Thursday, September 6, 2012

Obama: Why I do not like you...let me count the ways

Many of us have recognized the false front Obama has portrayed  ever since he came onto the political stage...somewhere in my archives I have described his oratorical skills as very Alinsky-like where he says one thing and does another.  As time moved on (a very short time, I must admit) most of us recognized the falsehoods that flowed off his tongue...If you read this blog before you most likely came across my interpretation, "The truth to the matter is that Obama lies but he does it with such finess that the easily fooled are easily fooled."  But I don't think any of us have come up with the most fitting adjectives that decribe the real Barack Obama as does Mychal Massie...I only wish that he included sychophant; I believe it fits the Obama image.  ~ Norman E. Hooben
noun   A person who acts obsequiously toward someone in order to gain advantage; a servile flatterer.

Why I Do Not Like The Obamas
by Mychal Massie @The Daily Rant

The other evening on my twitter, a person asked me why I didn’t like the Obama’s?
Specifically I was asked: “I have to ask, why do you hate the Obama’s? It seems personal not policy related. You even dissed their Christmas family pic.” The truth is I do not like the Obamas, what they represent, their ideology, and I certainly do not like his policies and legislation.
Mychal Massie
I’ve made no secret of my contempt for the Obamas. As I responded to the person who asked me the aforementioned question, I don’t like them because they are committed to the fundamental change of my/our country into what can only be regarded as a Communist state.
I don’t hate them per definition, but I condemn them because they are the worst kind of racialists, they are elitist Leninists with contempt for traditional America. They display disrespect for the sanctity of the office he holds, and for those who are willing to admit the same for Michelle Obama’s raw contempt for white America is transpicuous.
I don’t hate them per definition, but I condemn them because they are the worst kind of racialists, they are elitist Leninists with contempt for traditional America. They display disrespect for the sanctity of the office he holds, and for those who are willing to admit same Michelle Obama’s raw contempt for white America is transpicuous.

I don’t like them because they comport themselves as emperor and empress. I expect, no I demand respect for the Office of President and a love of our country and her citizenry from the leader entrusted with the governance of same. President and Mrs. Reagan displayed an unparalleled love for the country and her people. The Reagans made Americans feel good about themselves and about what we could accomplish. Could you envision President Reagan instructing his Justice Department to act like jack-booted thugs?
Presidents are politicians and all politicians are known and pretty much expected to manipulate the truth, if not outright lie, but even using that low standard, the Obama’s have taken lies, dishonesty, deceit, mendacity, subterfuge and obfuscation to new depths. They are verbally abusive to the citizenry and they display an animus for civility.
I do not like them, because they both display bigotry overtly, as in the case of Harvard Professor Louis Gates, when he accused the Cambridge Police of acting stupidly, and her code speak pursuant to now being able too be proud of America. I view that statement and that mindset as an insult to those who died to provide a country where a Kenyan, his illegal alien relatives, and his alleged progeny, could come and not only live freely, but rise to the highest, most powerful, position in the world. Michelle Obama is free to hate and disparage whites, because Americans of every description paid with their blood to ensure her right to do same.
I have a saying, that “the only reason a person hides things, is because they have something to hide.” No president in history has spent over a million dollars to keep his records and his past sealed. And what the two of them have shared has been proved to be lies. He lied about when and how they met, he lied about his mother’s death and problems with insurance, Michelle lied to a crowd pursuant to nearly $500,000 bank stocks they inherited from his family. He has lied about his father’s military service, about the civil rights movement, ad nauseum.
He lied to the world about the Supreme Court in a State of the Union address. He berated and publicly insulted a sitting Congressman. He has surrounded himself with the most rabidly, radical, socialist academicians today. He has fought for abortion procedures and opposed rulings that protected women and children, that even Planned Parenthood did not seek to support. He is openly hostile to business and aggressively hostile to Israel.
His wife treats being the First Lady, as her personal American Express Black Card (arguably the most prestigious credit card in the world). I condemn them because, as people are suffering, losing their homes, their jobs, their retirements, he and his family are arrogantly showing off their life of entitlement – as he goes about creating and fomenting class warfare.
I don’t like them, and I neither apologize nor retreat from my public condemnation of them and of his policies. We should condemn them for the disrespect they show our people, for his willful and unconstitutional actions pursuant to obeying the Constitutional parameters he is bound by, and his willful disregard for Congressional authority.
Dislike for them has nothing to do with the color of their skin, it has everything to do with their behavior, attitudes, and policies. And I have open scorn for their playing the race.
It is my intention to do all within my ability to ensure their reign is one term. I could go on, but let me conclude with this. I condemn in the strongest possible terms the media for refusing to investigate them as they did President Bush and President Clinton, and for refusing to label them for what they truly are. There is no scenario known to man, whereby a white president and his wife could ignore laws, flaunt their position, and lord over the people as these two are permitted out of fear for their color.
As I wrote in a syndicated column titled “Nero In The White House” – “Never in my life, inside or outside of politics, have I witnessed such dishonesty in a political leader. He is the most mendacious political figure I have ever witnessed. Even by the low standards of his presidential predecessors, his narcissistic, contumacious arrogance is unequalled. Using Obama as the bar, Nero would have to be elevated to sainthood…Many in America wanted to be proud when the first person of color was elected president, but instead, they have been witness to a congenital liar, a woman who has been ashamed of America her entire life, failed policies, intimidation and a commonality hitherto not witnessed in political leaders. He and his wife view their life at our expense as an entitlement – while America’s people go homeless, hungry and unemployed.” (; 8/8/11)
Oh, and as for it being personal, you tell me how you would feel if a senator from Illinois sent you a personally signed card, intended to intimidate you and your family. Because you had written a syndicated column titled “Darth Democrat” that was critical of him. ( 11/16/04) ...See below

