Archive for Democrats

You Better Put Some Ice on That, Bernie

When Bill Clinton bitch-slaps you, you know you’ve been bitch-slapped: [NY Times piece, if you’re counting]

Bill Clinton uncorked an extended attack on Senator Bernie Sanders on Sunday, harshly criticizing Mr. Sanders and his supporters for what he described as inaccurate and “sexist” attacks on Hillary Clinton.

“When you’re making a revolution you can’t be too careful with the facts,” Mr. Clinton said, deriding Mr. Sanders’s oft-mentioned call for a political revolution.

But Mr. Clinton’s most pointed remarks may have been when he took aim at Sanders supporters who, he said, use misogynistic language in attacking Mrs. Clinton. He told the story of a female “progressive” blogger who defended Mrs. Clinton online through a pseudonym because, he said, the vitriol from Mr. Sanders’s backers was so unrelenting.

“She and other people who have gone online to defend Hillary, to explain why they supported her, have been subject to vicious trolling and attacks that are literally too profane often, not to mention sexist, to repeat.” Mr. Clinton, growing more demonstrative, added that the liberal journalist Joan Walsh had faced what he called “unbelievable personal attacks” for writing positively about Mrs. Clinton.

Isn’t it funny how avowed feminists cower behind the pantlegs of men when politics gets dirty—and it’s always dirty? Women can do the same job men can do—but any criticism of them for that job is SEXIST!!! As any criticism of Obama was necessarily RACIST!!!

Bill can go after Bernie, and Bernie can go after Hillary. It’s not sexism. It’s politics. Oh, and it’s Twitter, too. A sewer, if you hadn’t noticed. Grow the hell up, all of you.

Comments (1)

Ready For…Joe?

Joe who?


You put your left foot in, you put your left foot out…

Panic among some Democrats about Hillary Clinton running into trouble with Bernie Sanders is spreading so rapidly that the idea of drafting Vice President Joe Biden is popping up yet again.

Fox News has learned that a prominent backer of the “Draft Biden 2016” movement, Tulsa businessman Bill Bartmann, fired off an email Friday afternoon to several dozen Democratic allies musing about the possibility of reviving the push for Biden.

“I would urge all of you to join me in ‘keeping our powder dry’ until we see if for the good of the party and the country, we should resurrect (sic) the Draft Biden movement.”

Draft Biden…that rings a bell:

Biden received student draft deferments during this period, at the peak of the Vietnam War,[29] and in 1968, he was reclassified by the Selective Service System as not available for service due to having had asthma as a teenager.

Asthma. Is that a fact?

Biden attended the Archmere Academy in Claymont,[14] where he was a standout halfback/wide receiver on the high school football team; he helped lead a perennially losing team to an undefeated season in his senior year.[11][15] He played on the baseball team as well.

[A]nd he played halfback with the [University of Delaware] Blue Hens freshman football team.

I guess the pollen is worse in Vietnam. Anyway:

There is absolutely no evidence that Biden is re-thinking his decision to skip the race, though in January he said he was sorry that he had not launched a bid.

“I regret it every day, but it was the right decision for my family and for me, and I plan on staying deeply involved,” Biden told NBC affiliate WVIT in Hartford, Conn.

That sounds like at least a little evidence that he is re-thinking his decision. “Every day.”

Aren’t we all?

During his first year [at Syracuse Law School], he was accused of having plagiarized 5 of 15 pages of a law review article. Biden said it was inadvertent due to his not knowing the proper rules of citation, and he was permitted to retake the course after receiving an “F” grade, which was subsequently dropped from his record (this incident would later attract attention when further plagiarism accusations emerged in 1987).

That darn asthma! Oxygen deprivation can make a man do crazy things.

Comments

What You Call a Win-Win

Unless you are an American worker:

The evidence continues to roll in: Broad increases in the minimum wage destroy jobs and hurt the working-class Americans that they are supposed to help. The latest evidence is an announcement that Wal-Mart, America’s largest employer, will close more than 150 U.S. stores, a move that will affect 10,000 employees.

Having to pay increased wages obviously diminishes a business’s financial performance. Wal-Mart voluntarily raised its base wage to $9 an hour last April, then announced in November that this resulted in a 10% reduction in earnings per share for the third quarter. This year Wal-Mart will raise its base wage to $10 an hour and is forecasting as much as a 12% decline in earnings per share.

