Gay Patriot Header Image

Tim Kaine; Spokesman for the Idiocratic Party

If I understand correctly, Tim Kaine was so bad at the VP debate last night that even the Democrat-Media Complex is admitting he was terrible. (It’s OK for them to say a Republican won a meaningless debate; let’s them keep that fig leaf that they’re free of bias.)

What Tim Kaine did last night… the constant interruptions, the clownish demagoguery, the rehearsed attack lines, the unhinged ranting, 21 outright lies … a lot of people were comparing his obnoxious behavior to Jerome from Gotham.  Mike Pence, on the other hand, was playing the part of the serious politician giving his rehearsed answers like a reasonable grown-up.

Here’s the thing though, this is no longer a country that elects reasonable, adult politicians to the office of president. In 2012, the Republicans nominated a very reasonable adult with a record of solving the problems of large organizations. He lost because the Democrats were so successful in launching a waves of childish attacks on him. Mitt Romney tortured his family dog! Mitt Romney wants to put women in binders! Mitt Romney wants to outlaw tampons!

The stupid, childish attacks worked. And thus did America become an Idiocracy.

Tim Kaine not letting Mike Pence finish a sentence is straight out of the social justice warrior handbook; as seen when they refuse to let conservatives speak on college campuses. Tim Kaine’s use of straw men and dishonest talking points has been part of the Democrat playbook going back at least to Bill Clinton. He even through the transgendered’s a bone by referring himself as Hillary’s “right-hand person.”

Democrats will always lose an honest policy debate because they’re policies always … always … fail. (You’ll notice how Hillary isn’t talking very much about Obamacare on the campaign trail.) They have to make elections about name-calling and personal attacks because if elections become about agendas and Governing philosophies, Democrats lose.

And so, elections degenerate into name-calling and feigned outrage from zoftig beauty pageant winners. This is pure Idiocracy.

Voters that reward gutter politicians by electing them to office have no cause to complain about gutter politics.

Different Parties, Different Rules

Obama 2005:  President Bush should have gone to New Orleans after Katrina, and his failure to do so shows his indifference to the suffering of the victims.

“When the people of New Orleans and Gulf Coast extended their hand for help, help was not there. When people looked up from the rooftops, for too long they saw an empty sky. When the winds blew and the flood waters came, we learned for all of our wealth and our power, something wasn’t right with America. We can talk about what happened for a few days in 2005, and we should. We can talk about levies that couldn’t hold, about a FEMA that seem not just incompetent but paralyzed and powerless, about a president who only saw the people from a window on an airplane instead of down here on the ground, trying to provide comfort and aid.”

Obama 2008: The bargain that any president strikes with is, you give me this office and in turn my, fears, doubts, insecurities, foibles, need for sleep, family life, vacations, leisure is gone.” (Yes, Hilariously, King Putt promised he would give up vacation and leisure activities if elected president.) 

Obama 2016: Interrupts his Martha’s Vineyard vacation for a Democrat fundraiser, but not to travel to Louisiana after massive flooding. The Obama Administration, however, has stepped up and ordered relief workers not to engage in racial or other discrimination because that’s of course, the first thing you worry about when thousands of people have lost their homes, jobs, and livelihoods.

“In a 16-page guidance issued Tuesday, the Obama administration, led by the Justice Department, warned Louisiana recipients of federal disaster assistance against engaging in ‘unlawful discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin (including limited English proficiency)’”

Obama’s Apologists: The president isn’t going to Louisiana because he “detests theatrical politics.” (Really, they want us to believe the president who staged a photo–op with a bunch of faux-doctors in white lab coats to sell ObamaCare hates theatrical politics.)

Really, though, Obama supporters don’t give a damn about Obama’s response to the disaster, and they never really cared about Bush’s expect to the extent they could use the latter as a political cudgel against him. Leftists care about power, and nothing else

Where’s Hillary?  Can’t do Louisiana, too busy shaking down big donors for money.

Where’s Trump? Oh, he went down to New Orleans with his running mate to check things out and hand out relief supplies. And the Democrat Media Complex has the nerve to caution him against “seeming craven, using crises for political gain.”

One cannot even.


I Take It Back

This is the best Democrat Convention ever.

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.

