Arizona

I didn’t vote in yesterday’s Arizona Primary. Not because I didn’t want to. or I was lazy. It was my day off. Not because of the reports of lines taking hours to vote.

Because I couldn’t. I was Not Allowed to Vote!

I’m a registered Independent. I was not welcome at the party.

KPHO-TV: The largest group of registered voters in Arizona cannot vote in Tuesday’s Presidential Preference Election.

Voters registered without a party preference now make up the largest voting bloc in Arizona.

According to the Arizona Secretary of State, more than 3 million people are registered to vote in Arizona.

Of those, 1.2 million are registered as Independent.

“The idea that you should be forced to take part in a party to be able to participate in the system is the most un-American thing I can think of,” said former Phoenix Mayor Paul Johnson. “They system today totally discriminates against Independents.”

Johnson has pushed for Arizona to move to a top-two system that would put all candidates on a single ballot, without party preference.

Arizona is one of 24 states where voters must register with a party to vote in the state’s primary.

So I stayed home.

Trump crushed my candidate Ted Cruz.

But the only satisfaction I got from yesterday was not really good in the long run. That of telling the all the little wide-eyed, rose-colored, almost-hippie like Bernie Zombies that the fix was in and being proven correct as Hillary crushed Uncle Bernie here in AZ.

The problem with a Dishonest Socialist (besides the whole Socialist thing) is that they are Dishonest. Hillary is the Dishonest Socialist. Unlike Uncle Bernie who has been a honest Socialist all his life.

He believes in it. His minions believe in his dream of “free stuff”.

Hillary, on the other hand is just power-mad evil personified.

She’s the Sith Lord of Socialists.

The Bernie Zombies who were all fresh faced and excited yesterday, are silent today.

Maybe they learned a lesson about power, but I doubt it.

While the victory in Arizona was needed, the loss of any delegates in Utah handed a blow to the Trump campaign as he seeks to avoid a contested convention in Cleveland in July. As it stands, Trump has 739 out of the 1,237 delegates needed, according to Real Clear Politics’ count. In comparison, with Utah’s 40 delegates, Cruz will have a total of 465 delegates.

So the Establishment will likely get there Brokered, smoke-filled Backroom, Convention.

And Hillary will benefit greatly from it.

And America will die. Once and For all.

But as Yogi Berra once said, “It ain’t over until it’s over”

And there is still Hope (just not the Obama type Hope, I hope).

Like Trump, Clinton’s luck changed after Arizona as well.

Speaking to his supports after losing in Arizona, Sanders contended that the race wasn’t over yet and predicted that he would pick up a victory later in the night — and in Utah and Idaho he was correct.

“I am enormously grateful to the people of Utah and Idaho for the tremendous voter turnouts that gave us victories with extremely large margins,” Sanders said in a statement following his victories. “The impressive numbers of young people and working-class people who participated in the process are exactly what the political revolution is all about. These decisive victories in Idaho and Utah give me confidence that we will continue to win major victories in the coming contests.”

Idaho’s 23 delegates and Utah’s 33 delegates will be split proportionally between Clinton and Sanders as was Arizona’s 75 delegates.

Idaho’s Democratic caucuses were open to anyone, regardless of party affiliation, who is eligible to vote in November’s general election and didn’t vote in the GOP primary which was held earlier in March.

Amazing hings can happen when you LET people vote.

Would things have been different if Independents like me were allowed to vote?

We’ll never know. There were potentially a million voters who weren’t invited to The Party. 🙂

 

 

 

Advertisements

#neverClinton

I must say, I enjoyed the display of tolerance and “choice” yesterday when the little socialist anti-Trumps were blocking people from going to the Trump rally.

I wonder if they’d feel the same about Hillary at Carl Hayden HS tomorrow? 🙂

As the Republican Party has gone to war with itself over Donald Trump’s morality and fitness for the presidency to such an extent that it has produced a #nevertrump movement, it’s hard to miss the fact that there is no #neverhillary movement on the Left even though she’s a loathsome figure. Granted, there are plenty of enthusiastic liberals who prefer the authentic, untainted embrace of an open socialist to the scripted foulness of Hillary Clinton, but at the end of the day, almost all of them are okay with her.

Let me ask a question the mainstream media is always happy to ask about Republicans, but never asks about its preferred candidates on the Left:  What does it say about you as a person if you besmirch yourself by voting for Grandma Benghazi?

Here’s a woman who lies so often that her name has practically become synonymous with deception. Unlike her husband, who was such an artful liar that people wanted to believe him when he wasn’t telling the truth, Hillary is ham-fisted about it. She tells obvious lies that everyone from the media to her enemies, to her friends know are lies right from the beginning.

How do you vote for a woman so dishonest that she claims her daughter was jogging around the World Trade Center on 911 or said with a straight face that she landed under sniper fire in Bosnia? When she lies about having her own email server and about putting our national security at risk by having huge numbers of classified emails sent to it, how do you respect yourself when she gets caught lying about it over and over again?

