Category Archives: Politics on the left

Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber bragging about deceiving the American people, who he thinks are too stupid to know what’s good for them

Posted on by
Reply

Just who are these stupid people he is talking about: The Democrats and the media.

He is saying that the people who put Obamacare together knowingly understood that if Americans had understood the Affordable Care Act, that they would have rejected it because they are too stupid. They therefore by intent made the Act impossible to understand to fool them into supporting what they would otherwise have rejected because it was good for them. When the good part will arrive no one asks. This is a marry in haste, repent in leisure moment which is the entire story of the Obama administration.

Obama and the vanguard party of the left

Posted on by
Reply

Sultan Knish has a quite insightful column on Obama versus the Democrats which he sees as a war to the death between “the-win-power-by-saying-anything-that-gets-votes-whether-you-mean-it-or-not” wing of the party versus “The Progressives” who actually have a radical far left agenda that if people actually knew what it was would avoid Democrats like the plague. The Progressives are our modern version of the Bolshevik cell that lies in wait for their moment. The win-by-saying-anything group just likes the power and the perks and riches that come with it. As for the Progressives:

Their goal is to transform the country. If they can do that by winning elections, they’ll win them. But if they can’t, they’ll still follow their agenda.

And most importantly, they care not in the slightest if they ruin the Democrat Party and make it unelectable for a few years so long as they can put their own agenda in place. Here is where we are:

It’s not just about Obama’s ego. His campaigns and his time in office were meant to showcase the progressive position that the only way to win was from the left. Obama and his people would rather radicalize the Democratic Party and lose, than moderate their positions and stand a chance of winning. The left isn’t interested in being a political flirtation. It nukes any attempt at centrism to send the message that its allies will not be allowed any other alternative except to live or die by its agenda. Obama deliberately sabotaged Reid’s campaign plans, as Reid’s chief of staff discussed, because that strategy involved disavowing Obama and his legacy. In the time honored tradition of the radical left, Obama would rather have a Republican senate than a Democratic senate won by going to the center.

You cannot compromise with the Vanguard Parties of the Left. They are never your friends. In just the same way that those who thought they could control Hitler back in 1933 found they could not, the Democrats are finding they cannot control Obama. Whether any one else will be able to is the question that will be answered over the next two years. My own guess is that they will not in large part because they don’t really understand what they are dealing with.

Why the Republicans won big

Posted on by
Reply

The Democrats have been colossal failures in producing anything remotely like a decent governing principle. They have run against market principles since the very start of the twentieth century and have been the party of redistribution during the whole period. They were also the party of segregation which gave them a solid south until the 1970s and then became the inheritors of the various forms of ethnic vote, basing their appeal on huge welfare payments that keep millions out of any serious need to work for a living. And finally, and by no means the least of the differences, has been the Democrat role in politicising the sexual revolution, with the only freedom Democrats absolutely stand for is the right to have sexual relations without any state restrictions. Combined with no-fault divorce, it is the policy of full sexual irresponsibility with no serious commitment required.

The result is a constituency with no core set of beliefs but which manages to pull together winning coalitions during elections as much as it ruins the nation. The actual indifference of Democrats to the welfare of those who vote for it is hidden behind a pretence of concern. But who cares? Just pass over the loot.

Obama was the epitome of all of this, and reliably. The left expects its leaders to lie about things that would cost too many votes to say out loud so they understood exactly what Obama really stood for.

But then there was the Obola virus and all was blown away.

It was not so much the probability of an epidemic which was small, but the sheer negligence finally got to people. It’s one thing to get an Obamaphone, it is quite another to have your life put at risk by a lackadaisical approach to public health. Everyone could personalise the problem. No one could be certain that they were safe. And they wanted the government to do everything in its power to reduce the risk.

But while the issue is ephemeral, the possibility that the change is indelible is genuine. You can depend on the Democrats to keep you poor, exploited and ground down by circumstance. They not only cause these problems, they benefit from the problems they cause and make worse. People are beginning to understand.

We shall see. But the death of the welfarist policies that are sinking the US is an outcome surely to be hoped for. It turns out that the greatest danger to any politician is to have Obama on your side (see Morsi for Exhibit A). He is the worst carrier of the Obola virus which hopefully is now under control, being eradicated and quarantined to a few large-city locations on the east and west coast of the US.

The damage a president can do especially if that’s his aim

Posted on by
Reply

obama netanyahu

From Scott Johnson at Powerline, HOW TO UNDERSTAND OBAMA’S IRAN DIPLOMACY.

I think the easiest way to understand Obama’s diplomacy is this. Assume that Obama believes Iran should have nuclear weapons and would like to facilitate the mullahs’ nuclear weapons program. This assumption is the Occam’s Razor that clarifies what might otherwise be obscure. The assumption may not be correct, but it should prove a handy guide to coming attractions.

