Category Archives: Liberal Tactics

Repeat: Friday Follies for June 5, 2015

Posted on by

The left is attempting to smear Marco Rubio and his wife. The Drudge headline this morning is this: NYT INVESTIGATES: Rubio and Wife Cited 17 Times for Traffic Infractions... The New York Times couldn’t be bothered by Hillary’s State Department incompetence, nor of the bribes funneled to her and Bill through their shell corporation, but let the Rubios get some traffice tickets? Horrors!

I’ll take the Rubio’s traffic ‘indiscretions’ over Bill’s and Hillary’s criminality any day. At least the Rubios paid their fines instead of attempting to cover them up.

***

Rick Perry announced his candidacy for Prez yesterday. I saw him speak at the NRA Annual Meeting in Nashville a month ago. It was apparent then that he was going to run. (You can see my comments and a link a video of his speech here.) Perry’s opening video of him shooting steel with an AR was a hit with the NRA members—especially his final look to the audience in the video.

Perry lost his bid for Prez in 2012 by screwing up one interview. In that interview, he said he’d close three federal departments. He named two and couldn’t remember the third. I’ve heard him say elsewhere that he had learned his lesson—never give an interview after having major surgery. Perry had surgery on his back during the campaign and was taking pain-killers when he was interviewed.

I like Perry. I like a number of the ‘Pub candidates, Cruz, Walker, Rubio, Jindal, and to as lesser extent, Paul. I told my wife after hearing Perry speak in Nashville, “He is the only one speaking today that actually appears Presidential.”

***

I don’t know how many of you subscribe to Erick Erickson’s daily newsletter. I do. I don’t always agree with him but, on occasion, he says something that strikes a cord within me. Today’s newsletter had such an occasion. I would hope you read it, too. It contains ammunition for you in your next discussion with a liberal who claims our Founders were racist, old white men.

Open Letter to a Liberal Professor

My conservatism doesn’t need to be edited.

By: Diary)  |  June 4th, 2015 at 03:27 PM

(From the diaries…bill s)

The heart of this entry is a letter I wrote in response to one specific liberal professor who made the mistake of attempting to embarrass me for holding conservative views. First let me share a little back-story. It was an online course on American Government, one that made use of a message board for class discussion and student interaction. After introductions our first assignment was to answer a question regarding freedom in America, including how and to whom it should be applied. I happily typed and posted my response, which I share here in part:

“Our Federation was founded on the ideas of Individualism, and the idea that freedom should be available to every citizen in equal measure. It was this idea that the framers of our Constitution embodied and enshrined within our system of governance. They sought to create a document that preserved and protected the idea of individual freedom by enumerating a system that not only protected the citizen but allowed the citizen to participate should he or she choose to do so.”

Being a liberal my professor could not let me, a mere student, praise the work of our nation’s founders, especially in an open forum where other students might be exposed to a positive view of them. Thus she felt it her duty to post a reply and correct my “errant” notions, and responded by stating:

“I will not usually intervene here, but I want to push you all to think about something —

Irish writes: “Our Federation was founded on the ideas of Individualism, and the idea that freedom should be available to every citizen in equal measure.” As I’m sure Irish knows, though, the Founding Fathers explicitly did not believe that freedom should be available to every citizen in equal measure. Quite the opposite. They believed that freedom should be available mostly to the wealthy, land-owning, white men. Our idea of who should be allowed to participate in this project of self-governance has evolved substantially over our history.”

Like so many liberal professors, in a room with a captive audience, this woman had become far too comfortable spouting factual inaccuracies and historically incorrect statements in order to drive forward a corrosive ideology. Like so many conservatives I am sick of this having become a common occurrence, so rather than drop the matter, I chose to respond:

Professor,

In response to your attempt to correct my statement I would prefer to defend my position. I said exactly what I meant, it needs no correction, and furthermore I can defend my position with historical evidence.

At the time of our nation’s founding the understood meaning of the word “citizen”, so far as political involvement was concerned, was indeed that of white, land-owning, males. Thus, to say, as I did, that “Our Federation was founded on the ideas of Individualism, and the idea that freedom should be available to every citizen in equal measure” is accurate in its context. However to state that the founders “explicitly did not believe that freedom should be available to every citizen in equal measure” that they believed “[q]uite the opposite” going so far as to suggest that “They believed that freedom should be available mostly to the wealthy, land-owning, white men” is demonstrably incorrect.