 

Speaking of that, there are few things less American than allowing someone to get away with breaking the law just because she’s privileged. It’s not even controversial to say that anyone not named “Clinton” who sent more than 2000 classified emails to a private server would lose security clearance and would be going to jail. In fact, even the Obama Administration has already put people in jail for doing less than Hillary Clinton has done. So, how do you look your own children in the eyes when you vote for a woman with an indictment hanging over her head who’s hoping to get off because she’s “above the law?”

Additionally, whatever you want to say about the Republican Party this year, at least we knocked off Jeb Bush. How do you rally behind an even more pathetic Democratic equivalent, a mediocre woman whose entire career has been based on a loveless, dysfunctional marriage to a serial adulterer?

That should be her campaign slogan: “Vote For Hillary: She Married The Right Man!”

That would be a much better slogan than “Hillary For America.” Other than Barack Obama, there’s no one that half of America would rather see in the White House less than Hillary Clinton.  When you choose someone who has been despised by half the country for as long as Hillary has as your candidate, you’re saying “Screw you and drop dead” to everyone who doesn’t vote for your candidate. That’s doubly true since it goes without saying that there can be nothing but open political warfare between the GOP and a woman who has publicly declared that “Republicans” are her enemies. If you think our government is dysfunctional now, you haven’t seen anything compared to what it will look like if Hillary becomes President.

Yet, you’re supposed to stomach the nausea-inducting cocktail that is Hillary Clinton just because she’s a woman.

She lies all the time! But, she’s a woman! She belongs in jail after what she did with her email server. It’s a woman’s turn! She was a mediocre senator and people died in Benghazi because she ignored hundreds of security warnings? I guess some people just don’t like women!

It’s disgusting and ironic that a woman who worked overtime to protect a sexual predator like her husband from the consequences of his actions now wants to play the “girl power” card as the central theme of her campaign, but she has long since abandoned human decency in her all-consuming quest for power. But, what do you say about the people who are willing to potentially play along with this disgusting charade for the next eight years? The people who are just fine with pinning every failure, every lie and every inevitable disaster caused by Hilllary Clinton on sexism? If you at least feel a little bit of shame when you pull the lever for Hillary, then congratulations, you still have a heart.  

 

Where is the GOP?

I am happy to report that a wussy “Republican” for Amnesty lost his primary this week, Rep. Eric Cantor, the House’s #2 man. Maybe now, someone will get a message. But I doubt it.

The result could halt efforts to craft a House immigration reform bill, as nervous Republicans hustle to protect themselves against future challenges from the right ahead of the Nov. 4 midterm elections.

It could also make Republicans even more hesitant to cooperate with President Barack Obama and Democrats for fear of being labeled a compromiser.

We’re too “extreme”, too “hateful” and too “nutty” for that. 🙂

After all Cantor outspend the economics professor 12-to-1.

“Eric Cantor’s loss tonight is an apocalyptic moment for the GOP establishment. The grassroots is in revolt and marching,” said Brent Bozell, a veteran conservative activist and founder of the Media Research Center and ForAmerica.

With nearly all precincts reporting, Brat had about 56 percent of the vote to Cantor’s 44 percent. (Chicago Tribune)

The left is already calling the victor a “A debt-ceiling denialist” because “My commitment is not to increase spending; to have a spending bill where you don’t increase it. Cantor’s voted for 10 of the last 15 debt ceiling increases. I just don’t buy the idea that you are truly put in the position of backing the debt ceiling increase the last minute, that you had no choice.”

And now he’s an “extremist”…

Naturally, Democrats jumped at the chance to fundraise off of the loss. DNC Communications Director Mo Elleithee sent out an email last night to supporters with the subject line, “Wow. Wow wow wow,” painting Brat as a tea party extremist who must be stopped.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/3616628821001/house-majority-leader-eric-cantor-loses-gop-primary/#sp=show-clips

http://video.foxnews.com/v/3616575864001/what-does-eric-cantors-loss-mean-for-the-gop/#sp=show-clips

Which brings us to the question of the day…

Republicans should take the president to task for unlawfully enticing thousands of “unaccompanied illegal children” from Latin America to cross the border. Instead, a GOP leader asks for an amnesty deal.

What is at the top of the Republican wish list? A vibrant economy? An America strong and respected in the world? Capturing the Senate? A Republican elected to the White House in 2016?

Nah. The GOP wants amnesty for illegal aliens.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., made that abundantly clear in an interview with a local Virginia TV station WTVR last Friday. He said he told President Obama that “we can work on the border security bill together. We can work on something like the kids.”

🙂

And Breitbart reports that Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., is secretly gauging House GOP support for action on amnesty legislation before August.

On almost every issue, it makes more sense to wait until Republicans fulfill their current excellent chances this year of getting a Senate majority and retaining the House before considering dealing with Obama. But on immigration it makes no sense at all to make a deal.