It is the same for every policy. If you think of Obama’s aim as harming the white American middle class, and doing as much damage as possible to American foreign policy interests, you will never go wrong in guessing what he will try to achieve. There are plenty of obstacles so he cannot do anything he wants, but he does as much as he can. The American people elected their bitterest enemy to the White House, and as obvious as it is, no one in public life will say so loudly and clearly. Is it respect for the presidency, uncertainty about Obama’s actual motives or fear of exposing just how damaging a presidential system can be?

Defending the defensible

Posted on by
Reply

Here some lunatic defends General Pinochet in public. Well we all know what sort of person he must be. But what caught my eye were these two comments. The first one about the present:

But just to see how bad things have gotten in Chile: The Communist Party is back in power, and the Justice system keeps in jail veteran soldiers of the fight against the insurgents. To do this, the “Justice” system simply ignores an Amnesty Law form 1978 still valid and which covered both military and insurgents. And it also created out of thin air the category of “permanent hijacking”, for the disappeared during the regime. According to this, the old men languishing in jail still keep those disappeared who knows where. To these soldiers no benefit is given: they will stay in jail until they die. And there is a movement to put them in prison wih the general population, strip them of their ranks and their pensions. The revenge of the left is relentless. Right now, a judge is investigating the murder, in an encounter with police and secret service agents, of the head of the terrorist organization MIR in October 1974. He is accusing the agents of murder. It would be like bringing murder charges against the Navy Team that killed Osama Bin Laden. The main erson accused of so “dastardly” deed of ridding the wortld of this scum, is an officer of the army who has Russian roots, Miguel Krasnoff. Meanwhile, the head of the Communist Party, who plotted an assasination attempt against Pinochet in which several of his gurads were killed, and for which he is very proud, was recently cleared of any charges when a group of the widows of such guards brought forward an accusation. The judges applied of course the statutes of limitation, something the brave men who fought the communist takeover are being denied.

And then a reminder about the past:

What people don’t know: the socialist Allende won with a minority of votes, because the majority vote was split between the two conservative candidates. (There was no second round at that time.) Allende illegally took private industries for his own people to control, ruining the country’s economy. People even lacked food, thus the “pots and pans” march of middle-class women (which feminists hate, and never mention). Demonstrators in the cities were viciously attacked by communist gangs. Shopkeepers were attacked, the people terrorized to pacify them – the usual preparations for a communist takeover. When the communists (most of them non-Whites) were sentenced and imprisoned, Allende illegally let them out in the streets again. Thousands of times. The communist party trained guerrilla warfare in Cuba, and Cuban advisors, guns, ammo and explosives were smuggled in to Chile. It is known that people in the top of the government facilitated this – perhaps Allende himself. Finally the Senate and the Supreme Court formally asked the military to remove the president, listing his many crimes in a long letter. General Pinochet carried out their request. The communist takeover was stopped. (Sometimes brutally? Yes, it’s South America. And the communists had terrorized the people for years.) Allende committed suicide with his Soviet-made Kalashnikov. Pinochet let a Nobel Prize-winning economist fix the economy. Under Pinochet, Chile prospered and continued to do so after him. He promised to only rule for a while and then step aside for democracy – which is exactly what he did. Most Chileans LOVE Pinochet. Something the media hide from Westerners. The media and other leftists wanted Chile to become another communist dictatorship. The Chileans disagreed.

Around the same time we had our own take down of the Prime Minister via the Governor-General. All very constitutional here but the downside wasn’t quite in Allende territory either. And if you are interested in the kind of destructive potential an Allende has, just have a look at Venezuela right now.

Picked up at Captain Capitalism

Step into my parlour said the spider to the fly and let me give you some advice

Posted on by
Reply

From Brett Stevens at Amerika:

Liberalism wishes total death on all conservatives. We are what stands in their way but, even worse, we do not validate their viewpoint. That means that we can potentially puncture the bubble of illusion in which they exist, which they want us to subsidize through socialism lite in the form of subsidies.

With that it mind, conservatives would have to be mentally broken — and many are — to trust anything the leftist establishment tells us “in our best interests.” This is advice from an enemy, and any sane person expects that the enemy will give us advice that is convenient for that enemy, or in other words, leads to our downfall and the victory of the enemy. Their words are poison disguised as “helpfulness,” or what they call a “concern troll” on the internet.

The actuality of the mid-term elections is that conservatives won by plugging their pragmatic platform: reduce government, restore social order and values, keep the military strong and reverse course from the socialist paradise of the Obamanauts. In other words, eternal conservative values geared toward the founding group and majority of Americans.

Of course the left wants us to disregard this knowledge, and many conservatives do, too. It is easier to win elections by waving the WE’RE NOT DEMOCRATS flag and collecting votes. Easier = higher margins, greater reliability. But if conservatives do not get a handle on the ongoing American disaster soon, they will be eliminated.