It defies logic to suggest that our Constitution’s Framers intended to reserve citizenship and freedom to white, male, landowners, either generally or exclusively. If that were the case they could have done so, they had the opportunity — they had the votes.

Our Constitution, written by those very framers, does not restrict citizenship or freedom in such a manner. Even issues such as slavery are acknowledged but not enshrined, left instead to the discretion of the states. Nowhere within our founding document can be found anything resembling the Jim Crow laws or the “slave” codes that erupted in the South after the passing of the 13th Amendment. Yet these men you accuse of harboring such vile racist views had ample opportunity to include such legislation. Furthermore, the inclusion of the Article 5 Amendment process indicates that our Constitution’s framers were aware of the fact that times would change, and also aware of the need to provide for those changes. They were conscious of the population growth in the North and expected that it would eventually overrun the influence of the South within Congress. Feeling that this would be the case they allowed the Three-fifths Compromise in an effort to prevent the Southern States from simply importing more slaves as a means to increase their power within the House of Representatives. This act by the Framers suggests they intended to provide a means by which our federation could eventually deal with the issue of slavery while accomplishing the immediate, and necessary, task of creating a union of the existing States.

I would suggest that our Constitution is not a rigid document enshrining bigotry, patriarchy, or voting rights tied to landownership, is evidence of the lack of intent to restrict society in America in such a manner; but it could have been. This is a truth I feel is easily supported. We need look no further than he dissenting opinion in the infamous Dred Scott case. This document contains a great deal of history relating to the treatment of African Americans prior to the Emancipation. In the opinion Justice Benjamin R. Curtis reveals that four Northern states (Delaware, Maryland, New Hampshire and New York) provided voting rights for African American citizens even before our Constitution was drafted. (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1072053/posts) Ironically, in light of your assertion, several states when ratifying the Constitution did so with votes from both Whites and African Americans. This, to my mind, seems to fail as evidence of an exclusionary approach by the Framers.

I am however not naïve, I realize that there were those among our founders who felt otherwise but the facts are clear — the majority of our Founding Fathers did not intend to restrict freedom, using a narrow definition of who was a “citizen,” reserving it to a select few, as you have suggested.

On a final note I would point out that where there hasbeen a substantial change to our definition, or understanding, of what constitutes a “citizen” it has been a result of those “white, male, landowners” in the North who voted to abolish the institution of slavery and redefine said citizenship, via the 13th and 14th Amendments, and this was done in the face of great opposition from the southern Democrat Party. (On a side note: This phenomena was repeated in the early 1900’s when again “white men” in the House of Representatives and the Senate voted to extend that definition to include recognized national voting rights for women as citizens of America, and this via another Constitutional Amendment. This decision closed the gap legally between citizenship and voting rights for women.)

The ability for this to happen, both for former slaves and for women, was precisely a result of those “white, male, landowners” who could have enshrined sexism, bigotry and the like within our founding document but did not.

I stand by my original statement, and maintain that I was accurate in my portrayal of the intent of our founders.

I appreciate your time.

I knew even then that I would not change her mindset, or reverse her ideology, but I also knew that I was throwing down a gauntlet she could not afford to pick up. This is why it is important we self-educate. We as conservatives must be able to defend our beliefs with documented and researched opinions. It is amazing to watch a liberal when they are out of their element, falling back on tired and weak hypothetical arguments.

Not surprisingly this professor never again attempted to correct my posts, and for the curious, my grade did not suffer for my response.

Facebook

Gang Aft Agley, Redux

Posted on by

I wrote about Bobby Burns poem, To a Mouse, in a previous post. I’m not discussing poetry today, just the foibles of life and planning and how often plans change for one reason or another. Today is such a day.

Today was supposed to be a, “No post today,” day. I had planned to work on my ham radio station, plant a new ground system for the station and antennas, and play in the dirt planting some posts that will hold up a wire antenna.

Alas, life has intervened. Perhaps, tomorrow. If the rain stays away. Digging some post holes could…be a bit muddy.

***

George Stephanopolos admitting he paid $75,000 to the Clinton Foundation.

George Stephanopolos has been proven, again, to be a slime ball. He’s been tightly connected to democrat politics and the Clinton Crime Family since he was Bubba’s press secretary in the 1990s.

