It’s almost sad when a Democrat Sham Marriage falls apart. And by almost sad I mean hilarious. (So is Huma free to date or is Hillary the jealous type?)
There are emails that describe a donor angling for seats next to Obama at a roundtable discussion and one about assigning seats for donors at a White House state dinner. In one, a major contributor from Maryland who had cancer was bumped from a seat next to the president because another, more prolific giver was attending the same event.
Proof that Democrats are exactly the greedy a-holes we always suspected they were.
There aren’t enough treacly show tunes in the world to cover this up.
Here’s a more appropriate show tune for our Democrat friends.
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.
By not electing the lecherous creep David Vitter to Governor of Louisiana, Republicans demonstrated that they, at least, will not elect a bad man to higher office just for the sake of clinging to power.
Now, for some contrast:
- California Democrat Gavin Newsom, who had an extra-marital affair with the wife of one of his aides, is strongly favored to win his party’s nomination for Governor and hence the Governor’s office in that one-party state.
- Massachusetts Democrat Ted Kennedy, re-elected to office six times despite being complicit in the death of one of his aides and sexually assaulting a waitress at La Brasserie restaurant with fellow (also multiply-re-elected) Democrat creep, Chris Dodd of Massachusetts
- Massachusetts Democrat Gerry Studds, re-elected nine times after admitting that he molested a 16-year-old Congressional page.
- Massachusetts Democrat Barney Frank, allowed a boy-toy to run a prostitution business from his condo, fixed his boy-toy’s parking tickets, and later had an undisclosed relationship with an executive in a government eneterprise his committee was in charge of regulating. Also, re-elected.
- Bill Clinton, perpetrator of sexual assault on Juanita Broaddrick and Kathleen Willey; hero and scion of the Democrat Party.
Kathleen Kane, the Democrat Attorney General of Pennsylvania, was lauded in a 2013 Washington Post Puff Piece as a “Rising Star of the Democratic Party.”
The first woman and first Democrat elected to her position, Kane was a a rising star even before she took office earlier this year. She won more voters in 2012 than Obama and Sen. Bob Casey (D), and made national headlines when she refused to defend the state’s same-sex marriage ban in federal court last month. Kane has ruled out a run for governor in 2014, a smart move considering that Rep. Allyson Schwartz, a rising star in her own right, is already in the race. The smart money says that at some point, Kane’s name will be in the mix for Senate or governor.
So, where is this rising star of the Democrat Party today? Funny you should ask.
Facing criminal charges, relieved of her law license and threatened with removal by the Legislature, Pennsylvania’s attorney general seems to have decided that if she has to go, she’s going to take others down with her.
Since all three branches of state government began moving against her over the past year, Kathleen Kane has released hundreds of sexually explicit or otherwise crude emails that had been sent or received by current or former public officials on their government accounts.
The media and the Democrats have a pretty low bar for choosing their heroes.
96% of Detroit schoolkids test as “Not Proficient” in math. 93% are tested “Not Proficient” in reading. Taxpayers are spending $18,000 per student for the unionized, Government-run failure factories that are the Detroit Public Schools.
Detroit is the greatest success story in the history of the Democrat Party. A Republican hasn’t been elected mayor in over 50 years. Every progressive policy favored by Democrats … heavy regulation, heavy taxes on ‘the rich,’ a generous welfare system … has been enacted without opposition. The result, from the Democrat perspective, is a complete success. Detroit is a one-party, electoral lockbox. Detroit voted 98% for Obama in 2012.
Question: If the Government spent $36,000 or $72,000 per student… would it make any difference?
The front-runner for the Democrat presidential nomination thinks the brutal deaths of four Americans at the hands of Mohammedan terrorists is a big joke.
Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton appeared on NBC’s “The Late Show” with Stephen Colbert Tuesday night and joked about her time before the Benghazi Select Committee, as well as the HBO TV series “House of Cards.”
Colbert wished Clinton a happy birthday, which was Monday, and asked if she had done “anything special like a have a celebration for 11 hours?”
Clinton laughed and told Colbert she had slept late and had “tried to get away with as little as I could get away with.”
The Democrat Frontrunner is similarly dismissive of the Veterans Administration scandal, wherein thousands of veterans died while awaiting treatment as VA bureaucrats created phony waiting lists to cover up their incompetence.
The former secretary of state suggested in an interview late last week that the controversy which shook the VA last year was overblown, and Republicans used it to serve their own agenda.
“It’s not been as widespread as it has been made out to be,” Clinton said Friday on MSNBC’s “The Rachel Maddow Show” when asked about the scandal and how she would fix the VA.
She might as well, it’s not as though there’s any kind of watchdog organization with a duty to report impartially on the actions of Government; perhaps some sort of organization that would investigate these things and relay the results of their investigation to the public in the form of publications or informational broadcasts of some sort.
Instead we get The Narrative; “The accomplished and brilliant future First Woman president defies the partisan attacks of Republicans like a brave sparrow flying against the wind.”