Every retailer has locations that are profitable, but only marginally. Increased labor costs can push these stores over the line and into the loss column. When that happens, companies that want to stay competitive will close them. That’s one of the reasons that substantially increasing the minimum wage poses real risks for working-class Americans.

Let’s look at Oakland, Calif., where the minimum wage is $12.55. When Wal-Mart opened there in 2005, about 11,000 people applied for the 400 positions. Those jobs will soon be gone, as the Oakland store is on the closure list. While Wal-Mart declined to address the details of its decision, City Councilman Larry Reid told the San Francisco Chronicle that Oakland’s minimum wage “was one of the factors they considered in closing the store.”

Councilman Noel Gallo, who supported efforts to submit the minimum-wage increase to voters, bemoaned the closure, saying that “losing a Wal-Mart is a blow to the city of Oakland” and adding that “what Oakland needs more of is jobs.”

Oakland…Oakland…isn’t that a “dog whistle” of some sort?

There’s a lot more at the link—Andy Purzer writes regularly on such issues at the WSJ—but we have enough to work with. In pursuit of a misguided perception of “fairness”, private enterprise is targeted—Alinsky-ized, if you will—and the working stiff takes the hit. There’s no argument; that’s fact. It’s also intentional.

Grandstanding to the mob, liberal government imposes rules injurious to business; business reacts as a living being, recoiling, retrenching; people are put out of work; they land on welfare; they blame business, while government takes credit (a second time) for looking out for them. Why wouldn’t liberal government do that? Why would they do anything else, Oakland—all two-thirds non-white of it—be damned?

This is not cynicism. This is stated Democrat Party policy. A few people inside the welfare gerbil wheel—a very, very few—have figured this out, and call out the Democrats for their decades of failure. The rest are reliable Democrat voters, year after year, benefit check after benefit check. It’s a wonder any conservative can win a national election, and almost a certainty that he or she won’t, ever again.

Comments

The Angst Of Female Liberals

A young woman who will not vote for Hilary

She’s apparently got a problem with rape. Go figure.

‘As Democrats, as women, we must ask ourselves: Do we stand with all women who report sexual assault?’

The aspect of feminism that affected me on the most powerful, personal level was the idea that when a woman came forward to report that she had been raped we would believe her — publicly and unanimously. I knew what it was like to have a man try to force sex on me; I knew what it was like to arrange my work life so that I could avoid the boorish men who made vulgar sexual remarks in the office.

I was always amazed—dazzled—when women were brave enough to come forward and tell others what had happened to them. For years, I’d been too ashamed to tell even my friends about the things I’d experienced. But now, if we all stood together, the force of our public belief in one another could change things. And it did. And it was exciting and big and important.

I was excited about Bill Clinton’s campaign, and I voted for him. I could not have been less concerned about Gennifer Flowers, who showed up in a press conference to announce she’d been his Little Rock mistress. I don’t care about the private, consensual sex lives of my elected politicians, nor do I care about those of my dentist, accountant or plumber. The nature of the Clinton’s marriage wasn’t my business. Plus, I was then involved in work for abused children, an area to which Hillary had devoted much of her working life. The Clintons seemed to me to be hugely impressive people.

But then I heard about Paula Jones, who came forward with a very different story — of the ugliest type of workplace sexual harassment. I was shocked and I was disgusted, and I believed her. I assumed we all believed her. Wasn’t that how we were changing the country for victims of these kinds of acts?

Well… No.

Immediately I was told by my lefty friends and by the lefty press that I was foolish, that I was naive, that I didn’t understand politics. Immediately this woman—who had come forward to describe a hideous event—was shamed as a big-haired, no-class hick who was telling a lie for financial gain.

It turned out that even radical feminists around would easily believe a woman could lie about sexual harassment for personal gain.

There was an exception to believing everyone that I hadn’t grasped right out of the gate. We were going to choose whom to believe.

Based on what?

Based on the politics and political power of the man accused.

Oh.

I voted for Clinton again. Because I was starting to become a little less naive. And because the stock market was rocking, and because when I had a C-section, my insurance paid for four days in the hospital instead of two, which was a special gift to me from Bill Clinton. He was always good with women that way—he knew how to reach into the most intimate moments of a female voter’s life and make her grateful to him. Bill had dragged a four-night hospital stay through a nice neighborhood in Santa Monica, and I had darted out of my duplex apartment to grab it.