YouTube Preview Image

This Is What Denial Looks Like

Posted by V the K at 9:00 am - July 18, 2016.
Filed under: Dishonest Democrats

Hillary’s Husband and AIDS

Posted by V the K at 6:45 pm - June 20, 2016.
Filed under: Dishonest Democrats

There’s a lot of bitter angry gay people who are bitter and angry about… well, life… but also bitter and hateful toward Ronald Reagan because he was president at the height of the AIDS epidemic and, according to bitter angry gay people, “didn’t talk about AIDS.” Because Ronald Reagan’s magic words would have cured AIDS, or something.

OK, so if Ronald Reagan was a bad, bad man for not saying the word AIDS until 1985. How bad was Bill Clinton for distributing AIDS-tainted blood for profit.

‘Steve was one of over two thousand Canadians infected with HIV, the AIDS virus,’ Dolly claims. The source was traced to bad blood collected from inmates in Arkansas’ prisons.

Inmates were paid $7 a pint for their blood and ‘Billy’s cronies then sold the prisoners’ blood to some blood brokers for $50 per pint’.

When it was discovered that the blood was tainted, prisons instituted a ‘screening process’ which was merely a ‘screening clerk’ who was selling ‘the right to bleed’ to prisoners.

Infected prisoners continued to sell their blood as long as they bribed the screening clerk. Instead of the $7 fee, some received drugs.

Arkansas prisons were banned from selling blood when government officials learned that the bad blood was coming from the state.

Getting around that ban, dummy corporations were set up in other states to purchase the bad blood and then resell it.

All of that infected blood went to Canada, where between 8,000 and 10,000 people died.

Little Rock journalist Suzi Parker took on Clinton and his role in the tainted blood scandal in an exposé. She quit her investigation when she started receiving threatening phone calls in the middle of the night, writes Dolly.

Call me crazy, but it seems like knowingly distributing AIDS-tainted blood for profit might be somewhat worse than not saying the word “AIDS” in public at some earlier date.

In fairness, the source for this information is a tell-all book from one of Bill Clinton’s former mistresses. However, the Arkansas Blood Scandal was a real thing, and Clinton business and political associates were involved. It would be great if there were some group of people whose job it was to investigate these kind of things and report them impartially to the public.

Even if true, it would never matter to the LGBT Democrat Left. Bill Clinton is a Democrat, and Democrats are “gay allies,” so no criticism, ever.

Neglecting the Basics of Government

If you ever wondered why places that are one-party Democrat fiefdoms (most rust-belt cities, for example) are so dysfunctional and miserable, John di Leo offers an explanation, that I think is in part on point, but misses another part. It’s a long article, but I’ll try and excerpt the main point.

In today’s case, we see the Left react to a very real problem – the downgrading of a city’s bond rating, which means that all new borrowing will become much more costly for the city than it was before – by identifying other very real problems – a plethora of empty buildings – without any hint that he knows why they’re empty or what steps are needed to fill them, without recognizing that these are all just more symptoms of other, deeper problems.

It is indeed the chicken-or-egg problem, on the grand scale.  Chicago has lost about two-sevenths of its population since its high-water mark in the 1950s.  Rather than seeming to care why the city is bleeding residents, it just looks on it as yet another challenge, not as a symptom of something else.

Ask the very same question of a conservative, and you would receive a very different answer.

Why was our bond rating downgraded again; what does this mean to us?

“That’s a softball question,” a conservative would reply. “it was downgraded because a city that’s been bleeding both population and jobs for generations, plagued with high crime, a greedy leviathan, and a welfare state population locked in stasis, is simply unsustainable. The idea that there’s enough duct tape in America to keep this wreck together indefinitely is obviously fiction.”

“But if you want a hardball question,” the conservative would continue, “ask how to solve it.”

Di Leo correctly identifies a symptom — the refusal of Democrats to govern in accordance with common sense principles of economics and the role of Government in providing basic services. But he doesn’t get into why Democrats govern that way.

Certainly, some of it is because politicians generally and Democrat politicians especially are corrupt. But even the ones who aren’t in it for the graft have motivations that are at odds with good governance. It’s not simply that they don’t grasp basic economics or the basic role of Government,  it’s that theygo into Government with the goal of imposing a Utopian Ideology on everyone else, and being lauded for it by their peers in the media.