Democrats use immigration to smear Republicans as racists. Expanding immigration will give Democrats millions of new votes in the coming decades, destroying forever the political forces that oppose big government.

The more than 90,000 children who crossed the Mexican border into the U.S. and were apprehended this year, and the more than 140,000 expected next year, could and should turn the immigration issue into a GOP weapon against Democrats.

Instead of sending them back home to their parents, Attorney General Eric Holder made it a priority to hire taxpayer-funded lawyers for them. Why don’t we hear Cantor, Ryan and other GOP leaders shout that Democrats are exploiting children to further their political agenda?

Moreover, this whole crisis is of the administration’s making. Its Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program two years ago prevented minors’ deportation for two years, and now Obama has added two more years. As the immigration system becomes overloaded, disease and hygiene issues are coming into play.

Cantor himself is suffering for defying his base. A June 2 Daily Caller/Vox Populi poll found him at only 52% against GOP primary challenger Dave Brat.

Obama is equating immigration law enforcement with cruelty to children in the public’s mind. Instead of holding him responsible, Republicans are asking how they can help him. (IBD)

All those poor new Democrats….

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

Right In Front of Your Face

Here’s something to make the Fluke-Obsessed Left Very unhappy. 🙂

So now Gloria Alred will be calling for a ban on “Saturday Night Live” and we will have to prosecute all it’s writers and ostracize Dan Ackroyd… 🙂

Yes, I was mocking and being being absurd. Not that the Left would ever have known.

They have a fake “War on Women” to fight as distraction of the real issues. But it mkes the Left “feel” good when they can score childish partisan shots.

Excellent Article: http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/05/the-lefts-respect-for-women-a-look-back/

Jennifer Rubin: Limbaugh attack boomerangs on the White House.“The White House and its allies set the standard — condemn, distance, disassociate — with misogynistic entertainers. Now the president is stuck with it… The White House, I am quite certain, never expected this issue to come back to bite the president and his campaign… Call it the legacy of Andrew Breitbart: The left needs to abide by the same rules it sets for its opponents.” Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. Who was it who said that? Can’t recall offhand…

Hint: Saul Alinsky, “The Rules for Radicals” 🙂

After making a point of standing up for women during the Rush Limbaugh controversy, President Obama is taking flak from one corner for not speaking out against “vile misogynist” and liberal Obama supporter Bill Maher.

Maher, a comedian who specializes in politics, is also a $1 million contributor to Priorities USA Action, a super PAC that supports Obama’s reelection.

Penny Nance, president of the conservative group Concerned Women for America, said in a letter to White House chief of staff Jack Lew that Obama “needs to publicly disassociate himself from Priorities USA” until it returns Maher’s money.

“President Obama cannot put forth the eloquent position he announced on Tuesday, while sending administration officials out to raise money for an organization that not only counts a vile misogynist as its largest single donor, but whose executives actively boast about that vile misogynist’s support,” Nance wrote in her letter to Lew.

Last month, in an about face, Obama approved support for Priorities USA Action, a super PAC backing his campaign, allowing senior White House officials to appear at Priorities fundraisers. . . .

A spokesperson for Maher declined to comment when reached by ABC News.

“It’s never appropriate to degrade women, no matter whose side you’re on,” said Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt in an e-mail.

I would have reiterated the examples Nance used of Maher’s language, but I was informed that such language doesn’t meet with The Post’s standards (not even for illustrative purposes). So you can use your imagination, or go look for yourself, or run a Google search. You’ll be appalled, I imagine.

So why not give the money back? White House press secretary Jay Carney lamely tried to argue that Obama “has no direct ties to Priorities USA and cannot tell the group what to do with respect to Maher.”Oh no, it’s not that easy, Mr. Carney. Didn’t Obama just announce he would help the group with fundraising? I bet if he made a rule that he wouldn’t appear before or assist groups that don’t abide by his “Sasha and Malia” standard they’d snap to. The White House and its allies set the standard — condemn, distance, disassociate — with misogynistic entertainers. Now the president is stuck with it.

Just remember that the Left has no standards, no morals or ethics. That’s how you get away with such blatant hypocrisy and expect no one to notice. And then when they do, just ignore it like it never happened (unless it politically useful to score cheap and childish points for you).

Say whatever happened to those Herman Cain accusers?  🙂

[E]ven the most ardent Obama supporter would have to admit that if Limbaugh crossed the line on acceptable discourse, then Maher obliterated that line, even acknowledging the difference between a political talkmeister and a comedian.”

No, they don’t. That’s the beauty of Doublespeak and Doublethink on the Left. No, they don’t. They can say whatever the hell they want and there are no consequences in their minds.

When you are childishly ruled by your emotions and have no standards to live up to you can or say anything and not hold yourself accountable for any of it.

Blatant hypocrisy is so normal to The Left that they can’t even see it anymore, even if you slap them in the face with it.