It all began with a book. A book, Clinton Cash, by Peter Schweizer about the finances of the Clinton Family Foundation and their ‘Global Initiative’ project. The project was, it appears, to be an avenue for the Clintons to receive bribes in exchange for favors.

Stephanopolos was the chosen hitman to attack the book. Of course, he didn’t reveal his current connections to the Clinton Crime Family foundation, nor, until it came out, his contributions, over $75,000, to that foundation.

CNN, who is one of Stephanopolos’ employers, claimed to have no knowledge of the financial connection…until, under pressure, Stephanopolos admitted that he was a contributor to the Clintons. It makes you wonder what Georgie received in return?

By the way, GOPers and candidates are uniting against Stephanopolos. Many will no longer appear on some of the news programs if attended by Stephanopolos. I have heard that CNN will not be hosting the Presidential Debates next year. Perhaps, it will be FOX News instead. Perhaps Megan Kelly will be the Moderator? Works for me!

In case you haven’t heard, Peter Schweizer’s next book is about Jeb Bush. Did you know Bush was a member of a state department sponsored group to help rebuild Haiti after their last massive earthquake? Needless to say, there was massive fraud and embezzlement involved by some of the ‘approved’ contractors, friends of Bill, friends of Hillary, contributors to the Clinton ‘crime’ Family Foundation. Perhaps we shall see what was Jeb’s involvement was to that group?

Facebook

Grrr!

Posted on by

Some statements just make me want to reach for tar, feathers and a splinter-covered rail. The statement below by a so-called ‘Pub who wants to run for Governor would be a fine subject of scorn, tar and feathers.

RTW DAY? — ‘Mike Parson supports right-to-work, but questions Senate’s approach,’ PoliticMo: “State Sen. Mike Parson, a Republican who wants to be Missouri’s next governor, said Monday he thinks “right to work” is worth giving a shot. But, in an interview Monday, Parson did question why Senate Majority Leader Ron Richard, R-Joplin, was pushing the issue so hard ahead of a likely veto by Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon.

“‘If you can’t get it across the finish line, you have to weigh out why you’re doing it…Can we get this done and get an override over the governor after he vetoes, and can you not? I think that as to be part of the equation. I hope people have thought that through.’ …  Parson, who chaired the committee that passed a House “right-to-work” bill on Monday, said he will vote for the bill, but would not say whether he would support a rarely used motion to cut off debate and force an end to an imminent Democratic filibuster. At Monday’s hearing, Parson said he was “surprised there weren’t more to testify in favor of it,” but still feels the policy is good for the state. — PoliticMO, May 12, 2015.

What Parson really said, “since Nixon will veto RTW, why bother.” If that is Parson’s attitude, he has no business holding an elective office. If RTW is passed quickly, and Nixon vetoes it as expected, we could have time to override Nixon’s veto this session instead of trooping back to do it in September.

The Legislature has already over-turned one of Nixon’s vetoes this year. Taken in context, it’s easy to interpret what Parson wants. He wants RTW to fail to satisfy his union buddies; he just doesn’t want to be blamed for its failure to pass.

Senator Tom Dempsey (R-St. Charles) is using his daughter as an excuse for not voting for RTW. Like Parson, Dempsey doesn’t want RTW to pass, either; he’s in bed with the St. Louis unions.

By the way, is Dempsey term limited yet? I surely hope so.

‘Daughter’s graduation means a top Missouri Republican will miss end of session,’ Post-Dispatch: “Senate President Pro Tem Tom Dempsey, R-St. Charles, tweeted Monday that he will miss the last two days of session to attend his daughter, Meaghan’s, graduation from Tulane University in New Orleans. The session ends May 15. … In the past, Dempsey has said he won’t actively push the bill but also won’t stand in the way of it coming up on the floor.“ — St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

As PoliticMO suggests, perhaps an alternate headline for that piece in the Post-Dispatch should be, “Area man who opposes right to work relieved!”

***

I suppose this section could be labeled, “What’s good for the Goose, is good for the Gander.” We have all heard about the Clinton Family Foundation, or, the Clinton Crime Family Foundation as some call it. It is a supposed non-profit organization that is really a money laundering scheme of the Clinton’s. It is an avenue for bribes to Hillary when she was SecState.