Darth Democrat cross-posted from WND dated November 2004
He is eloquent, well spoken, with a membrane-thin veiled socialist agenda cloaked in flowery speech. But unlike Rep. Harold Ford, D-Tenn. – who had to be reminded by Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., that while congressional blacks were no longer relegated to ticket taker in a cloakroom, they had better not forget their place – Barack Obama, D-Ill., is just the kind of black man elite liberals can use.
But also unlike Ford, Barack Obama is much more appealing to blacks nationwide and thus much more formidable when you combine that with his ability to raise large contributions, his Muslim roots and education, his ability to rivet national audiences with his snake-charmer oratory skills and an appealing mien that connects well with liberal voters. Accordingly, Lord Obama could very easily morph into “Darth Democrat.”
It should be no surprise that he is from Illinois.  Illinois has a long history (from Capone to Daley) of empowering the unsavory. This unsavory comes with a smooth veneer that reverberates a thirst for power.
He has presidential ambitions stitched into the very fabric of his being, and as a student of history he understands the danger of remaining a senator if he is to be successful with his ambitions.
Granted there are worse things than a black uber-liberal socialist Muslim, supposedly now Christian Democrat in the White House (unless your name happens to be Clinton). The question is: Who would want them visited upon this generation?
America is more ready than ever before to elect a black president, but this is not the one we want to break that unprecedented historical ground.
In a speech at his party’s national convention, he spoke of “work” that could be successfully completed through socialistic intervention and programming. He also bares the stripes of most uber liberals, i.e., the willingness to make it up as he goes along.
Speaking in a U.S. Senate debate (Oct. 26, 2004), Obama emphatically claimed responsibility for Illinois’ successful welfare reform. The truth – as written by Steve Stanek a year earlier – finds no relationship with his on the record accounts. With minimal investigation one finds he not only played no role in the Illinois reforms, but he was not even in office at the time. (Illinois leads the nation in welfare reform; Illinois Leader, Sept. 10 2003).
He is gifted at twisting his verbiage in such a way as to deform the truth. In his speech at the Democratic National Convention, he spoke of “… measuring up to the legacy of our forbearers.” While that may sound good, there is a discernable difference between “forbearers” and the Founding Fathers of our country.
Obama’s forbearers are Kenyan, and it is alleged his grandfather was a slave owner. His reference to “forbearers” had nothing to do with those who sacrificed their lives life to establish a free society based on equality.
His statements were code omitting same, referencing instead an Afro-centrism and Pan Africanism. It was a deliberate attack against the foundation of our country and what we represent.
Another trademark of uber-liberal socialists like Lord Obama is complete disregard for human life – especially the lives of the elderly, physically challenged and the unborn. Or in Obama’s case, even the “Live-born abortion victims.” He claimed his reason for not supporting SB1093, the “Born Alive Infant Protection Act,” was the measure didn’t include the “life and health of the mother” provision.
A question that begs an answer is where, exactly, does the threat to the mother lie in said infant protection? Interestingly enough, Obama refused to support two bans which did include exceptions for safety of the mother. So his refusal to support anti-partial-birth abortion bills HB382 and SB230 comes as no surprise.
He also refused to support SB1095, which creates a cause of action for harm or neglect that comes to a child “born-alive” after a labor-induced abortion. Add to that his “no” vote on SB1661, also part of the “Abortion Alive Protection Act,” which created the “Induced Birth Infant Liability Act.”
His positions on crime, sex education for grades K-5, homosexual marriage and taxes are out of the mainstream of the so-called liberal mainstream.
Obama embraces the darkest interests of the uber-liberal socialist. It can be argued there are worse things than a Clinton ticket in 2008 – and any ticket with Barack Obama on it is one of them.
The following cross-posted from Pat Dollard
Excerpted from The Blaze: The compilation attached here is first product posted online by an amateur video editor. TheBlaze interviewed the project’s creator. The man (who wishes to remain anonymous) told us that he wanted to show his undecided friends (as well as those considering voting for Obama) the stark contrast between what the president has said in the past and what he has said and done in office.