A Michigan Democrat would be in a rather interesting pickle if he were a Republican.
An aide to Rep. Sander Levin (D-MI) was arrested in Baltimore last week for allegedly beating his male lover with a shovel, CQ Roll Call reports.
CQ Roll Call, which obtained the police report, details allegations that Levin staffer
Tim Foster beat an unnamed, 39 year old black man, identified as Foster’s boyfriend, with a small black and red shovel just after midnight on Oct. 8. The beating left the victim hospitalized with wounds to his upper back, neck and torso.
Foster put his boyfriend in a choke hold and stated, “I want to kill you. Die dirty faggy,” the man later told police.
I am sure this is no big deal. Unlike Republicans, Democrats are never responsible for the actions of their paid staff.
Then again, “Die, Dirty Faggy?”
By astonishing coincidence, every Democrat had exactly the same reaction to Hillary’s Meet the Press Interview.
— Karen Finney (@finneyk) September 27, 2015
— Brad Woodhouse (@woodhouseb) September 27, 2015
— Jennifer Granholm (@JenGranholm) September 27, 2015
— Hilary Rosen (@hilaryr) September 28, 2015
— Buffy Wicks (@BuffyWicks) September 27, 2015
This is exactly how socialized health care works in the real world. Bureaucrats spend money on themselves; f— the sick people.
The inspector general of the Department of Veterans Affairs has opened an investigation into why the director of the Philadelphia regional benefits office was given a $288,000 “relocation payment” to move from Washington, D.C. last year.
Diana Rubens was awarded that hefty sum to make the 140-mile move from her previous job in Washington, D.C. where she served as the agency’s deputy undersecretary for field operations.
Here’s a picture of the bureaucrat who required 5x the median American income to move 140 miles.
Are you thinking what I’m thinking?
The fact that Hillary Clinton illegally used a private email server for her official business so that she could hide and delete any emails that would reveal shameful or illegal behavior will not stop her from becoming the Democrat nominee or even president.
This descent into lawlessness is not a new thing for Democrats. B.J. Clinton was also above the law. Lying under oath? No big deal. Al Gore’s illegal fundraising? “No controlling legal authority.” Ted Kennedy drove a woman into the drink and left her to drown… and was re-elected six times. Charlie Rangel violated tax law and received absolutely no punishment for it. Dem Congressman Alcee Hastings was impeached on bribery and corruption charges, and not only still serves in Congress but was co-chair of Hillary’s 2008 Presidential campaign.
They really are above the law.
Not only do Democrats not care about lawlessness when it’s one of their own doing it, but under Obama, they have discovered that completely disregarding the law is the best way to force their agenda. You really can’t blame them for embracing a strategy that works.
It’s not like the Republicans are going to stop them.
James O’Keefe explains how her cronies engaged in (what judges have called) prosecutorial misconduct:
They apparently mis-used an anti-terrorism statute and leaked privileged material seized from O’Keefe, in throwing the book at him (one crony literally threw a book at O’Keefe, on-camera) for his having dared to investigate
Sen. Mary Landrieu (D – LA) the Princess. O’Keefe has filed ethics complaints.
When I read about Obama-bundler Terry Bean’s arrest for sodomizing a 15-year-old boy, [And don't tell me a 15 year old isn't a child when Obamacare is claiming that 25 year olds are children and the anti-gun left is claiming 22 year olds are children] I did not know that he was not just a Democrat activist but also a founder of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC). Nor did I realize that Bean is 66 years old and his boyfriend (who was also arrested) is 25.
[BTW: The comments on Dan Savage’s blog are very much “so what” about the age difference; apparently it’s “heteronormative” to be repulsed by a 66 year old creeper molesting teenaged boys.] [And yes, intergenerational hetero relationships also gross people out.]
Anyway, I looked up Terry Bean’s Wikipedia page; figuring such a prominent Democrat with a massive ego probably has to have his own wikipedia page and figured it would list his proud accomplishments; founding two
Democrat front operations gay rights organizations, hob-nobbing with Democrat politicians, taking on all of the appropriate causes. Like all good left-wing activists, he blamed Republicans for AIDS.
Bean decried the failure of the Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush administrations to respond to the crisis and threw his fundraising muscle behind Bill Clinton’s candidacy in 1992, because of his promise to address the AIDS crisis. He said, “I have way too many friends who have just too few T-cells in their blood to be able to survive four more years of George Bush. This is the politics of survival.”
This creeper was apparently quite the Democrat hero.
Terry Bean has received many awards for his political activism over the years, including from the Equity Foundation, the Victory Fund, the Human Rights Campaign, and Basic Rights Oregon. Former Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski declared August 23, 2008, to be “Terry Bean Equality Day” in Oregon, in recognition for the work he has done on LGBT rights causes since the 1970s.
Reminds me of another gay activist hero, Larry Brinken.
Larry Brinkin, the iconic San Francisco gay activist who brought the nation’s first domestic partnership lawsuit in 1982, was arrested Friday on charges of possession and distribution of child pornography, police said.