Now it appears that Jeb Bush may be following in Hillary’s footsteps. He, too, has created a non-profit foundation. We don’t yet know if it will be an avenue for illegal money laundering like the Clinton’s. On the other hand, Jeb does seem to be following closely in hHillary’s footsteps.

A nonprofit group allied with former Florida governor Jeb Bush is playing a more expansive role in his current political operation than previously known, housing several top policy advisers who are expected to join his eventual campaign, according to people familiar with the structure.

At least four people with expertise on energy issues, foreign affairs and communications are working with Right to Rise Policy Solutions, a nonprofit advocacy group that can accept secret, unlimited donations from individuals and corporations.

Bush’s reliance on the non­profit as he prepares for a likely presidential bid puts him on untested legal ground, cloaking who is paying the salaries of his expected advisers. But a polarized Federal Election Commission is unlikely to scrutinize the maneuver, campaign finance experts said.

The latest hire was announced Monday: Michael Steel, a top spokesman for House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), said that he was moving to Florida to take a role with the nonprofit group. If Bush officially launches a presidential campaign, Steel would join it, according to people familiar with the plans who were not authorized to speak publicly. — The Washington Post.

Jeb got himself in trouble during an interview on FOX with Megan Kelly. She asked him if he, Jeb, would support the 2003 invasion of Iraq if he knew what would follow. Jeb said, “I would.” Shortly thereafter, Jeb’s handlers were scurrying about trying to walk back Jeb’s statement. They attempted to clarify Jeb’s statement saying, “the former Florida governor misunderstood the framing of the question – ‘knowing what we know now’ – and instead focused on the less controversial issue of whether he believed his brother acted rightly given the available information at the time.” Source: FOX News. The whole episode reminds me of the old comedy routine, reminiscent of Saigon’s “5 O’Clock Follies,” called, “What the General means…“

Dig, deeper, Jeb. Dig deeper and reveal more of your liberal core values.

Facebook

It’s Monday!

Posted on by

…and all the news that happened over the weekend is…or isn’t, being reported.

In case you haven’t heard, there was a First Amendment event in Garland, TX, over the weekend. A couple of RIFs decided to crash the event with gunfire and a carbomb. The event was an art show. Nice liberal ring to that event, wasn’t it? It was a collection of cartoons about mohammad.

The RIFs drove up, fired one shot that lightly wounded a security guard, and fifteen seconds later, according to some commentators, they were DRT. It seems that some heavily armed police was on site. Just waiting for trouble.

I guess it’s open season for RIFs in Texas. Perhaps those heavily armed police were trolling for terrorists? Whichever, it worked.

I’ve noted the MSM has yet to identify the two shooters as Islamic. One, it was announced over the weekend, had been on the FBI’s watch list for some time when he attempted to travel to the middle east for training as a jihadi.

The libs are blaming the organizer of the event, Pamela Geller, for the attack. However, she was a darling of the media when she presented an anti-mormon musical, called, The Book of Mormon. I guess the media is fine attacking religions as long as they aren’t islamic and don’t shoot back.

***

Ferguson, MO, is and has been in deep financial trouble. They can, however, afford to hire a $1330 an hour lawyer to defend the city against the upcoming DOJ lawsuit.

FERGUSON • In the days following a Department of Justice report accusing Ferguson’s police and municipal court of widespread abuses, the city made a series of conciliatory moves. Three employees involved in racist emails were forced out. The city manager stepped down. So did the police chief and municipal judge.

Less than a month later, on March 27, a City Council that’s been grappling with declining revenues voted unanimously in a closed meeting to hire one of the nation’s most distinguished and highest-paid trial lawyers to navigate what could be a prolonged and expensive reform process.

His name is Dan K. Webb.

The city of Ferguson is paying him $1,335 an hour. — St Louis Post-Dispatch.

I suppose funding priorities are fluid in Ferguson. As I said in a recent post, “People get the government they vote for.”

***

The eastern GOP establishment is firmly back in power in Jeff City. Liberal ‘pubs filed a bill to increase the state’s gas tax another 10¢ a gallon. The bill passed in the senate along philosophical and geographic lines. The dems and the eastern GOP senators voted for it guided by GOP Senators Ron Richard and Tom Dempsey.

After passing the bill, they allowed an amendment to be added to convert I-70 to a toll road. In essence, the Dempsey, Richard and the dems would sell I-70 to a private group who would then charge taxpayers to use the road their taxes had built.