And speaking of blatant…

Thomas Sowell: “[I’m] in fear and trembling because I have this terrible feeling that they’re going to end up giving this election to Barack Obama,” Sowell said. “And I cannot imagine what this country will be like after a second term for Obama, after he has had a chance to pack the Supreme Court with his own nominees who will rubber-stamp anything he does regardless of how much it may violate the Constitution.”

“He is an extremely clever politician. He knows that one of the ways to get votes is to simply create dependencies. And he’s doing it all over the place and no one seems to be calling him on it. Most recent thing I heard is he’s going to bail out housing speculators who are one of the reasons for the boom and bust in the housing market. But the point is those are the people who are going to vote for him.”

Sowell urged Republicans not to expect the beleaguered economy to be the key to electoral success in November. He pointed to former President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s run of victories, despite the Great Depression.

“I hear others taking comfort in the notion that the bad economy will defeat Obama,” he said. “It will not. A far worse economy did not defeat Franklin D. Roosevelt. He swept 46 out of 48 states. After his first [term], in which unemployment never fell as low — even for a single month — as twice what it had been under Obama, he understood that if you came to the rescue of people they were likely to vote for you. Never mind that it may be your own policies that made it necessary for them to need a rescue.”

Sowell explained later why having a Republican nominee who wasn’t a “cult” figure like Obama was a net positive.

“I think the fact that we don’t have a glorious leader is a plus,” he said. “It means there will be a far less chance of having a cult of a leader that we’ve had the last few years, and such as we have had in the past with people like [John F.] Kennedy and FDR. We don’t need that.” (DC)

I agree completely. The Republicans seem determined to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory at every turn.

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Political Cartoons by Chip Bok

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

 Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez
Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley

 

Tough

Couldn’t have said it better.

Jedidiah Bila: I spend quite a bit of time calling out some on the left. I detest big-government policies that simultaneously snatch our liberty and rob us blind. I find class warfare to be profoundly un-American. I have no patience for leftists who demand civility while spewing hateful rhetoric, or those who insist that feminism, diversity, and compassion are enemies of conservatism. And I don’t like left-wing liars who utilize scare tactics to distort everything from Paul Ryan’s Medicare proposal to Jan Brewer’s effort to enforce an immigration law that the federal government should be enforcing already.

I’ve also had tough words for some in the GOP. I have rejected weak deals that do nothing in the way of seriously addressing this country’s deficit and debt. And I have repeatedly stood firm against business-as-usual Republicans who compromise even when it’s not in the best interest of the country.

I now see two trends developing on the right with respect to 2012 that I’d like to address.

First off, I’ve received many emails from Republicans who feel that GOP contenders shouldn’t boldly criticize each other and that conservatives shouldn’t strongly critique 2012 candidates. I beg to differ.

When it comes to a 2012 primary season, it is imperative that candidates hold each other accountable for their records, for any disparity between their actions and words, for promises made and not kept, and for any and all inconsistencies. I want grassroots conservative bloggers, columnists, television commentators, and talk radio hosts calling it like they see it, putting those records front and center, and having a zero-tolerance policy for phonies and do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do nonsense. That is the only way to try to ensure that the strongest, most capable, most genuinely conservative candidate rises to the top. I want candidates challenging the heck out of each other. And I want us challenging them, too.

Secondly, I’ve had about enough of folks on the right trying to discourage candidates from running by insisting right off the bat that they could never win. Candidates are labeled unelectable, unpresidential, too polarizing, not polished enough, too unconventional, or some other absurd description. And so I ask — what are you folks so afraid of? Why are you so terrified of Sarah Palin, Herman Cain, and others entering the race and showing voters what they’ve got? Whether or not they are able to adeptly articulate their message and/or possess a proven commitment to conservatism will be heard by voters. The American people will make their decision. And I have to question the motives of anyone who wants to silence a candidate before the battle has even begun.

Conservatives, 2012 isn’t a fight we can afford to lose. And it’s not just about defeating Barack Obama. It’s about supporting someone who can be trusted to get this country back on track. You and I both know that plenty of politicians with GOP labels stamped on their foreheads are in no way committed to principled conservatism, and can in no way be counted on to exhibit strong leadership when it comes to fiscal responsibility, entitlement reform, and reawakening the values that built this country. By challenging candidates — and by them challenging each other — American voters will begin to separate the men from the boys, the women from the girls.

And to those who love telling potential GOP candidates to sit down and shut up before they’ve even stepped up to the plate, I remind you that this is America. That’s not what we’re about. I, for one, am ready to hear from everyone gutsy enough to play.

AMEN!

The Left and the Leftist Media are going to hate you no matter what you do or what you say. Period.

You could farther left than Barack Obama (if that’s possible) and they’d still hate you. And so would anyone who would have voted for you.

So have some balls. Stir straight into the Hurricane of Hate.

Case in Point: McDonalds.

Under assault for year by the Food Police.

They attack them, they change their ways. They attack them for something else. They change. They attack them again and again and again.