But then I saw Juanita Broaddrick tell her story, and I had a physical reaction. In 1999, she described his visit to her hotel room and the sex he forced on her. I sat in my living room watching her describe that rape and I thought: “She’s telling the truth.” My response was not considered; it was visceral. If it’s possible that one woman can listen to another woman tell her story of rape and just sort of know that she’s telling the truth, I had that reaction.


What did Hillary know, and when did she know it? She must have known a lot, and she must have known it early on. She knew that the kind of women who vote for Democrats care about three or four huge issues—abortion above all—and that if you stay on the right side of those three or four issues, much will be forgiven, or overlooked, or disbelieved. In short, Hillary understood politics, at its most base and distasteful level.

As Democrats, as women, we must ask ourselves: Do we stand with the women who report sexual assault—all women: big-haired, “slutty,” trailer-park, all of them—or do we stand, once again, with the Clinton machine and its Arkansas droit du seigneur?

When I was young, my father told me what his father told him: If I got in the voting booth and so much as reached for the Republican lever, the hand of God would come into that voting booth and strike me dead.

I’m not taking any chances.

But I won’t vote for a candidate who helped “destroy” the credibility of women who came forward to report that they had been preyed upon sexually by a powerful man. This year, for the first time in my voting life, I’m staying home.

Whether she stays home or not only matters if she lives in a swing state, of course. But I do feel her pain. I told a mixed male-female leftist group about my concerns, how I didn’t want a sexual predator in the White House – again – how I regretted being so blasé about voting for Bill Clinton twice, knowing what he was up to. And the response was: So what? He was good for our causes. And the next President will choose Supreme Court nominees. So we will vote for Hilary no matter what. They realize that he is a sexual predator (Bill Cosby’s name was mentioned) but they do not mind it at all.

– Aggie

Comments (1)

Israeli NBA Coach Fired

No Jews needed in the NBA

Everyone from Minister of Culture and Sport Miri Regev, to the US ambassador to Israel, Dan Shapiro, have been voicing their opinion on David Blatt’s firing by the Cleveland Cavaliers.

Regular Israelis have also made their feelings felt online, mostly in far less diplomatic ways than Regev or Shapiro.

The surprise sacking of Blatt despite leading the Cavs to the NBA Finals last year and to the best record in the Eastern Conference so far this season, saw millions of Israelis turn from fans to haters of the team and especially star LeBron James, who is widely held responsible for the coaching change.

News of the firing topped all Israeli newscasts on Saturday, with Middle East violence and the stormy weather taking a back seat to the fate of Israel’s first NBA coach.

Americans need to boycott the NBA, plain and simple. And I know that we will not.

Blatt, who moved to Israel over 30 years ago after playing for the USA basketball team in the 1981 Maccabiah, was surprisingly appointed as the head coach of the Cavs after guiding Maccabi Tel Aviv to the Euroleague title in 2013/14. He’s married to an Israeli woman, Kinneret, and raised his four children in the country, with the oldest two having completed their military service.

“I don’t really understand the Cavs’ decision to fire David Blatt after all his success. But I congratulate him, a wonderful man and a talented coach, on all his accomplishments, and wish him well in the future,” US ambassador to Israel Shapiro wrote on Facebook.

Much of the blame for Blatt’s sacking has been leveled at James, whose Instegram page was filled with countless crude comments in Hebrew and English since the news was made official.

“Such a great player. Such a small, lame, pathetic personality,” wrote one Israeli user in what was one of the more cordial comments. “So drunk from all the fame and completely blind to see how fortunate you were to play under Blatt’s guidance.”

I am completely done with Jew hatred. I will not support any individual or group or institution that has smeared themselves with the stench, and I mean not now and not ever. I won’t buy your wines, your cheeses, your fruits or vegetables. I won’t vote for your candidates, I won’t watch you play your games, I won’t contribute to your schools or charities, I won’t eat in your restaurants. If every decent person joined me in this, we could stop these attacks. At a minimum, every single Cavs game moving forward should be disrupted by protesters in the stands and outside the doors. Without fail. If decent people do not join us, the attacks will continue and intensify. This is what fascism looks like, guys.

– Aggie

Comments (2)

Weiner on Film

Wait, wasn’t that what got him in trouble in the first place?

A new documentary about the 2013 mayoral run of disgraced ex-Congressman Anthony Weiner could be the latest thorn in the side of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

Previewed exclusively by the New York Times this week, “Weiner” was deemed by the paper a “visceral film” that is a “potentially distracting” issue in Clinton’s campaign, as Weiner’s wife, Huma Abedin, one of Clinton’s closest advisors, appears throughout.

