But again, not nearly as big a news story as the tape from eleven years ago of Donald Trump saying he likes pussy.
So, it turns out that the DNC Primaries were rigged for Hillary the whole time, and the email hack has exposed the whole thing. And even when Bernie Sanders begs his supporters to fall in line, they boo him off the stage. Also, the Democrats are confiscating pro-Bernie paraphernalia from convention attendees.
I haven’t watched any of it, but I imagine it’s something like this:
Ain’t it funny that the “Anti-Wall Street” party is meeting in an arena named after a bank that got a $25 Billion bailout from TARP?
Ain’t it funny that the party that proclaims that walls and Voter IDs are “racist” is meeting in a place secured by four miles of walls to keep out people who don’t have IDs.
No wonder the Democrat shills have been so absent from the comments of late. It would be embarrassing to defend this monstrosity. How often can they say, “We don’t care how corrupt or malicious the Democrat Party is, we will support them forever because of gay marriage” before it gets tedious even to themselves.
Although I’ve only been a lurker and occasional commenter at GayPatriot over the past two and a half years (between working full-time, earning another degree, and making a move, I haven’t felt like I had much time for blogging), I still check in regularly to see what’s going on and what people are talking about. From comments V the K, ColoradoPatriot and the other contributors have made here, I gather I’m in the minority among the blog contributors–but in sync with many readers and commenters–in my willingness to support Trump in this election.
Trump was definitely not my first choice: I would have originally put him somewhere near the middle of the pack of 17 declared candidates, and, among the final four candidates, I would definitely have preferred Cruz. As someone who considers himself a constitutional conservative, I would have preferred a nominee with a clear record of supporting such principles, but now that Trump is the Republican nominee, I am willing to back him.
My willingness does not come from blind party loyalty, but instead, from a clear understanding of my priorities and what is at stake in this election. While I am more than conversant with Trump’s faults, as I will explain below, even some of his faults provide good reasons for backing him rather than voting in a way that would–directly or indirectly–lead to a victory for Hillary Clinton and the Democrats.
Although I could begin by outlining my points of agreement with Trump and then detailing and responding to various points of concern, others have done so already elsewhere, and for the sake of my particular argument, at this point, it is more useful to say a few words about my philosophy of voting. While many people hew to an idealistic vision of voting whereby you are supposed to vote for the person who shares most of your views or principles, anyone who has been voting very long quickly realizes that such a vision rarely squares with reality. So what to do? One can vote, as the saying usually goes, for “the lesser of two evils,” which is how many of the people I know think about voting in presidential races, or one can approach it in some other way. Some people say they vote for issues rather than parties or candidates, others say they vote for the person and not the party, and still others have other approaches.
Many people’s views on voting evolve over their lifetimes. During Bill Clinton’s first term, it became evident to me that voting on character was in many respects more important than voting on issues because I’d rather vote for a person of character who will try to do what he says he will do, than for a slippery, dishonest snake who will lie and “triangulate” and poll-test all of his positions just for the sake of holding on to power. I reasoned that even when I disagree with the person of character, I can act on that disagreement to oppose policies or proposals that I disagree with.
But what happens when all of the candidates seem to have objectionable characters in some respect or another, and no candidate adequately represents your views on the issues? One response is to throw up your hands and say you won’t be part of the process, and many say they are going to do that this year. My response is to say that in such a situation, one has to vote strategically in order to best achieve one’s objectives.
Anyone who has ever taken a class in strategy or game theory will have come across topics such as decision trees, Nash equilibriums, and games such as the prisoner’s dilemma. Without going into too much detail, what one learns from studying such matters is that often the best strategic choice is not necessarily the choice that appears to be in one’s best interest at first glance. Sometimes the best strategic choice involves taking risks that one wouldn’t ordinarily decide to choose.
In this election, as a constitutional conservative, I believe that in a contest between Trump, Clinton, and a variety of third-party candidates, voting for Trump offers the best strategic choice for advancing constitutional conservative principles. I say that while fully recognizing that Trump is more of an opportunist than he is a conservative.
