Democrats: Plagued By Ambivalence, Mixed Messages, And Misguided Priorities
THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION HAS LONG UNDERESTIMATED GLOBAL THREATS
FLASHBACK: Obama On Islamist Groups, January 2014: “The Analogy We Use Around Here Sometimes, And I Think Is Accurate, Is If A Jayvee Team Puts On Lakers Uniforms That Doesn’t Make Them Kobe Bryant.” “In the 2012 campaign, Obama spoke not only of killing Osama bin Laden; he also said that Al Qaeda had been ‘decimated.’ I pointed out that the flag of Al Qaeda is now flying in Falluja, in Iraq, and among various rebel factions in Syria; Al Qaeda has asserted a presence in parts of Africa, too. ‘The analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a jayvee team puts on Lakers uniforms that doesn’t make them Kobe Bryant,’ Obama said, resorting to an uncharacteristically flip analogy.” (David Remnick, “Going The Distance,” The New Yorker, 1/27/14)
- The Wall Street Journal Headline: “U.S. Underestimated Urgency Of Islamic State Threat In Iraq” (Siobhan Gorman and Julian E. Barnes, “U.S. Underestimated Urgency Of Islamic State Threat In Iraq,” The Wall Street Journal, 8/10/14)
The Washington Post’s David Ignatius: Obama’s ISIS-JV Analogy “Should Haunt Him.” WOLF BLITZER: “The President back in January, President Obama gave an interview to ‘The New Yorker’ magazine and was speaking about Al Qaeda’s, you know, organization, if you will. ISIS, these terrorists in Syria and Iraq and he seemed to down play how dangerous they were when he said, ‘the analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a jayvee team puts on Lakers uniforms that doesn’t make them Kobe Bryant.’ Junior varsity. That was the quote that the President said then, seems to be haunting him now.” DAVID IGNATIUS: “It should haunt him.” (CNN’s “The Situation Room With Wolf Blitzer,” 8/7/14)
- Bloomberg’s Al Hunt: “I Fear” Obama’s ISIS Plan Is “Ad-Hoc.” John Heileman: “Barack Obama’s foreign policy is criticized by a lot of people for being ad-hoc. And, the question Al, you mentioned before that people are worried about a slippery slope, do you think the president is making this particular policy with respect to ISIS in an ad-hoc way, or do you think they have a notion of, a short, medium, and long game here that the president isn’t telling everybody about but that is all pretty well calculated in the white house, or are they making it up as they go along?” HUNT: “John, I fear it’s closer to the former.” (MSNBC’s, “Morning Joe,” 8/8/14)
Secretary Of State John Kerry On ISIS: “These Guys Are Not 10 Ft. Tall. They’re Not As Disciplined As Everybody Thinks.” “If you’re having a tough time figuring out how much of a threat the Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria (ISIS) poses to the U.S., you’re hardly alone. …Secretary of State John Kerry doesn’t seem to share the Pentagon chief’s foreboding, given how ISIS fighters scattered ‘the minute we hit them’ as they tried to take the Kurdish city of Erbil in northern Iraq. ‘These guys are not 10 ft. tall. They’re not as disciplined as everybody thinks,’ Kerry said on Sept. 5. ‘They’re not as organized as everybody thinks.’” (Mark Thompson, “Putting ISIS Threat Into Perspective,” Time, 9/14/14)
Hillary Clinton’s Top Counter-Terror Official Called The ISIS Threat “A Farce,” And Lamented “Members Of The Cabinet And Top Military Officials All Over The Place Describing The Threat In Lurid Terms That Are Not Justified.” “Daniel Benjamin, who served as the State Department’s top counterterrorism adviser during Mr. Obama’s first term, said the public discussion about the ISIS threat has been a ‘farce,’ with ‘members of the cabinet and top military officers all over the place describing the threat in lurid terms that are not justified.’” (Mark Mazetti, Eric Schmitt, and Mark Landler, “Struggling To Gauge ISIS Threat, Even As U.S. Prepares To Act,” The New York Times, 9/10/14)
In An Interview On “Meet The Press,” Obama Said That ISIS Did Not Present An “Immediate” Threat To The U.S. Homeland. OBAMA:“But right. And I—I want everybody to understand that we have not seen any immediate intelligence about threats to the homeland from ISIL. That’s not what this is about. What it’s about is an organization that, if allowed to control significant amounts of territory, to amass more resources, more arms to attract more foreign fighters, including from areas like Europe, who have Europeans who have visas and then can travel to the United States unimpeded, that over time, that can be a serious threat to the homeland.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 9/7/14)
The Pentagon Is Worried About The Obama Administration’s “Ambivalence” Towards ISIS. “Pentagon officials worry about ambivalence on Obama’s part regarding involvement in another war in Iraq, despite what the president has said is the risk that Islamic State could one day threaten the United States.” (David S. Cloud, “U.S. Awaits Arab Contributions To Battle Against The Islamic State,” The Los Angeles Times, 9/22/14)
I used to like anarchy, I really did, until they started sounding like communists.
