Gay Patriot Header Image

The Party of Thieves

Two loosely related items:

1. $75,000 in television equipment was stolen at the Democrat National Convention in 2012, presumably by delegates and other attendees.

2. Democrat Criminal Jesse Jackson Jr is getting out of prison early.

But remember; the only real crime is being opposed to the redefinition of marriage.

 

Terry MacAuliffe Gets Right Down to Business

It was well-known Terry MacAulliffe was sleazy and corrupt, but he was elected Governor of Virginia on the basis that his opponent was supposedly going to outlaw gay sex or somesuch. And when you vote stupidly, this is the kind of thing you can expect.

[Virginia Governor Terry] McAuliffe said aides sent a fundraising solicitation without his knowledge or approval. The request asked for donations to the new Common Good Virginia PAC in increments of $10,000, $25,000, $50,000 and $100,000, with corresponding levels of access to the governor.

Donors who gave $100,000 were promised a private dinner with the Democratic governor and his wife. The fundraising letter, first posted on the conservative website BearingDrift.com, also promised large donors monthly meetings with unnamed policy experts.

More From the Party of Good Government

Posted by V the K at 11:50 am - March 27, 2014.
Filed under: Democratic Scandals

Let’s review how this week has been going for the Democrat Party, the party of good progressive Government, the party that works selflessly for the people.

And remember, these are just the ones who got caught.

Anti-Gun California Democrat Charged with Illegal Gun-Running

Democrat California State Senator Leland Yee has been a strong advocate for every gun control bill the far left People’s Republic of California has passed. Now, in addition to bribery and corruption, Senator Yee has been charged for illegally importing and selling the same guns he would outlaw to his law-abiding constituents.

The affidavit charges that the $2 million worth of weapons to have been secreted into the country from the Philippines included rocket launchers and machine guns, some of which Yee himself had fired while on Mindanao. A portion of the weapons Yee conspired to bring into the U.S. through New Jersey were to have been forwarded on to North Africa via Sicily.

Or, maybe he’s just following the example of his party’s leader; making it illegal for law abiding citizens to own guns while supplying guns to criminal drug gangs.

Update: Oh, my, it seems like Sen. Yee also offered to set up an arms deal with Islamic rebels for $2 Million in cash.

In the video after the break, Senator Yee explains how he wants to keep guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens. “To protect the general public is my priority.”

(more…)

Gay RI House Speaker Resigns as Corruption Probe Deepens

The powerful Democrat Speaker of the Rhode Island House of Representatives resigned this weekend as Federal Agents and Rhode Island State Police raided his home and office collecting evidence of corruption in state Government.  Gordon Fox was the first openly gay statehouse speaker in the United States and a champion of the cause of same sex marriage; also a crook, apparently. Fox was once hailed by the media as “courageous” for his stance on gay marriage. “Courageous” is a word the media use to describe politicians who agree with the majority opinion of the media and the Democrat left.  As he once described himself, in a weird sort of self-victimizing compliment:

Fox once summed up his unlikely rise to become one of the most powerful figures in Rhode Island government this way: “I’m a biracial gay kid that wasn’t supposed to be speaker.”

Giving people high office and power on the basis of their being “Historic Firsts” has never worked out well, has it?

The Democrat Mafia Looks After Its Own

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.

Potluck

These items have been all over, and deserve to be noticed here at GayPatriot.

Liberal bias, in media & academia? Why, yes.

More people seeing that the Emperor Has No Clothes? Thankfully, yes.

  • Obama is under water on the Ukraine crisis. 42% approve his handling, 43% disapprove.
  • While a bipartisan majority support sanctions against Russia, they’re mainly older people, because younger people say no. Among the Obama-voting 35-and-under, 55% are against it.

IRS / Tea Party scandal as real as ever? Yup.

  • Great, daily coverage at TaxProf Blog.
  • Yes, Lerner targeted the Tea Party, and even what she called “organizations woven by the fabulously rich and hugely influential Koch brothers”. More Koch Derangement Syndrome. Some people are on too much Koch!
  • Lerner continued last week to plead the 5th. The IRS will give up all her emails, supposedly; I put it that way because enough time has passed that only God knows what they may have scrubbed.

FROM THE (OTHER) COMMENTS: In the other Koch Derangement Syndrome thread, some fine comments are relevant here.

