Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Democrat’

The Dems are proud of the ‘dignity’ they showed during Trump’s address to Congress?


waving flag disclaimer

Authored |  March 2, 2017

Shows you how different impressions of the same event can be. I didn’t leave the room once during the president’s address to a joint session of Congress Tuesday. But if I had to assess the behavior of the Democrats in attendance based on the available evidence, which was the occasional cutaway to the audience, the word I would use to describe it would be petulant.

Apparently I’m not alone in that perception. The Wall Street Journal’s James Freeman made this observation:

[House Minority Leader Nancy] Pelosi and her colleagues obviously decided before the event that they would provide television cameras with reaction shots expressing their disapproval or even contempt for the President. He caught them off guard by delivering a big-hearted, moving and gracious address, but they seemed unable to react in real time. The pantsuit caucus and their equally grumpy male Democratic colleagues continued to sit, frown and offer tepid applause or none at all even for lines that would be objectionable.

For those who might beg to differ, Freeman provides a tweet by Pelosi several hours before the speech indicating that the wearing of white was intended as a thumb in Donald Trump’s eye:

Nevertheless, there are those who saw the Democrats’ behavior differently. One commentator went so far as to describe their deportment as dignified. That would be “conservative” TV host Joe Scarborough, who had Pelosi on as a guest yesterday. Maybe he planted the seed but when it was Pelosi’s turn to speak again, she picked up on the dignity meme:

What I was concerned is, people might boo, because, for all of the dignity that we wanted to bring to the address of the president, the fact is, I had no idea he was going to make an assault on public education, that he was going to have nothing positive to say about immigration, that he’s going to blow up the deficit. [Emphasis added]special-kind-of-retard

I will grant that the Democrats stopped short of giving Donald Trump a Bronx cheer, but raising their arms to make their thumbs-down gestures more visible comes pretty close.

Klan members present at last night's address the president (Image: YouTube screen grab via CNN)

Klan members present at last night’s address the president (Image: YouTube screen grab via CNN)

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Howard Portnoy

Howard Portnoy has written for The Blaze, HotAir, NewsBusters, Weasel Zippers, Conservative Firing Line, RedCounty, and New York’s Daily News. He has one published novel, Hot Rain, (G. P. Putnam’s Sons), and has been a guest on Radio Vice Online with Jim Vicevich, The Alana Burke Show, Smart Life with Dr. Gina, and The George Espenlaub Show.

Liberal ‘Microaggressions’ Become Assaults


waving flagAuthored by 

condemn

“Micro-aggression,” “Politically Correct,” charges of racism, flat-earthers, Islamophobes; all of these are leftist’s efforts to censor righteous, intelligent thought.

A “micro-aggression” is anything you say with which a leftist disagrees.  These people have not been educated, but indoctrinated into believing whatever lies advance the cause of socialism to establish their tyrannyIf you disagree by exercising critical thought to disprove their beliefs then you are satanic in their minds because leftist ideology is their religion.  These are the people who infiltrated Catholicism to establish the Inquisition.free speech def

Here are examples of looney leftists verbally assaulting people.  Let’s see if you can count how many “micro-aggressions” this woman inflicts on a fellow passenger of this plane because he supports Trump.

Liberal on a plane assaults Trump voter

Every sentence she speaks is an attack.  There are thirteen written and she is then recorded making six egregious verbal “micro-aggressions” to the passenger.  She then defies the authority who tells her to vacate the plane and goes into defensive mode when she realizes she’s being kicked off.  This is pinnacle of looney liberal stupidity believing she has the right to accost this man without consequence.

“That man doesn’t ‘believe’ in climate change.  Do you believe in gravity?”More Evidence

That is the kind of moral equivalence that ignorant liberals make.  They said the same thing about Reagan in 1980 and he won the Cold War without firing a shot!  Leftists’ equating the Democrat’s global warming political scam with actual science is farcical.  If you don’t believe in their religion of man-made climate change then you don’t believe in science and should be burned at the stake.  It is liberals who are ignorant of science when they fall for the fraud being perpetrated by the likes of Al Gore.

CO2 the global warming lies

“Who is the more foolish?  The fool or the fool that follows him?”