It’s much like Israel to Hamas and The Palestinians, their very existence pisses them off!

Now that Osama bin Laden is dead, we can turn our attention to another remorseless enemy who for years has sown death and destruction among blameless innocents. I refer, of course, to Ronald McDonald.

The McDonald’s mascot may qualify as one of the more annoying characters on the planet. But to his credit, he doesn’t compound his unappealing personality by bossing you around. In that respect, he is far less objectionable than the people who make a fetish of finding him objectionable.

Last week, they took out ads in several newspapers blaming the clown for childhood obesity and demanding that McDonald’s “stop marketing junk food to kids.” The signers range from the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, an anti-meat group that the American Medical Association has accused of “perverting medical science,” to alternative-healing huckster Andrew Weil.

The general rule of critics is that McDonald’s can do nothing right. Some years ago, they insisted that the company get rid of the beef tallow in which it cooked French fries. It did so, in favor of a supposedly healthier oil containing trans fats. A few years later, the activists demanded that it abandon trans fats, which it soon did.

How much credit did it get for those changes? Not much. The class of people who detested McDonald’s went right on detesting it.

These ads are part of a larger campaign against everything McDonald’s represents. Were the company to retire Ronald McDonald, its enemies would step up their calls for an end to Happy Meals. Get rid of Happy Meals, and they would demand that McDonald’s thoroughly revamp its menu to incorporate their superior notions of nutrition.

Ultimately, the only way to please the critics is to become something unrecognizable. Or, better yet, disappear from the planet. New York Times food columnist Mark Bittman, who is to sanctimony what Saudi Arabia is to oil, believes “anything that discourages people from eating at McDonald’s could be seen as wonderful.”

Wonderful, that is, to enlightened souls who avoid it at all costs. But it’s clear that McDonald’s comes much closer to what paying consumers actually want than what its detractors prefer. It has 32,000 restaurants, serving 64 million people a day. Last year, it had revenues of $24 billion, more than the gross domestic product of some countries.

The food moralists imagine that McDonald’s marketing magic renders its targets helpless to resist. Ronald McDonald might as well be rounding up kids at gunpoint and forcing them to choke down

But children young enough to be seduced by Ronald McDonald or Happy Meals rarely visit restaurants without parents. These adults are free agents experienced at saying “no” to protect the interests of their sometimes ungrateful offspring.

Parents who dislike McDonald’s sales tactics have a wealth of dining alternatives. And anyone who wants a low-fat, low-calorie meal can easily find it underneath the Golden Arches: Health magazine ranks McDonald’s among the 10 healthiest fast-food restaurants.

It may be argued that many parents are too weak or ignorant to make sound decisions about the food their kids eat. If so, McDonald’s and its unstoppable brainwashing machine could vanish tomorrow without making the slightest difference in obesity or other diet-related ailments.

People don’t like cheap, tasty, high-calorie fare because McDonald’s offers it. McDonald’s offers it because people like it. In McDonald’s absence, patrons would seek it out at other fast-food places, sit-down establishments or grocery stores.

We live in an age of inexpensive, abundant food carefully designed to please the mass palate. Most of us, recalling the scarcity, dietary monotony and starvation that afflicted our ancestors for hundreds of millennia, count that as progress. But those determined to save human beings from their own alleged folly see it as catastrophic.

What is apparent is that the militant enemies of fast food would like it treated as a public health menace along the lines of tobacco. They want broad measures to restrict, discourage and punish the companies that sell it.

Ronald McDonald is merely a convenient symbol. Their true target is a capitalist economy that gives companies far too much latitude in appealing to customers and allows government far too little control over our food choices.

The idea of using government power to dictate what we eat will strike many Americans as a gross intrusion on personal freedom. But McDonald’s enemies? They’re lovin’ it. (Steve Chapman-Chicago Tribune)

Add in Liberal obsession with Oil Companies and you see where this is headed.

Liberals just want to control everything and everybody. They just consider themselves why smarter than you so you must be herded like cattle to do and to think what they want you to think.

So to have GOP Presidential Candidates cow-towing to the Media and the Left, trying to be “reasonable” and “accommodating” and “compromising” just drives me bat-crazy.

Stand Up. Be a Man (or woman) and Say what you believe and don’t Equivocate just to placate the Leftists. They won’t be.

Pure and Simple.

Now Just Do it!

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

It’s All About Me :)

Today is primary day in Arizona. But as a registered Independent I have become used to the way of things. I am not allowed to vote today because I am not a partisan of either main party.

I have no voice.

But our President has a voice. And boy does he love the sound of it.

From David Limbaugh’s new book Crimes Against Liberty: Who is Barack Obama? To say that he has an enormous ego is an understatement. Many commentators, including psychological analysts and foreign leaders, have described him as a narcissist.

Obama’s patent self-confidence is not just posturing. It’s evident he truly believes he is special. He did, after all, pen two largely autobiographical books before he had accomplished much of anything. He once told campaign aide Patrick Gaspard, “I think that I’m a better speechwriter than my speechwriters. I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors. And I’ll tell you right now that . . . I’m a better political director than my political director.”