Anarchy has the particularity of being a self-contradiction.
"There must be no state". Who enforces that? How do you make sure it doesn’t happen?
The hallmark of the state is that it uses coercion and violence to achieve positive ends, (positive here in the sense of changing something, e.g., using violence to steal something from someone, now you have it) while the proper use of violence is in the pursuit of negative ends (i.e. resisting someone else’s violence). Therefore, the people who “enforce” statelessness are the citizens who refuse to pay tribute, obey the laws of the so-called government, etc., etc.. It’s a very individualistic system. You can call yourself “the Government”, and no one’s going to stop you, but if you try to force people to submit, then you will be resisted.
tl;dr, the people who “enforce” it are the people who are affected by a state.
But the problem with an anarchist state, and a communist one for that matter, is that it doesn’t take into account for human nature. On paper it seems perfect, until somebody decides they want to come take what you have. Who do you call when a gang of thieves show up on your doorstep? What about the people who are timid and reluctant to resist stronger people?
There are legitimate prepper groups that want to exploit the anarchy just after a disaster and go around stealing what they need. Their only plan is to come to you with guns and take what they want. In my book, that is why anarchy will never be as successful as a deregulated Capitalist society.
Take what I say with a grain of salt though. I’m very low-brow and anti-academic. lol
VIDEO: Everything Biden mocked Romney for on the campaign trail has come true
The point of this post isn’t to bolster Mitt Romney. This website has certainly pulled no punches when it comes to Mitt Romney’s liberal progressive policies. However, what this video does show is how incredibly clueless and out of touch the Obama White House really is.
Here’s the video:
And what did Romney say about Iraq and Syria? He said pulling the troops out of Iraq all at once would result in chaos and that Iraq and Syria were rapidly becoming the new hotbeds of Islamic terrorism in the world. Every bit of that is true, and now we are paying the price.
Democrat Pollster: In The Natural State, Democrats Are Struggling Up And Down The Ballot
Republicans Are “Leading Across The Board” In Arkansas’ Key Races. “PPP’s newest Arkansas poll finds Republicans leading across the board in the state’s key races for this year, led by Tom Cotton with a 43/38 advantage over Mark Pryor and Asa Hutchinson with a 44/38 lead over Mike Ross at the top of the ticket.” (Tom Jensen, “GOP Ticket Leads In Arkansas,” Public Policy Polling, 9/23/14)
According To A New PPP Poll, Republican Candidate Tom Cotton Leads Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR) By 5 Points, 43 Percent To 38 Percent. (Public Policy Polling Poll, 1,453 LV, MoE 2.6%, 9/18-21/14)
“Cotton’s Lead Is Up Slightly From 41/39 On Our Previous Poll.” (Tom Jensen, “GOP Ticket Leads In Arkansas,” Public Policy Polling, 9/23/14)
- “Cotton Has A Substantial Advantage With Independents, Getting 53% Of Their Vote To 20% For Pryor.” “Both candidates are receiving 77% of the vote from within their own party but Cotton has a substantial advantage with independents, getting 53% of their vote to 20% for Pryor.” (Tom Jensen, “GOP Ticket Leads In Arkansas,” Public Policy Polling, 9/23/14)
51 Percent Of Likely Voters In Arkansas Disapprove Of Pryor’s Job Performance, While Only 36 Percent Approve. (Public Policy Polling Poll, 1,453 LV, MoE 2.6%, 9/18-21/14)
The Arkansas Governor’s Race Showed That Republican Candidate For Governor Asa Hutchinson Leads Democrat Mike Ross By 6 Points. “The Governor’s race is pretty steady with Hutchinson’s 44/38 lead little changed from 43/38 in early August. Hutchinson has positive favorability numbers (43/35) while voters are pretty closely divided in their feelings about Ross (35/36).” (Tom Jensen, “GOP Ticket Leads In Arkansas,” Public Policy Polling, 9/23/14)
“Republicans Lead By Similar Margins In All Of The Down Ballot Races Too.” “Republicans lead by similar margins in all of the down ballot races too. It’s a 4 point lead for State Auditor, a 5 point advantage for State Land Commissioner, a 6 point edge for Lieutenant Governor and Attorney General, an 8 point lead for State Treasurer, and the biggest GOP advantage is for Secretary of State at 11 points.” (Tom Jensen, “GOP Ticket Leads In Arkansas,” Public Policy Polling, 9/23/14)
Obama’s Low Job Approval Rating Is A Drag On Pryor And Other Democrats In Arkansas
Obama’s Terrible Approval Ratings In The State Are Dragging Down Democrats In Arkansas. “Barack Obama has a 31/62 approval rating in Arkansas, including 13/80 with independents, and that’s probably making things hard for the Democratic ticket in the state.” (Tom Jensen, “GOP Ticket Leads In Arkansas,” Public Policy Polling, 9/23/14)
62 Percent Of Likely Voters In Arkansas Disapprove Of Obama’s Job Performance, While Only 31 Percent Approve. (Public Policy Polling Poll, 1,453 LV, MoE 2.6%, 9/18-21/14)
- 80 Percent Of Independents In Arkansas Disapprove Of Obama’s Job Performance, While A Mere 13 Percent Approve. (Public Policy Polling Poll, 1,453 LV, MoE 2.6%, 9/18-21/14)
It is not at all a denial of your civic duty not to vote.
