Posts Tagged ‘bill clinton’
I really don’t understand why all the wingnuts on the right are making such a big deal about Obama’s latest statement:
You know I love Obama, he is a man with a heartfelt conviction that it is he and only he who could remake America into some sort of college thesis utopia – if only it weren’t for that pesky Constitution. (And it’s a damn shame for the entire world that Barack Obama has kept his college thesis under lock and key.)
So when Barack Hussein Obama says, “I am not a dictator,” you have to feel for the man because he knows he’s smarter than any man who ever started a business and actually created jobs by hiring employees.
Go to hell all you right-wing wingnuts! The comparison between Obama and Nixon and Clinton is totally unfair because in the case of Nixon and Clinton, they made those two quotes knowing they were full of shit.
In Obama’s case, he says “I am not a dictator” as a statement of fact, which he deeply regrets.
The Des Moines Register has the highest circulation of any newspaper in Iowa, one of the all important swing states in this election. For over forty years, the newspaper has been staunchly loyal to the Democrat party in the issues they champion and the candidates they support.
The Register has supported the Democrat nominee in eleven of the last twelve presidential races. The last time they came out in support of a Republican presidential nominee, it was forty years ago.
Des Moines Regsiter Presidential Endorsements:
• 2008: Barack Obama (D) – won
• 2004: John Kerry (D) – lost
• 2000: Al Gore (D) – lost
• 1996: Bill Clinton (D) – won
• 1992: Bill Clinton (D) – won
• 1988: Michael Dukakis (D) – lost
• 1984: Walter Mondale (D) – lost
• 1980: Jimmy Carter (D) – lost
• 1976: Jimmy Carter (D) – won
• 1972: Richard Nixon (R) – won
• 1968: Hubert Humphrey (D) – lost
• 1964: Lyndon B. Johnson (D) – won
source: Des Moines Register
So imagine the shock and dismay felt throughout the Obama campaign when they found out that a loyal and influential Democrat newspaper such as the Des Moines Register has turned its back on Obama in asking it’s readers to give him another four years!!!
It shows you just how dismal this presidency has been when the Des Moines Register felt compelled to break 40 years of tradition in backing Democrat presidential candidates to support Mitt Romney for president.
The case they make for Romney is articulate, compelling and convincing and well worth the readThe case they make for Romney is articulate, compelling and convincing and well worth the read as The Register tells it’s readers they endores Romney because he offers a fresh economic vision.
The endorsement is well worth the read, but if a picture is worth a thousand words, these two pictures from Thursday’s front page shows the choice we have and the stark contrast between the two candidates in vivid detail.
Founded in 1933 by a former Time magazine editor, I’ve been told Newsweek began as a pretty good journalistic publication until it was purchased by The Washington Post Company in 1961. It was with WaPo’s acquisition that the magazine’s began an unrepentant path towards a new hard partisan left-wing agenda wrapped under the guise of “news.” Newsweek prospered for a while, but the undeniable bias eventually began to take it’s toll in the magazine’s credibility and circulation in the years to follow. This disease of activism under the pretense of journalism is now wisespread all across the mainstream media, with the results being a dwindling of circulation, readership and viewership with every year that passes.
Newsweek’s extreme partisanship plunged the magazine lower and lower to the point that when an offer was finally made to save the magazine, it came in the form of Sidney Harman buying the publication for exactly one dollar in exchange for assumming the massive liability and debt Newsweek had accumulated over the years.
When you sell your entire publication for the some of one measly one dollar, you don’t need a doctor to tell you your days are numbered. Sure enough, the ultimate result of Newsweek’s abandonment of journalism for activism has ended in a magazine that will disappear from newsstands by the end of 2012.
Ah, Newsweek – what can you say about a weekly American “news” magazine that made a conscious decision to abandon all pretenses of journalism, choosing instead to become a dedicated propagandist publication in the old tradition of Soviets and their state-controlled mouthpieces in newspapers such as Pravda and Tass?
What can you say about a Newsweek who buried Michael Isikoff’s stroies on both Paula Jones and Monica Leweinsky, trying to shield their beloved President Clinton as a philanderer and a man who repeatedly perjured himself in front of a grand jury? Thank goodness for the rise of the New Media and the Drudge Report forcing the stories and sordid details into the national conversation.
What can you say about a Newsweek with the blood on their hands of riots and seventeen deaths across the Muslim world for running a bogus story of Korans being flushed down toilets at Guantanomo Bay (a ridiculous assertion considering the fact that size of the Korans given to the prisoners simply don’t fit down toilets at Guantanomo Bay.)