But let’s examine the situation. We know that Hillary Clinton is no constitutional conservative. We also know that Hillary Clinton is no Bill Clinton, an opportunist willing to “triangulate” for the sake of power. Hillary is a committed leftist who is proud to think of Republicans as “enemies.” That’s not hyperbole, but Hillary’s own words from one of the debates. She views herself as a “progressive…who can get things done.”
During her time in the Senate, Hillary had tried to craft an image as a somewhat “moderate” Democrat, but that didn’t help her against the leftist Obama in 2008, who not only appealed more to their party’s leftist base, but, as a relative unknown, had none of Hillary’s baggage and the added bonus of more melanin. When she became Secretary of State, however, she quickly reverted to the kinds of behaviors that had earned her so much distrust during her husband’s time as president. And with the Clinton Foundation, she and her husband had found a new way to enrich themselves through their so-called “public service.”
So what would a Hillary Clinton presidency look like? This excellent piece written a few months back by the always worthwhile Daniel Greenfield offers a persuasive preview:
The national debt will go up. So will your taxes. Hillary Clinton is promising a trillion dollar tax hike. And that’s during her campaign. Imagine how much she will really raise taxes once she’s actually in office.
Two Supreme Court justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Anthony Kennedy will likely leave office on her watch. That’s in addition to Scalia’s empty seat which she will fill resulting in an ideological switch for the court. Additionally, Kennedy, for all his flaws, was a swing vote. Hillary’s appointee won’t be swinging anywhere. The Supreme Court will once again become a reliable left-wing bastion.
Even if the Democrats never manage to retake Congress, they will control two out of three branches of government. And with an activist Supreme Court and the White House, the left will have near absolute power to redefine every aspect of society on their own terms without facing any real challenges.
And they will use it. Your life changed fundamentally under Obama. The process will only accelerate.
You will have less free speech. You will pay more for everything. Your children and grandchildren will be taught to hate you twice as hard. Local democracy will continue being eroded. Your community, your school, your town, your city and your state will be run out of D.C. You will live under the shadow of being arrested for violating some regulation that you never even heard of before.
Every day you will notice basic aspects of life that you took for granted just vanishing while a carefully selected multicultural audience cheers on television.
Hillary Clinton had a man sent to jail for uploading a video about Mohammed. What do you think she’ll do to even more vocal critics of Islam? How long will it be until a new Supreme Court decides that a Mohammed cartoon is “shouting fire in a crowded theater” and not protected by the Constitution?
I wish I could say Greenfield is exaggerating, but I know that he is not. As Glenn Reynolds always says, read the whole thing.
And I haven’t even touched on the reckless dishonesty and unquestionable corruption of the Clintons. As Fred Barnes noted in a recent piece, “Hillary Clinton is the most corrupt person ever to get this close to becoming president of the United States.” Barnes notes:
Is there any public figure who lies as routinely as Clinton? Not in my lifetime in Washington. Not Richard Nixon. Not LBJ. Not Donald Trump. Not even Bill Clinton. She skillfully, though probably unconsciously, spreads out her lies to lessen the impact. But when you pack them together, as Rep. Trey Gowdy did while questioning FBI director James Comey at a House hearing, they’re shocking.
And in that case, he is just talking about the e-mail scandal. The Clinton Foundation is another story completely, and an even more appalling one on its face.
The Clintons are so unscrupulous in their quest to gain and hold on to power while enriching themselves that they could teach a graduate-level course on political corruption and political machines that might shock the denizens of Tammany Hall.
For those reasons and many more, my political position this year has always been one of “Never Hillary.” Hillary Clinton must not become president. If she does at this point in time, the damage she will be able to do to the country will be irreversible.
So then, why Donald Trump? Honestly the main reason, the most basic reason, is that Hillary is a guaranteed disaster, and Trump is admittedly a gamble, but in a desperate situation a gamble is the best choice.
I’m more than sufficiently aware of the case people make against Trump: he’s a narcissist, he’s dishonest, he’s impetuous, he’s unscrupulous, he’s not a “true conservative,” and, last but not least, he displays authoritarian tendencies in many of the things he says.
Of those, the most significant complaint is that he may have authoritarian tendencies, and that may appear to be the most challenging concern to reconcile with my claim that I consider myself a constitutional conservative. How can one vote for a candidate who may be tempted to act like an authoritarian after taking office?