With the selection of John Hancock to the GOP State Central Committee, there is not a single ‘pub from the western side of Missouri in the party’s leadership. The bad old days of GOP crony politics has returned to the detriment of rest of the state. That the GOP would allow a tax increase is one sign of the return of GOP collusion with democrats that we had hoped would never return to Jeff City.

Facebook

Is he, or isn’t he?

Posted on by

That is the question. What question? Whether Obama is a Muslim or not.

I’ve not written nor spoke about this issue before, although many others have and claimed Obama is a Muslim. Yes, he attended Jeremiah Wright’s church for twenty years. Many Christians also claim that Wright’s brand of theology is far removed from Christianity.

This week the issue came to the forefront initially by an interview of Rudy Giuliani when Giuliani said Obama did not love America. You can guess how that went over with the MSM. After the liberals and MSM drew their bloody knives, Giuliani, amid death threats, went one step further.

Rudy Giuliani Doubles Down – ‘No, Obama Doesn’t LOVE America’

By /

The former Mayor of New York City knows how to make some waves. Rudy Giuliani cut his teeth putting mobsters behind bars in crime-infested New York City, then he became Mayor of New York and cleaned the city up – helping it to reclaim her status as the greatest city in the world.

Now he’s stirring things up again with a recent frontal assault on president Obama’s love of country. Just a few days ago he shocked the liberal media when he questioned President Obama’s love of our nation.

First of all, I’m not questioning his patriotism. He’s a patriot, I’m sure. What I’m saying is that in his rhetoric I very rarely hear him say the things that I used to hear Ronald Reagan say, the things I used to hear Bill Clinton say about how much he loves America. I do hear him criticize America much more often than other American presidents. And when it’s not in the context of overwhelming number of statements about the exceptionalism of America, it sounds like he’s more of a critic than he is a supporter. You can be a patriotic American and be a critic, but then you’re not expressing that kind of love that we’re used to from a president…

What I question about the president, maybe it’s even broader than that he doesn’t express love of America enough, which I don’t think he does. I think he talks more about criticism rather than about what an exceptional country we are. At least I don’t feel that form him. Maybe I’m missing something but I don’t feel that.I also don’t believe he expresses a love of Western civilization that he should or understanding of Western civilization or what Western civilization has brought to the world. It’s had its grave, grave faults, terrible sins, but it’s also gone through things like the Protestant Reformation, the Catholic Counter-Reformation. We have three different forms of Judaism; reformed, conservative, orthodox. They all live together, they don’t kill each other, they don’t stone each other. At one time they did, a long time ago.But now how about we talk about how we get Islam into the modern age where there is a recognition that you have to have this kind of debate within your religion and it’s got to come out in the open. It’s got to be discussed. If you refuse to say that there are extremist members of the Islamic religion, then it sounds like you’re living on Mars.

But Rudy Giuliani wasn’t finished. He’s no ‘shrinking violet.’ He has a reputation of pushing back when pushed. He continued on the offensive not only defending his earlier remarks but taking another step forward.

I’m right about this. I have no doubt about it. I do not withdraw my words. If the president goes and makes a speech and talks about what a great country this is, if the president could complete the following sentence, during the Crusades the Christians were barbarians and so were the Muslims, if the president could say Islamic fundamentalist terrorism is our enemy, I will applaud the president. But until he does that, I will have doubts about his emotions, his feelings, his attitudes and the way in which he developed. We haven’t even mentioned some of the other communists and leftists who educated him as a young man. But all we need is Reverend Wright. 17 years in that church and that man condemned America over and over and over again. And he remained a member of that church?

…

I am saying, and I may be wrong, it’s my opinion and I’m entitled to it, I do not detect in this man the same rhetoric and the same language, the same love of America that I detected in other American presidents, including Democrats. And I think it guides a lot of the things that he says and a lot of the things that he does.

The MSM isn’t satisfied with trashing Giuliani. They attempted to ambush Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker when he attended the winter session of the National Governors Association. A reporter asked Walker if he thought Obama was a Christian.

Gov. Scott Walker: ‘I don’t know’ whether Obama is a Christian

By Dan Balz and Robert Costa February 21, 2015
http://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_1484w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2015/02/20/Production/Daily/Editorial-Opinion/Images/208041222.jpg?uuid=JQj-qLlAEeSqBRzoErP90g

Scott K. Walker, governor of Wisconsin, dismissed questions about President Obama’s faith Saturday. (Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg News)

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, a prospective Republican presidential contender, said Saturday he does not know whether President Obama is a Christian.