While Democrats go on endless crusades to “Fight Climate Change,” outlaw the private ownership of firearms, and ensure transgender bathroom equality… they neglect the necessary and unglamorous work of Government.  I guess because People and Esquire don’t do fawning profiles of politicians who balance the budgets, fix the streets, and clean the deadweight out of state and municipal bureaucracies.

By the way, the Illinois “Human Rights Commission” has fined a Christian business owner $80,000 for declining to participate in a gay wedding.  Freedom of speech and freedom of religious conscience are apparently not Human Rights, as far as the state of Illinois is concerned.

Hillary deceives, too few notice.

Surely we’ve all known since the 1990s that when a Clinton speaks, one must parse the precise words assiduously and meticulously.

Two days ago, the former Secretary of State appeared on CBS’s “Face The Nation” where host John Dickerson interviewed her about a range of issues. At about the 13-minute mark (sorry, in my browser, the time-scroll thingy doesn’t show where you are, so you may have to suffer through some asshole going on about how great he is for the first part), Dickerson asks about Brian Pagliano which introduces the email topic. At about 13:30, in response to his question about the classification of emails on her server, in toto she says the following (my emphasis added):

I also know that there were reports today about the hundreds of officials and the thousands of emails that they were sending back and forth that have been been looked at and classified retroactively. This really raises serious questions about this whole process I think. Colin Powell summed it up well when he was told that some of his emails from more than 10 years ago were going to be retroactively classified; he called it an absurdity. So I’m hoping that we’ll get through this and then everybody can take a hard look at the inter-agency disputes and the arguments over retroactive classification. Remember I’m the one who asked that all of my emails be made public. I’ve been more transparent than anybody I can think of in public life. But it’s also true that when something is made public everybody from across the government gets to weigh in, and that’s what’s happening here, and we need to get it sorted out and then take action from there.

Dickerson then moves on to Libya and doesn’t return to the topic of the emails.

Notice what she’s not saying. She’s not saying that the information was retroactively classified, but that the emails were retroactively classified. If you’re paying close attention, you’ll note that this is a meaningless tautology. Of course the emails weren’t classified until after the fact… Who would have classified them when they were sent?

As background, when sending email via the secured systems used to house classified information (at least in the DoD, with which I’m familiar, but I’m betting State has a similar system), every time you hit send, you’re prompted to select a classification for the email. Is it Top Secret? Secret? Confidential? Is it SCI? Or is it Unclass? If so, is it FOUO? Does it contain PII (personally identifiable information, such as social security numbers, etc.)? Depending on which box you tick (and you can’t send without ticking a box… the message will remain in your Outbox), markings are automatically affixed to the message, i.e., ‘the email gets marked classified‘. Naturally if you’re sending emails from an unsecured system, these procedure doesn’t exist, and at that time, the email isn’t designated as ‘classified’.

If, say, four years later, as a result of a FOIA request, someone who knows about classification goes through and reads this “unclassified” email, guess what he’s going to do: “Holy shit! This email should be classified!” Suddenly, he’s ‘retroactively’ classifying emails. Emails containing information, by the way, that was quite likely classified at the time it was sent, but that wasn’t marked as such because the careless individual who chose to send it via unclassified (and therefore unregulated) means didn’t slap a classification on it Herself. But then, why would she do that, and raise the obvious issues at the time?

To suggest that all this was just someone going back (overzealously, and likely with malice of course) and slapping classified markings over stuff that was completely innocuous at the time it was sent is completely insincere and meant (as so much Madame Secretary and her husband says) to throw the credulous off her track.

It’s like Bill Cosby saying, ‘Yea sure. She complains now that she’s woken up. But she didn’t say anything about it at the time!’

Parse the words… remember, we were told that none of the info was classified.. Then it wasn’t marked classified. This is just the next step in the evolution.

The arrogance is astounding, but only persists because there’s a history of getting away with it.

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from HQ)

The Dumb Leftist Fear Meme

Apparently, the Talking Point has gone out to all organs of the left to promote the “Republicans are running on FEAR” meme.

