments that were illustrative of the sham of Obama’s faux-bipartisan summit (e.g., Obama’s personal attack against John McCain by telling him, “We’re not campaigning any more.  The election’s over” – which was a personally harsh and incredibly hypocritical charge given the fact that even Democrats acknowledge that Obama has done little BUT constantly campaign); but one moment stood out to me as summing up Obama’s strategy to forcibly twist the Republicans to either bow to his agenda or demonize them as “obstructionists”:

THE PRESIDENT: “Dave, I don’t mean to interrupt. But the — we’re going to have the whole section talking about deficits. And we can talk about the changes in Medicare. We were trying to focus on costs related to lowering families’. And the only concern I’ve got is — look, if every speaker at least on one side is going through every provision and saying what they don’t like, it’s going to be hard for us to see if we can arrive at some agreements on things that we all agree on.”

Let’s recap: The Republicans had asked/begged/demanded that Obama take the current 2,700 page Democrat bill off the table.  Obama refused.  And then Obama offered his own even worse and more expensive version of that 2,700 page Senate Democrat bill.

Obama and the Democrats used the word “agree” so many times that it was simply unreal.  Clearly, the idea was to represent the Republicans as being in substantial agreement with the Democrats’ bill, and then demand why they weren’t supporting a bill which they basically agreed with.

Only the Republicans DIDN’T agree with the Democrats’ 2,700 page monstrosity.  And they wanted to explain why.

This was unacceptable to Obama.  He wanted to make the Republicans appear to agree with him, so he could later demonize them as the obstructionist party of no.

If Obama had really wanted to seek agreement with the Republicans, he would have withdrawn the 2,700 page howitzer he was aiming at them.  And he would have taken off the table a second howitzer of using reconciliation (aka “the nuclear option”) to fundamentally change the Senate rules to shove that 2,700 page howitzer down the Republicans’ throats.

But he refused to do that.  He refused to allow the Republicans to talk about what they could agree on, and instead forced them to confront the 2,700 page ObamaCare boondoggle which they – and the overwhelming majority of the American people – had already completely rejected.

This was never about Obama seeking agreement from Republicans; this was all about attempting to use a “bipartisan summit” to make them look bad so he could demagogue them.

Only – too bad, so sad for Barry Hussein – the Republicans didn’t look bad.  In fact, they looked pretty dang good.

Judging from the polling, Americans overwhelmingly came away from the summit believing that it was nothing more than political theater.  Which was exactly what it was.

Read And Sign The Mount Vernon Statement

February 17, 2010

I hope that conservative Republicans come up with a modern version of their incredibly successful Contract With America that took the American political universe by storm in 1994.

The Mount Vernon Statement is not such a “contract,” but it provides the foundational premise for one.

Constitutional Conservatism: A Statement for the 21st Century

We recommit ourselves to the ideas of the American Founding.  Through the Constitution, the Founders created an enduring framework of limited government based on the rule of law. They sought to secure national independence, provide for economic opportunity, establish true religious liberty and maintain a flourishing society of republican self-government.

These principles define us as a country and inspire us as a people. They are responsible for a prosperous, just nation unlike any other in the world. They are our highest achievements, serving not only as powerful beacons to all who strive for freedom and seek self-government, but as warnings to tyrants and despots everywhere.

Each one of these founding ideas is presently under sustained attack. In recent decades, America’s principles have been undermined and redefined in our culture, our universities and our politics. The selfevident truths of 1776 have been supplanted by the notion that no such truths exist. The federal government today ignores the limits of the Constitution, which is increasingly dismissed as obsolete and irrelevant.

Some insist that America must change, cast off the old and put on the new. But where would this lead — forward or backward, up or down? Isn’t this idea of change an empty promise or even a dangerous deception?

The change we urgently need, a change consistent with the American ideal, is not movement away from but toward our founding principles. At this important time, we need a restatement of Constitutional conservatism grounded in the priceless principle of ordered liberty articulated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

The conservatism of the Declaration asserts self-evident truths based on the laws of nature and nature’s God. It defends life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It traces authority to the consent of the governed. It recognizes man’s self-interest but also his capacity for virtue.