“I don’t know,” Walker said in an interview at the JW Marriott hotel in Washington, where he was attending the winter meeting of the National Governors Association.

…

“I’ve actually never talked about it or I haven’t read about that,” Walker said, his voice calm and firm. “I’ve never asked him that,” he added. “You’ve asked me to make statements about people that I haven’t had a conversation with about that. How [could] I say if I know either of you are a Christian?”

Walker said such questions from reporters are reflective of a broader problem in the nation’s political-media culture, which he described as fixated on issues that are not relevant to most Americans.“

To me, this is a classic example of why people hate Washington and, increasingly, they dislike the press,” he said. “The things they care about don’t even remotely come close to what you’re asking about.”

The MSM tried to ambush Scott Walker but failed. Walker neatly stepped out of the trap the reporter had laid for him. It was the MSM who changed the topic from Obama’s love or hatred of America to Obama’s religious views.

I had an opportunity to briefly meet Rudy Giuliani a few years ago. He and several others gave speeches about leadership. It was a seminar series that toured the country and my employer bought a block of tickets for their employees. I was one of those who attended. After all the speeches were over, we were conducted to a hospitality suite where Giuliani and others were present. I shook Rudy’s hand and we spoke a few sentences. I doubt if Giuliani remembers. I remember his openness and honesty. I don’t agree with all of Giuliani’s politics. He’s more ‘moderate’ than me, but I never doubted his sincerity nor his courage

The conversation since Giuliani’s first statement has shifted from Obama’s love of America to Obama’s religion. Many believe Obama is a Muslim. I’ve not gotten into those discussions before. I believe a person’s acts speak louder than words.

But the question is now being asked at the national level. It’s no longer a topic for the Tin-Foil Hat crowd. The MSM has, unintentionally perhaps, raised the question, “Is Obama a Muslim?” If I must, as I said above, judge a person by his actions, then the answer must be, “Yes, he is.”

Facebook

Retaliation

Posted on by

If you thought the GOP establishment would accept the flood of new conservatives in Congress, you were wrong. McConnell, et. al., is already planning to remove leading conservative Senators. Ted Cruz is too strong in Texas, but Mike Lee of Utah is perceived to be weaker.

They’re Coming for Mike Lee

By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  December 22nd, 2014 at 12:50 PM

It is extremely notable that Manu Raju of the Politico has written that the establishment intends to destroy Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT)See Full Scorecard97%. Raju serves as the court stenographer for the Senate GOP leadership. His pieces are routinely littered with the conventional wisdom and talking points of the Senate GOP leadership. He has more than once anticipated Senate GOP leadership strategy based on their conversations with him.

So when Manu Raju says the establishment intends to go on offense against the tea party by beating Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT)97% in the Utah Republican Primary, we can be sure Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)67%, the NRSC, etc. will be stepping aside and failing to give Lee the support they gave Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS)51%, etc.

Of note, the story focuses on Jon Huntsman, Sr., who remains well respected in Utah. Huntsman, you will recall, is the man who spread the rumors about Herman Cain in 2012, in an effort to help his son, Jon Huntsman the lesser, run for President. All he managed to accomplish was taking out Herman Cain and getting his granddaughter an MSNBC show.
But Huntsman is clearly planning on destroying Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT)97% to gain a tea party scalp and the GOP establishment in D.C. clearly plans on standing aside to let it happen.

You can read the entire article by following this link.

One interesting portion of the article is the involvement of the Huntsman family. John Huntsman was a candidate for President in 2012. As the campaign progressed, his views aligned him more with Obama and the democrats that with any of the remaining GOP candidates. In the end, it became clear that Huntsman’s purpose in the campaign was the disruption of the other GOP candidates instead of a true run for the Presidency. With the Huntsman family deep pockets, Mike Lee will be the underdog in funding his re-election to the Senate.

***

Bill de Blasio and Al Sharpton have been accused with fomenting the tension that led to the murders of two New York police officers. When New York Mayor de Blasio attended a memorial service for the two officers, many of the officers attending turned their backs to the Mayor.