After Trump’s inauguration, Hollywood elites followed in the footsteps of Meryl Streep who used her lifetime achievement award speech to spit on the little people who so stupidly voted for Trump!  Other elitist fools spent their day at a women’s rally disparaging Trump as a woman-hating misogynist, rapist, and all around cretin.  This is another case of liberals escalating their micro-aggressions to outright assaults and lies on all men.

Ashley Judd insane rant at women’s anti-Trump rallyknocking-back-a-bottle

LDS – Liberal Derangement Syndrome is a real illness.  It is caused by an airborne pathogen known as verbal stupidity and there is only one cure – education in morality by intelligent people like myself.  Hopefully, you will have learned something from these examples of how not to think and behave.  You’re welcome.

Though there may not be much hope for those like Bill Maher and those who believe a comedian is an intelligent source of moral truth:

Bill Maher mocks the righteous

Maher’s intelligence is marred by his lack of a moral compass, but he makes funny jokes.  To a liberal, mocking what is right is a valid debunking of righteousness and truth.  To Maher’s claim; is it that people who became drug addicts got stupid and voted Republican, or that people who saw Democrats becoming drug dependent fools relying on government to run their lives wised up?  Like all liberal comedians he lacks the understanding that “we mock what we do not understand.”good-evil-and-evil-good

Cartoon: Problems on the Playground


waving flagDrawn and Posted by Glenn Foden / / February 19, 2016

DSig-Feb 18-SCOTUS-Recovered

Kim Holmes wrote earlier this week on the Supreme Court.

The stakes are high—very high. Finding a replacement for deceased Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia will be a battle royale. But why should one government official’s position be so existentially important? Yes, control of the Supreme Court hangs in the balance, but that raises the question as to why the Court itself is so powerful. Could it be that the answer to that question tells us something about our increasing inability to govern ourselves as a free people?

Let’s face it. Ever since at least the 1960s (and frankly even before) we have increasingly allowed the Supreme Court to decide controversial issues we have been unwilling to solve legislatively.

From civil rights to abortion to the issue of gay marriage, the high court has ruled on key issues well outside the legislative process. New constitutional rights were created out of whole cloth. If abortion couldn’t be legalized at the ballot box, or if gay marriage could not be made lawful by Congress or the states, a majority of the Supreme Court—a mere five people—would step in and do it for us. Using the power of judicial review, a new policy would be imposed simply by redefining it as a constitutional right.

The practice of judicial fiat is so commonplace we seldom realize how radical it is. We are, quite simply, losing our sovereign power to govern ourselves. We have allowed the courts in general but the Supreme Court in particular to become too powerful.Picture13

We are, quite simply, losing our sovereign power to govern ourselves.

No single government official outside the president should be so important that his or her replacement could shift the course and destiny of the nation. And yet that is precisely the case with finding a replacement for Scalia. No matter which way it goes, the next Supreme Court justice will decide the balance of power of an institution that has arguably become more powerful than the Congress and as powerful (at least) as the presidency.

This was not what the Founders intended. Sure, we live in the modern age where a lot of water has flowed under the bridge of judicial review, but that’s precisely the problem. We have allowed those waters over time to become a flood, swamping in some cases the high court’s main purposes of safeguarding our existing rights and preserving the rule of law.

The irony should not be lost on us that it has been primarily liberal activists who have tried to hijack the court to get by judicial fiat what they could not obtain legislatively. For all their professed love of “democracy”—rule by the people—they have resorted to tactics that actually overturn laws passed legitimately by democratic legislatures.SCOTUS GIANT

The very insularity that the Founders had intended to protect the high court from the political passions of the times now serves those passions outright. It is not uncommon for Supreme Court justices to decide cases based on what they think—perhaps “divine” is a better word—the people or legislators really want. Perhaps based on opinion polls, for example, Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy may have thought he was merely delivering what the people wanted when he decided in favor of gay marriage. But in doing so, he was overturning actual democratic votes that over the past ten years showed a 60.93-percent to 39.07-percent majority against gay marriage when the issue had been placed on the ballot.

Should not actual votes count more than opinion polls?

As I explain in my forthcoming book,The Closing of the Liberal Mind”:

Ultimately judicial activism is harmful not only to constitutional government but to democratic self-governance. When judges try to ram through their policy preferences by contorting texts, abusing precedents, and making up new constitutional rights, they undermine the credibility of both the Constitution and democracy.