The conservatism of the Constitution limits government’s powers but ensures that government performs its proper job effectively. It refines popular will through the filter of representation. It provides checks and balances through the several branches of government and a federal republic.

A Constitutional conservatism unites all conservatives through the natural fusion provided by American principles. It reminds economic conservatives that morality is essential to limited government, social conservatives that unlimited government is a threat to moral self-government, and national security conservatives that energetic but responsible government is the key to America’s safety and leadership role in the world.
A Constitutional conservatism based on first principles provides the framework for a consistent and meaningful policy agenda.
  • It applies the principle of limited government based on the rule of law to every proposal.
  • It honors the central place of individual liberty in American politics and life.
  • It encourages free enterprise, the individual entrepreneur, and economic reforms grounded in market solutions.
  • It supports America’s national interest in advancing freedom and opposing tyranny in the world and prudently considers what we can and should do to that end.
  • It informs conservatism’s firm defense of family, neighborhood, community, and faith.

If we are to succeed in the critical political and policy battles ahead, we must be certain of our purpose.

We must begin by retaking and resolutely defending the high ground of America’s founding principles.

The Mount Vernon Statement site encourages people to come on board and demonstrate their support by signing the statement.  As of my own signing, there are 6,000 signers.  I hope that becomes 60,000,000.

Real “hope and change” will come from returning to and embracing the timeless yet proven-time-and-time-again principles of our founding fathers; not by embracing Barack Obama’s failed policies which actively subvert those timeless constitutional principles.

We can make this country great again, by returning to and honoring the principles that made us great to begin with.

Democrats Beginning To Recognize That Obama Is A Total Failure As A Leader

February 9, 2010

If Democrats weren’t loathsome, self-righteous hypocrites and demagogues, I’d actually feel sorry for them, given the entirely  self-created and well-deserved state they are in due to the pathetic non-leadership of their failure-in-chief.  But they are, so I’m not.

Democrats chafe as White House wavers on health care bill
By CARRIE BUDOFF BROWN | 2/6/10 6:40 AM EST

President Barack Obama has left Democrats as confused as ever about how the White House plans to deliver a health care reform bill this year, after two weeks of inconsistent statements, negligible hands-on involvement and a sudden shift to a jobs-first message.

Democrats on Capitol Hill and beyond say they have no clear understanding of the White House strategy — or even whether there is one — and are growing impatient with Obama’s reluctance to guide them toward a legislative solution.

At a White House meeting Thursday with Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi expressed frustration with the slow pace of the negotiations and the president’s decision not to weigh in publicly on a path forward, according to a Democratic source familiar with the meeting.

And some Democrats feel that every time they look to White House for clarity, they hear something different, as though the strategy is whatever the president or his top advisers said that day.

In the past two weeks, since Democrats lost the Massachusetts Senate race, Obama or his top advisers have suggested all of the following: breaking the bill into smaller parts, keeping it together in one comprehensive package, putting it at the back of legislative line and needing to “punch it through” Congress, as Obama himself said Tuesday.

The latest comment came during a Thursday fundraiser when Obama described the “next step” as sitting down with Republicans, Democrats and health care experts. “Let’s just go through these bills — their ideas, our ideas — let’s walk through them in a methodical way so that the American people can see and compare what makes the most sense,” Obama said, describing a process that could take weeks, if not longer.

He first floated the idea during his State of the Union speech almost three weeks ago, but top congressional aides in both parties said Friday that they still have no idea what the president was talking about.

Even the White House struggled to explain what Obama had in mind. On Friday, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said there was no meeting on the schedule.

At the same fundraiser, Obama seemed to acknowledge for the first time that Congress may well decide to scrap health care altogether — an admission that blunted his repeated and emphatic vows to finish the job.

“I’m not sure where the White House is right now,” said Ralph G. Neas, a longtime progressive activist who is now the head of the National Coalition on Health Care. “But I do believe that given everything that has happened, the time has come for more forceful presidential leadership. That is the only way to close the deal. That kind of leadership involves providing more precise guidance to Congress and a clear case to the American people on how this benefits families. The president must step up and wield the power of his office.”

So maybe electing a community organizer with 143 days of experience in the Senate isn’t such a great idea, after all.  Maybe electing THE most liberal U.S. Senator under the incredibly cynical and deceitful promise that he would be “post-partisan” (and is now recognized to be the most polarizing president in history) wasn’t such a great idea.