Former Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik said, “They [de Blasio and Sharpton] have blood on their hands.”  The statement appeared in an article appearing in The American Thinker. De Blasio’s relations with the NYPD continue to deteriorate. With growing pro-police pressure, de Blasio attempted to step back and issued a statement pleading for a cessation of the anti-police protests. Al Sharpton, one of the protest leaders, refused.

The growing disruption is a creation of the media and of charlatans like Sharpton. They claim Eric Garner was choked to death while being arrested. He was not. Eric Garner died of natural causes, a heart attack, an hour after being arrested due to his own health issues. You won’t learn that in the media. No, you have to review the coroner’s reports because the media ignored that vital piece of information. The Coroner blamed the cops before the Grand Jury, but when the report was examined, it said otherwise.

The misinformation by the media and their liberal accomplices are slowly coming to light. Generations of Americans have been mislead by the liberal controlled media. Some members of the black community are beginning to realize they’ve been lied to for decades. Follow the link. It is an interesting read.

Facebook

NYT: All the worthless news unfit to print

Posted on by

From time to time it is important to ridicule those institutions who continually expose their stupidly. The New York Times is a perfect example.

The New York Times published a piece attempting to foment dissent within the ‘Pubs. Their core theme was correct, there are ‘Pubs fomenting dissension…just not Ben Carson.

G.O.P. Hopes for Unity May Be Upset by Ben Carson

By

INDIANAPOLIS — A conservative think tank recently sent Ben Carson, a potential presidential candidate and fierce critic of the federal health care overhaul, a series of messages to post on Twitter during the grilling in the House of Jonathan Gruber, the M.I.T. economist who advised the Obama administration.

Mr. Carson, a retired pediatric neurosurgeon, has set off a prairie fire of rank-and-file conservatives urging him to run for the Republican nomination. He liked the think tank’s idea, but he knows that he excites supporters because he is an unscripted outsider. So he wrote his own Twitter posts, including, “Why was it necessary to disrupt entire medical system to take care of the needs of 15% of the people?”

The New York Times says that the organization, Run Ben Run, has collected so much money, more than a comparable organization supporting Hillary Clinton, that Carson may have the “potential to throw a wrench into the establishment’s desire to unify early.” (Note: the establishment mentioned by the NYT is not the GOP.)

Not only could Ben Carson disrupt liberal plans, he could present “the danger of turning off moderates if his divisive views continue to gain traction.”

Horrors!

But the real disrupters of a unified GOP is not Ben Carson. It’s not Rand Paul nor Marco Rubio despite the current battle between the two over Cuba and illegal aliens. The real creators of dissent within the GOP is the Washington establishment led by John Boehner and Mitch McConnell.

No, the New York Times believes Carson is a dangerous person. Why? He’s a commentator on FOX News.

Mr. Carson has built a profile on heavy exposure as a commentator on Fox News, an uplifting biography and, especially, intemperate criticism of the Age of Obama that might seem to disqualify a major-party candidate. An African-American, he has called the president’s health care law “the worst thing that has happened in this nation since slavery.” — NWT.

Why am I picking on the New York Times? I’m doing so because it is important to display the bias of liberal media. And—the fact that the NYT is not a news organization but a propaganda outlet for the liberal agenda and the democrat party.

Speaking of GOP unity, Boehner and McConnell ensured their buddy and fundraiser, Karl Rove and his Crossroads organization, benefited in the CROMnibus bill just rammed through Congress. It relieves Rove of more constraints to fund establishment candidates against those supported by the Tea Party and other grassroots organizations.

POWER PLAY:  CROSSROADS DRIVING HARD FOR 2016
Paul Lindsay of American Crossroads joins Chris Stirewalt to talk about the groups’ $50 million winning effort for GOP candidates in the 2014 midterms, lessons learned and to look ahead at 2016. Will Crossroads remain a primary-election player? How about for the presidential field? WATCH HERE.

Party power? – A surprise addition to the lame duck spending bill gives political parties more power to raise big bucks. What’s the effect on groups like Crossroads? WATCH HERE.

[FT: “Campaign finance experts say anyone considering a [presidential] run will have to raise at least $100m just to be seen as a credible candidate. To win, the cost is expected to top $1bn — nearly $1.5m for every day between now until November 8, 2016. That is an awful lot of handshakes.” ] — FOX Newsletter, December 22, 201.

It’s going to be an interesting two years until 2016.

Facebook