For me, the answer to that question is one of faith, not in Trump, but in the genius of our constitutional system. Ever since it became evident that Trump would be the nominee, my thinking about this issue has remained the same: Trump may try for unconstitutional power grabs, but Congress and the courts can and will block him along the way.
My personal favorite is when Democrats refer to Hispanics as “taco bowls.” But the one suggesting they go after Bernie Sanders religion is a good one, too. Also the one where a Democrat Media Operative working for Politico lets the Democrats vet his story before publishing. What’s your favorite leaked email?
Update: Democrat Party Chair resigns amid email scandal. And she is immediately rehired by the Clinton campaign.
California’s Radical Left Attorney General (and future senator) Kamala Harris (one of the team of 20 Radical Democrat Attorney Generals seeking to prosecute Climate Change skeptics for pursuing science instead of “science”) has been rebuked by a Federal Court for her scheme to expose conservative donors to intimidation, harassment, and violence.
TL:DR version: Harris wanted to use tax records to release the names of people who donated to conservative organizations so that the Democrats and their radical left allies could brownshirt them. The court said, nunh-unh, and issued an injunction barring them from doing so, finding that it’s still illegal (for now) for politicians to use state power to incite mobs against their political opponents.
During the course of trial, the Court heard ample evidence establishing that AFP, its employees, supporters and donors face public threats, harassment, intimidation, and retaliation once their support for and affiliation with the organization becomes publicly known. For example, Lucas Hilgemann, Chief Executive Officer of AFP, testified that in 2013, the security staff of AFP alerted him that a technology contractor working inside AFP headquarters posted online that he was “inside the belly of the beast” and that he could easily walk into Mr. Hilgemann’s office and slit his throat. (Hilgemann Test. 2/23/16 Vol. I, p. 57:2–14). That individual was also found in AFP’s parking garage, taking pictures of employees’ license places. (Id. at 57:15–23). Another witness and major donor, Art Pope, testified about an AFP event in Washington D.C. in 2011. Mr. Pope testified that after protestors attempted to enter the building and disrupt the event, they began to push and shove AFP guests to keep them inside of the building. (Pope Test. 2/24/16 Vol. II, p. 47:7–15). Mr. Pope attempted to help a woman in a wheelchair exit the building; however the protestors had blocked their path. (Pope Test. 2/25/16 Vol. I, p. 21:20–22:12). Once they finally exited the building, they still had to go through a hostile crowd that was shouting, yelling and pushing. (Id. at 22:22–23:2). At another event in Wisconsin, after speaking to a crowd of AFP supporters, Mr. Hilgemann was threatened by a protestor who used multiple slurs and spit in Mr. Hilgemann’s face. (Hilgemann Test. 2/23/16 Vol. I, p. 48:12–49:15). Again, at another event in Michigan where an AFP tent was set up, several hundred protestors surrounded the tent and used knives and box-cutters to cut at the ropes of tent, eventually causing the large tent to collapse with AFP supporters still inside. (Id. at 50:16–51:25).
The Court also heard from Mark Holden, General Counsel for Koch Industries, who testified that Charles and David Koch, two of AFP’s most high-profile associates, have faced threats, attacks, and harassment, including death threats. (Holden Test. 2/23/16 Vol. II, p. 30:17–35:13). Not only have these threats been made to the Koch brothers because of their ties with AFP, but death threats have also been made against their families, including their grandchildren.
To politicians, it’s all about power. They have no honor, they have no ethics.
A disgruntled former aide who last year accused then-congressional candidate Carl DeMaio of sexual harassment has confessed to lying about a threatening email — as part of a scheme to sabotage the Republican candidate’s campaign.
Todd Bosnich, 29, pleaded guilty Friday to obstruction of justice for lying to investigators about the email. He had originally told investigators the email might have come from DeMaio; in fact, Bosnich sent the message to himself from a “bogus” Yahoo account.
Amid the allegations, DeMaio, an openly gay Republican, eventually lost his bid to unseat California Democratic Rep. Scott Peters by a narrow margin of 3.2 percent.
The Democrats and their media operatives seized on the fake sexual harassment story as an October Surprise and narrowly defeated de Maio in 2014.