  • runningrn says “The Koch brothers didn’t even crack the top 10 when it came to the top political donors. In fact they are way the heck down the list at number 59…The 6 biggest union donors in American politics gave 15 times more to mostly Democrats…”
  • And Annie gives us the WSJ link.

One should ask why the IRS doesn’t target all that union money? Or target, to coin a phrase, “organizations woven by the fabulously rich and hugely influential George Soros”?

AND SOME FOLLOW-UPS:

  • Rep. Alan Grayson (D – FL) won’t be charged after allegations that he physically abused his wife. GP talked about it here. The video evidence – which was incomplete (having gaps in it) – did not support Lolita Carson-Grayson’s story. Nonetheless, a judge granted her a restraining order against Rep. Grayson. We’re still waiting for the new feminist campaign, “I BELIEVE YOU, LOLITA!”
  • Gary Lyngar answers his son, who had made a splash by claiming “I lost my dad to Fox News”. Hint: The son was about as real and honest with us as you’d expect from a writer who whines about his parent’s politics. As the elder Mr. Lyngar puts it, his son was “dead wrong” and “a lot of it’s his perception of what’s going on and not reality”.

Called It (More or Less)

Another Safe Prediction for 2014 is coming true.

A Democrat congressman, senator, or governor will be found to have engaged in sexual misconduct; the MFM will protect him per Standard Operating Procedure unless defending him becomes politically untenable.

And now, Congressman Alan Grayson (D-Florida), the uncouth braying loudmouth who runs down people in his car and is a massive hero to the progressive left… allegedly smacked his wife around.

A judge has granted a temporary protective injunction against U.S. Rep. Alan Grayson after his wife filed paperwork accusing the Orlando congressman of shoving and injuring her during an incident this past weekend.

Sexual Misconduct/Domestic violence… they both go into the ‘War on Womyn’ hypocrisy file. Besides which, he supports unlimited abortion and free birth control, so by the usual standards of the Democrats, he’s a hero no matter how many women he abuses.

Update: In 2012, Alan Grayson falsely accused his Republican opponent of “beating his wife.”

Update (from Jeff): Grayson denies having abused Lolita Grayson. Let’s coin an appropriate phrase, shall we?. “I BELIEVE YOU, LOLITA!”

2012 unemployment numbers: the next Obamascandal?

We know that the Obama administration lied to America during the 2012 election, about Benghazi. And about “If you like your plan you can keep it”, and many other matters, such as the fact that the IRS was helping to stifle Obama’s grass-roots opposition.

Now the New York Post alleges that the declining unemployment rate (announced in the last few weeks of the election) was faked.

It looks like lower-level employees did it; probably tough to blame it on Obama directly. But that touches on a classic ethical question. If the guy at the top is kept in a bubble by people who cheat and lie extensively on his behalf (and don’t usually tell him), is he culpable? At what point?

Also, how much election-year lying does it take to de-legitimize a Presidential election? (If, or since, he only won by giving people false information.) Did President Obama reach that point in 2012?

What difference does it make – that Hillary works for Goldman-Sachs?

In the last week, Hillary made $400,000 from Goldman-Sachs.

I’m not certain that’s money going to her personally, but it seems likely. It would be interesting to see what she takes in campaign contributions also.

Goldman-Sachs is a top political donor. Although they favored Romney in 2012, they favored President Obama even more in 2008. And they were rewarded hugely when Obama sealed the bailouts that President Bush began; not just the money funneled to Goldman via the AIG – TARP bailouts, but also the Dodd-Frank bill that guarantees Goldman future bailouts, the Federal Reserve’s general money-printing, etc.

Goldman is also the single largest backer of Sen. Chuck Schumer (D). The corrupt Jon Corzine (D) was a former top Goldman employee, as was Bush’s Treasury secretary (Hank Paulsen).

So these guys get their way with both parties, and internationally to boot. They are near the heart of the Big Government – Big Banking nexus (that isn’t capitalism).

Is Rielle’s apology real?

Posted by Jeff (ILoveCapitalism) at 11:03 am - October 15, 2013.
Filed under: Annoying Celebrities,Democratic Scandals,Life

Rielle Hunter admits wrongdoing, in moral language for her affair with John Edwards:

“For years I was so viciously attacked by the media and the world that I felt like a victim. I now realize that the attacks are actually beside the point. The point is: I behaved badly.”

Hunter apologized for her “wrong, selfish behavior,” admitting that she did not consider the “scope” of her actions when she became involved with Edwards in 2006 and how it “could hurt so many people.” She specifically apologized for the pain she inflicted on Elizabeth Edwards, who died of breast cancer in 2010.