[Via Captain Capitalism]

Map of House Districts in the 114th Congress

Posted on by
Reply

obama map of congressional districts

Here’s the lower chamber of the 114th Congress, in vivid color.

And I think Rush Limbaugh is absolutely right:

The results do not mean that voters want Republicans to govern. The election does also not mean that the country’s become conservative. It can’t be said that there was an ideological component to the mandate, because the Republicans did not run on ideology. The Republicans ran everywhere to stop Obama, and that’s what the mandate is. Now, whether they want to accept the mandate or not, that’s another question. . . .

The country’s depressed because of Democrats. The country is out of work because of Democrats. The country is feeling aimless because of Democrats. The country is not optimistic about its future because of Democrats! There is no way the vote yesterday was a signal to work with them. They have had six years of unstoppable destruction, and the American people — and I, by the way — want it stopped.

The non-existent moral authority assumed by the left

Posted on by
Reply

Stacy McCain on the assumed moral authority of spokespersons from the left:

The Left loves nothing more than to arrogate to themselves a pretended authority to speak on behalf of alleged victims of oppression. Covering themselves in secondhand martyrdom, figuratively brandishing the victim’s corpse as a shield against criticism, leftists start playing the Grand Inquistor, demanding that we respond according to the script. . . .

Because the vast majority of people never realize that they were programmed by skillful indoctrinators, as Buckley put it, they can’t figure out what’s really happening in these ginned-up media controversies. Well, everybody is against racism, sexism and homophobia. Nobody is in favor of “police brutality.” Nobody is pro-pollution or pro-poverty or pro-rape. So why do we find ourselves constantly subjected to these moralistic lectures, as if we need to be told for the umpteenth time how dreadfully oppressive our society is? The Daily Atrocity Parade in the liberal media is a continuation of the cultural Marxism programming everybody got in the Government Youth Indoctrination Centers euphemistically known as “public schools,” and we are supposed to react like Pavlov’s dog: “Racism! Sexism! Poverty! Global Warming! Vote for the Left!

Here are the list of questions Andrew Breitbart put together that should be put to those who assume such moral authority who are in every respect absolutely nobodies so far as having any right to lecture anyone else about their ethical failings:

Who appointed you as Grand Inquisitor?

What is the basis of your authority to interrogate me about this? What difference does my opinion make?

When were you elected as Our Moral Superior?

Where do you get the idea that I’m obliged to cooperate in this transparent political “gotcha” game you’re paying?

Why is it necessary that I answer your questions?

How much are you being paid to do this?

What empty windbags these representatives of the left actually are. We do need to begin striking back.

Government attacking Sharyl Attkisson’s computer

Posted on by
Reply

Lots of interpretations of what you see but the question is what if her explanation is the right one? Sharyl Attkisson releases video of alleged computer intrusion:

Former CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson has released to Politico a video clip that shows an alleged hacker attack against her Apple computer. The video’s release comes just days before the Nov. 4 publication date of her book “Stonewalled,” which inventories her efforts to hold the Obama administration accountable, along with providing a running narrative about intrusions into her home and work computers.

The video itself shows a computer with a moving cursor erasing words from a document. In the background, a voice — purportedly Attkisson’s — says “not touching it” and “just deleting everything.” At one point, the footage shows a partial view of the computer’s keyboard, which is free of hands.

In “Stonewalled,” Attkisson provides a blow-by-blow account of this moment. It’s September 2013 and White House officials Jay Carney and Eric Schultz both are complaining to CBS News higher-ups about Attkisson’s Benghazi reporting. In an e-mail to CBS News Washington Bureau Chief Chris Isham, Carney slights a piece by Attkisson that he calls an “exclusive preview of a Darrell Issa press release,” in reference to the California Republican congressman who chairs the House oversight committee. Schultz pitches another CBS News staffer, Major Garrett, on a story that contains “exonerating material.”

Right against these e-mails, things get dicey for Attkisson and her computer. Let her tell the story:

That very night, with Schultz, Carney, and company freshly steaming over my Benghazi reporting, I’m home doing final research and crafting questions for the next day’s interview with [Thomas] Pickering. Suddenly data in my computer file begins wiping at hyperspeed before my eyes. Deleted line by line in a split second: it’s gone, gone, gone. I press the mouse pad and keyboard to try to stop it, but I have no control. The only time I’ve seen anything like this is in those movies where the protagonist desperately tries to copy crucial files faster than the antagonist can remotely wipe them.

Attkisson grabs her phone and records video of the on-screen happenings. All manner of crazy things happen, including the disabling of a drop-down menu. “Eventually, I find that all I have the ability to do is close out the file,” she writes, noting that another open file starts undergoing ghost-driven deletions. Once she unplugs the computer from FiOS WiFi, the strangeness ends. Computer experts, she writes, “agree that [the video] shows someone remotely accessing my computer. Somebody who apparently wanted me to know it.”