Pro-Abortion Fanatic Democrat (but I repeat myself) Wendy Davis, running for governor of Texas, is throwing everything she can at the Democrats’ low-information voter base and hoping something… anything… sticks. First, she accused her Republican opponent … who is confined to a wheelchair… of being hostile to handicapped people. Now, she is accusing her Republican opponent… who is in an interracial marriage, of being secretly opposed to interracial marriage. It’s like the accusation that Mitt Romney wanted to outlaw tampons, put women in binders, and give his dog a gay haircut; the LIV’s will believe anything and fact-check nothing.
Greg Abbott won’t say whether he’d defend an interracial marriage ban—troubling but not surprising from someone who defends a “poll tax.”
The thing that Wendy Davis is twisting to get to that misinformation biscuit is the evasive answer Greg Abbott gave to a gotcha question during an interview with a San Antonio newspaper.
When I said I wasn’t clear if he was saying he would have defended a ban on interracial marriage, he said, “Actually, the reason why you’re uncertain about it is because I didn’t answer the question. And I can’t go back and answer some hypothetical question like that.”
Asked about the similarities some see between the ban on gay marriage and past prohibitions on interracial marriage, Abbott said, “Well, the Supreme Court has disagreed with that” by holding that sexual orientation isn’t due protected-class status in the way that race is.
Bad answer, Greg. Maybe I can say this because I’m not a politician, but equating gay marriage and interracial marriage is an utterly false equivalence. Interracial marriages do not fundamentally alter the concept of marriage the way gay marriage does. Interracial heterosexual marriage maintain the unique and critical role of marriage in Western culture in binding families together, creating secure environments for the raising of children produced by the marriage, and providing fundamental social stability.
Gay marriage – as some of its advocates admit – is about fundamentally redefining marriage, gaining access to social benefits, and assuaging the egos of gays. Children and family are just props to get to the result. Traditional marriage is about what is best for the whole of society, gay marriage is only about what’s best for Teh Gheys.
(Yeah, I know, I’m on the losing side of the argument, just like the people in Salem who said, “I don’t think those girls are actually witches” were on the losing side of the argument.)
Whatever the affirmative case for gay marriage may be, it has nothing to do with civil rights, and is no way equivalent to interracial marriage.
Fanatical Abortion Supporter Wendy Davis is lagging in all the polls in her race for Texas Governor. So, the Democrats and their allies have decided to accuse her opponent of being pro-rape.
The backstory is, her opponent, Gregg Abbott, was once a justice on the Texas Supreme Court, who offered a dissenting opinion in a case that involved rape. A woman was raped by a traveling salesman. Rather than sur the rapists employer for hiring a sex offender, she wanted to go after the deeper pockets of the company that subcontracted the company the rapist worked for. Abbott’s opinion was that it was lawful for her to sue the rapist’s direct employer, but not the larger corporation that contracted out to his employer.
In other words, Gregg Abbott thinks rape is okay.
Meanwhile, the Democrats revere Bill Clinton who was credibly accused of rape by Juanita Broaddrick.
The Democrats quite literally have nothing to offer except free [stuff] from the Government, and deranged allegations that their opponents are racists who support rape.
And sadly, the country has become such an Idiocracy that the strategy works.
The media may tell you otherwise, but Karl Rove just scored one of the few unequivocal victories over the Clinton machine. Some will say his question about Mrs. Clinton’s health will backfire (search), but on whom? Mr. Rove isn’t running for office.
It was Mr. Clinton himself who awarded the laurels to the Republican strategies when the Democrat vouched for “his wife Hillary’s health“.
As Stephen Kruiser put it in a quoting the article linked above:
I’m sure that this is just an attention getting evil genius ploy on the part of Karl Rove, but I am enjoying it because he’s giving them a taste of their own medicine. Pulling something out of thin air to get the character assassination rumor mill fired up is classic Clinton. The mere fact that Bubba even had to answer a question about it is a minor victory for Rove.
My only quibble with Kruiser relates to the magnitude of the victory. It’s not minor. It’s significant. The media are now talking about Hillary’s health (if only to denounce Rove). But, still Americans are thinking about her health. And asking questions.
There will be calls for the former Secretary of State to release her medical records. And questions about her health will persist if when she fails to do so. (more…)
I think Juan tipped this story.