Did you listen to what Obama said? Did you really?

Words Matter

These Are The Rules For Radicals
How Saul Alinsky Taught Obama to Say One Thing and Do the Opposite

For those who have paid attention, President Obama has a knack for saying one thing and doing another altogether: a knack for claiming one position while actually occupying another. We first saw this when he was campaigning for president in 2008 and the Supreme Court struck down DC’s gun ban via the Heller decision. At the time, he claimed to mutually support the gun ban and the 2nd Amendment. (Proving this wasn’t a fluke, when Chicago’s gun ban was struck down 2 years later via the McDonald decision, he again claimed he supported both the gun ban and the 2nd Amendment.)

Perhaps his position on a mandate by which government forces citizens to buy healthcare is an even clearer example. When campaigning for the Democrat nomination for president in 2008, he differentiated between himself and fellow candidate Hillary Clinton by criticizing her plan to use a mandate as an “enforcement mechanism” to “charge people who…don’t have healthcare.” He claimed the use of a mandate for those purposes was something he couldn’t go along with, something that demonstrated a “genuine difference” between himself and Clinton.
However, on April 4, 2012, Obama urged the Supreme Court not to rule against the mandate in ObamaCare because his healthcare reforms cannot survive “in the absence of an individual mandate.”
It’s arguable that there isn’t anything that demonstrates Saul Alinsky’s impact on Obama better than these flip flops and duplicitous positions. For it was Alinsky who spent his life teaching would-be radicals (like Obama) that you can say what you have to say to get over the hump, but once you’re over the hump, you do whatever you want to do. In other words, it’s okay to present yourself as something moderate, even centrist, for the purposes of securing power, and once you’ve secured that power it is perfectly acceptable to revert to who (and what) you really are.
In Rules for Radicals, Alinsky demonstrates this with a look at how Vladimir Lenin was able to overthrow the government in pre-communist Russia:
[Lenin said, “The government has] the guns and therefore we are for peace and for reformation through the ballot. When we have the guns it will be through the bullet.” And so it was.
This is very clear. Lenin talked one way while out of power in order to get into power. And once in power, he used every force available to him—violence included—to maintain the power he had gained.
In another place in Rules of Radicals, Alinsky talks of how he once had the opportunity to take a politician down by revealing aspects of that politician’s personal life to the public. But to the shock of his followers, Alinsky chose not to reveal those things about the politician even though it would have given him the upper hand in the contest. Wrote Alinsky: “The fact that they fight that way doesn’t mean I have to do it. To me, dragging a person’s private life into this muck is loathsome and nauseous.”
But just when his followers thought there might be something noble about the radical, Alinsky instructed them: “But, if I had been convinced that the only way we could win was to use it, then without any reservations I would have used [the information].”
Do you see this folks? There are no fixed norms, nor are there concrete right and wrongs or honest convictions. Rather, there are pragmatic answers given only with a view to gaining or maintaining power. In situation A you don’t do what is right; rather, you do whatever is takes to get to situation B, even if what it takes is telling bald-face lie after bald-face lie. And so the progression goes.
Wrote Alinsky: “In war, the end justifies almost any means.” And for Alinsky, as for Lenin and now for Obama, politics is war. Thus a politician is justified in hiding his intention to ban guns while running for office, and likewise justified in reversing position and working “under the radar” for gun bans once in office. Also, a politician is justified in pointing out the problems with a healthcare mandate while running for office, and also justified in reversing course and pushing a healthcare mandate once in office.
These are the Rules for Radicals.
Meanwhile back at the ranch...
I listened to Michelle Obama's speech delivered to the Democratic National Convention and my very first thought after she completed the intended lemming call was, "The only guy other than Barack Obama who would give Michelle an 'A+' for effort would have been Saul Alinsky."  Then a day passed and along comes Bill Clinton...I got to admit that his was a mix of a play-on-words and twisted facts compared to Michelle's outright lies...but Clinton's lemming effect was much more noticeable when the cameras panned the audience. ~ Storm'n Norm'n