Worst of all, what can you say of a Newsweek publication which repeatedly used it’s covers for misogynist attacks against Michelle Bachman and Sarah Palin, using it’s covers twice trying to paint a WII fighter pilot and war hero George H.W. Bush and a successful businessman Romney as “wimps?” What can you say about a magazine featuring covers which seriously ask such things as “Why Obama’s Critics are So Dumb,” claim that Obama’s the “God of All Things” and even goes so far as to photoshop halos over Obama’s head?
Even beyond the propagandist covers, Newsweek, never ceases to humiliate itself with it’s obvious commentary presented as “news” with a straight face, commentary that weaves its way through with every line written and seeps its way insidiously even more so between the written lines. Newsweek is an abomination to every journalistic principle of objectivity that journalism students were supposed to hold as sacred upon graduating.
I will not shed a single tear when Newsweek disappears from our newsstands and the tables at the doctor’s offices.
But an interesting thing often happens when a person (or in this case, a magazine) winds up on their deathbed. In their final days, they are given a chance to look back at their lives behind them on Earth and begin to feel a compulsion to confess the burdens they have carried for all the wrongs and injustices they have inflicted upon the world around them.
Special thanks to Monika for passing along this article / deathbed confession from Newsweek.
I Too Have Become Disillusioned.
By Matt Patterson (Newsweek columnist – opinion writer)
Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack Obama as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, the result of a baffling breed of mass hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the Middle Ages. How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking he could manage the world’s largest economy, direct the world’s most powerful military, execute the world’s most consequential job?
Imagine a future historian examining Obama’s pre-presidential life: ushered into and through the Ivy League, despite unremarkable grades and test scores along the way; a cushy non-job as a “community organizer;” a brief career as a state legislator devoid of legislative achievement (and in fact nearly devoid of his attention, so often did he vote “present”); and finally an unaccomplished single term in the United States Senate, the entirety of which was devoted to his presidential ambitions.
He left no academic legacy in academia, authored no signature legislation as a legislator. And then there is the matter of his troubling associations: the white-hating, America-loathing preacher who for decades served as Obama’s “spiritual mentor”; a real-life, actual terrorist who served as Obama’s colleague and political sponsor. It is easy to imagine a future historian looking at it all and asking: how on Earth was such a man elected president?
Not content to wait for history, the incomparable Norman Podhoretz addressed the question recently in the Wall Street Journal: To be sure, no white candidate who had close associations with an outspoken hater of America like Jeremiah Wright and an unrepentant terrorist like Bill Ayers, would have lasted a single day. But because Mr. Obama was black, and therefore entitled in the eyes of liberal Dom to have hung out with protesters against various American injustices, even if they were a bit extreme, he was given a pass. Let that sink in: Obama was given a pass – held to a lower standard – because of the color of his skin.
Podhoretz continues: And in any case, what did such ancient history matter when he was also so articulate and elegant and (as he himself had said) “non-threatening,” all of which gave him a fighting chance to become the first black president and thereby to lay the curse of racism to rest?
Podhoretz puts his finger, I think, on the animating pulse of the Obama phenomenon – affirmative action. Not in the legal sense, of course. But certainly in the motivating sentiment behind all affirmative action laws and regulations, which are designed primarily to make white people, and especially white liberals, feel good about themselves.
Unfortunately, minorities often suffer so that whites can pat themselves on the back. Liberals routinely admit minorities to schools for which they are not qualified, yet take no responsibility for the inevitable poor performance and high drop-out rates which follow. Liberals don’t care if these minority students fail; liberals aren’t around to witness the emotional devastation and deflated self-esteem resulting from the racist policy that is affirmative action. Yes, racist. Holding someone to a separate standard merely because of the color of his skin – that’s affirmative action in a nutshell, and if that isn’t racism, then nothing is.
And that is what America did to Obama. True, Obama himself was never troubled by his lack of achievements, but why would he be? As many have noted, Obama was told he was good enough for Columbia despite undistinguished grades at Occidental; he was told he was good enough for the US Senate despite a mediocre record in Illinois; he was told he was good enough to be president despite no record at all in the Senate. All his life, every step of the way, Obama was told he was good enough for the next step, in spite of ample evidence to the contrary.
What could this breed if not the sort of empty narcissism on display every time Obama speaks? In 2008, many who agreed that he lacked executive qualifications nonetheless raved about Obama’s oratory skills, intellect, and cool character. Those people – conservatives included – ought now to be deeply embarrassed.