Obama’s belief that he is a gift to the world is a theme he would carry forward into his presidency. He truly believes he alone has the power to reverse the mess America has allegedly made of world affairs, and that only he can restore America’s supposedly tattered reputation.

Indeed, it often seems that for our president, American policy is not about the United States, but about him personally. At the Summit of the Americas, Obama sat through a 50-minute harangue against the United States by Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega, who eviscerated the United States for a century of “terroristic” aggression in Central America. When it was Obama’s turn, he did not defend the United States, but made himself the issue: “I’m grateful that President Ortega did not blame me for things that happened when I was three months old.”

Obama’s numerous self-references soon became legendary. Obama referred to himself 114 times in his first State of the Union. By September 23, 2009, Obama had given forty-one speeches so far that year, referring to himself 1,198 times.  At his West Point speech in December, he referred to himself forty-four times. In a speech in Ohio in January, Obama referred to himself no fewer than 132 times and, in the same speech, had the audacity to proclaim, “This is not about me.”

That phrase, “This is not about me,” cropped up in many of Obama’s speeches, signaling that whatever “this” is, it’s precisely about him—his ego, his ideology, his agenda, his legacy, or his unbending ambition to have his way. The rhetorical device, “It’s not about me,” is a long established pattern in which he self-servingly pretends to project an air of humility to leave the impression that he is modest about accomplishing great things—thereby shamelessly seeking credit both for his modesty and his greatness.

Yet Obama continues to tell us—either as a brazen practitioner of Orwellian deception or as a poster child for political tone-deafness, “I won’t stop fighting for you.” If he were truly fighting for the people, he wouldn’t have mocked the tea partiers or closed his own counterfeit public forums on health care to all but union and other special interest supporters of ObamaCare.

Candidate Obama overtly cultivated a messianic image, from the grandiose pomp accompanying his campaign speech in Berlin to the Greek columns that adorned his acceptance speech at Chicago’s Invesco Field. His advisers fully bought into the façade, especially to the idea that Obama possessed a superior intellect—so far above the masses that it was difficult to convey his ideas in terms simple enough for the people to understand.

At a forum at the Kennedy School of Government, one participant suggested to Obama’s adviser and long-time confidant, Valerie Jarrett, that Obama’s ideas were so complex that the administration should consider writing simple booklets to explain them to ordinary people, just like the computer industry originally wrote DOS For Dummies. Jarrett said it was an excellent idea. “Everyone understood hope and change” because “they were simple . . . part of our challenge is to find a very simple way of communicating. . . . When I first got here people kept talking about ‘cloture’ and ‘reconciliation’ and ‘people don’t know what that’s talking about.’” Then it really got thick as Jarrett proclaimed, “There’s nobody more self-critical than President Obama. Part of the burden of being so bright is that he sees his error immediately.”

Obama didn’t exactly discourage this quasi-deification. In noting Obama’s “pathological self-regard,” former George W. Bush aide Pete Wehner reported that Obama surrounded himself by aides who referred to him as a “Black Jesus.” Wehner noted, “Obama didn’t appear to object.”

Surrounding himself with sycophants and egged on by an adoring media, Obama assumed the presidency with the arrogant ambition of transforming America. He believed he was The One—a visionary whose great deeds would be remembered generations from now. But while his charisma was a great asset on the campaign trail, as president he quickly found that his trademark oratory could not convince a skeptical nation of the wisdom of his extravagant plans.(Daily Caller)

“We were told we were getting a cool, calm, steady leader who could rise above emotional impulses to deliver classic statesmanship and prudent governance. But all too often we witness in him a petulant and vindictive bully who doesn’t seem to understand why anyone would challenge his omniscience,” Limbaugh writes.

Leftist Comedian Bill Maher in 2008: “New Rule: Republicans need to stop saying Barack Obama is an elitist, or looks down on rural people, and just admit you don’t like him because of something he can’t help, something that’s a result of the way he was born. Admit it, you’re not voting for him because he’s smarter than you. Barack Obama can’t help it if he’s a magna cum laude Harvard grad and you’re a Wal-Mart shopper who resurfaces driveways with your brother-in-law. Americans are so narcissistic that our candidates have to be just like us. That’s why George Bush is president.” 🙂

One of the questions a lot of pundits are speculating on is whether Barack Obama will make the great pivot after 2010, the way Bill Clinton did after 1994. Remember, Clinton made a big pivot to the right. Privately, a number of Democratic pollsters and others tell me they fundamentally believe Barack Obama is ideologically incapable of such a pivot. Limbaugh’s book provides the first real evidence that this is true. After 2010, there will be no moderation or pivot right. Obama is wedded to the failed liberal policies of the past hundred years that again and again the American public has repudiated.