Carl DeMaio is an openly gay Republican running for Congress in southern California. His campaign literature features pictures of himself with his longtime partner. He has been subject to increasingly homophobic attacks from lefty supporters of his Democrat opponent.
One false attack drew the attention of the San Diego Ethics Commission. An anonymous left-wing group funded a SuperPac and sent mailers of DeMaio Photoshopped next to a drag queen to neighborhoods with a majority of elderly and African-American voters, knowing that such a photo would depress support for DeMaio.
That was so egregious and false that the group was fined by the city’s Ethics Commission, but even after that, and with his 100 percent voting record with the LGBT community, the Left still didn’t speak up to defend him. They told DeMaio, “It’s complicated.”
“I’ve found more tolerance, acceptance and inclusion from social conservative groups who have to reconcile that I’m a Republican who happens to be gay…versus the intolerance the LGBT leaders see me as a gay man who happens to be a Republican,” DeMaio said.
This reminds me of another gay-baiting advertisement, this one made for the 2006 Campaign of Democrat Senator Max Baucus.
Renowned in political circles, the ad set porno music to 20-year-old footage of a video from Taylor’s cosmetics business. The video showed Taylor in a leisure suit rubbing cream into another man’s face. As the spot faded to black, it showed Taylor then seeming to reach for the man’s crotch as a voice-over said “Mike Taylor — not the way we do business in Montana.”
The campaign operative behind that homophobic, gay-baiting ad was a certain Mr. Jim Messina. Far from being repudiated by the Democrat Party, Mr. Messina went on to run Barack Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign; a campaign that featured allegations that his opponent had given a woman cancer, wanted to outlaw contraceptives, put black people in chains, and outlaw tampons.
The gutter tactics worked, and gutter politics will continue to be practiced for so long as voters reward gutter politicians. Voting for a politician who uses gutter tactics is tacit endorsement of gutter tactics.
A Republican Attorney General undertook a corruption probe that snagged four corrupt Democrats taking brices and peddling influence. His successor, a Democrat, shut down the investigation… because “racism.”
In 2010, when he was still attorney general of Pennsylvania, Tom Corbett, now its Republican governor, launched a corruption investigation targeting politicians in Philadelphia. The operation caught at least four of them, all Democrats, allegedly accepting bribes of cash and gifts adding up to at least $18,000. But after Democrat Kathleen Kane was elected attorney general in 2012, she reportedly shut down the investigation.
Hey, it’s not like any of them closed a bridge or anything.
The House Republicans (cough, rubes) worked a very, very modest “reform” into the Food Stamp Bill to cut down on waste, fraud, and abuse. The Governors of Democrat-Run states conspired with Democrats in Congress to make sure the Food Stamp gravy train didn’t slow down.
One of the farm bill’s ballyhooed reforms was closing the “heat and eat” loophole, which allows states to leverage federal funds from the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (Liheap) to raise food-stamp eligibility and payments. Fifteen states as well as Washington, D.C. participate in “heat and eat,” and more may join once they realize how their liberal neighbors are milking Uncle Sam.
Democratic state politicians have thus expanded their food-stamp rolls by distributing more federal heating checks, amounting to as little as $1 per year in many states and $0.10 in California. The heat and eat scheme is one reason annual food-stamp payouts have tripled over the last decade to about $83 billion. Taxpayers now help foot the grocery bills for one of seven Americans.
House Republicans sought to force modest food-stamp reforms such as work requirements and asset tests in the farm bill, but they ultimately settled for raising the Liheap trigger for receiving the utility deduction to $20 per year. The Congressional Budget Office predicted this change would affect 850,000 households—about 4% of food-stamp beneficiaries—and save $8.6 billion over 10 years. Too bad this overlooked the incentive for states to goose heating payments.
[Democrat] Governor Dannel Malloy last week announced that Connecticut would “expend $1.4 million in available federal energy assistance funding” to raise minimum Liheap payments for 50,000 beneficiaries, or about a quarter of its food-stamp rolls. The increase to a nice round $20.01 from $1 will “preserve approximately $66.6 million” a year in food-stamp benefits. So Connecticut will leverage $1 in additional federal Liheap funds to reap $48 more from Washington for food stamps.