I mean, who could have possibly known, except maybe every single conservative on the planet?

No leadership, you say?  You mean electing a guy who never actually led anything in his life – not so much as a frigging LEMONADE STAND – might somehow translate into a political party and an entire nation drifting rudderless in an increasingly stormy sea?

For the record, Obama’s “next step” of meeting with both Republicans and Democrats is nothing more than a photo op and a fabricated pretension of bipartisan cooperation.  And the reason that even Democrats don’t have a clue as to what such a staged event would accomplish is that they understand that it would accomplish nothing.

Obama is trying to turn his ObamaCare boondoggle into a rhetorical campaign event rather than trying to actually produce health care legislation.

But let’s get back to the Democrats attacking Obama over his totally failed leadership:

Al Franken lays into David Axelrod over health care bill
By MANU RAJU & ANDY BARR | 2/4/10 7:47 PM EST

Sen. Al Franken ripped into White House senior adviser David Axelrod this week during a tense, closed-door session with Senate Democrats.

Five sources who were in the room tell POLITICO that Franken criticized Axelrod for the administration’s failure to provide clarity or direction on health care and the other big bills it wants Congress to enact.

The sources said Franken was the most outspoken senator in the meeting, which followed President Barack Obama’s question-and-answer session with Senate Democrats at the Newseum on Wednesday. But they also said the Minnesotan wasn’t the only angry Democrat in the room.

“There was a lot of frustration in there,” said a Democratic senator who declined to be identified.

“People were hot,” another Democratic senator said.

Democratic senators are frustrated that the White House hasn’t done more to win over the public on health care reform and other aspects of its ambitious agenda — and angry that, in the wake of Scott Brown’s win in the Massachusetts Senate race, the White House hasn’t done more to chart a course for getting a health care bill to the president’s desk.

In his public session with the senators Wednesday, Obama urged them to “finish the job” on health care but did not lay out a path for doing so. That uncertainty appeared to trigger Franken’s anger, and the sources in the room said he laid out his concerns much more directly than any senator did in the earlier public session.

For what it’s worth, this is yet another of the billions and billions of reasons to conclude the liberal mainstream media is utterly useless for truth.  They characterized the Republicans in the House as being hostile to Obama because “hostile Republicans” suited their narrative.  But Republicans were tail-wagging face-licking puppy dogs compared to what the Democrats had for Obama.

Guess that wasn’t part of the mainstream narrative, though.  The media wouldn’t want anyone to realize that Barack Obama being a gigantic colossal failure as a president isn’t a “Republican talking point,” but a now bipartisan-recognized reality.

Obama’s failure in leadership is not just in health care (where it couldn’t be more grossly apparent).  It’s anything and everything Obama has tried to do.

On issue after issue – demonstrating that he didn’t even have the power or leadership to win the Olympic games; taking months to dither over Afghanistan; issuing a completely irrational promise to close Gitmo; moving the terrorist trials to New York and treating terrorists like American citizens; mirandizing terrorist rather than water-boarding them until they grow gills; backing a completely idiotic approach to destroy our energy system and our economy along with it known as “cap-and-trade”; failing to influence the UN global warming debate at Copenhagen or push his agenda in any way; presiding over what even Obama himself called a “systematic breakdown” in the intelligence system; Iran making a mockery of American foreign policy while it boldly advances toward both nuclear weapons and the ballistic missile capability to launch warheads; presiding over more jobs lost than any president has lost in any year since records started being kept in 1940; you can just go on and on and on (the above was just off the top of my head) – Obama has shown a profound lack of leadership.

This is serious.  It is no laughing matter.  We are the Titanic hurtling through the icebergs, and we have no functioning captain who is able to steer us.

Harry Reid Invokes Slavery To Attack Republicans: The Real Story

December 8, 2009

Another day, another profoundly dishonest and immoral Democrat lie.