The Times says “Weiner” shows how “Ms. Abedin — with facial expressions ranging from hurt to hostile — copes with the second sex scandal to engulf her husband’s career and crush her hopes of becoming a powerful political wife.”

I don’t like the people with whom Huma keeps company, but she’s one political apparatchik this comrade would like to keep warm.

Not that you asked.

Tony Sayegh, a Republican strategist and Fox News Contributor, said the “Weiner” repercussions could be very real for Clinton, and cost her the support of some female voters.

“Among the more damaging is that it reveals another example of how hollow the ‘war on women’ argument is when coming from the Hillary camp, disabling that most favorite of perennial liberal ad hominem attacks is the equivalent of taking Superman’s ability to leap tall buildings away,” Sayegh told FOX411. “For both Anthony Weiner and Bill Clinton, their sexual misconduct went well beyond the realm of a ‘boys will be boys’ defense. And it was Hillary and Huma to the rescue all in the name personal advancement. That is not a story Hillary wants out there, especially through a more popular medium that has the ability to reach a broader audience.”

The mind of the masses is a peculiar thing. Bill has gone from lovable rogue to lecherous loser; Hillary was a victim before, now she’s an enabler. Nothing has changed in their behavior, only our appraisal of it.

One person who couldn’t care less about the movie? Weiner’s sexting partner, Sydney Leathers.

“I’m not concerned about any of it coming back up because I find it hilarious. It’s not a big deal to me,” Leathers told FOX411. “It’s certainly not a good look for Hillary. There are comparisons to be made between Weiner’s behavior and Bill’s behavior. I find it fascinating the way Huma and Hillary have handled infidelity in their marriages. It seems they apply a ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Policy’ when it comes to [their husbands].”

Leathers, who found herself entangled in yet another sexting scandal with Indiana State Rep Justin Moed in 2015, had a few more words for Weiner.

“He should just be happy anyone cares about him after he resigned from Congress and had a failed mayoral bid,” she added. “What other unemployed, sex obsessed, creepy middle-aged men have documentaries coming out about them?”

Touché. Though I’m not moved to text her pictures of my private parts, strangely enough. A minority of one, apparently.

Three cheers for the red, white, and blue. The blue, anyway.

Comments

Making Lena Dunham Look Good

Not about Lena Dunham—honest!

But as repulsive as Lena Dunham is in some ways, Dummy Wassername Schultz is repulsive in all ways: [Hat tip to reader Carol]

I’ve been appalled as so many of my constituents have been appalled at the vitriol and the hatred and the appalling reactions of some towards Muslims and Muslim-Americans and I felt for me as a member of a minority religion myself, a religion, Judaism, that has been persecuted throughout our existence. It’s incumbent upon us to stand with our Muslim brothers and sisters and make sure that we can push back hard on that vitriol and hatred and say absolutely not. Not in the United States of America. These are not American values. No better way than to invite Muslim-American constituents to join us for the most significant speech that is given by the President of the United States all year long and the greatest democratic institution in the world.

I don’t care if she invited Abu Musab al-Zarqawi his own damned self, that is cruel and unusual punishment. I’d rather be fed into Qusay (or was it Uday?) Hussein’s woodchipper—twice—than be forced to sit through even ten minutes of Obama’s sibilant preening. All those Muslim clerics cluttering up the landscape, and not one of them can issue a fatwa against Dummy?

But while she’s inviting those who’ve suffered from un-American values, did she offer a seat to anyone from San Bernardino? Or any relatives of the American Jews killed in Israel? Did she invite anyone from the Philadelphia Police Department? Or any survivors of the Boston Marathon bombing or Benghazi—or, indeed, of 9/11? I realize that’s a lot of plus-ones to invite to a party, but she could have used the empty seat next to Michelle.

Comments (2)

You Tell ‘Em, Tavis!

Tavis Smiley points out that blacks have lost ground under Obama

Who is Tavis Smiley? A Leftist, African American NPR talk show host. And if you listen closely, he does try to blame Republicans for Obama’s failures. No matter. Everyone suffered under Obama, blacks especially. Elections have consequences.

Town Hall, via Gateway Pundit, has more:

What about poverty? In 2009, when Obama took office, the black poverty rate was 25.8 percent. As of 2014, according to Pew Research Center, the black poverty rate was 27.2 percent.