This ‘Fear’ rhetoric is a back-handed way for the left — people so frightened by words that they require Speech Codes and Safe Spaces — to call Republicans cowards, and portray themselves as brave for standing strong in their politically correct Groupthink. The meme is summed up by this has-been, washed-up blogger desperately trying to suck up to the Democrat Left:

“Fear is what the Republican Party’s selling this election. Well, every election to be precise, but this time around it’s pretty much taken over all the messaging: fear of immigrants, fear of refugees, fear of liberals, fear of Hillary Clinton, fear of socialism and communism and all kinds of imaginary stuff that goes bump in the Republican night. And above all, fear of Muslims. Since fear’s closest cousin is hatred, we’ll be getting a serving of that, too, but it’s really just a thin layer on top of a rich base of pure fear.”

The thesis that all of the “fears” raised by Republicans are illegitimate would only be (somewhat) valid if there had been no Islamist terror attacks under Obama, that there were no Islamist terror organizations threatening future terror attacks against Americans, and is there were no possible way that terrorists would enter the USA (or France) under a refugee, visa, or immigration program.

Look, just because I fasten my seatbelt when I drive, does that mean I’m “living in fear” of other drivers? Does the fact that I wash my hands after handling raw chicken mean that I’ve “given into fear” of Salmonella? No, it means I am taking common sense measures to protect myself against tangible dangers.

Securing the border, making sure the people we let into the country aren’t going to murder Americans… these aren’t crazy, fear-driven ideas. They are utterly rational and common sense. And so is Donald Trump’s idea of suspending immigration from hotbeds of Islamist terror until we get a better handle on how to manage it.

Irrational fear would be something like, oh I don’t know, suspending Constitutional Rights to deny law-abiding Americans the right to own a gun.


Democrats More Hostile to Due Process More Than Terrorism

Posted by V the K at 8:07 pm - December 15, 2015.
Filed under: Dishonest Democrats,Gun Control

The GOP generated a bill that would have prevented suspected terrorists from buying guns while protecting the Constitutional Right of Due Process.

Under Republican legislation sponsored by Senator John Cornyn, the federal government may delay the sale of a firearm to someone on the watch list for up to 72 hours. During that time, if the government can show a judge there’s “probable cause”–the same legal standard used to obtain a search warrant–that the individual is plotting terrorism, then the gun sale is denied outright.

It was blocked by Senate Democrats, because they really want this issue on the table television to distract their idiot voters from Obama’s failed terrorism policies.

Also, this is what happened when Republican Congressman Trey Gowdy asked an Obamacrat Apparatchik about Due Process protections and the “No Fly” list.

“What process is afforded a U.S. citizen, not someone who’s overstayed a visa, not someone who crossed a border without permission, but an American citizen—what process is currently afforded an American citizen before they go on that list?” Gowdy asked DHS secretary Kelli Ann Burriesci at a House Oversight Committee hearing.

“I’m sorry, um, there’s not a process afforded the citizen prior to getting on the list,” Burriesci said.

Nor do Democratics want there to be.

Democrat Left Narratives on Terror Always Turn Out to be False

Posted by V the K at 8:08 am - December 10, 2015.
Filed under: Dishonest Democrats

The Democrat Left initiatlly denied that the Benghazi terror attack was a terror attack. The Narrative was that it was a protest over an obscure YouTube video that got out of hand. The Democrat Left stuck with this Narrative even though they knew it was false until it became untenable.

Prior to the Paris attacks, the Democrat Left scoffed at the idea that ISIS and other terror groups would use the “Refugee Crisis” as a Trojan horse to spread terrorism. “Terrorism is what these people are running away from,” they claimed. But we now know that the ringleaders of the Paris attacks recruited a team from “refugees” in Hungary. So much for that narrative.

After San Bernadino, the first narrative pushed by Democrat Media Operatives (f.k.a journalists) was that this could have been an incident of “workplace violence,” exactly like when Nadal Hasan shot up an Army based and killed 13 people while shouting “Allahu Akhbar.” Nothing to do with Islam, just a disgruntled employee offended by a Christmas Party. But then it turned out his wife was a secret jihadi who had somehow slipped through the Obama Administration’s rigorous terror screening despite providing a false address. So, then the DMO’s pushed the narrative that he had become “radicalized” through her. As though the real enemy wasn’t Radical Islam (a term Democrats refuse to utter) but heterosexual marriage. But now it turns out even that narrative is false because Syed Farook was reaching out to jihadist organizations before he married, and his mother belongs to a radical jihadi outfit. So, in a desperate Hail Mary pass, the Democrats are trying to make this into a gun control issue by spinning yet another false narrative about the No Fly list.