The Democrat Senate Majority Leader had this to say about the Democrats’ health care agenda and its relationship with wanting to own slaves:

“All Republicans can come up with is this: Slow down, stop everything and start over. If you think you have heard these same excuses before, you are right,” Reid said on the Senate floor Monday. “When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said, ‘Slow down, it is too early, let’s wait. Things are not bad enough.’ “

As Republicans erupted into outrage at the ugly and utterly despicable tactic – and presumably after Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele called on Reid to apologize for his “disgraceful statement” – Harry Reid spake again through his spokesman:

“Today’s feigned outrage is nothing but a ploy to distract from the fact they have no plan to lower the cost of health care, stop insurance company abuses or protect Medicare.”

Harry Reid conveniently forgets that his Democrat party is trying to strip Medicare of $460 billion in funding at a time when it needs those funds the most, against unanimous Republican objection.  But facts don’t really amount to much with hard-core liars.

Let me try Harry Reid’s trick:

“All Democrats can come up with is this: tell lies, make stuff up and use deception to make the cost of their bills look different than it really is. If you think you have heard these same excuses before, you are right.  When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of child molestation, there were those who dug in their heels and said, ‘Slow down, buggering little boys is fine, it’s discrimination to go after them. Things are not bad enough.’ “

And if Democrats become outraged at being compared to being a bunch of child molesters over their takeover of the health care system, I’ll just trot back out and say:

“Today’s feigned outrage is nothing but a ploy.”

Because, after all, when I slander you with the most hateful demagoguery, how DARE you respond in outrage?

I tell you what: Joseph Goebbels is just so freaking happy listening to Harry Reid from his special place in hell.  Every demagogue in history has got to be dancing.

If I really wanted to continue with the Democrat tactics, I would make sure that everyone knew that this was hate speech that would incite black people to begin murdering Republicans.  And the moment I found any registered Republican killed by a black guy, I would immediately cite the event and decry Harry Reid as a blood-faced murderer.

Harry Reid wants to talk about slavery.  So let’s talk about slavery.  Democrats fought the bloodiest war in American history to keep blacks in bondage; Republicans under the leadership of Abraham Lincoln won the emancipation of black slaves at the cost of their own lives and limbs.

During the 1860 presidential election, Democrat candidate Stephen Douglas supported the doctrine of popular sovereignty: allowing settlers in each territory to decide for themselves whether abortion – oops, I mean slavery – would be allowed.

On October 13, 1858, During Lincoln-Douglas debates, U.S. Senator Stephen Douglas (D-IL) stated: “I do not regard the Negro as my equal, and positively deny that he is my brother, or any kin to me whatever.”

An article entitled “The African Civil War” has a very simple entry as to how the Civil War began:

Abraham Lincoln was against slavery. When he was elected President in 1860, seven Southern states left, or seceded, from the United States. They formed the Confederate States of America

The Democrat Party: the Party of slavery.

A little history lesson:

April 16, 1862
President Lincoln signs bill abolishing slavery in District of Columbia; in Congress, 99% of Republicans vote yes, 83% of Democrats vote no

July 17, 1862
Over unanimous Democrat opposition, Republican Congress passes Confiscation Act stating that slaves of the Confederacy “shall be forever free”

January 31, 1865
13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. House with unanimous Republican support, intense Democrat opposition

April 8, 1865
13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. Senate with 100% Republican support, 63% Democrat opposition

November 22, 1865
Republicans denounce Democrat legislature of Mississippi for enacting “black codes,” which institutionalized racial discrimination

February 5, 1866
U.S. Rep. Thaddeus Stevens (R-PA) introduces legislation, successfully opposed by Democrat President Andrew Johnson, to implement “40 acres and a mule” relief by distributing land to former slaves

April 9, 1866
Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Johnson’s veto; Civil Rights Act of 1866, conferring rights of citizenship on African-Americans, becomes law

May 10, 1866
U.S. House passes Republicans’ 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the laws to all citizens; 100% of Democrats vote no

June 8, 1866
U.S. Senate passes Republicans’ 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the law to all citizens; 94% of Republicans vote yes and 100% of Democrats vote no

The above-cited article entitled, “The Democrat Race Lie,” goes on with numerous entries detailing well over a century of Democrat opposition to racial equality, to match their support of the institution of slavery.

So in other words, Harry Reid is accusing Republicans of being so vile, so hateful, so ugly, so despicable, so depraved, so morally evil, that they have become like Democrats.

And those are fighting words.  Because as bad as Republicans are, there’s no way they are THAT loathsome.

After the Civil War, the Democrats formed the Ku Klux Klan as a violent terrorist organization which

resisted Reconstruction by assaulting, murdering and intimidating freedmen and white Republicans.

So you can understand why I would be deeply offended and appalled that Harry Reid would say that I’m such a nasty piece of work as a Republican that I’m somehow like a Democrat in wanting to continue slavery.

Let’s move ahead to 1924, to see how the Ku Klux Klan still owned the Democrat Party:

The 1924 Democratic National Convention, also called the Klanbake,[1] held at the Madison Square Garden in New York City from June 24 to July 9, took a record 103 ballots to nominate a presidential candidate. It was the longest continuously running convention in United States political history. It was the first national convention in which a major party had a woman, Lena Springs, placed in nomination for the office of Vice President. It was also known for the strong influence of the Ku Klux Klan.

That’s why Martin Luther King, Sr., a major civil rights figure before his son took his mantle, “had been a lifelong registered Republican, and had endorsed Republican Richard Nixon.”  And that’s why Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., registered as a Republican in 1956.

The section entitled, “The Modern Civil Rights Era,” from an article, “Republicans for Civil Rights,” is worth reading:

During the civil rights era of the 1960’s, it was the Democrats who Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and the other protestors were fighting. Democrat Public Safety Commissioner Eugene “Bull” Connor in Birmingham let loose dogs and turned fire hoses on black civil rights demonstrators. Democrat Georgia Governor Lester Maddox famously brandished ax handles to prevent blacks from patronizing his restaurant. In 1963, Democrat Alabama Governor George Wallace stood in front of the Alabama schoolhouse chanting, “Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever”. In 1954, Democrat Arkansas Governor Orville Faubus tried to prevent desegregation of a Little Rock public school. It was Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who established the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, enforced the desegregation of the military, sent troops to Arkansas to desegregate the schools (using the 101st airborne), and appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the U.S. Supreme Court which resulted in the 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education (which ended school segregation). Eisenhower also supported the civil rights laws of 1957 and 1960.

Little known by many today is the fact that it was Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois, not Democrat President Lyndon Johnson, who pushed through the civil rights laws of the 1960’s. In fact, Dirksen was key to the passage of civil rights legislation in 1957, 1960, 1964, 1965 and 1968. Dirksen wrote the language for the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Dirksen also crafted the language for the Civil Rights Act of 1968 which prohibited discrimination in housing.

Conveniently forgotten today are significant facts about the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The law guaranteed equal access to public facilities and banned discrimination by any establishment receiving federal government funding. The law was an update of Republican Charles Sumner’s 1875 Civil Rights Act which had been stuck down by the Democrat-controlled US Supreme Court in 1883.

In-fact, Democrat Senators Sam Ervin, Al Gore Sr., William Fulbright (credited as Bill Clinton’s political mentor) and Robert Byrd (a former Kleagle for the Ku Klux Klan), filibustered against the bill for 14 straight hours before the final vote. Former presidential candidate Richard Nixon lobbied hard for the bill. When the bill finally came to a vote, the House of Reps passed the bill 289 to 124. 80% of Republicans voted for the bill VS only 63% by Democrats. The Senate vote was 73 to 27 (21 Democrats voting no VS only 6 Republicans voting against). Simply put: Republicans are responsible for the bill being passed, not Democrats as they’d lead you to believe.

Equally important was the 1965 Voting Rights Act that abolished literacy tests and other tests used to prevent blacks from voting (a right granted by the 15th Amendment). With images of violence against civil rights protestors led by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. shaping the national debate, Democrats in Congress finally decided not to filibuster the Voting Rights Act of 1965. When the bill came up for a vote, both houses of Congress passed the bill. In the House of Representatives, 85% of Republicans and 80% of Democrats voted for the bill. In the Senate, 17 Democrats voted no, and only one Republican voted no.

Democrat President John F. Kennedy is championed as a civil rights advocate. In reality, Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil rights Act as a senator along side Democrat Senator Al Gore Sr. After he became president, John F. Kennedy opposed the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King that was organized by A. Phillip Randolph who was also a black Republican. President Kennedy, through his brother Attorney General Robert Kennedy, had Dr. King wiretapped and investigated by the FBI.