By the way...
What is the Left Wing Media afraid of? (see video below)

Puttin' Up The Flag

Tuesday, September 4, 2012

The Genesis Of The Modern Democratic Party

"This began a long march to transform the Democratic Party from the party of Truman and JFK to the party of Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama. And in a quite fascinating twist of history, Frank Marshall Davis, as a "Democrat," would go on to influence today's Democratic Party standard-bearer: Barack Obama.
Tellingly, Davis himself, in an eerily Obama-like sentiment, had emphasized the need for "fundamental change" in America..." Paul Kengor

Source: American Thinker
Frank Marshall Davis and the Subversion of the Democratic Party
By Paul Kengor

A curious specter will be hovering over the Democratic convention this week. It is the ghost of Frank Marshall Davis, Communist Party USA member 47544 and mentor to a young Barack Obama.
Like Minds Think Alike
Readers of this site are well aware of Davis, from my writings and those of others who have posted articles here. Davis joined the Communist Party during World War II and was unflinchingly pro-Soviet and pro-Red China. He was the founding editor-in-chief of the Chicago Star (1946-48) -- the CPUSA publication for Chicago -- before moving on to the Honolulu Record (1949-57), the CPUSA publication there. He excoriated the Western leaders who stood in the way of Stalin, meaning Winston Churchill and Harry Truman, whom he portrayed as colonialists, imperialists, fascists, and racists. He blasted American initiatives like the Marshall Plan, which he labeled "white imperialism" and "colonial slavery." And because Democrats were the party in power at the time, and thus America's first line of defense against the Red Army, Davis -- who literally wrote poetry hailing Stalin's tanks -- vilified the Democratic Party in particular.
Frank Marshall Davis's politics were so radical, and so pro-Soviet, that the Democrats who ran the Senate in 1956 summoned him to Washington to testify on his pro-Soviet activities. Even more remarkable, the FBI placed him on the federal government's Security Index, meaning that if a war broke out between the United States and the Soviet Union, Obama's mentor could have been placed under immediate arrest.
I've noted this here before. I've also noted Davis's unceasing class-based rhetoric and class warfare. Those words will be echoing throughout the halls of the Democratic convention this week, especially from the mouth of the man Davis influenced.
And yet, that isn't the only way that the presence of Davis will be felt this week. His presence at the Democrats' convention will be felt in a much more profound, troubling way that speaks to the overall leftward drift of the modern Democratic Party. Consider:
After all those years trashing the Democratic Party, Davis, like many American communists, decided to join the Democrats. There were two primary factors that drove this decision: 1) American communists realized that they could never get elected to national office openly campaigning as communists, and 2) when Henry Wallace's Progressive Party collapsed in 1948, the communists who had pervaded it had nowhere else to go. So, many American communists opted to hitch their wagon to a different star -- namely, to the most viable left-leaning party in America: the Democratic Party. Sure, this would be a challenge when they encountered old anti-communist Democrats like John F. Kennedy, Pat McCarran, Thomas Dodd, and Scoop Jackson, but overall, in the long run, they would be patient, and they would seek alliances with Democrats much closer to their collectivist thinking.
Frank Marshall Davis was among these. This tactical move by Davis is evident in his declassified 600-page FBI file, and specifically an April 1950 report that states that "members of the subversive element in Honolulu were concentrating their efforts on infiltration of the Democratic Party through control of Precinct Clubs and organizations." These communist subversives, said the report, were pushing "their candidates in these Precinct Club elections." According to the report, on April 6, 1950, one such candidate, Frank Marshall Davis, was elected "assistant secretary and delegate" to the Territorial Democratic Convention in his particular Precinct Club. This was the Third Precinct of the Fifth District. Davis, in fact, attended that convention on April 30, 1950.
In other words, the Hawaiian Communist Party went underground, realizing that it lacked political viability. Hawaii's communists changed their tactics, concentrating instead on the mainstream Democratic Party, even running their members in local elections to seize delegate positions. One of those who not only urged this tactic, but was himself elected to a Democratic precinct was Frank Marshall Davis.
With that, the steady subversion of the Democratic Party was on. This began a long march to transform the Democratic Party from the party of Truman and JFK to the party of Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama. And in a quite fascinating twist of history, Frank Marshall Davis, as a "Democrat," would go on to influence today's Democratic Party standard-bearer: Barack Obama.
Tellingly, Davis himself, in an eerily Obama-like sentiment, had emphasized the need for "fundamental change" in America -- advocating exactly that in his kick-off column for the Chicago Star on July 6, 1946. Well, with the Democrats and with Barack Obama, he has gotten just that. Frank Marshall Davis's presence will be there at the Democrats' convention this week.
Dr. Paul Kengor is professor of political science at Grove City College and author of the new book The Communist: Frank Marshall Davis, The Untold Story of Barack Obama's Mentor.