The response of the Democrat Left and their Media Operatives, after every terrorist attack, has been to spin a narrative that minimizes the connection of the attack to Islam and their preferred policy of mass Islamic immigration. The actual facts of each incident never turn out to align with reality. How, then, can we trust that the rest of the Democrat Left Terror Narrative (DLTN) is true? How can we trust them when they see “Islam has absolutely nothing to do with terrorism,” or “only the tiniest sliver of Muslims support terrorism,” or “the solution to terror is to give more Muslims jobs.” Are these facts, or is this just wish-casting in service of a false narrative? Are these good faith errors of analysis, or is this all part of a scheme to create a narrative more conducive to passing the agenda Democrats want to advance?

One of the factors behind Donald Trump’s popularity is the impression that he is telling the truth, or at least, saying things that are closer to the truth than the politically correct pablum coming from the Democrats and their Media Operatives.


A Cupid Stunt in Missouri

Posted by V the K at 5:44 pm - December 7, 2015.
Filed under: Dishonest Democrats

Democrats may not have any practical solutions to offer our country’s challenges, but they excel at snark and divisive political stunts.  A dingbat Missouri legislator has decided to propose a law that she says will make getting a gun as difficult as getting an abortion. And, no, she does not mean that minors will be able to buy guns without parental consent at taxpayer expense.

“Since restrictive policies regarding a constitutionally protected medical procedure are the GOP’s legislative priority each year, it makes sense that their same restrictions apply to those who may commit gun violence. Our city mayors and law enforcement drastically need help in saving lives,” Newman said in a statement to St. Louis magazine.

[Pulls out Constitution. Finds nothing in it about Medical procedures.]

I wonder if someone will filibuster her bill, and then run for governor.

I’d say she should stick to making sandwiches, but I bet she sucks at that, too.

The Obamacrats’ Desperate Hand-Waving Is a Distraction from Their Failures

Not even six months have passed since the left warned us that the ‘Terror Watch List’ was a dangerously arbitrary list with almost no safeguards. The Government has no duty to inform people they are on the list, there was no due process, and appeals are long and costly. No fewer that 280,000 people are on the secret Terror Watch List who have no known ties to any terrorist group.

But then something happened; Mohammedan terrorists including a woman who had breezed through the Obama Regime’s vaunted “Screening Process” for immigrants and refugees from Muslim lands, murdered 14 people. An administration (and party) prone to fits of desperate hand-waving to take attention away from their spectacular failures decided to change the debate from “How were these dangerous people allowed to commit terror?” to “How can we take advantage of this ‘Wonderful Opportunity‘ (as Obama’s Attorney General Loretta “My Last Name Is My Life” Lynch described the terror-murder of 14 people) to push for the Gun Control we wanted to do anyway.”

And, Voila, the Democrat Party (and some Democrats In All But Label Only {DIABLO}) have decided that a Secret List of “Suspected Terrorists” with no due process and no safeguards is the ideal vehicle for stopping people from owning guns. Never mind that Syed Farook and his lovely burlap sack of a wife would not have been on such a list because he was a respectable public employee and SEIU member (probably), and apparently acquired their weapons through a straw purchaser anyway… which was already illegal.

The Democrats don’t really care about the flaws in the list because their real goal isn’t to stop terrorists from getting guns, but to stop people from acquiring guns generally. The use of the Terror Watch List is just another incremental step in that direction.

But suppose… just suppose… there were such a list of people who could be barred from purchasing weapons. Such a list would have to meet the following criteria:

1. It would have to be completely open; the Government would have to inform you immediately if you were put on it and why

2. It would have to have strict criteria for inclusion such as a provable affiliation to a terror group. And you might add in severe chronic mental illness (not minor issues like insomnia or depression which have led to gun-confiscation in New York and California), and/or a felony conviction.

3. It would have to have safeguards. Most importantly, it would have to have Due Process such as requiring a court order for you to be included on the list.

4. It would have to have a rapid and cost-free appeals process; ideally, limit the Government to ten days to prove you’re a threat and if they fail, you have to be removed.

The Obama Administration’s “No Fly” and “Terrorist Watch” lists meet exactly none of these criteria, and is not a valid tool for depriving law-abiding Americans from their Constitutional and Human Right of Self-Defense.