[The San Francisco Board of Supervisors declared] the first seven days of February 2010 “Larry Brinkin Week” in honor of his advocacy.
So, why bring all of this up? Simple, the activist left is full of smug, self-righteous activists who need to be taken down a peg or two. Also, to understand the real agenda of the progressive left, you have to see the kind of people who are leaders in the progressive left, who are lauded by the progressive left, and realize how dark, evil, and creepy they are. And also be repulsed at how many others on the left are willing to defend them.
Once again, an activist on the gay left turns out to be a creepy pervert with an unhealthy interest in underage boys. [Hat Tip: Annie]
Bean, 66, a prominent gay rights activist and major Democratic Party fundraiser, was arrested at his home in Southwest Portland and booked into the Multnomah County Detention Center.
The indictment charges Bean with two counts of third-degree sodomy, a felony, and one count of third-degree sex abuse, a misdemeanor, police said.
The alleged incident involved a sexual encounter in Eugene with a 15-year-old boy.
Bean has been one of the state’s biggest Democratic donors and an influential figure in gay rights circles in the state. He helped found two major national political groups, the Human Rights Campaign and the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund, and has been a major contributor for several Democratic presidential candidates, including Barack Obama.
Bean’s Flickr account shows him talking with Obama at several events, posing with first lady Michelle Obama and numerous other political figures, including former President Bill Clinton.
Birds of a feather.
Reached for comment, Obama’s Safe School Czar replied, “I hope he used a condom.”*
No one in the Obama Administration has ever used a scatological pejorative to describe Hamas Leadership, ISIS Terrorists, the corrupt and brutal Government of Venezuela, or even the savages of Boko Haram. But the Prime Minister of Israel, on the other hand, was called a “Chicken[stuff]” by a “Senior Administration Official.”
Purely speculating here, but what are the odds that the reason the Administration and the State Department refuse to investigate who the ‘Senior Administration Official’ who made the Chicken[stuff] remark is because: 1. They know exactly who made the remark. 2. It’s Secretary of State John Kerry?
It’s not as though Mr. Kerry lacks a reputation for arrogance and referring to people using pejoratives. And when you read the remarks in context, it sure sounds like Stuff John Kerry Says.
A senior Obama administration official has described Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as a “chickenshit,” expressing the US president’s frustration with the Israeli leader.
“The thing about Bibi [Netanyahu] is, he’s a chickenshit,” the unnamed official told the Atlantic when asked about the foreign leader who seems to frustrate the White House the most.
The official added that the good thing about Netanyahu is that “he’s scared to launch wars,” and the bad thing about him is that “he won’t do anything to reach an accommodation with the Palestinians.”
“The only thing he’s interested in is protecting himself from political defeat… He’s got no guts,” the official said
Never mind the irony of an official calling someone a ‘chicken[stuff]‘ and then insisting on anonymity.
Indeed. Perhaps if the Obamacrats spent more time on their actual jobs and less time settling scores and going after their opponents…
As you may recall, the Democrat/Media machine spent much of 2012 hounding Mitt Romney for his tax returns. Senate Majority Leader Democrat Harry Reid even claimed he had inside info that Mitt Romney never paid any taxes. When Romney did finally release his tax returns, they showed nothing improper, only that he gave a lot more to charity than most people do; which the Democrats also said was a scandal.
“You’re really going to call police,” I said as he dialed 911. “OK. I’ll record this and I’ll leave.”
How are you liking the New Authoritarianism?
As expected, Democrat Terry McAuliffe has really sleazed up Virginia politics. In order to stop a Democrat legislator from resigning and giving the Republicans a majority in the Virginia State Senate — which would be a speed bump on the Democrats’ plans to implement Obamacare, raise taxes, and enact new gun control and anti-coal policies — the McAuliffe regime apparently offered to give the legislator’s daughter a job, perhaps even an appointment to the Federal bench. Now, it has come to light that Virginia Democrat Senator Mark Warner — who was easily winning his re-election campaign against anodyne establishment Republican Ed Gillespie — was also involved in attempts to bribe the legislator to stay.
The son of a former Virginia state senator has told federal investigators that U.S. Sen. Mark R. Warner discussed the possibility of several jobs, including a federal judgeship, for the senator’s daughter in an effort to dissuade him from quitting the evenly divided state Senate.
On June 6, three days before the state senator’s resignation became official, Warner called Puckett’s son, Joseph, and discussed an appointment to the federal bench as well as a potential corporate position for Martha Puckett Ketron, according to Joseph Puckett’s attorney, Charles E. “Chuck” James Jr. of Williams Mullen.
In the past, Democrats have shown a high tolerance for political sleaze within their own ranks, so this probably won’t tarnish Mark Warner’s prospects too much. It does point out, however, that for all the left’s keening about “white privilege” and “male privilege” the real privilege in our culture comes from being politically connected. Ordinary people do not have the access to easy, well-paid jobs that the friends and relations of the political class do.