That is why, now more than ever, the next Supreme Court justice must be someone who respects not only the original intent of the Constitution—what Scalia called “originalism”—but the need to restrict the policy activist role played by the court. Nothing less is at stake than our ability to govern ourselves as a free people.

Picture1 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon


waving flagSocialist vs Democrat | Political Cartoon | A.F. Branco

Socialist vs Democrat – What’s the difference?”

Political Cartoon by A.F.Branco ©2016

Partyof Deceit Spin and Lies Clinton Democrat Party Alibi In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Hollywood comedy legend David Zucker shows the “Side Effects” of the Iran Deal


waving flag

It is comedy, but sadly this seems to be reality.
Check it out:

Hollywood comedy legend David Zucker (“Airplane,” “Scary Movie,” “Naked Gun” films among many others) has written and produced this hilarious spoof on the disastrous Iran Nuclear Deal. In his trademark style, Zucker skewers the deal’s primary architects – President Obama, Hillary Clinton and John Kerry warns of the possible “Side Effects” that may result from the absurd agreement.

“While the President, Secretary Kerry and Hillary Clinton are committed to this deal long term, even with clear majorities of Americans and members of Congress opposing it, it’s time to focus on the side effects we’ll experience as a result” said Zucker. “There’s no shortage of serious ads explaining how horrible the deal is, so maybe injecting some satire will engage a broader audience and ensure the leadership allowing this deal to happen is held responsible for the inevitable dangerous side effects.”

The Zucker piece titled “Side Effects” spoofs the popular prescription drug advertisement formats which include a litany of possible drug side effects. Vision for America (“VFA”) is releasing the video as part of a national advocacy effort to highlight misguided efforts of Democrat leaders and their policies. VFA will ensure public awareness of the negative side effects of the deal and drive national policies and leadership in a safer, more secure direction in 2016.

“We are proud to work with David on this important issue while looking for smarter, more engaging ways to build wider public support for conservative policies and leadership” said Eric Beach, Executive Director of VFA. “We share David’s view that humor and satire are rare in today’s hyper-negative political environment, and we look forward to building on this effort, which will ensure a broader audience engages in these important national issue debates in 2016 and beyond.”

David Zucker is an American film director, producer, and screenwriter. A master of parody comedies, Zucker wrote and directed the critically acclaimed “Airplane!” film, created the “The Naked Gun” franchise, and helped create many other fan favorites such as “Ruthless People”, “Scary Movies 3 and 4”, “Top Secret” and “BASEketball”.

SEE THE VIDEO BELOW:

side effects
ObamaIranian-Flag-WORD-ART 95b119e45c50cbea1e7a4fbfa33415f3 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Forget Biden: Dems reaching back to … Al Gore?


waving flagPosted at 8:01 pm on August 13, 2015 by Ed Morrissey

Al Gore as Godfather and High PriestFive months ago, his team said he was out, but just when you think you’re out … they pull you back in. Maybe, that is, as Al Gore’s advisers aren’t actually saying he’s even thinking seriously about a presidential run. However, since the other relic from four terms ago isn’t faring well these days, suddenly a progressive nation turns its lonely eyes to the man who couldn’t clinch the gimme in 2000:

Gore, 67, won the popular vote in the 2000 election, and has been mentioned as a possible candidate in every contested Democratic primary since then. He instead al-gore-polar-bearsspent much of the 2000s focused on environmental campaigning and business ventures. He has largely slipped out of public view more recent years.

But in recent days, “they’re getting the old gang together,” a senior Democrat told BuzzFeed News.

“They’re figuring out if there’s a path financially and politically,” the Democrat said. “It feels more real than it has in the past months.”

The senior Democrat and other sources cautioned not to overstate Gore’s interest. He has not made any formal or informal moves toward running, or even met with his political advisers about a potential run.

A member of Gore’s inner circle asked to be quoted “pouring lukewarm water” — not, note, cold water — on the chatter.

screamingEr …. sure. Taking a look at the calendar, it seems to be awfully late in the day to take a serious interest in the race without even having a single donor lined up, with Hillary Clinton still in the race. This is the same man who had an eight-year head start on a presidential campaign only to lose it narrowly despite widespread satisfaction with the economy and the Clinton years, at least generally if not the Clintons themselves at the time. Gore’s supporters have claimed that they got robbed (false) and that Gore won the popular vote (true), but Gore couldn’t even carry his own home state of Tennessee.