It is a denial of your civic duty not to be informed enough to cast an intelligent vote.
In my estimation, not voting is about the same as casting an uninformed vote.
Iwould say an uninformed vote is worse.
Revealed: Hillary Clinton’s letters to Saul Alinsky
Hillary Clinton has made a concerted effort to cover her tracks when it comes to her relationship with the late Saul Alinsky. For those not in the know, Alinsky was an influential leftist revolutionary who wrote Rules for Radicals which both Clinton and Barack Obama took to heart early in their political careers.
Now, after much digging, the Washington Free Beacon has revealed for the first time Hillary Clinton’s letters to Saul Alinsky himself.
The letters obtained by the Free Beacon are part of the archives for the Industrial Areas Foundation, a training center for community organizers founded by Alinsky, which are housed at the University of Texas at Austin.
The letters also suggest that Alinsky, who died in 1972, had a deeper influence on Clinton’s early political views than previously known.
A 23-year-old Hillary Clinton was living in Berkeley, California, in the summer of 1971. She was interning at the left-wing law firm Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein, known for its radical politics and a client roster that included Black Panthers and other militants.
On July 8, 1971, Clinton reached out to Alinsky, then 62, in a letter sent via airmail, paid for with stamps featuring Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and marked “Personal.”
“Dear Saul,” she began. “When is that new book [Rules for Radicals] coming out—or has it come and I somehow missed the fulfillment of Revelation?”
“I have just had my one-thousandth conversation about Reveille [for Radicals] and need some new material to throw at people,” she added, a reference to Alinsky’s 1946 book on his theories of community organizing.
Clinton devoted just one paragraph in her memoir Living History to Alinsky, writing that she rejected a job offer from him in 1969 in favor of going to law school. She wrote that she wanted to follow a more conventional path.
However, in the 1971 letter, Clinton assured Alinsky that she had “survived law school, slightly bruised, with my belief in and zest for organizing intact.”
“The more I’ve seen of places like Yale Law School and the people who haunt them, the more convinced I am that we have the serious business and joy of much work ahead—if the commitment to a free and open society is ever going to mean more than eloquence and frustration,” wrote Clinton.
According to the letter, Clinton and Alinsky had kept in touch since she entered Yale. The 62-year-old radical had reached out to give her advice on campus activism.
“If I never thanked you for the encouraging words of last spring in the midst of the Yale-Cambodia madness, I do so now,” wrote Clinton, who had moderated a campus election to join an anti-war student strike.
If you’re at all familiar with Alinsky’s work, you’ll know that it remains the playbook for Democrats.
Take for example rule #5:
Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.
Sounds like a lot of Democrats I know.
Lois Lener: “I’m not sorry for anything I did”
No, she’s not sorry for using the power of the IRS to target people whose political ideologies were different than hers. She’s just sorry she got caught.
Lois Lerner is toxic — and she knows it. But she refuses to recede into anonymity or beg for forgiveness for her role in the IRS tea party-targeting scandal.
“I didn’t do anything wrong,” Lerner said in her first press interview since the scandal broke 16 months ago. “I’m proud of my career and the job I did for this country.”
Lerner, who sat down with POLITICO in an exclusive two-hour session, has been painted in one dimension: as a powerful bureaucrat scheming with the Obama administration to cripple right-leaning nonprofits. Interviews with about 20 of her colleagues, friends and critics and a survey of emails and other IRS documents, however, reveal a much more complicated figure than the caricature she’s become in the public eye.
The portrait that emerges shows Lerner is, indeed, fierce, unapologetic and perhaps even tone-deaf when she says things that show her Democratic leanings. She had a quick temper and may have intimidated co-workers who could have helped her out of this mess. It’s easy to see how Republicans have seized on the image of a devilish figure cracking down on conservative nonprofits.
“We followed the trail where it leads, and we saw it lead to Lois Lerner,” House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) said at a hearing Thursday. “She refers with disdain to conservatives; she’s an active liberal; and it’s clear her actions were set out to be detrimental to conservatives.”
The record of Lois Lerner’s wrongdoing at the IRS is now irrefutable. Not only did she target conservatives, but she broke the Federal Records Act in the coverup of her actions.
There has to be a strategic reason why she’s speaking up now, but I couldn’t begin to guess what that might be.