Mr. Malloy’s neighbor Andrew Cuomo jumped for the free lunch the next day by declaring that New York would “dedicate approximately $6 million in additional federal” heating assistance to maintain $457 million in food-stamp payments.
Democrats made this swindle possible by adding some $169 million in additional heating assistance to cold-weather states to this year’s omnibus spending bill, including $50 million for New York. Meantime, 15 Democratic Senators have written to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius begging for even more heat rub to assuage the food-stamp non-cuts. They were joined last week by 18 big-city mayors including Eric Garcetti from the Los Angeles tundra and Greg Stanton of the Phoenix arctic.
See why I think “Let it burn” is the only realistic option?
Americans for Prosperity has been running a commercial in Michigan featuring a woman with leukemia who lost her health coverage due to Obamacare; reminding voters that Democrat Senate candidate Gary Peters voted for Obamacare’s passage in the House. The Democrat’s lawyers are pressuring television stations not to run the ad, claiming it is “untruthful.” (Basing that claim, in turn, on a hack, Democrat media outlet that claims the ad is not accurate.) These are basically the same people who accused Romney of being responsible for a woman’s cancer death.
What is about the Democrats and wanting to silence women’s voices and interfere in their private health care choices?
If you follow me on Twitter (and you should)…. you’ll know that I’ve been giving out the daily #ToxicLittleQueen Award for the past few weeks. The origins of the award come from none other than Alec Baldwin. Daily recipients show similar disregard for tolerance and decency.
Yesterday, I realized that despite just starting the honor several weeks ago…. I really should bestow the Toxic Little Queen of 2013. But there were SO many suggestions, that I’ve had to break it into two categories.
Feel free to vote for your favorite each day.
Winners will be announced on Twitter on Christmas Eve.
The Democrats sent a stalker to tail New Hampshire Republican Senator Kelly Ayotte to a funeral. (I guess they were hoping to catch her doing something exceedingly distasteful and inappropriate, taking selfies perhaps.)
Partly they did this because Democrats are corrupt, sleaxy, immoral gutter-trash, but also because it works. Terry McAuliffe, Harry Reid, Tim Kaine, Barack Obama and other Democrats all owe their current offices to scorched Earth smear campaigns against their opponents. As long as gutter-trash politics works, Americans should not be surprised to find that the politicians they elect turn out to be gutter-trash.
The Democrats outsource this dirty work to affiliated organizations, in this case “American Bridge.” This is so when they get caught, they can claim deniability. “This was not the Democrat Party,” they will say. No, it was just a group of Democrats, paid by the Democrat Party to help elect Democrat politicians.
And I suppose some simpering apologist will whine, “Both sides do it,” but … honestly, I can’t think of any examples of Republicans stalking Democrats at a funeral. (As the Wellstone Memorial and the Mandela Memorial demonstrate, Democrats are perfectly willing to behave life buffoons in front of regular media.)
A Police Drug Analyst in Democrat-Run Massachusetts has just please guilty to evidence tampering. This drug analyst may have tainted as many as 40,000 prosecutions; sometimes by mishandling evidence tests, sometimes by deliberately contaminating evidence with drug traces, and sometimes by not even performing tests she claimed she had performed. Why? Because The State demanded prosecutions.
Annie Dookhan worked as a chemist for the State of Massachusetts, and it turns out she had close relations with prosecutors.These prosecutors were able to successfully convict innocent Americans because Dookhan would chemically taint the “evidence,” resulting in career boosts for the prosecutors while innocent men and women were torn from their families and locked in cells. Prosecutors praised Dookhan’s work and depended on her to get the convictions they wanted.
Hat Tip and preceding quote lifted from: Filming Cops. Note, Democrat-Run Massachusetts is also where the notorious Fells Acre Child Abuse case was prosecuted; where no actual child abuse took place, but the hysteria was enough to drive criminal sentences and destroy the lives of several people who were … by any objective review of the evidence… almost certainly innocent. Massachusetts Democrats rewarded the prosecutor of this massive abuse of power by running her as a candidate for the United States Senate. (A race she lost not because of her horrible abuse of power, but apparently because she couldn’t fake being a Red Sox fan.)
Leftists often claim that the idea that the Government is “coming for your guns,” is just a paranoid right-wing fantasy. And the idea that gun registration is just the precursor to to gun confiscation is also derided as a silly, invalid “slippery slope” argument.