The ’300 Mass Shootings’ Myth – Busted

Posted by V the K at 12:39 pm - December 4, 2015.
Filed under: Dishonest Democrats,Gun Control

The Pro-Criminal, Anti-Self-Defense Left has been distributing a talking point that there have been over 300 mass shootings in the last year. Much like the claim that 40% of gun sales proceed without a background check, or that there have been 75 school shootings since Sandy Hook…. it’s complete horsesh-t.

Using 2013, the most recent year for which federal data is available, the Congressional Research Service found 25 mass shooting incidents — far less than the 363 counted by Mass Shooting Tracker.” The Congressional Research Service defines a mass shooting more narrowly as a gun violence incident in public in which 4 or more people are killed in a single event and excludes incidents in which the violence is a “means to an end such as robbery.

PolitiFact’s Amy Sherman added, “Mass Shooting Tracker showed 294 mass shootings [in 2015] as of Oct. 1. About 122 of those incidents — or about 42 percent — involved zero fatalities.

Considering that the left lies so shamelessly in their effort to push “common sense gun laws,” how can we possibly trust them when they claim gun confiscation is not the eventual objective?

In the real world that leftists stubbornly refuse to acknowledge, gun violence has been declining and is continuing to decline; most markedly in places with reasonable gun laws like Shall-Issue concealed carry permits and open carry laws.  The only places where it is increasing are Democrat-run cities with strict anti-gun laws.

Also, note two places where there have never been mass shooting incidents; gun ranges and NRA Conventions.


Lying: A Proven Technique for Advancing the Left-Wing Agenda

Posted by V the K at 10:11 am - October 27, 2015.
Filed under: Dishonest Democrats,Gun Control

To counter Bernie Sanders with the Democrat Left (which is the entire party, pretty much), Hillary tells some lies about gun control.

At an October 7 forum in Iowa, she wrongly claimed, “They are the only business in America that is wholly protected from any kind of liability. They can sell a gun to someone they know they shouldn’t, and they won’t be sued. There will be no consequences.”

According to Politifact, “Clinton said the gun industry is ‘the only business in America that is wholly protected from any kind of liability.’ Clinton is talking about a law that says the gun industry is protected from liability in certain instances, but the law also specifies several situations in which the gun industry is susceptible to lawsuits. Further, Congress has passed a number of laws that protect a variety of business sectors from lawsuits in certain situations, so the situation is not unique to the gun industry.” That’s why Politifact determined her rhetoric about the law to be entirely false.

The bill expressly allows suits based on knowing violations of federal or state law related to gun sales or on traditional grounds including negligent entrustment or breach of contract. The bill also allows product liability cases involving actual injuries caused by a defective firearm.

So why is Hillary lying about it? Because this is how the left advances its agenda. It creates a false narrative and then develops policies based on that false narrative. The false narrative here is “Gun dealers can sell to anybody without a background check and there’s no liability, and if only we could pass universal background checks, gun registrations, and let gun companies be sued, no one will be shot to death ever again.” The Narrative is advanced through the Democrat-controlled news and entertainment media and embeds in the minds of millions of people.

The Law in question,the Protection in Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, was passed in 2005 (with a bipartisan majority) specifically in response to an explicit leftist agenda to sue gun dealers and gun manufacturers out of business.

Mr. Coale, one of the Castano Group of lawyers who were active in suing the tobacco industry — the group is named for a friend of several of them who died of a tobacco-related disease — estimated that the cigarette companies had spent $600 million a year defending themselves against the states. ”The gun companies simply can’t afford it,” he said, since they are so much smaller and sales of guns have been flat or declining for a decade.
”So if you get too many cities and states suing,” Mr. Coale said, ”the manufacturers will go into bankruptcy protection. And the day that happens, the suits stop and it is lose-lose for everybody.”

The real agenda behind this — opening the gun companies to all manner of lawsuits — is to put gun companies out of business. Then, the left can say, “You still have your silly right to bear arms but… oh, gosh, there’s no longer anybody making guns or ammo.”

Clinton Shill Thinks You’re an Idiot (file under: What Else Is New?)