The man thinks and speaks in the hoariest of clichés, and that’s when he has his Teleprompters in front of him; when the prompter is absent he can barely think or speak at all. Not one original idea has ever issued from his mouth – it’s all warmed-over Marxism of the kind that has failed over and over again for 100 years. (An example is his 2012 campaign speeches which are almost word for word his 2008 speeches)
And what about his character? Obama is constantly blaming anything and everything else for his troubles. Bush did it; it was bad luck; I inherited this mess. Remember, he wanted the job, campaigned for the task. It is embarrassing to see a president so willing to advertise his own powerlessness, so comfortable with his own incompetence. (The other day he actually came out and said no one could have done anything to get our economy and country back on track.) But really, what were we to expect? The man has never been responsible for anything, so how do we expect him to act responsibly?
In short: our president is a small-minded man, with neither the temperament nor the intellect to handle his job. When you understand that, and only when you understand that, will the current erosion of liberty and prosperity make sense. It could not have gone otherwise with such a man in the Oval Office.
I took a lot of heat for my post about the Obamas entitled “Happy Fourth of July from Two People Who Despise You and the Country as a Whole.” Turns out my gut instinct and the overwhelming evidence I laid out in making this post couldn’t have been any more accurate when you hear it spoken from Neera Tanden, a former aide to both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, who had this to say about the relationship of between Clinton and Obama:
Clinton, being Clinton, had plenty of advice in mind and was desperate to impart it. But for the first two years of Obama’s term, the phone calls Clinton kept expecting rarely came. “People say the reason Obama wouldn’t call Clinton is because he doesn’t like him,” observes Tanden. “The truth is, Obama doesn’t call anyone, and he’s not close to almost anyone. It’s stunning that he’s in politics, because he really doesn’t like people. My analogy is that it’s like becoming Bill Gates without liking computers.”
This is a shocking admission when you consider that Neera Tanden not only served as a high-level aid for both Clinton and Obama but that she continues her devotion to progressive activism as president for the far-left organization Center for American Progress. As a lifelong loyalist to progressivism, in speaking her honest opinion after having worked closely for both presidents, she has now been forced to walk back those comments, but those original unguarded comments she made speak volumes about the true nature of Barack Obama.
He really doesn’t like people. Like any good tyrant, he looks down on all the little peons like you and me over which he reigns.
Looking at his history, Barack Obama sat for twenty years in a church where Reverend Jeremiah Wright preached black liberation theology (the black version of white segregationism) and railed against America as the source of all the greatest evils in the world.
Barack Obama then had that very same Reverend Jeremiah Wright marry him and Michelle, had him baptize his children and used one of Reverend Wright’s sermons as inspiration for the title of his book “The Audacity of Hope.” Then, after millions of YouTube views of the Wright gleefully celebrating the 9/11 attacks on America, in the blink of an eye, Obama renounced the kindredship between the two, throwing under the bus his pastor of twenty years.
Barack Obama married a woman who admitted during the Democrat primaries that “For the frist time in my adult life, I’m really proud of my country.”
I find it an absolute impossibility that a man could marry a woman without knowing full well that she’s never been proud of her country.
When asked why suburban voters of his own democrat party had the audacity to support Hillary by large margins over his own candidacy, Obama speaking to millionaire donors at a fundraiser while unaware he was secretly being recorded, exposed his true self by telling his donors: “They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.” In other words, Obama said his own fellow Democrats who dared to vote for Hillary in the Democrat primary were nothing more than a bunch of gun toting, bible thumping, ignorant bigots.
On the Republican landslide that ensued two years into Obama’s presidency, with great condescension and disdain for the voters of America, Obama blamed the voters for being stupid, “confused” and that “fear and frustration” were what lead to the shellacking:
“Part of the reason that our politics seems so tough right now and facts and science and argument does not seem to be winning the day all the time is because we’re hardwired not to always think clearly when we’re scared. And the country’s scared.”
So much for respecting an honest intellectual disagreement, in the megalomaniacal mind of Barack Obama, you’re either in mental lock-step with Dear Leader and The Party, or you are guided by fear and frustration, you are against facts and science, and you are not thinking clearly because you are scared.
Perhaps this disdain for his fellow Americans should be no surprise. Remember that Barack Obama titled his book “Dreams from my Father”, the keyword being “from” my father, not “of” my father. For the father that abandoned him, Obama desperately tried reconcile his father’s abandonment by embracing those anti-American dreams from his father.