Granted, in the event of a Hillary collapse, the establishment donors will start looking for other options, but they’re not there yet. And it seems difficult to believe that they’d pick someone who hasn’t run for office in 16 years, who at 67 years old won’t relate to millennial voters, and whose most remarkable outreach to them was to attack video games and demand restrictions on their content. Bernie Sanders has already grabbed the hard-left progressives, so what constituency will Gore attract? Thanks to a decade demanding carbon restrictions and attacking coal and oil, Gore’s not exactly going to thrill the Rust Belt, the Gulf states, or the upper Midwest.

Temple with high priestAnd let’s not forget the big cash-out with oil-rich Qatar in the sale of Current TV to Al Jazeera. Gore’s suing them over the deal now, but that won’t play well among progressives, national-security hawks, or really anyone else.

In any other environment, this would be seen as a potential practical joke. The fact that this trial balloon legitimately makes news shows just how badly events have played out with Coronation 2.0 for Hillary Clinton.

Update: And of course, let’s not forget this. War on Women, anyone?

 

 

 

 

 

Demorates Alinsky affect More Evidence Leftist Giant called Tyranny In God We Trust freedom combo 2

 

Who Loses Under EPA’s Clean Power Plan?


waving flagPosted by Photo of Michael Bastasch Michael Bastasch;  08/04/2015

The Obama administration unveiled the linchpin of its global warming agenda Monday: a 1560-page regulation called the “Clean Power Plan.” The goal of the Clean Power Plan is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants 32 percent below 2005 levels by the year 2030. The EPA claims the plan will benefit the economy and the environment by reducing asthma attacks, creating jobs in the green energy sector and showing the world the U.S. is committed to fighting global warming. All of this ahead of a major United Nations climate summit this winter.EPA Monster

Put simply, the new agenda is a massive undertaking, and one that’s already facing legal challenges from a coalition of states and the coal industry. There are going to be clear winners and losers with this rule. Red states, fossil fuel companies and even blue dog Democrats stand to lose out — not to mention all the families who will be hit with higher energy bills.

Is EPA Punishing Red States?

The EPA’s cuts to CO2 emissions could cost states billions of dollars in the coming decades. States are forced to find ways to cut emissions based on certain building blocks set forth by EPA. But this could be costly for energy-intensive states, like North Dakota, with grids and economies that rely on lots of coal power, and oil and natural gas production.

There’s another interesting dynamic underlying the EPA’s rules. The Daily Caller News Foundation examined the data and found that red states were among those hit with the biggest, and likely costliest, emissions reduction mandates.

Of the ten states with the biggest CO2 reduction mandates, eight are dominated by Republicans and only two are Democratic. On the flip side, the states with the lowest CO2 reduction mandates are overwhelmingly liberal — six are Democrat and only four are Republican.

TheDCNF looked at which party controlled each chamber of the state legislature and the governorship to determine control. For example, Republicans control both chambers of the South Dakota legislature and there’s a Republican governor. We considered that state Republican. On the other hand, Montana has a Democratic governor but a Republican-controlled legislature. We’d also consider that state Republican since two of the three groups looked at were GOP-controlled.

Republican states were among those that saw the highest increases in their CO2 mandates from the EPA’s proposal to the final rule, according to Politico Pro. Some 16 states had their emissions targets increased by the EPA, but the agency also loosened targets for 31 states.

Politico reported that while North Dakota “enjoyed the lowest emission reduction goal in the proposed rule,” the state “saw that goal more than quadruple in the final rule to 44.9 percent.”

“Other states saw significant increases in their goals as well. Montana’s goal increased by 26.3 percentage points to 47.4 percent. Iowa’s went up 25.4 points, to a 41.5 percent reduction. And Wyoming’s goal went up 25.3 points to a 44.3 percent reduction,” according to Politico.

“On the other hand, 24 states saw their goals reduced. Washington’s declined the most, down 34.6 percentage points to 37.2 percent,” Politico reported. “Oregon dropped 28.1 points to 20 percent, and New York went down 24.7 points to 19.5 percent.”

Before drawing too many conclusions, it’s worth noting that red states are likely being hurt the most because they rely more heavily on coal for their energy needs. These states also tend to be major energy producing states, like North Dakota, Wyoming and West Virginia.