What about income? CNNMoney says, “Minority households’ median income fell 9 percent between 2010 and 2013, compared to a drop of only 1 percent for whites.” The Financial Times wrote last October: “Since 2009, median non-white household income has dropped by almost a 10th to $33,000 a year, according to the U.S. Federal Reserve’s survey of consumer finances. As a whole, median incomes fell by 5 percent. But by the more telling measure of net wealth — assets minus liabilities — the numbers offer a more troubling story.”

What about net worth and the black-white “wealth gap”? The Financial Times said: “The median non-white family today has a net worth of just $18,100 — almost a fifth lower than it was when Mr. Obama took office. White median wealth, on the other hand, has inched up by 1 percent to $142,000. In 2009, white households were seven times richer than their black counterparts. That gap is now eightfold. Both in relative and absolute terms, blacks are doing worse under Mr. Obama.” Remember, these numbers apply to all “non-whites.” For blacks, it’s worse.

When looking only at “black net worth” — which is lower compared to non-whites as a whole — white households are actually 13 times wealthier than black households. From 2010 to 2013, according to the Federal Reserve, white household median wealth increased a modest 2.4 percent, while Hispanic families’ wealth declined 14 percent, to $13,700. But blacks’ net worth fell from $16,600 to $11,000. This is an astonishing three-year drop of 34 percent. Investors Business Daily put it this way, “That’s a steeper decline than occurred from 2007 to 2010, when blacks’ net worth fell 13.5 percent.” The black/white “wealth-gap” has reached a 25-year high.

What about unemployment? In 2009, black unemployment was 12.7 percent, and by 2014, it had fallen to 10.1 percent. This sounds like good news until one examines the black labor force participation rate — the percentage of blacks working or seeking work. It’s the lowest since these numbers have been recorded.

Hmmm, so under The Messiah, the black/white wealth gap reached a 25 year high!!

Say it loud, say it proud:

Hope ‘n Change! Hope ‘n Change! Hope ‘n Change! Hope ‘n Change! Hope ‘n Change! Hope ‘n Change! Hope ‘n Change! Hope ‘n Change!

– Aggie

Comments

More Democrat Angst

One economist thinks Republicans may take 47 states

Supply-side economist Arthur Laffer is predicting Republicans will win the White House in a landslide this year, regardless of the nominee.

“I would be surprised if the Republicans don’t take 45, 46, 47 states out of the 50,” Laffer told host John Catsimatidis on “The Cats Roundtable” on New York’s AM-970 on Sunday.

“I mean, I think we’re going to landslide this election.”

Laffer, who served in various positions in the Nixon, Ford and Reagan administrations, said he is bullish on the entire Republican primary field.

“When I look at these candidates, I don’t see one of them who wouldn’t do a great job as president,” he said.

“I think Donald Trump is phenomenal, I think Rand Paul has done a great job, I even like Jeb Bush — I think Jeb Bush is great, he did a wonderful job in Florida,” he added. “Chris Christie – phenomenal.”

He said Democratic primary front-runner Hillary Clinton’s “day is over.”

“She would be defeated handily. I don’t think Hillary’s going to win this election no matter whom she runs against,” he said. “I mean, Hillary’s day is over.

“I think she’s a very impressive person, she’s very articulate, very well educated, got a great resume and all of that, but her policies are not good. And it’s about issues, not about people, and her day has gone,” he added.

Your lips to God’s ears. (But I would like some of what he’s smoking, to be honest).

– Aggie

Comments

No Biggie

I spy, you spy, we all scream for I Spy:

Rep. Eliot Engel (N.Y.), the ranking Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said it is no secret that the U.S. and Israel spy on each other, even though they are allies.

“I’m not surprised,” he told The Hill. “I kind of think the report is much to do about nothing.”

Tell that to Angela Merkel, who threw the mutter of all hissie fits when she learned that we had a mic in her muesli.

But fine, all governments spy on each other. But do governments spy on themselves?

“I assume that everything I say — someone is listening. I am careful that what I say in public is what I say in private,” Engel said. “You just have to assume that when you’re a public person, what you say [could be monitored] … I don’t know what this really tells us.”

“From what I can tell, we haven’t had a problem with how incidental collection has been handled concerning lawmakers,” Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee, told the Journal.

Democrats in Congress gave cover to the White House, emphasizing the story pointed out the NSA did not target lawmakers. A senior House Democratic aide said collection on members of Congress was “unnamed and inadvertent.”