See Elijah Cummings on Face the Nation today? Ha ha.. either he’s a complete moron, or he’s hoping we all are:

DICKERSON: The Republicans would say — you mentioned the e-mails had nothing to do with Benghazi, but they would say you can’t get to the information about Benghazi unless you know what the key person…

(CROSSTALK) [...was writing in her emails, which, naturally she's stonewalled against the Congress's right to see in its oversight capacity.]*

CUMMINGS: Well, keep in mind, keep in mind that Hillary Clinton has turned in tens of thousands of pages of e-mails, more than any other secretary in the history of our country, secretary of state in the history of country.

And keep in mind Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice have not turned in one page. So, we have a microscope over her entire tenure as secretary of state. It’s going to be interesting.

DICKERSON: It is indeed. Mr. Cummings, thank you so much for being with us.

The “microscope” line is particularly rich considering the emails in question (in fact, all emails the Congress and the public has ever been able to see from the former leader of one of our government’s most influential and impactful departments) are only known of and available after they’d been pried from her cold, dead server thanks to FOIA requests and, ahem, an FBI investigation. But anyway…

Point is though, why stop shy of criticizing Powell and Rice (mentions of either of whom, by the way, is a non sequitur)? Come to think of it, Mr. Cummings, that Lawrence Eagleburger musta had something pretty shady to hide considering we’ve never seen even one of his emails. Yea, and that Thomas Jefferson… probably got a lot of stuff stashed away on that server too.

Sheesh… the ends Hillary’s shills won’t go to in order to protect her.

Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from HQ)

*Who the hell knows if John Dickerson was trying to ask that… But if there existed actual reporters today and fewer shills for Hillary Clinton, that’d be a pretty logical thing to ask and we’d have heard it and had it answered a long time ago.

The Democrats Come Out of the Socialist Closet

“Last night the Democrats presented themselves an an openly left-wing party, to whose base Bernie’s honeymoon in the Soviet Union appears far less eccentric than Jim Webb doing his Scoop Jackson routine 40 years too late. Bernie thinks we should be more like Denmark, Sweden and Norway – just debt-ridden and with more race riots. As far as I can recall, the most pressing priority for the Democrats is free parental leave for illegal immigrants if they happen to have an anchor baby while enjoying their free college tuition. Insofar as foreign policy raised its head, it was something to be avoided at all costs. While crazy right-wing nutjobs worry about footling peripheral trifles like Isis, Putin, and Iranian nukes, smart Democrats are focused on the real global threat of “climate change”, which is why they’re committed to investing in wind-driven fax machines for all Obamacare sign-ups by 2020.” – Mark Steyn on the Democrat Debate.

The Democrat debate on Tuesday demonstrated conclusively that the Democrat Party is now openly socialist and Bernie Sanders represents its center. The Democrat debate essentially became a “Coming Out Party” for Socialists who had just been waiting in the dark among the coats and boats, afraid to express their true selves for fear of how society might react. However, now they are out and proud and ready to march at the front of the May Day parade.

It also demonstrated my axiom that the value proposition of the Democrat Party is “We will take money from other people and buy you stuff with it.” Among the FSFTG that the Democrats promised were:

  • Free College Tuition
  • (By implication) Free College for Illegal Immigrants
  • Obamacare for Illegal Immigrants
  • Paid Family Leave
  • More Social Security benefits

But don’t worry about the debt because “the rich” are going to pay for all of it.

Buying votes with other people’s money, as per usual, while also promising to tear down (what’s left of) the capitalist system that created the wealth they now want to distribute. Hillary is commonly considered the winner of the debate because of her well-rehearsed soundbite answers and enthusiasm for the New Socialism (same as the Old Socialism).  As  Mark Steyn points out, she was an alpha female among beta males (which describes the Demographic make-up of the Democrat Party quite well).

More from Mr. Steyn below, beginning at about 4 minutes in:


The Democrats Really Are a Party of Mindless Borg Drones

By astonishing coincidence, every Democrat had exactly the same reaction to Hillary’s Meet the Press Interview.



Harry Reid’s Democrat Ethics

Harry Reid admits that he lied on the floor of the Senate about Mitt Romney not paying his taxes, but says it’s okay because it helped Romney lose. (He also lied that his 2010 Republican Opponent was “pro-rape.”)

BASH (on camera): So no regrets about Mitt Romney, about the Koch brothers? Because some people have even called it McCarthy-ite.
REID: Well, they can call it whatever they want. Romney didn’t win, did he?

Harry Reid claims to be a member of the LDS Church. The 13th Article of Faith of the LDS Church reads as follows:

We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men.