In New York, where gun registration laws have been in place for years, the Government is indeed coming for your guns. Letters have been sent out to registered gun owners, ordering them to turn in guns that do not comply with new gun laws. Note, owners of illegal and unregistered weapons are exempt.
Also, Colorado Gun Control fanatic Evie Hudak, who famously told a rape victim that she shouldn’t be allowed to have a gun for personal protection because she would be too weak and stupid to use it effectively, is dodging her recall attempt by resigning from her state senate seat. This is simply a sleazy maneuver by the Democrat Party of Colorado to hold onto their majority in the legislature, as they get to pick her successor.
Separated at Birth…
Gun-hating Colorado Democrat Evie Hudak and Arnold Schwarzennegger’s woman-disguise from Total Recall.
On Tuesday, Jeff posted a video with clips of the current President of the United States Barack Obama using almost identical language to that of Richard Nixon to describe how each learned about scandals taking place under his watch, with both politicians claiming they had learned about them from news reports.
Today, while tidying my desk, I came across a note I had scribbled over four months ago:
Dem[ocrat]s want to define GOP by Nixon now/fear party being defined by Reagan — hence the silly line that Gipper couldn’t win in today’s GOP.
They’ve even got Bob Dole repeating that Democratic talking point (without providing any evidence to back it up).
If the Democrats continue to stonewall on the various scandals percolating around this administration, the media will have a tougher and tougher time making the age-old Nixon comparisons stick to the GOP.
NB: I had scribbled the note on January 9, 2013, the one hundredth anniversary of Nixon’s birth.
UPDATE: Meant to include this screen capture from the Obama-friendly AOL: (more…)
Earlier today, I caught Jim Hoft’s report on ties between the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU, which represents, among others, employees of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS)) and the Democratic Party. Jim links us to the NTEU’s release just following the 2012 election where its president Colleen M. Kelley congratulated Obama on his reelection and noted the efforts her government employee union made on behalf of that Democrat.
Commenting on a report that President Obama met with Miss Kelley “the day before agency targeted Tea Party“, Ace wonders, as should we all, about the strange coincidence and considers the meaning of the meeting. He surmises how events might have unfolded in circumstances similar to this one, with a hypothetical President Tee meeting with the head of Union N which had supported him politically:
It would seem that President Tee could choose to go outside the normal chain of command to issue an illegal order by simply telling the head of Union N to inform the union members she leads to pursue the policy, rather than issuing a formal order to the head of the IRS.
And journalists should be asking Jay Carney, in his next press briefing, to tell us what transpired in that meeting. And they should ask the president as well. Reporters should be doing what they can to learn what passed between the president and the union boss in March 2010.
UPDATE: Maybe there is nothing to that meeting. But, the time is indeed curious.
RELATED: Over on the National Review’s home page, Andrew Stiles has a good piece on Miss Kelley’s union:
The IRS may be “an independent enforcement agency with only two political appointees,” in the words of White House press secretary Jay Carney, but its employees are represented by a powerful, deeply partisan union whose boss has publicly disparaged the Tea Party and criticized the Republican party for having ties to it.
UP-UPDATE: Doug Powers has more.
The White House on Monday once again added to the list of people who knew about the IRS investigation into its targeting of conservative groups — saying White House chief of staff Denis McDonough had been informed about a month ago.
Press secretary Jay Carney said again that no one had told President Barack Obama ahead of the first news reports: not his top aide McDonough, nor his chief counsel Kathy Ruemmler, nor anyone from the Treasury Department.
Monday’s revelation amounts to the fifth iteration of the Obama administration’s account of events, after initially saying that the White House had first learned of the controversy from the press.
Various folks that I follow on Twitter have asked important questions over the past few days such as this one:
I want to know the names of the folks who get to decide what Obama doesn’t need to know. What are their credentials? Who elected them?
— Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) May 20, 2013
If Obama Doesn’t Know What Going On, Who’s Running This Administration? bit.ly/19VEQFr
— Duane Lester (@Bodhi1) May 20, 2013
And my observations regarding the multi-scandals now enveloping our supposed brilliant and awesome President?
— GayPatriot (@GayPatriot) May 20, 2013