But Obama holds that repudiation in contempt. As Limbaugh writes, “Obama’s disingenuousness is not just a matter of stretching the truth once in a while or engaging in a little old-fashioned hyperbole. His outright, habitual lies are a fundamental aspect of his governance…Inside a few months, he showed himself to be deeply racial, aggressively partisan, grossly incompetent, often verbally awkward apart from his teleprompter, an inflexible liberal ideologue, secretive, dishonest, undemocratic, dogmatic and dictatorial, and intolerant and dismissive of his opposition.”

“Based on his behavior as president, it is clear he truly believes his own hype, for we have discovered that instead of messianic, Obama is acutely, perhaps clinically, narcissistic…. Unless stopped, and reversed, the casualties of Obama’s systematic assault on this nation will be our prosperity, our security, and ultimately, our liberty.”(Red State.com)

On Fox Last Night: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSBnzFtN6tk&feature=player_embedded

But don’t worry, he’s on vacation, AGAIN.

“It’s really inspiring, this vision they have for the future,” The president said at an event for Sen. Patty Murray. “Gives you a little pep in your step when you hear it.” referring to his new slogan for the GOP, “No We Can’t”.

Now that’s not petulant and childish now is it folks! 🙂

The net result of Obama’s failed policies is that consumers are reluctant to spend, entrepreneurs are reluctant to invest, and employers are reluctant to hire to the degree necessary to spur economic growth.–Doug Schoen, Democrat Strategist

But there’s always spin from the Ministry of Truth, In this case, CBS:

“President Obama’s approval ratings are certainly lower than they have been in the past, but it is worth noting they’re higher than President Clinton’s approval ratings were in 1994 at the same time and even higher than President Reagan’s approval ratings were in 1982 at this same time. I think the Reagan and Obama situation are sort of good comparisons because Reagan also had inherited a very difficult economy,” Jennifer Palmieri, of the liberal thinktank Center for American Progress, told the “Early Show.”

“The president’s had a lot of legislative victories but the White House understands very clearly that you don’t get points with the American people for legislative victories. They want to see results. The uncomfortable truth the white house is wrestling with [is] a lot of these policies they’ve enacted take time for people to see results in their everyday lives … that’s just going to take some time.”

Or put another way by major leftist Maureen Dowd of the New York Times:

Dumb and bigoted.

That’s Maureen Dowd’s assessment of her fellow Americans in a piece that ran in Sunday’s New York Times, “Going Mad in Herds.” According to Dowd, we are a tribe of unenlightened Islam-haters, who obtusely believe President Barack Obama is a Muslim. All this, she says, is evidence of something I’m sure she knew all along — that Americans lack Obama’s stirring intellect.
“Obama is the head of the dysfunctional family of America — a rational man running a most irrational nation, a high-minded man in a low-minded age,” she writes.

Be patient. He’s genius takes a long to appreciate, if you’re smart enough that is. 🙂

Reach for that Hope!

Anyone got Sisyphus on speed dial?

How Green(e) is My Politics

Alvin Greene, a 13 year veteran of the military won 59% of the vote in the South Carolina democratic primary for the u.s. senate last week. Greene, despite having spent less than 2 thousand dollars on his campaign handily won the primary.

One would think that the Dems would be excited that a black guy with a very limited budget beat out a white guy with loads of campaign money and could be the first african american senator from the southern US  since reconstruction.

But people, including representative James Clyburn (D-SC), House Whip in Congress is demanding an investigation. He and other members of the Democratic party have asked Alvin Greene to pull out of the race.

Some also think he’s a plant by the Republicans. 🙂

“Alvin Greene is pretending to be an idiot,” Creighton (of far left Flamethrower website Firedoglake) writes, noting that Greene holds a college degree and worked as an intelligence specialist in the US military. “He is doing it because someone doesn’t want a strong populist democrat like Vic Rawl running against Jim DeMint in South Carolina for his seat in the United States Senate.”

Isn’t politics just fun. 🙂

“There were some real shenanigans going on in the South Carolina primary,” Clyburn said on the Bill Press radio show, according to The Hill. “I don’t know if [Greene] was a Republican plant; he was someone’s plant.” Clyburn is particularly suspicious that Greene could come up with the $10,400 needed to register for the race despite being unemployed.

A spokesman for Sen. Jim DeMint, Greene’s opponent in the general election, said the charge that the Democratic nominee is a Republican plant is “ridiculous.”
Whomever the Democrats nominated was not likely to win against the very popular DeMint anyhow.

Super leftist Ezra Klein of the Washington Post though, put it this way: There’s been a lot of talk about what sort of trickery and skullduggery and inanity could’ve produced Alvin Greene’s win in South Carolina. But after reading all of it, I’m coming down on the side of Dave Weigel: Maybe the guy just, you know, won.

So why all the outrage? All the conspiracy theories?

Could it be they want to create a crisis, so they can exploit it?

Get the sleepy, apathetic, South Carolina Democrats whipped up?