States that rely too much on coal will have the toughest time complying with the Clean Power Plan because burning coal emits much more CO2 than burning natural gas. The EPA says it bases its reduction targets on what’s “achievable.” The agency sees coal-reliant states as having much more work to do when it comes to reducing emissions than states relying more on natural gas and green energy, as many Democrat-controlled states do.

The fact is that far more states saw their emissions targets reduced from the EPA’s proposal last year. Even so, states are still going to have a tough time complying with their targets no matter what since the Clean Power Plan essentially forces them to restructure their electricity markets and regulations.

Is This An Attack On Fracking?

The Clean Power Plan has also been seen as an attack on natural gas-fired power, which has been made economical due to hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, of shale. The oil and gas industry is worried the EPA’s rule ignores the role natural gas can play in reducing carbon dioxide emissions — when burned for electricity, natural gas emits less CO2 than coal. The Financial Times reported that the “US shale gas is the unexpected loser from President Barack Obama’s climate plan, as the White House abandons its previous enthusiasm for natural gas as a cleaner alternative to coal.”Indenification of Obama

In recent years, the U.S. has become the world’s largest producer of natural gas thanks to hydraulic fracturing, which involves injecting water, sand and some chemicals deep underground to unlock hydrocarbons trapped in shale formations. But industry leaders fear EPA could harm the industry. “With the reported shift in the plan, we believe the White House is perpetuating the false choice between renewables and gas,” Martin Durbin, president of America’s Natural Gas Alliance, told Oil and Gas Journal. “We don’t have to slow the trend toward gas in order to effectively and economically use renewables.”EPA-Chopper-590AEA

Reports have come out, mainly with support from environmentalists and green energy backers, declaring the Clean Power Plan downplays natural gas’ role in reducing U.S. emissions. Instead, reports indicate the EPA is focusing on boosting green energy instead of gas. “With or without new regulations, gas will continue to grow as a critical source of clean energy, but EPA’s rule does more harm than good,” Howard Feldman with the American Petroleum Institute told OGJ.

Major natural gas producing states have also been hit with steep emissions targets mandated by the EPA. Texas, the country’s largest oil and gas producer, must reduce power plant emissions 33.5 percent below 2012 levels by 2030. The state gets twice as much energy from natural gas as it does from coal.

Democratic-led Pennsylvania is also being hit with tough emissions reductions mandates from EPA. The state must reduce emissions 34.9 percent by 2030. Pennsylvania is now the country’s second-largest natural gas producer thanks to fracking in the Marcellus Shale. The state even gets 37 percent of its electricity from nuclear, while coal and natural gas each provide slightly less. EPA-torture-600-AEA-378x257

Blue Dog Dems Backstabbed By Obama

What’s probably most interesting about energy states being hit hard by the Clean Power Plan, is that many of them also sport Democratic lawmakers who are now put in a tough position.

North Dakota Sen. Heidi Heitkamp called the rule a “slap in the face,” according to Politico Pro. West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin criticized the rule for being “utterly unrealistic.” Both of these lawmakers opposed the rule since its proposal, but now their states are some of the hardest hit.

North Dakota and West Virginia were initially given some of the smallest state emissions reductions targets by the EPA. In June 2014, the EPA said North Dakota would only have to reduce emissions 10.6 percent and West Virginia 19.8 percent by 2030. Now these states have to make much deeper cuts than the EPA initially told them. “Our President and his Administration think our country can do without coal, and they are dead wrong. They are in denial,” Manchin said in a statement condemning the rule.

Montana Democrats, who originally supported the rule, are now reeling after the EPA announced the state would have to reduce emissions even more than was initially proposed by the agency last year. Montana now has one of the highest CO2 emissions reduction mandates of any state. Montana’s Democratic Gov. Steve Bullock complained that the EPA “moved the goal post on us,” saying that while “we need to address climate change” but added that “how we do so has to work for Montana.” The Montana’s AFL-CIO branch actually planned a press call in support of the rule, according to the Bozeman Daily Chronicle, but it was cancelled after the union found out the EPA had increased the “reduction requirement.” The group called it a “gut punch.”

Even Democratic Sen. Jon Tester was cautious in his statement on the Clean Power Plan’s release, not condemning it but also not celebrating it being finalized. Tester told the Chronicle he needed “more time to review it to ensure it works for Montana and creates healthier communities and a stronger economy.”
freedom combo 2

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: