Victor Davis Hanson Questions Obama's Political Past

.

HOWARD DEAN REVEALS ALINSKY TACTICS and LINEAGE OF THE LEFT

.

h/t: Breitbart TV

BARNEY FRANK CAUGHT LYING ABOUT HIS RECORD ON HOME OWNERSHIP

.

h/t: BREITBART TV

George Stephanopoulos Trying to Question Karl Rove about GZM

.


I'm not so sure what good it does to encourage Obama's outreach to the Muslin world since he has become less and less popular over there as his presidency has progressed. Thought does make gains on his own left by claiming to do the outreach.

Mike Pence Objects to Democrat Party’s “baseless smears of good Americans whose only offense is their exercise of First Amendment rights”

.

h/t: Breitbart TV

Asking Questions, Expressing An Opinion on How My Congressman Votes and Disagreeing With the Washington Elite Has Become Hating the Government????

Drudge linked a piece from the Washington Examiner by Chris Stirewalt titled 'Hating the Government Finally Goes Mainstream.' Here is a long quote that has some insight into the past two years:
"It turns out that watching Goldman Sachs, the United Auto Workers, public employee unions and a raft of other vampires drain the treasury at America's weakest moment in a generation will make a person pretty hacked off.
"After Barack Obama's election, Democrats assumed that the American people were battered, bruised and ready for a morphine drip of European-style socialism. Republicans, shocked by their stunning reversals, figured the Democrats were right and started looking for technocrats of their own.
"And in a political system fueled by special-interest money, it was hard for the leaders of major parties to imagine anything other than an activist government. After all, if you pay for someone to get elected, you don't expect him to just sit there.
Just 18 months ago the leaders of both parties were quite sure that Obama would be the popular, transformative president he aspires to be. The Republicans who emerged from the wreckage of November were certain to look a lot more like Charlie Crist and Mitt Romney than Marco Rubio and Ron Paul.
"But Crist's embrace of Obamanomics seems to have utterly destroyed his chances at a Senate seat that was once his for the taking. Romney, considered a near lock for the 2012 Republican nomination, has seen his candidacy badly damaged by a populist revolt against the passage of a national health care plan that looks like the one he designed for Massachusetts.
"Obama, who said that passage of his health plan proved that Washington could still do big things, finds himself deeply at odds with an electorate that is not confident of government's ability to do anything at all.
"His election has turned out to be not the result of a national lurch toward government intervention but his own skill at disguising his policies, the failures of the Republican Party and the bursting of the lending bubble."

The piece makes a lot of sense but the headline seems a little out of place. It makes a gratuitous leap that equates having a different point of view from those presently in Congress the same as hating the government. This is just sloppy thinking and a sneaky below the belt punch. Just because I don't think that government operates best by bribery, secrecy and legislative trickery does not mean I hate government. I do not like the crimes and manipulations of the gang of clowns that are presently in office. I think government should never be trusted. It is just a collection of flawed men and women who need to be watched. And if you cannot see the wisdom of that I do not think that I am the problem.

The Laughing Congressman Or the Democrats Are Delusional If They Think People Will Believe Their Silly Claim to Have Cut Taxes

***


h/t: Breitbart TV

Emanuel Cleaver Denies Doing Anything to Hype the 'Spitting Incident': Is There Any Reason to Believe Him?

***
 

h/t: HotAir

You have to wonder why a man who joined in a march through the middle of a hostile crowd would be suddenly as shy as he now claims to be. The purpose of the march was plainly to precipitate such incidents for PR purposes. But he is now claiming to be just a coy, quiet man? Puh-lese! Why did the capitol police become involved if Congressman Cleaver didn't want them to? I do believe that he became quieter once he realized that the trumped up case could not stick. But after you've gone down into the muck to try to create problems for your political opponents don't think I'll fall for the oh so innocent, above it all act.

Agitprop from Democratic Congressmen

***

Eric Massa Talking to a Small Group at Netroots

***********

Minnesota State Canvassing Board

When the Congressman says, "Trust me," Hold on to Your Wallet

The previous post is a YouTube video. There is a good chance that YT will take this down after Pelosi and Reid let it be known how hurtful it is. So, I'm posting an article from http://jeffemanuel.net/paul-kanjorski-pa-11-admits-democrats-lied-about-being-able-to-end-war-in-iraq that has a transcript of the video.


Congressman admits Democrats "stretched the facts," misled anti-war supporters about supposed plans for ending War
Submitted by Jeff Emanuel on Thu, 05/22/2008 - 8:18pm.
Congressman Paul Kanjorski (D-PA) has been a fairly undistinguished member of the House of Representatives for nearly a quarter of a century. He is a career member of the Financial Services Committee who has made little or no name for himself since his first electoral victory, and has maintained incumbency through the funneling of pork back to his district. Even his Wikipedia entry says that Kanjorski "usually plays behind-the-scenes roles in the advocacy or defeat of legislation and steers appropriations money toward improving the infrastructure and economic needs of his district."
“But [in] the temptation to want to win back the Congress, we sort of stretched the facts - and people ate it up.”
Never one to stand out in a crowd outside of his own district if he could help it up until now, Rep. Kanjorski's public life may be about to change in a major way very, very quickly, and for a very big reason.
You see, Paul Kanjorski has an honesty problem.
More specifically, Paul Kanjorski's problem is that he was publicly honest about the intentional dishonesty of Congressional Democrats (and Democrat candidates) in the run-up to the 2006 election -- particularly with regard to the War in Iraq.
Transcript:
"I'll tell you my impression. We really in this last election, when I say we...the Democrats, I think pushed it as far as we can to the end of the fleet, didn't say it, but we implied it. That if we won the Congressional elections, we could stop the war. Now anybody was a good student of Government would know that wasn't true. But you know, the temptation to want to win back the Congress, we sort of stretched the facts...and people ate it up."
The truth in Mr. Kanjorski's statement is both evident and obvious, and has been )to any who have been paying attention) since the Democrat out-of-Iraq-now campaigns began in early 2006. It has become more obvious with every bill the Democrat-led Congress passed that, rather than ending the war, simply gave the President nearly every single thing he asked for, without putting up any real fight (as opposed to the semifrequent, yet brief, preening-for-the-cameras moments of solely rhetorical dissent).
The impression the Democratic Congress gave during those minor-at-best wars over the continuation of the War was that it was simply incompetent. Reps. Pelosi, Hoyer, et al wanted to end the war as soon as possible -- at least, that's what they kept saying. Unfortunately for those who largely elected them on that basis, the best and brightest Democrats in elective office were simply unable to figure out any way to outsmart and outmaneuver the buffoon in the White House on the issues of wartime budget and policy, instead (inadvertently, I'm sure) ending every fight on the wrong side from their point of view, having yet again given the President every single thing he was asking for.
Now, Rep. Kanjorski has very publicly pulled the curtain back on the Democrat Congress' real intent and objective. "If we won the Congressional elections," he says, "we [implied that we] could stop the war." Yes, they did -- that is why the "Netroots" lined up behind these Democrats with their money and their soapboxes (but more importantly, with their money). That is why the "peace" activist supported them; ending the war NOW was the primary task they took on themselves to carry out, and the promise to do so was the basis on which so many of them were elected or reelected.
Now the mask slips -- and with it comes an admitted level of condescension directed by those Congressional Democrats at those who were gullible enough to support them for something that they themselves knew could not be done.
"Now anybody was a good student of Government," said Kanjorski, "would know that wasn't true [that they "could stop the war"]." Fortunately for those Democrats who campaigned, and were elected, based on their war-ending promises, their hardcore supporters, their activists, and their base of voters, are all made up of people who are, by Mr. Kanjorski's reckoning, very, very poor students of Government.
But all of that was justified to these incumbents and first-time candidates. Taking advantage of poor, uneducated rubes? Abusing trust, and leaving those who offered it stranded along the way? All acceptable -- because, again by Mr. Kanjorski's own description, of "the temptation to want to win back the Congress."
"We sort of stretched the facts," he says. "And people ate it up."
Yes, they did -- and that may well be an apt description of the fate awaiting Rep. Kanjorski himself once his fellow Congressional Democrats find out what secrets he has been publicly admitting.
After all, there is another election coming up in a mere five-plus months -- and they not only need the issue of their continued (purported) attempts to stop the war in order to gain support, but they need the votes of those same poor, poor students of government, who will believe every one of those stretched facts and, in the words of Mr. Kajorski, "eat up" what the Democrats had hoped to offer under the guise of something that was still eminently (and immintently) attainable under a their Congressional (and presidential) leadership.
Now, thanks to Mr. Kanjorski, that cat is out of the bag. He had better hope that those poor students of government are equally poor watchers of YouTube and followers of the news, or else the veneer of the Democrat promises on Iraq will be long gone, courtesy of his honesty problem