“I hurt Elizabeth and her kids. I hurt her family. I hurt John’s family. I hurt people that knew Elizabeth. I hurt people who didn’t know Elizabeth but loved her from afar. I hurt people who gave their hard earned dollars to a campaign — a cause they believed in,” she wrote. “I hurt people who are married and believe in marriage. Many of these people have let me know that I hurt them. Unfortunately, I was not thinking about anyone but myself. I was selfish. I fell in love with John Edwards and wanted to be with him and that desire trumped everything else. “

I’m remarking on it because the no-responsibility, no-moral language, no-admission, “I’m sorry if YOU got offended by me; what am I supposed to do?” non-apology has become such a staple of modern culture. And this appears to be the opposite.

On the cynical side: Hunter is trying to sell her book right now. But if we (as a culture) have reached the point where wrong-doers finally have to give convincing apologies if they want to make news and sell books…I don’t know, it might be positive? Should we hope it gets trendy?

Anthony Weiner: Poster Boy for narcissism

I know this clip is everywhere today, but it’s everywhere for a reason: Weiner’s angry cluelessness is almost too appalling for words.

YouTube Preview Image

It shows one of life’s classic moral confrontations.

  • The normal person (“normal” just meaning, “takes for granted that there are norms of personal behavior”) expresses a viewpoint like: There are norms; you are aware that you violated them when you repeatedly betrayed and humiliated your wife with your deviance, right? I’m not judging you, you can go home and have a good life, but you really don’t belong in the public eye. Have a nice life, but please stop bothering us here in the public square.
  • While the malignant narcissist expresses a viewpoint like: How DARE you tell me that I don’t belong in the public eye, being adored (e.g., voted for – and given power)?! You small person, you coward, you ignoramus, you self-appointed judge, you [insert names of choice]!

Hat tip, Michelle Malkin.

Making sense of Syria

Why would President Obama want to commit U.S. forces, basically to help al Qaeda (with the occasional cannibal among them) in a Syrian civil war? What is the compelling U.S. national interest?

I’ve noticed something odd in the administration’s arguments for attacking Syria. They emphasize that chemical weapons were used, but on the crucial dispute over “who did it”, they offer almost nothing beyond mere assertions. (One example here.) It’s almost as if the administration has not wanted people to stop and think about Syria.

I am still keeping an open mind, that the administration’s version of events in Syria could be true. But, for sake of argument, here are some articles giving reason to question it:

It may be worth considering “who benefits” from Obama attacking Syria. Reports say that Saudi Arabia backs the rebels (although I am not sure why they do, unless it’s part of their complicated dance with Russia over the future of OPEC and world energy). Wouldn’t it be ironic, if the Obama administration is acting at the Saudis’ behest?

But I must admit that Obama has finally done something right, in seeking Congress’ authorization to attack Syria.

I think it would be a great mistake for Congress, and especially for the GOP, to authorize in haste – before the many serious, open questions about Syria have been answered to the public’s satisfaction. I do not agree with Speaker Boehner, yet, on supporting a U.S. attack on Syria.

FROM THE COMMENTS: mixitup reminds us that, actually, Obama himself benefits from his attacking Syria. How? “Benghazi, IRS scandal, NSA scandal, gun running scandal [ed: Fast And Furious], unemployment, sad economy…are off the front pages…”

UPDATE: Michael Synder (the Economic Collapse Blog) suggests that the Syrian crisis could really be about which powers get to build pipelines where, to sell whose natural gas to Europe.

I rejected “pipeline thinking” in debates over the wars of a decade ago (Afghanistan, Iraq) – because U.S. security interests were a good-enough explanation for those wars. Again, Syria in 2013 is different. With U.S., NATO, Israeli and even Saudi security *not* obviously at stake in Syria, one may as well start wondering about other explanations for the crisis.

What ARE the aims of Obama’s foreign policy?

Victor Davis Hanson published a memorable piece in the National Review last week entitled “America as Pill Bug.”  The pill bug or the roly-poly bug is one that turns itself into a ball when it feels threatened.  Hanson writes:

That roly-poly bug can serve as a fair symbol of present-day U.S. foreign policy, especially in our understandable weariness over Iraq, Afghanistan, and the scandals that are overwhelming the Obama administration.