Monday, September 3, 2012

Now that the shoe is on the other foot...

Insult: A Time magazine poll released last week also revealed
that more than 70 per cent of those  questioned  believed that
to build the mosque would insult the memory of victims
Remember this? →
Image source: The Daily Mail

Oh, East is East and West is West, and never the twain shall meet,
Till Earth and Sky stand presently at God's great Judgment Seat;
But there is neither East nor West, Border, nor Breed, nor Birth,
When two strong men stand face to face, though they come from the ends of the earth! ~ Rudyard Kipling

But now that the shoe is on the other foot...

Plan for Catholic church makes waves in Bahrain
Source: FOX News
The building of the largest Roman Catholic church in the Gulf was supposed to be a chance for the tiny island kingdom of Bahrain to showcase its traditions of religious tolerance in a conservative Muslim region where churches largely operate under heavy limitations.
Instead, the planned church -- intended to be the main center for Catholics in the region -- has turned into another point of tension in a country already being pulled apart by sectarian battles between its Sunni and Shiite Muslim communities.
Hardline Sunni clerics have strongly opposed the construction of the church complex, in a rare open challenge of the country's Sunni king. More than 70 clerics signed a petition last week saying it was forbidden to build churches in the Arabian Peninsula, the birthplace of Islam.
One prominent cleric, Sheik Adel Hassan al-Hamad, proclaimed in a sermon during Friday prayers last month, that there was no justification for building further churches in Bahrain, adding, "anyone who believes that a church is a true place of worship is someone who has broken in their faith in God."
In response, the government ordered him transferred out of his mosque, located in the elite district of Riffa, where many members of the royal family live and the king has several palaces. But the transfer order touched off a wave of protests by the cleric's supporters on social media sites and by Sunni-led political blocs. Finally, the government was forced last week to cancel the order.
The uproar reflects the widening influence and confidence of hardline Sunni groups, who have been a key support for the monarchy as it faces a wave of protests led by Shiites demanding greater political rights. Shiites account for about 70 percent of Bahrain's population of just over half a million people, but claim they face widespread discrimination and lack opportunities granted to the Sunni minority. The monarchy has also has relied heavily on help from ultraconservative Saudi Arabia, which last year sent troops to help crush protests.
More than 50 people have been killed and hundreds detained in nearly 19 months of unrest in the strategic island kingdom, which is home to the U.S. Navy's 5th Fleet.
Bahrain's rulers have promised some reforms and urged dialogue to ease the crisis.
Instead, positions on all sides have hardened.
Many among the majority Shiites claim the Sunni monarchy is not interested in reforms that would weaken its near monopoly on power. Bahrain's most senior Shiite cleric, Sheik Isa Qassim, has actively opposed the church plans, questioning why the government should donate land for a Christian site when Shiite mosques have been destroyed as part of the crackdowns.
A Bahrain-based political analyst, Ali Fakhro, questioned the timing of the church project at a time when the nation is still locked in its own upheavals.
"What Bahrain needs is to solve it is own internal issues rather than adding more new things that could be the source of troubles," he said. "The plate is already full."
So far the outcry has brought no change in plans to build the church complex, which has been backed by King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa's monarchy. The complex will be the size of a large shopping center -- about 9,000 square meters (97,000 square foot) -- in Awali, an area near Riffa, south of the capital, Manama. It is to be a base for the Vatican to the small Catholic communities in the northern Gulf, as well as a spiritual center for other Christian denominations.
Work on the compound is still in its preliminary stages and no firm date has been given for its completion, leaving open the possibility of more complaints in the coming months.
The church project is part of last year's change by the Vatican to carve out a new apostolic district covering Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. The administrative headquarters are expected to shift from Kuwait to Bahrain.
There are believed to be several million Christians in the overwhelmingly Muslim Gulf region, the vast majority of them expatriate workers who largely come from East and South Asia. Throughout the Gulf states, non-Muslim places of worship must work discreetly and cannot actively reach out for converts. In Saudi Arabia, churches are banned completely and any overt wearing of non-Muslim religious symbols is banned.
But Bahrain has a multi-religious tradition -- and tolerance -- that is unique in Gulf. The island nation has several Christian extended families which originally immigrated from Iraq, Iran or elsewhere in the early 20th Century and gained citizenship when Bahrain gained independence. Similarly, it has native Jewish and Hindu communities. The first Roman Catholic church in the Gulf was built in 1939 on land donated by Bahrain's emir.
The building of the church complex "is a sign of openness, important for Bahrain, and I hope it will serve as a model for other countries, too," the region's bishop, the Rev. Camillo Ballin, said in a statement.
Elsewhere in the Gulf, issues over Christian churches have flared in the past year.
In Kuwait, Islamist lawmakers have proposed bans on further construction of churches. Saudi Arabia's grand mufti, Abdel Aziz Al Sheik, reportedly urged for the destruction of all Christian churches on the Arabian peninsula, but it was quickly dismissed by nearly all Islamic leaders in the region.
"Bahrain is a country of tolerance among all religions, sects and races. This is well known about Bahrain's history," said the Rev. Hani Aziz of Bahrain's National Evangelical Church, who was among 19 non-Catholic Christian leaders who also met with Bahrain's king over the project. "The construction of a church falls in line with this image."
Savage Egypt's sexual harassment of women "epidemic," Violent mob-style attacks
Pamela Geller at Atlas Shrugs
And Obama is giving another billion dollars to these savages. Thank you, Obama :) More of the poisonous fruit from his anti-freedom foreign policy. BBC is reporting that "sexual harassment is reaching epidemic proportions, with a rise in such incidents over the past three months. For many Egyptian women, sexual harassment - which sometimes turns into violent mob-style attacks - is a daily fact of life." Different story from the BBC when they were standing all misty-eyed in Tahrir Square... Egypt's sexual harassment of women 'epidemic' BBC News, September 3, 2012 (thanks to David) Some Egypt... more »

Controlling the narrative...

ACORN whistle-blower on Akin-gate: Women ‘are the new pawns in this political game’ Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) employee-turned-whistle-blower Anita Moncrief told The Daily Caller’s Ginni Thomas that the current fight over Missouri Republican Rep. Todd Akin’s comments about “legitimate rape” is an example of false outrage that harms women. “There’s a double standard that exists for Democrats and other parties,” she said. “It’s a Saul Alinsky tactic. … So every time there’s an instance where something happens, they are going to make us live up to our own rule book — which means, ‘OK, you’ve got to step down, you’ve gotta resign, you’ve gotta do this and that.’” “But since the Democrats don’t consider that to be part of their rulebook there’s no reason for them to think anything of [the late Sen. Ted] Kennedy being a murderer, or Bill Clinton being accused of rape and other stuff. To them it doesn’t matter because they don’t have any moral authority, they don’t have any moral high ground, they never pretended to have any values.” And Democrats’ claims that Republicans are waging a “war on women,” Moncrief said, are the latest replacement for the time-worn “race card.” “The ‘war on women’ is just another extension of the race card. When you cannot control the narrative, you have to think of a way to attack. … If it’s not them [women] it’s black people. Women should be offended that they are the new pawns in this political game.” The rest of Anita Moncrief’s eye-opening interview will be online Monday morning, only at The Daily Caller
Read more at The Daily Caller

‘Excuse me, ma’am, these are not your seats...'

Christie Bumps Streisand (8/27/12): Speaking to the California Delegation Monday morning, NJ Governor Chris Christie recounts a story where he had Barbra Streisand and James Browlin removed from his reserved seats during a White House event. STAFF VIDEO BY THOMAS P. COSTELLO

Neither one of these guys are racists...they just play one on TV !

Actually, the reverse is true.  Both of these guys are racists of the worst kind...they're both Alinskyites and we all know how ole Saul taught in the 'Rules For Radicals'...say one thing and do another...if you get caught off guard, deny, denjy, deny...Bill is so great at that!