In a historic apology, issued unanimously on January 20, 2007 by the North Carolina Democratic Executive Committee, composed of over 700 party leaders and activists from 100 counties, resulted from the1898 Wilmington Race Riot Commission Report of May 31, 2006. The report concluded that the Democrat Party was solely responsible for that 1898 murderous rampage against blacks.

“The Democrat Party was soley responsible” become the overarching theme.

The Democrats’ record regarding slavery is a record of abject shame and moral evil.

Democrats might point out that Strom Thurmond filibustered the 1957 Civil Rights Act signed by Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower.  But they should also recognize that he was a member of the Democrat Party when he did it.  And then they should account for the fact that their very own Robert Byrd – who continues to serve as a Democrat Senator today – not only filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights Act, but actively served the Ku Klux Klan in the leadership positions of “Kleagle” and “Exalted Cyclops.” And this now revered Democrat wrote a letter to Senator Theodore Bilbo that said:

I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side… Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.”

— Sen. Robert C. Byrd, honored Democrat in good standing.

And for Harry Reid to lecture Republicans, using slavery as an example, is an insult to history, in addition to generation after generation of Republicans trying to win first emancipation and then individual liberties for blacks against the bitter and steadfast opposition of the Democrat Party.

How dare he?  How DARE he?

Harry Reid should not only apologize, he should frankly resign in disgrace.  He won’t, only because the Democrat Party wallows in disgrace like pigs wallow in mud.

Democrats Sinking Down To Crazy Town In Polls

November 12, 2009

From Real Clear Politics:

November 11, 2009

Why Things Don’t Look Good For Dems In The Midterms

Independent political observers and Democrats themselves have been saying for months that 2010 is shaping up as a bad year for Democratic candidates, and the latest Gallup generic congressional ballot test only reinforces the point. Not only do Republicans lead 48 percent to 44 percent, but independents now favor the GOP by 52 percent to 30 percent.

Although generic Republican candidates hold just a 4-point lead, the GOP’s perpetual turnout advantage means their lead would likely be higher if the midterm elections were today. Even a single-digit lead for Democrats in Gallup’s testing often only means the two parties will be competitive, as more registered voters identify with the Democratic Party but more Republicans go to the polls on Election Day.

In the final Gallup survey before the 1998 midterms, Republicans trailed by 9 points but still went on to win a small majority of House seats. In the 2002 midterms, Republicans were down 5 points just before the election but again kept a slim majority in the House.

A year before the 2006 midterm elections –when Democrats regained control of both houses of Congress — generic congressional ballot testing forecast the shifting mood of the country. An August 2005 Gallup survey found Democrats leading by 12 points — one of the widest margins between the parties Gallup had found since the GOP took back Congress in 1994.

That survey was far from the only one to show a shifting mood. This is the first Gallup survey to show Republicans leading this cycle, and while a year is a long time in politics, the poll falls in line with other signs pointing in the GOP’s direction.

“It’s better to look at a series of these polls than one of them, but the fact is Republicans haven’t led the generic ballot since the stone ages,” said David Wasserman, who analyzes House races for the Cook Political Report. “Any sort of deficit is dangerous for Democrats because their support is more heavily concentrated within a few base districts.”

The last time Republicans led was September 2008, just after the Republican National Convention. The poll was an outlier, as no other generic ballot test by any other polling firm had shown Republicans leading in at least four years. None did soon after, either, and Democrats went on expand their majority to more than 75 seats in the House.

Further significance in the poll is the shift among independent voters. The 22-point advantage for Republicans is a far cry from July, when the two parties were statistically tied. The migration of independents toward the GOP mirrors what occurred in the New Jersey and Virginia gubernatorial elections last week, when a Republican knocked off the incumbent governor in the Garden State and the GOP nominee won by nearly 20 points in the Old Dominion.

The independent swing shows in the new Pew Research survey also released today. It found incumbents — most of which are Democrats these days — in a perilous place, with just 52 percent saying they want their representative re-elected and only 34 percent say most representatives should be re-elected.

