Archive for the ‘Democrat Party’ Category

‘Straight up evil': Harry Reid admits to despicable, baseless attacks on Mitt Romney during presidential campaign

by Glenn Beck Program Wednesday, Apr 1, 2015 at 12:59 PM EDT Share This Tweet This On his way to retirement, Harry Reid still can’t muster up an ounce of class from within. When asked if he regretted lobbing baseless accusations against Mitt Romney in which he implied the GOP candidate cheated on his taxes, the outgoing Senator scoffed at the question and said ‘it worked, didn’t it?’. What a guy. Back during the 2012 presidential campaign, Reid was on the Senate floor when he accused Romney of not paying taxes. “Let [Mitt Romney] prove that he has paid taxes. Because he hasn’t,” he said. CNN’s Dana Bash brought up the incident with the retiring senator. “I don’t regret that at all. The Koch brothers. No one would help me. They were afraid the Koch brothers would go after them. So I did it on my own,” Reid said. “So no regrets, not about Mitt Romney about the Koch brothers. Some people have even called it McCarthyite,” asked Dana Bash. “Well, they can call it whatever they want. Romney didn’t win, did he?” Reid said. Wow.

“Ends justify the means. Saul Alinsky. Let’s give the tip of a hat to the first radical, Satan. I mean, that is evil,” Glenn said. “It’s evil. And what’s amazing about it, really, I haven’t heard anything about this. We accept this. We accept this. This is a guy who claims to be a religious guy. We accept it.” “I hope they’re listening to that in the church office in Salt Lake City. Because that is unbelievable. That is flat-out bearing false witness against your brother. And being proud of it. He’s proud of it.,” Pat said. Glenn was so angry over the audio he had to change topics before he said something inappropriate for air.


Are You Kidding Me -California Democrat Warns of Global Warming-Induced Prostitution

by Phillip Hodges

Things are going to get so bad with manmade global warming that women will be forced to sell themselves just to get food and water for their families. And of course, it’s all the anti-science conservatives’ fault, even though there’s no science to back up the claim that the oil and gas industry and the Koch brothers are behind the effort to heat up the planet. They must not be trying hard enough, because the science shows that the planet hasn’t warmed in the past two decades. “Pro-science” liberals claim that the solution to the [non-]warming planet is to give more money and power to the failing green industry.

Writing for Breitbart, Warner Todd Huston reported:

On Wednesday, California Democrat Barbara Lee proposed a resolution in the House of Representatives that claims women will eventually be forced into prostitution in order to obtain life-sustaining food and water for their families.

Lee introduced House Concurrent Resolution 29, warning that women will be forced into “transactional sex” to get enough food and clean water — all because global warming will create “conflict and instability” in the world.

“Women will disproportionately face harmful impacts from climate change,” Lee’s resolution reads. It continues claiming, “Food insecure women with limited socioeconomic resources may be vulnerable to situations such as sex work, transactional sex, and early marriage that put them at risk for HIV, STIs, unplanned pregnancy, and poor reproductive health.”

Lee’s document goes on to urge Congress to agree on the “disparate impacts of climate change on women,” and goes on to demand that Congress use “gender-sensitive frameworks in developing policies to address climate change.”

Lee also charges that women, who are “often underrepresented in the development and formulation of policy regarding adaptation to climate change,” are doubtless in the best position to offer policy ideas.

John Kerry just warned of “climate refugees” emerging because of global warming. And now here’s a congress(wo)man warning that women will have to resort to prostitution to keep their families from starving.

And “poor reproductive health” just means that in this climatic apocalypse scenario, women will have limited or no access to abortion. To liberals, that’s pretty much the worst thing they can imagine.


Why Hillary’s Talking Points Don’t Add Up

Former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton speaks during a press conference at the United Nations in New York
Using the United Nations as a backdrop to theatrically remind people of her foreign policy gravitas, Hillary Clinton held what the UN referred to as a press “encounter” outside of the UN Security Council chamber on March 10th. Hillary repeated over and over again her well-rehearsed talking points regarding the private e-mail account she used during her tenure as Secretary of State. Figuring that it is better to beg for forgiveness rather than refrain from doing something that could later be considered wrong-doing, Hillary said that “looking back” she now thinks it would have been better if she had used one device connected to the official government e-mail account and a separate device connected to her own personal e-mail system. The former Secretary of State just thought at the time it would be more convenient to use only one device for both her personal and work-related e-mails, connected to a server that had been previously set up for her husband’s New York office, rather than two separate devices and e-mail accounts.

Hillary’s defenses amounted to the following four talking points: (1) She obeyed all laws and regulations that were in effect at the time and no classified materials were communicated via her e-mails. Moreover, what she did was not unusual. Other former Secretaries of State did the same thing; (2) She made sure to send many of her work-related e-mails to State Department and other federal government employees, whom she assumed were on the official .gov e-mail account. Therefore, such e-mails would have been captured and automatically archived on the government system; (3) She bent over backwards to turn over all e-mails that were even “possibly” work-related to the State Department in response to its request for such e-mails from all prior Secretaries of State. Hillary only got rid of the e-mails she determined to be personal (which may have been as many as 30,000, although the precise number was not entirely clear from her remarks); and (4) it is the responsibility of each federal employee to determine which of his or her e-mails will be regarded as personal and which ones will be determined to be work-related, which is precisely what Hillary said she did in making the selection of the e-mails turned over to the State Department.

None of these defenses stand up to any objective scrutiny.

First of all, there were archive regulations in effect in 2009, which required federal employees — including Hillary while she was Secretary of State — to preserve her work-related e-mails. The “every-one did it” defense holds no water because Hillary’s use of her own private server, set up in her New York residence, was reportedly unprecedented. Hillary rejected the suggestion that an independent third party examine her server including its hard drive, which raises the inevitable question of whether she is trying to hide something. Her privacy rationale is bogus, considering her decision to blend personal and work-related e-mails on the same personal account hosted by the same home-installed server in the first place. All Hillary could say was that the server “will remain private.”

Moreover, even if Hillary’s contention that she sent many of her work-related e-mails to government employees, expecting them to be automatically archived, is true, such action alone would not address any e-mails she may have sent to foreign government officials or to prospective donors to the Clinton Foundation that were not also sent to federal government employees.

Hillary’s defense that it is up to each federal employee to decide individually which of his or her e-mails are personal and which are work-related does not mean that such decision cannot be examined by the government and remedied if necessary. In Hillary’s case, that is impossible due to her refusal to turn over the server sitting in her residence to an independent examiner. We have to take her word that she turned over all e-mails that were even “possibly” work-related which, given her track record, is not very reliable. One question has already arisen regarding Hillary’s trip to Libya in October 2011 when she was photographed with “her handheld device in her hand,” according to South Carolina GOP Rep. Trey Gowdy, the chief congressional Benghazi investigator. Congressman Gowdy said that “we have no e-mails from that day. In fact, we have no e-mails from that trip.”

While most of the questions asked during Hillary Clinton’s press encounter dealt with her e-mail situation, she was also asked how she could reconcile her long advocacy of women’s rights with her foundation’s acceptance of donations from countries with abysmal human rights records involving women and girls. Hillary ducked the question. Hillary said that her advocacy of women’s rights issues over the years is unquestionable. Hillary added that she had no doubt that “people who want to support the foundation know full well what it is we stand for and what we’re working on.” Apparently taking money from countries like Saudi Arabia, where women are still treated as chattel, does not in Hillary’s mind call into question how committed she and her foundation really are to “working on” ending violence and discrimination against women and girls in Saudi Arabia and other human rights abusing Middle Eastern countries that are sources of foundation donations.

In sum, Hillary Clinton tried to use the typical Clintonian evasive tactics, hoping the press and the American people will move on to other matters. The Clintons have gotten away with their “what difference does it make” attitude many times before. Hopefully, the truth will finally catch up with them this time, especially if Hillary, as expected, does run for president.

House Democrats Send Letter to U.S. Adversary Pledging Opposition to the President

by Erick Erickson
Coming on the heels of the revelation that 47 Republican Senators sent a letter to Iran undermining President Obama’s ambitions in the country, I can now report to you that a number of Democrats, including the former Speaker, have engaged in the same behavior. They sent a letter to one of our clear adversaries and declared their opposition to the President’s foreign policy in the country and their opposition to American military action. Further, the Democrats sought assurances from the regime separate from the assurances and demands of the President’s Administration.