Perhaps the most profound influence on obama came from a man who, from Obama’s own writings, was his self-proclaimed mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, a card-carrying Communist, pornographer and a man who wrote books heavily laden with pedophilia. In 1975, Davis wrote a poem called To a Young Man. In reply, Obama then dedicated an untitled poem about “An old, forgotten man” and a poem called Pops” which strongly suggests there was an illicit man-boy relationship between Obama and Davis with following lines:
[Pops] Points out the same amber
Stain on his shorts that I’ve got on mine,
Makes me smell his smell, coming
Even the Obama campaign slogan “Forward” is a well-known and often-used communist slogan, a slogan featured prominantly in communist posters and even in the communist newspaper Frank Marshall Davis started, The Chicago Star.
Five days before being sworn in as president, Obama vowed that he would “fundamentally transform” America. Only a Marxist would believe the most prosperous nation on Earth is in need of a fundamental transformation. This is the true reality of an Obama who self-admittedly seeks to carry forth the dreams from a father who believed that taxing 100% of the income of a nation’s citizens was a noble goal. This is the true face of a man who was mentored and molded by a card-carrying communist named Frank Marshall Davis.
In a moment of unguarded candor, Obama’s own top aid and lifelong progressive activist Neera Tanden told us straight-up that Obama “really doesn’t like people,” but beyond not liking people in general, we see by his Obama’s own inadvertent admissions when straying from his carefully teleprompted scripts that he despises all who dare to disagree with him and his plans for a fundamental transformation of America.
We cannot afford another four years of a president who really doesn’t like people and despises everything good about America and all those of us who are willing to stand for the founding principles which made our country great.
Not just your garden variety Hollywood star who conforms to the norm by being a typical, angry, Republican-hating Democrat, Eva Longoria is a person who was given a primetime speaking role at the Democrat National Convention and is also co-chair of the Obama campaign.
So how does one of Hollywood’s “beautiful people” expose themselves as the ugly hater they are (and not very bright when it comes to damage control?)
You do it in five easy steps:
Step One. Show your true colors by retweeting a vulgar, bigoted and hateful tweet such as this:
Step Two. When the uproar begins and you start to feel the heat, delete the retweet.
Whoops! Enough people have already seen it to where the “delete it and hope it goes away” strategy fails and the story grows even bigger.
Step Three. Claim your account got hacked or blame it on something like “twitter bugging out.”
Is anyone else’s twitter bugging out? There are things in my timeline I didn’t retweet today. Hmmm? Standby trying to fix!
— Eva Longoria (@EvaLongoria) October 18, 2012
— Eva Longoria (@EvaLongoria) October 18, 2012
Don’t worry, as ridiculus as this claim is, you’ll have plenty of supporters so enchanted with your pop culture awesomeness, they’ll actually buy into your lame defense:
— Eva Longoria (@EvaLongoria) October 18, 2012
Of course, most of the rest of the people following Eva’s Twitter meltdown called it for what it is:
So Eva Longoria is going with the Anthony Weiner defense. Good luck with that.
— Samuel (@SARosado) October 18, 2012
Come on Eva, don’t you know enough of your American history (Nixon, Clinton, Anthony Weiner, etc.) that it’s never the crime, it’s always the cover-up?
Step Four. When the Anthony Weiner defense fails and no one believes your account got hacked, claim the words didn’t reflect your own views and you just retweeted it “for the purpose of discussion and dialogue.” LOL.
I retweet many people I don’t agree with for the purpose of discussion and dialogue, that’s democracy…and boy did this create dialogue!
— Eva Longoria (@EvaLongoria) October 18, 2012
Step Five. After steps two, three and four only make matters worse, issue apology, but to in order to fully make an ass of yourself, make sure it’s a half-assed apology and claim that the words weren’t your own personal view, even though they’re right in line with your political mindset and just about everything you tweet.
“I use Twitter as a platform for all Americans and their opinions. Sorry if people were offended by retweet,” she wrote. “Obviously not my words or my personal view. I respect all Americans #FreedomOfSpeech.”
Source: Fox News
If you’re trying to make an ass of yourself on Twitter in five steps, it’s that fifth step that really seals the deal – after deleting the tweet, then claiming your account got hacked, show yourself as a stereotypical liberal who doesn’t believe in self-accountability by saying the retweet didn’t reflect your own personal view and wave the freedom of speech flag.
As bad as the original retweet was, it was the scatterbrained and bumbling attempt at damage control that really got Eva Longoria.
And in case you think this is much ado about nothing, witness Alan Colmes, one of Obama’s most devoted supporters, going on television to call for Eva Longoria to step down as co-chair of Obama for America.
I think she should resign from the campaign or be asked to resign as co-chair because I don’t think it reflects well on the campaign. – Alan Colmes