Every two years, Harry Reid, as a member of the church, must be interviewed by his local Bishop and asked if he is constant and true in his devotion to the beliefs and principles of his church.

I understand why it’s more important to Harry Reid to embrace the “Lie, cheat, steal, and win at any cost” ethos of the Democrat Party than to be faithful to his church. At his core, he’s just plain greedy; a man who has never worked outside “public service” and yet has amassed a great fortune. Alleged Roman Catholic Nancy Pelosi is no different in her rejection of Catholic teachings on abortion; because her true god is power.

I am disappointed that the LDS Church has never taken him to task for his un-Christian behavior.

That Awkward Moment When You Can’t Admit That a Nominee’s Sole Qualification Is Donating Loads of Money to Obama

Posted by V the K at 10:37 am - December 3, 2014.
Filed under: Dishonest Democrats

ABC’s Jonathan Karl asks if Obama’s nominated Ambassador to Hungary has any qualifications other than donating hundreds of thousands of dollars to Obama’s re-election campaign. White House spokesman Josh Earnest awkwardly tries to avoid admitting the obvious.

YouTube Preview Image

But where was Hillary in all this?

Leon Panetta, former top Clinton staffer and Obama CIA director, is out there serving the Clintons by taking shots at President Obama…errrr, excuse me, out there promoting his new book:

For Bill Clinton, history will remember that he “always kept fighting back” to get things done…“Whether it was Democrats or Republicans, you know, he found a way to be able to do some things, to be able to accomplish some things that were important.”

He makes a similar observation about Hillary Clinton, saying she would be a “great” president. “One thing about the Clintons is, they want to get it done,” he says, in words that draw an implicit contrast with Obama…

And Barack Obama’s legacy?

“We are at a point where I think the jury is still out,” Panetta says. “For the first four years, and the time I spent there, I thought he was a strong leader on security issues. … But these last two years I think he kind of lost his way.

“These last two years” – translation, since the indispensable, brilliant Hillary left – so no, nothing happening now is her fault.

But let’s get down to specifics, Mr. Panetta. How has Obama lost his way? From Politico:

Panetta’s criticisms of the Obama administration are similar to the criticisms former Defense Secretary Robert Gates laid out in his own memoir: that those inside the White House sometimes put politics first on matters of war and peace.

Panetta describes efforts to reach a deal with Iraq to allow U.S. troops to remain in the country in the runup to the December 2011 expiration of the status-of-forces agreement — a deal Obama has said he couldn’t achieve because Iraqi leaders wanted U.S. troops gone. “Privately, the various leadership factions in Iraq all confided that they wanted some U.S. forces to remain as a bulwark against sectarian violence,” Panetta writes…

“I privately and publicly advocated for a residual force that could provide training and security for Iraq’s military…But the president’s team at the White House pushed back…”

2011…isn’t that more like three years ago?

So, let’s see. Panetta, Gates, and the Joint Chiefs all pushed in 2011 for a residual U.S. force in Iraq, that would have prevented today’s crisis with ISIS. (Sorry for the rhyme.) They even did so publicly. Did Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton? Perhaps a little, but not very much. From Jennifer Rubin in June 2014:

Clinton’s failure to impress upon the president the importance of a significant force and to negotiate a deal with Iraq under whatever circumstances existed represents a key failure – one that has directly contributed to the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and the collapse of the Iraqi military.

So for “PBS NewsHour” Clinton tried out a new tale: “Certainly when President Obama had to make the decision about what to do, he was deciding based on what the Bush administration had already determined, because they were the ones who said troops have to be out by the end of 2011.”

This is patently untrue. The Bush team had always intended that there be a follow-up to the SOFA [Status of Forces Agreement]…The game plan for the Bush team and the Obama team was to conclude a deal [to leave a residual force]; Clinton and her boss failed to do so.

For Hillary to claim that the Bushies planned on having all troops out by 2011 is itself a potshot at Obama. If true, it would mean that Obama hardly did anything to “end the war” – he only followed a Bush plan.

But what does all of this add up to? Well, Clinton Central has evidently decided that the way to get elected in 2016 is:

  1. Keep playing the “Blame Bush” card when possible. And if it isn’t possible,
  2. Blame Obama.

As always, we should expect the Clintons to tell a mixture of truth and falsehoods to get what they want, which is: Power.