“Both measures are among the most negative in two decades of Pew Research surveys,” Pew reports. “Other low points were during the 1994 and 2006 election cycles, when the party in power suffered large losses in midterm elections.”

The latest Gallup survey was conducted Nov. 5-8 of 894 registered voters with a margin of error of +/- 4 percent. The Pew poll was taken Oct. 28-Nov. 8 of 1,644 registered voters.

First of all, let’s look at how the Democrats have “progressed” in a single picture from Gallup:

You’ve got a 10 point swing in the four months that Democrats have fixated on Obamacare, with Democrats losing 6 points, and Republicans gaining 4 points.

And when you see independents now trending Republican over Democrat by more than 20 points, all you can say is WOW.

Obama currently has an approval of -9 (meaning that 9% more voters strongly disapprove of him than strongly approve.  And only 47% of voters at least somewhat approve of him.  That according to the best pollster, Rasmussen, which nailed the results of the 2008 election.

Humorist Dennis Miller, commenting following the disastrous-for-Democrats 2009 off year-election, said that Obama has “smaller coattails than a naked midget.”  If Democrats are counting on Obama to win them re-election, they’d better think some more.

Just keep drinking that Kool-aid, Democrats.  And if it tastes like it has cyanide in it, don’t trouble yourselves.

The current Democrat fairy tale is that the reason Democrats took such a historic pounding in 1994 was because Democrats had failed to pass their massive government takeover of health care.  But the fact is that they got driven out of office because they’d TRIED to pass such an evil monstrosity, and the public didn’t want any more of their poison.

And now here we are again.  And the 2009 off-year elections actually shows Republicans having even greater success than they did at the 1993 off-year elections, which preceded and anticipated the massive rejection of Democrats in 1994.

The funny thing is that during the last two elections from 2006 and 2008, it was Republicans ignoring or explaining away the polls.  Now it’s Democrats.

Go ahead and be the proverbial ostrich, Democrats – or worse yet be this guy

Democrats_Head-up-ass

– but the way things are going, you won’t like the “change” you’ll be confronted with when you finally pull your heads out.

 

Note To Democrats: Throttle Back Or Go Off Cliff

November 3, 2009

Obama won Virginia by 6 points.  Virginia hadn’t had a Republican governor for 12 years.  Both Virginian Senators are Democrats.

Now there’s change.  McDonnell wins by 18 points, in a 24 point turnaround since Obama’s win last November.  And McDonnell had a 66-30 lead among independent voters.

Obama won New Jersey by 16 points.  Blue state through and through.  Governor Corzine spent $23.6 million of his own money on his campaign; by contrast, Republican challenger Chris Christie had a total of $8.8 million.  President Obama made five trips to New Jersey, and the administration put more effort into this off-year election than any in history.  But in spite of all the advantages, Christie benefited from a 60-30 advantage in independent voters showing up to vote for the Republican.

No matter.

Now there’s change.  Christie wins by 5 points, amounting to a 21 point turnaround from Obama’s win last year.

Four races called, four Republicans elected.  Oops.  Make that five. Republican New York Mayor Bloomberg is about to hold on to win reelection.

We can also add the Maine defeat of gay marriage.  That’s a thirty for thirty smackdown of liberal activists trying to foist gay marriage onto states.  Gay marriage is supported only by Democrat politicians, activist judges, and of course Beelzebub.

Some are calling this a referendum on Barack Obama.  Others aren’t.  I don’t particularly even CARE about that, given the fact that we can’t get Obama out of the White House for three more years.

But there’s little question that this IS a referendum on hard-core liberal agenda items such as health care and cap and trade.

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid drink their Kool-aid by the barrel.  But any moderate Democrat who votes for any kind of leftist health care package has to know that they will be dead meat when their next turn to face the voters comes up.

Democrats won the NY-23 seat.  But that is like a drop of spit in a bucket compared with what happened in Virginia and New Jersey.  The Democrat taking NY-23 would have been big if Jon Corzine had held on to New Jersey.  But only a nut wouldn’t see that losing a district is little compared to losing a state.

Democrats and mainstream media “journalists” are portraying the Conservative Party candidate Hoffman losing NY-23 as evidence of a civil war within the Republican Party.  And maybe it is.  But as usual, Democrats are looking at the speck in the Republican Party’s eye, and ignoring the giant log in their own.