I an utterly dumbfounded the media has refused to report on this. It might be because history did not begin until the Obama Administration for most reporters these days and this was actually from March 20, 1984. That is the day the Democratic Leader of the House and soon to be Speaker, Jim Wright, and a number of his congressional colleagues, sent a letter to communist leader “Commandante” Daniel Ortega.

The press then too gave the “Dear Commandante” letter writers a pass in a way they refuse to give Republicans a pass. It is worth pointing out that the Speaker at the time of this letter was Tip O’Neil whose chief of staff was Chris Matthews. Matthews is now calling on the 47 Republicans to be prosecuted under the Logan Act. Neither he nor his boss objected to the “Dear Commandante” letter.

CAN YOU BELIEVE THIS Hillary Clinton Paid $300,000 for a Speech Lecturing the Middle Class on How They Can Make Ends Meet

Hillary-Clinton2lady Clinton the poorHopefully, her instructions reveal how I can make six figures a speech, which would certainly come in handy.

Can you imagine the hubris of this woman — who has largely disappeared from public view as her “Smart Power” diplomacy initiatives have left the Middle East a boiling cauldron of death, torture, and pain — to dare lecture middle class Americans on making ends meet?

During a speech in Silicon Valley, Clinton, the presumed Democratic presidential nominee in 2016, highlighted the displacement many workers have suffered as new technology has made many jobs obsolete. “The old jobs and careers are either gone or unrecognizable,” Clinton said, according to the Los Angeles Times. “The old rules just don’t seem to apply, and, frankly, the new rules just aren’t that clear. “[If] we want to find our balance again, we have to figure out how to make this new economy work for everyone.”

Clinton also addressed Silicon Valley’s male-centric culture, one factor responsible for a notable gender pay gap in the tech industry and a shortage of women in the field. “We’re going backward in a field that is supposed to be all about moving forward,” the former senator and secretary of state said. Clinton herself is a counterexample: She earned a reported $300,000 for her speech, comparable to what she usually gets and more than all but a few highly prized male speakers (including her husband).

In virtually every way — and as documented by the very agencies he controls — the policies of the current Democrat President have laid waste to “the middle class”.

And that is precisely what Obama and Hillary were taught to do by their ideological mentor, Saul Alinsky.

Dems Replaced MLK with Sharpton

by Daniel Greenfield
The Rev. Al Sharpton-  Washington, DC

Selma, the new Martin Luther King Jr. biopic, had barely been released before it was being used as a weapon of racial division by Sharpton.

Al Sharpton is a racist whose advocacy of hate has made him the dominant black leader. The ascent of Sharpton from street thug to MSNBC host and Obama confidante is the clearest possible rejection of the MLK legacy, not by white racists, but by black racists and their progressive collaborators.

That hasn’t stopped Sharpton from hijacking the King legacy by holding annual MLK day events and using Selma to accuse Hollywood of racism to shake it down for money.

Sharpton, like King, has managed to bring people together, but not in the same way. After the racist #BlackLivesMatters marches culminated in the murder of two police officers, a majority of White and Hispanic New Yorkers polled said that they view Sharpton as a negative influence on their city.

But Sharpton monetizes negativity like no one else. If Martin Luther King Jr. often spoke of the power of love, Sharpton has shown that racial divisiveness is far more effective. Unlike King, Sharpton never had any interest in racial healing. His specialty is racial divisiveness for personal profit. Even his new book is being published by “Cash Money Content.”

Sharpton’s sins however are not just his own. The days when he was just a street agitator yelling hate through a megaphone and sweating through his latest track suit are long behind him. Instead he became a campaign stop for a long line of Democratic candidates from Bill Bradley to Barack Obama.

“Racial unity, it’s who I am, what I believe and what I care most deeply about,” Bill Bradley said, even while making nice with a bigot who stood for the exact opposite of racial unity.

Sharpton was more likely to assert that, “White folks was in caves while we were building empires…. We taught philosophy and astrology and mathematics before Socrates and those Greek homos ever got around to it.” Or “We are the royal family on the planet. We are the original man. We gazed into the stars and wrote astrology. We had a conversation and that became philosophy. We are the ones who created mathematics… We are the alpha and omega of creation itself.”