On August 4, U.S. embassies across the Middle East simply closed on the basis of intelligence reports of planned al-Qaeda violence. The shutdown of 21 diplomatic facilities was the most extensive in recent American history.

Yet we still have over a month to go before the twelfth anniversary of the attacks on September 11, 2001, an iconic date for radical Islamists.

Such preemptive measures are no doubt sober and judicious. Yet if we shut down our entire public profile in the Middle East on the threat of terrorism, what will we do when more anti-American violence arises? Should we close more embassies for more days, or return home altogether?

Hanson makes an excellent point about the way the Obama administration’s closure of embassies is likely to be viewed in the Arab world and around the globe.  Although, as Jeff pointed out in a post last week, the administration may have ulterior motives–by trying to create a distraction–by closing the embassies in this manner, the reality is that the interpretation of the administration’s actions by our international foes is likely to proceed in a manner similar to that Hanson envisions in his article.

Hanson looks at the example of Libya and Syria to illustrate that the administration’s “lead from behind” strategy is not working, and that it appears to be counterproductive:

Instead, the terrorists are getting their second wind, as they interpret our loud magnanimity as weakness — or, more likely, simple confusion. They increasingly do not seem to fear U.S. retaliation for any planned assaults. Instead, al-Qaeda franchises expect Americans to adopt their new pill-bug mode of curling up until danger passes.

Our enemies have grounds for such cockiness. President Obama promised swift punishment for those who attacked U.S. installations in Benghazi and killed four Americans. So far the killers roam free. Rumors abound that they have been seen publicly in Libya.

Instead of blaming radical Islamist killers for that attack, the Obama reelection campaign team fobbed the assault off as the reaction to a supposedly right-wing, Islamophobic videomaker. That yarn was untrue and was greeted as politically correct appeasement in the Middle East.

All these Libyan developments took place against a backdrop of “lead from behind.” Was it wise for American officials to brag that the world’s largest military had taken a subordinate role in removing Moammar Qaddafi — in a military operation contingent on approval from the United Nations and the Arab League but not the U.S. Congress?

No one knows what to do about the mess in Syria. But when you do not know what to do, it is imprudent to periodically lay down “red lines.” Yet the administration has done just that to the Bashar al-Assad regime over the last two years.

Hanson sees the Obama administration’s foreign policy as a disastrous replay of the Carter doctrine, once again illustrating Glenn Reynolds’ frequent observation that a replay of Jimmy Carter is simply the “best-case scenario” for Obama.

While I believe Hanson is right in his characterization of the big picture and the likely consequences of Obama foreign policy, I’d differ from him in seeing Obama as being as feckless and weak as Carter.  I’d maintain that Carter’s foreign policy was guided by a number of naive precepts about the nature of the world.  At least during the years of his presidency, I’d contend that Carter “meant well” in the way the phrase is commonly used to describe a hopelessly incompetent bumbler who seems incapable of recognizing his own shortcomings.  Likewise, early in the Obama administration, Tammy Bruce started referring to Obama as Urkel, the nerdy, awkward, inept kid from the TV show “Family Matters” who had an uncanny ability to mess up almost everything he touched.  That certainly is one narrative for what Obama is doing in the world of foreign policy, but I’m not sure it is the right one.

As I contemplate Obama foreign policy, though, particularly in the Middle East, I find myself thinking more and more that although incompetence might be the simplest explanation, it might not be the best or the right one.  I see no good intentions in the administration’s domestic policy, so why should its foreign policy be exempt from charges that it is motivated more by malevolence to the United States and its role in history than by a supposed set of “liberal” ideals?

This is an administration that seems bent on alienating all of our historical allies as quickly as possible, while taking it easy on our geopolitical foes.  Obama seems to want our allies to view us as unreliable and untrustworthy while making sure our enemies view us as weak, indecisive, and either unable or unwilling to use force to protect our interests or to enforce our stated policy goals.  If there is a better explanation of the administration’s ultimate foreign policy goals, I’d sure like to know what it might be.

 

What’s with all this talk about a terrorist attack?

In 2008, certain liberals told me face-to-face that electing a brown-skinned President (Obama) would make the terrorist threat recede, by making the rest of the world like America and feel closer to us.

And in 2012, the Obama administration told us that al Qaeda had been “decimated” and “the War on Terror is over”.

So, why all this public talk of a coming terrorist attack? Is it real, or a distraction from other issues? It doesn’t smell right to me, for several reasons.