They want to know where he got the $10,400 to be put on the ballot.

They are more obsessed with this than the $4 Trillion in worthless spending they’ve already done nationally.

It’s like focusing on 1 tree while the whole forest burns down!

But they miss the fact that 100,000 people voted for this guy. Regardless of whether he was “a plant” and “someone” seeded him the money, he still got the votes.

Oh, right, because this was an open primary it was a Republican hit-job… 😦

When asked by NBC’s David Gregory on Sunday if Greene’s election was legitimate, senior White House adviser David Axelrod said, “It doesn’t appear so to me. It was a mysterious deal.”

Axelrod said: “The whole thing is odd. I don’t really know how to explain it and I don’t think anybody else does either. … How [Greene] won the primary is a big mystery, and until you resolve that I don’t think he can claim to be a strong, credible candidate.”

But they are still stuck with an unemployed, no experience candidate with a pending felony trial.

I don’t know about you, but that sounds like the perfect Democrat to me. 🙂

So what is really the troubling factor here is the Democrats attitude that the guy they put up, a former legislator named Vic Rawl, who spend virtually no money either but had the blessing of the establishment,didn’t win so it must be a trick.

The voting machines were rigged, they say. “Hanging Chads” anyone?

Some want the primary results thrown out.

They didn’t get their man.

That’s the really troubling part.

And these are the same Democrats who will, even after 10 years, go ranting off into left field about how the Republicans stole the election in 2000 from Al Gore.

They didn’t get their man.

Does this sound like a free and fair, democratic election ethic or a party apparatchik put-up job?

The Party wants whom the party wants. And the people are just sheep who are supposed to vote the way the party wants them too and if they don’t it must therefore be FRAUD! 🙂

And if the party doesn’t get what it wants it will simply erase it and start over again until you do what the party wants.

Very scary.

But does it sound familiar?

Health Care reform anyone? Bailouts? TARP? Stimulus? Cap and Trade!

The majority of Americans were vehemently against the Health Care bill, but the Democrats wanted their Holy Grail no matter what and they got what they wanted by any means necessary.

And now it’s Energy.

Cap and Trade, which stalled out for lack of support is now re-energized by the Oil Spill.

“The tragedy unfolding on our coast is the most painful and powerful reminder yet that the time to embrace a clean energy future is now,” he said. “I say we can’t afford not to change how we produce and use energy – because the long-term costs to our economy, our national security, and our environment are far greater.” –President Obama, last night.

Never waste a Crisis!

Overly Expensive, inefficient, but politically correct,Green Tech or Bust.

One problem, the nation, and the world run on Oil.

So they need to make Oil unattractive, both politically and economically.

Enter Cap and Trade.

Mind you, the rest of the world is going to do anything, but take advantage of the weak, stupid Americans.

And 10’s of thousands of good jobs will evaporate.

Earlier this month, the president ordered a six month ban on exploratory deepwater drilling – a move some experts predict will pour salt into the wounds of the already injured region.

The moratorium could lead to massive job losses in Louisiana, which relies on drilling to support its economy, Louisiana State University Economist James Richardson said.

“The moratorium could be more devastating than the leak, because more people are employed by the oil industry than the fishing industry,” he said.

The moratorium could cost the state more than 20,000 jobs by the end of the year, according to the Louisiana Department of Economic Development. The Department estimates for every one employee working on a rig, nine employees onshore are working to support that rig.

“During one of the most challenging economic periods in decades, the last thing we need is to enact public policies that will certainly destroy thousands of existing jobs while preventing the creation of thousands more,” Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal said in a letter to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar.

Broken down by industry, the Louisiana Department of Economic Development estimates fishing and tourism contributes $10 billion to the Louisiana economy, while energy contributes $65 billion.

Following the moratorium, Anadarko Petroleum announced its intention to move three rigs out of the Gulf.

And when the taxes from this debacle cripple the country anyone for 20% unemployment??

The price of gas will skyrocket.

But candidate Obama was only too happy about that previously

January 2008:

“Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket . . . because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, natural gas, you name it . . . Whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money, and they will pass that [cost] on to consumers.’’

In the same interview, Obama suggested that his energy policy would require the ruin of the coal industry. “If somebody wants to build a coal-fired plant, they can,’’ he told the Chronicle. “It’s just that it will bankrupt them, because they are going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.’’

So the Oil Spill is the perfect political opportunity to get what they want because they want it.

The fact that the people are again, against it, is not relevant.

They want what they want.

So the Democrats in South Carolina want to invalidate a valid election because they didn’t get what they wanted. They complain to this day about the 2000 election because they didn’t get what they wanted. And then the Health Care Debate  went on for over a year until they bum-rushed it through in the most partisan vote in the history of the country.

Now they want your energy.

Your Car.

Your AC.

Your everything that is manufactured and shipped that will be more costly.

And all the job losses for this?

Like they care.

They want what they want when they want it.

Period.

And no one is going to take their toys away from them!