But the Democrats have wanted a racial id more than a racial superego. Behind every Democrat preaching racial unity, there’s a Jeremiah Wright screaming “God damn America” or a Sharpton denouncing a “white interloper.” The Democrats rejected King long ago. From the KKK to Sharpton’s NAN, they have always put their money on racist demagogues skilled at stirring up racial troubles.

Sharpton is part of a duo with double-dealing Democrats claiming to believe in racial unity while playing up racial divisiveness.

New York City Mayor David Dinkins, Sharpton’s original better half, had promised that, “I am the mayor of all the people… and my administration will never lead by dividing, by setting some of us against the rest of us.” But he kept the NYPD from responding to the racist attacks on Korean groceries and then the Jewish community of Crown Heights.

The hypocritical rhetoric of racial unity coming from Dinkins and Bradley should sound familiar.

“There is not a Black America and a White America and Latino America and Asian America—there’s the United States of America,” Barack Obama had told the country. But once in power, Obama shifted to the brand of racial divisiveness that he had condemned, setting some of us against the rest of us.

Obama’s cynical choice to screen Selma in the White House is not a reminder of what has been achieved, but of what is missing. His administration has set back race relations by decades. Polls show that the majority of Americans believe that race relations have grown worse under him.

Race relations have been set back because like Sharpton, Obama and his supporters have wielded racial division as a weapon, whether to scapegoat critics or to stir up protests to improve voter turnout.

Sharpton succeeded because he understood his role as the dark side of the Democratic Party. He knows that the Democrats don’t want “I have a dream,” instead they want Sharpton’s “These whites must learn in this town that they going to pay when they put their hands on African people.”

Selma is the carrot. The dream is never supposed to be achieved because if it is achieved, it isn’t only Sharpton who will have to go begging for work, but much of the Democratic Party. What used to be the spectator sport of urban political machines has become national politics. Obama endorsed the hate marches that led to the murder of two cops, not because he cares about their goals, but because racial conflict drives voter turnout in the black community along with insecurity and guilt among whites.

Having killed the dream, they resurrect it every few years to blame its failure on their opponents.

Somebody is always killing the dream, but it’s never Al Sharpton or Barack Obama. Instead it’s any interference with the Democratic Party’s political program of welfare ghettos, broken families and political machine fraud that kills the dream that the machine had already run over and left for dead.

In a culture of weaponized racial grievance, Selma’s appearance has quickly become a tool of racial division by the same players who have made the racial healing that appeals to audiences so impossible to achieve. The feel good moment, whether it’s Obama promising a post-racial nation or Selma invoking old dreams of the same thing, always has to give way to racial guilt and discord.

The feel good post-racial moment milks audiences for their best intentions and then gleefully poisons them. And that is what makes it so evil.

Sharpton, for all his vileness, was preferable to the Democrats who were using him. In the same way Jeremiah Wright’s vicious rants were far better than the disingenuous rhetoric of his protégé, Barack Obama. Likewise, Louis Farrakhan is a truer version of his former man, Keith Ellison.

If we’re going to have bigots, then at least let’s have honest ones. If we can’t have unity and healing, then let’s stop letting the people responsible beat us over the head with their absence.

What we have here is not a dream deferred, but a dream perverted. The civil rights movement is no longer invoked for progress, but as a reactionary segregation of hostilities between races and parties. Martin Luther King Jr’s dream is no longer on the menu. The only things being served up are politicians like Obama who can talk like King, but think like Malcolm X and govern like George Wallace.

The civil rights movement ended in the gruesome hypocrisy of becoming identified with racist demagogues whose civil rights activism seeks to perpetuate racism in order to monetize it. Racial inequality is not its enemy, but its power base. Violence is not the unfortunate response to conditions, but the reason for which those conditions have been maintained by the Party of Sharpton.

The only thing more repulsive than the Democratic Party’s racism is its racial hypocrisy. A former outpost of the Klan, the party was taken over by the ideological descendants of left-wing radicals who despised Martin Luther King Jr., but insist on using him as a weapon against a nation that listened to his plea for unity, rather than to their divisiveness.

The Democratic Party replaced Martin Luther King Jr. with Al Sharpton. It’s hypocritical for them to celebrate King while rejecting his message.