One reason is, the public spectacle. I can’t remember the Bush administration closing almost two dozen U.S. embassies. Or them having Congressional leaders disclose intelligence and raise public alarm over a short-term threat, which is usually counter-productive because it tips off the attackers about how much we know. (I except the Iraq war buildup since it was a different animal, a multi-decade debate over a threat that everyone usually conceded to be long-term.)

For another reason, the timing seems odd. We’ve just had bombshells in the Benghazi scandal. It is very convenient, right now, for the Obama administration to NOT have to talk about them. What bombshells?

Speaking of Benghazi, some suggest that Susan Rice may simply be trying now for a Benghazi do-over, erring on the side of caution. (Wait…so…Benghazi really was an al Qaeda attack?)

So, it’s hard to know. But if I’ve misunderstood the situation – if there is a serious terrorist threat here – Please feel free to set me straight in the comments.

LA Times forgets to indicate that Bob Filner is a Democrat

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 6:36 pm - July 31, 2013.
Filed under: California politics,Democratic Scandals,Media Bias

In its article on the latest lame excuse from the Democratic Mayor of California’s second largest city, the LA Times leaves out the so-called* man’s partisan affiliation:

The attorney for San Diego Mayor Bob Filner said in a letter the city may be liable for damages in a sexual harassment lawsuit because Filner never received mandated training about such behavior.

“The city has a legal obligation to provide sexual harassment training to all management level employees,” wrote attorney Harvey Berger in a letter requesting the city pay Filner’s legal bills in defense of the lawsuit filed by his former communications director.

Annotated Screen Capture: (more…)

Of Shiny Objects & Squirrels (American Media in the Obama Era)

Perhaps inspired by having to watch over an hour of CNN while doing cardio on a day when I was reading David Freddoso’s Spin Masters: How the Media Ignored the Real News and Helped Reelect Barack Obama, I decided to create this new category.

Despite recent revelations in the IRS/Tea Party scandal, Wolf Blitzer, Erin Burnett and Anderson Cooper were more interested in rehashing the Zimmerman trail, replaying footage of a train wreck in Spain and talking about the sexual escapades of a New York Democrat.  None made any mention of Obama appointee, William Wilkins, the IRS Chief Counsel or his meeting with the president at the White House on April 23, 2012.

And it wasn’t just this and  other scandals swirling about the Obama administration. The president delivered a much-anticipated speech on the economy yesterday. And CNN, at least when I was watching, gave short (if any) shrift to that. Just one day after Obama made his remarks.

Guess they just got distracted by the footage of the train crash and the salacious nature of the Democratic mayoral candidate’s latest indiscretion.

Why Barack Obama Loves Anthony Weiner

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 9:52 pm - July 24, 2013.
Filed under: Democratic Scandals,Media Bias

Screen Capture from Drudge Report at 6:45 PST (07.24.13):

Screen shot 2013-07-24 at 6.45.33 PM

The tribulations of the New York Democrat and the birth of some baby in England, not to mention Gerlado’s shirtless picture are drowning out coverage of Obama’s anemic economic speech and new details emerging in the IRS scandal.

Stories the legacy media is missing (while focusing on Mr. Weiner, Geraldo and the baby):

When Obama loses even the Germans…

Posted by Jeff (ILoveCapitalism) at 8:57 pm - July 7, 2013.
Filed under: Democratic Scandals,Obama Watch

…this is what it looks like:

Protestor signs say that Obama is Stasi 2.0

Via Zero Hedge.

Edward Snowden: Pro or con?

Snowden continues to embarrass the U.S., especially the Obama administration.

He is threatening more leaks.

He has asked for asylum in Russia. Russia seems to be weirdly talking out of both sides of their mouths, as to whether they want him.

He has a statement, via Wikileaks:

On Thursday, President Obama declared before the world that he would not permit any diplomatic “wheeling and dealing” over my case. Yet now it is being reported that after promising not to do so, the President ordered his Vice President to pressure the leaders of nations from which I have requested protection to deny my asylum petitions.

This kind of deception from a world leader is not justice, and neither is the extralegal penalty of exile…

Bush says Snowden has damaged U.S. security, a viewpoint that I respect but don’t necessarily feel outrage about, since the surveillance programs are bigger now (than what I previously supported) and since, per the Washington Post at the link just given, U.S. officials are still lying about the extent of the programs.

Your view?

UPDATE: Snowden withdraws Russia request, is denied asylum by 9 countries, still looking at some others.