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.

I’d be worried about what’s going on inside the conservative movement, if it weren’t for what I see going on inside the liberal movement.

I hate to tell you, Democrats.  But if you’re counting on the Republican Party to self-destruct, you’re a fool.

I’m very happy, and maybe that happiness gives me a little more of the sense of graciousness and humility that I would much prefer to have over any attitude of bitterness or vengeance.

There’s room for Democrats.  There’s even room for a Democrat majority.  Just be sane in how you govern.  This is a center right country.  If you can’t govern to the center-right, at least shoot for the center.

Our spending has been insane.  The deficits this administration and this Congress are building is insane.  The nearly 2,000 page health care boondoggle the Democrats are trying to impose on the nation is insane.  And the cap-and-trade legislation that was being prepared this week for another legislative effort is insane.

Stop the madness.  Please.

Republicans and Democrats can and should come together on a host of issues.  Some of them might surprise a lot of people.

John F. Kennedy was a supply-side tax cutter who understood that the economy grew and improved when people were allowed to keep more of their own money.  Rather than constantly “looking forward,” Democrats might look back and learn a few lessons from their greatest president in the last half-century.

We all want jobs, regardless of our party affiliation or lack thereof.  We can and should agree that the only jobs that are truly sustainable must come from the private sector.  Do the math: government sector jobs are funded by taxes.  And taxes are paid by people who earn money from … that’s right, from the private sector.

Republicans were right about the stimulus.  To the extent that the giant $787 billion (actually $3.27 trillion) “porkulus” created jobs or growth, it was the result of inflating the size and scope of government.

Republicans and Democrats alike ought to agree: we can and should do better.  We should either refund that stimulus to our foreign lenders, or at least redirect it to non-partisan private sector job creation.  I would much prefer the former, but doing the latter would at least take away some of the anger I’ve been carrying around for the last nine months.

Health care?  There have been zero Republican solutions considered.  And zero solutions that involved trying to actually lower the cost of health care.  That needs to change.  Dramatically.

We don’t need European-style socialized medicine in this country.  In 1787, Thomas Jefferson wrote that “With all the defects in our Constitution, whether general or particular, the comparison of our government with those of Europe, is like a comparison of Heaven with Hell.”  And his view is as true today as it was 222 years ago.

Government has never been America’s savior.  And it shouldn’t try to become our savior now.

As for job-killing cap-and-trade, it is a simple fact that fewer and fewer Americans believe in man-caused global warming.  Polar bears have increased their numbers fivefold while global warming alarmists have predicted their extinction.  It’s time to stop the madness, and focus on creating more jobs rather than creating more carbon offset credits.

Republicans and Democrats alike should both want to see less waste and corruption in our government.  Democrats promised to deliver both, but neither has come anywhere close to happening.  We need to end the waste and fraud that comes from too much government, and not enough common sense.  Not only did Democrats appoint a tax cheat to be the Secretary of the Treasury, but as we speak, the man in charge of writing our tax laws, Charles Rangel, is in all kinds of trouble over a whole host of felonious tax-related activity.  Deal with him.  Deal with all of them, regardless of their party or their position.  Drain the swamp.

Stop marginalizing conservatives and listen to them.  Quit calling tea party rallyers “tea baggers” and realize that their anger isn’t good for you.  Or for anybody.  Don’t try to ram a radical agenda down their throats and then demand that they either support it or be branded as “racist.”

Do you want a war, Democrats?  Do you want an amped-up conservative majority (and conservatives ARE the majority) out to utterly destroy you?  Fine.  I think what happened tonight proves that you’ll lose that war.

Democrats are willing to negotiate with terrorists and the leaders of rogue regimes.  If you’re going to do that, you should at least be consistent and be willing to genuinely negotiate with Republicans and leaders of conservative movements.  If you don’t agree, you have been drinking out of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi’s Kool-aid.

As a conservative, traditional family, religious Republican, I understand that Democrats think differently about a bunch of things, and that as the party in current control of all three branches of government, this is their chance to have their shot at showing what their philosophy will accomplish.

But don’t be stupid about it.  Because if you are, you are going to end up paying dearly.