I’m so proud. Democrats have grown up so much in the past decade:

Three days after news broke about the warrantless wiretapping program [during the Bush administration], a bipartisan group of Senators—Democrats Dianne Feinstein of California, Carl Levin of Michigan, Ron Wyden of Oregon and Republicans Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Olympia Snowe of Maine, sent a letter dated December 19, 2005 to Judiciary and Intelligence Committees chairmen and ranking members requesting the two committees to “seek to answer the factual and legal questions” about the program.

On January 20, 2006, in response to the administration’s asserted legal justification of the NSA program being based in part on the AUMF, Senators Leahy (D-VT) and Kennedy (D-MA) introduced Resolution 350 to the Judiciary Committee that purported to express a “sense of the Senate” that the AUMF “does not authorize warrantless domestic surveillance of United States citizens”.

Leahy and Kennedy also asserted that in their view the procedures being followed in the NSA program, specifically, the ongoing 45-day reapproval by the Attorney General, the White House Counsel and the Inspector General of the National Security Agency, was “not good enough” because each of these is an executive branch appointees who in turn report directly to the Executive.

Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Arlen Specter, in a three-page letter dated June 7, 2006 to Vice President Dick Cheney, to prompt the Administration to provide: input on his proposed legislation, briefings to his committee about the program, and more cooperation with Congressional oversight. Specter also wrote about the Vice President lobbying the other Republican members of the Judiciary Committee about compelling telephone companies to testify about classified information.

You’ll note that concern over executive overreach was bipartisan back then. Today, Democrats “haven’t had a problem with how incidental collection has been handled concerning lawmakers.” The dears.

Comments

What Trait Difference Can No Longer Be Overlooked?

Is it race? Religion? Or something else?

Can you guess? I’ll just cut to the chase:

The erosion of trust that’s both reflected in and accelerated by the Trump phenomenon has real economic consequences. Business is hard to conduct in societies with low levels of trust. The share of people who agree that “most people can be trusted” varied from a high of 66 percent in the Netherlands to a low of 3 percent in Trinidad and Tobago in the World Values Survey, 2010-14. Government and commerce can grind to a halt when trust is absent.

The U.S., with 35 percent saying most people can be trusted, is in the top third of countries for societal trust, which helps explain why it is one of the world’s richest nations. That endowment of stability doesn’t come with a lifetime guarantee, however, and U.S. politics has lately taken on a spiteful cast. “While Americans are inclined to ‘hedge’ expressions of overt animosity toward racial minorities, immigrants, gays, or other marginalized groups, they enthusiastically voice hostility for the opposing party and its supporters,” according to Fear and Loathing Across Party Lines: New Evidence on Group Polarization, a study by Stanford political scientist Shanto Iyengar and Princeton postdoctoral researcher Sean Westwood that was published this year in the American Journal of Political Science. In four experiments, the authors found that discrimination based on political affiliation “exceeds discrimination based on race.”

Marriages across party lines are down to below 10 percent from more than 30 percent in the 1960s, Iyengar says, citing others’ research. The fabric of society is fraying. “I don’t want to sound like I’m an alarmist, but I could see the possibility of violence, large-scale street movements which are politically motivated,” he says in an interview.

The article is mostly about Trump, populism, etc., but the really interesting stuff has to do with trust and hatred. I knew lots of couples in the 60s and 70’s that disagreed politically, and had friends across the spectrum. I bet you did too. Now it is the rare friendship that can weather this political climate. And I honestly don’t know anyone who is still married to someone that they disagree with politically. It is sad and very stupid. Conservatives living in or near large Northeast or West Coast cities have known that trust is crumbling and political hatred is growing – known it for a very long time. I’ve often said that the Constitution only works as long as we agree to allow it to work, as long as we honor the rules. That obviously is no longer happening, which is why I no longer believe. Historians claim that we’ve gone through this stuff before and always come out alright. I am not so sure.

– Aggie

Comments

Before We Obsess Over California, Let’s Think About ISIS, Obama

Obama ignored intelligence because it conflicted with the 2012 campaign narrative

I’m not big on impeachment, or lots of drama, but this seems to call for it:

President Barack Obama’s former top military intelligence official said Tuesday that the White House ignored reports prefacing the rise of ISIS in 2011 and 2012 because they did not fit its re-election “narrative.”

“I think that they did not meet a narrative the White House needed. And I’ll be very candid with you, they just didn’t,” retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, the former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, told CNN’s Jake Tapper on “The Lead.”

This does not represent a simple disagreement; this represents putting the petty needs of politics in front of the safety of the American public. It is a damning statement and deserves something more that tut, tut.

– Aggie

Comments

« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »