Democrats Were For a Wall Before They Were Against It

I’m reading Karl Rove’s book, “Courage and Consequence.” I just got to the part where, after holding hands and singing “God Bless America” on the Capitol steps, the Democrats shed any desire to work with the Bush administration and began playing hard ball politics.

Rove told a story about when Bush met with then House Democratic leader Dick Gephardt to discuss getting the economy back on track following 9/11. As part of a larger plan, Bush wanted to cut the corporate tax rate 20 percent. Gephardt said that was a “nonstater with his caucus,” and advised sending out rebate checks to low- and moderate-income homes.

Bush chose, in the name of bipartisanship, to get rid of the tax cut and put the rebates in its place. When his plan was briefed on the plan, they asked Gephardt his opinion. He and the rest of the Democrats rejected the plan, saying “much, much more” needed to be done like offering health and unemployment benefits to part time and seasonal workers.

Then they started complaining about a lack of bipartisanship.

And you probably remember the line of Democrats calling for Saddam Hussein to be removed from power because of his stockpile of weapons of mass destruction, voted to give Bush the power to invade Iraq, only to later say Bush rushed them to war and lied about WMDs.

With that history, this should come as no surprise:

Democrats are already grumbling about Donald Trump’s proposed border wall, though Barack Obama and other leaders in their party voted not so long ago for George W. Bush’s proposal to build a major wall on the border with Mexico.

Bush signed the proposal into law in 2006, after it was passed by huge bipartisan majorities in the House and Senate.

Then-Sens. Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and Hillary Clinton were among the 26 Democrats who approved the bill. Supporters also included Sen. Chuck Schumer, who is set to take over leadership of the Senate for Democrats in 2016.

Now, despite voting to fund and build a wall 10 years ago, Democrats, specifically new Senate Minority Leader Sen. Chuck Schumer, are grumbling and saying it’s racist, or something.

Regardless of what you think of the wall, you’ve got to hate this two-faced politicking by the professional left.

 

Democrats Were For a Wall Before They Were Against It

Wikileaks Podesta Email Shows Sick Admission of Effort To Create “Compliant” and “Unaware” Citizenry

Scrolling through my Facebook feed tonight, I happened upon a link to Wikileaks via my friend Kimberly Morin. It looked intriguing, so I clicked on it to see what this email to John Podesta said.

It’s from March of this year.  A guy named Bill Ivey was worried that the people are going to get behind Trump and that might make it difficult for Clinton, especially if she goes full policy after the primaries.

What I found stunning was this line right here:

untitled-3

That is incredible.

So incredible that I wondered if it was fake. After all, how many bogus websites have popped up this election. But this is on Wikileaks official website. You can read it here.

So then I thought, “Maybe this is a fake email. A plant. Maybe Bill Ivey isn’t even a real person.”

Nope. He’s real. And he’s connected to the Clintons and the Obamas. From his bio at GlobalCulturalStrategies.com, “the online representation of the ideas, writings, and affiliations of author/consultant Bill Ivey,”

From 1998 through 2001 Ivey served in the Clinton-Gore administration as Senate-confirmed chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts, and in that capacity is credited with both increasing the agency’s budget and restoring good relations between the NEA and Capitol Hill.

Bill Ivey is a trustee of the Center for American Progress, and was a Team Leader in the Barack Obama presidential transition.

He says “we’ve,” not “I’ve.”

In my mind, I’m seeing an admission of an effort to create a citizenry that doesn’t understand government, their rights and is basically like a bunch of zombies on “The Walking Dead,” following whatever shiny object happens to be dangled in front of them, even if it leads them off a cliff. This has been a belief by many, but until now, it’s just been a belief. I don’t think I’ve ever seen it espoused by a leftist in such plain, deliberate terms.

Final thought – a quote from Thomas Jefferson: “An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people.

Wikileaks Podesta Email Shows Sick Admission of Effort To Create “Compliant” and “Unaware” Citizenry

Leftist Paper Says the Constitution Gives Us “The Right to Protest” (w Video)

I was just over on Reddit, looking at the headlines, when I saw one that made me choke on my coffee. Clicking through to the site, this is what I saw:

wrong

From the article:

The military doesn’t “give” us the right to protest. The Constitution does that. Two hundred years of struggle for civil liberties does that.

Wrong. So wrong.

Let’s ignore the idea that the military gives us the right to protest. They may protect it, but they don’t “give” it to us. Let’s focus on the fallacious idea that the Constitution gives us the right.

That’s progressive nonsense.

We don’t have the right to protest because of the Constitution, the same document leftists decry as something written by rich, white, slaveowners only for their own benefit. (Which is ludicrous, considering how many of them were part of the new government. If it were just for them, they’d restrict the rights of the people and increase their own power.)

The right to protest comes from our humanity or from our Creator, whichever you prefer. They don’t exist because some men wrote them down centuries ago.

The right to protest is a natural right. That means the government can’t take it away.

They can only violate it.

 

Judge Andrew Napolitano explains more:

 

Leftist Paper Says the Constitution Gives Us “The Right to Protest” (w Video)

Trump Says Donation to Florida AG Came With No Strings, Unlike Donations to Democrats

trumpchurch

All you have to do is bring up Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump’s donations to career liberals and you’ll get the same, tired response from his sycophants:

He’s a businessman and he was making donations so he could do business. It wasn’t about politics. It was just business.

Trump himself has made this claim:

“I support politicians,” Donald J. Trump explained at last Thursday’s Republican debate in Detroit, after being challenged on his campaign checks to Democrats. “In 2008, I supported Hillary Clinton. I supported many other people, by the way. And that was because of the fact that I’m in business.”

Also:

Trump has found time to shrug off criticisms of his past donations, defending them as a business necessity: “I am a businessman,” Trump told conservative talk radio host Howie Carr recently, as reported by Buzzfeed. “And when, you know, a speaker of the House or head of the Senate or, you know, people call, you know, I generally speak. As a businessman, you wanna be friendly with everybody.”

In other words, he was paying to play. Those donations were so he could get special treatment, so he could be left alone or get through bureaucratic hoops quicker, perhaps get his licenses approved faster. Who knows? We are assured, however, it wasn’t politics. It was business.

Meanwhile, in Ohio:

Donald Trump on Monday dismissed questions about his failure to disclose an improper $25,000 contribution to a political group connected to Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, who was at the time considering whether to open a fraud investigation against Trump University.

“I never spoke to her, first of all; she’s a fine person beyond reproach. I never even spoke to her about it at all. She’s a fine person. Never spoken to her about it. Never,” Trump said Monday while speaking to reporters in Ohio. “Many of the attorney generals turned that case down because I’ll win that case in court. Many turned that down. I never spoke to her.”

The $25,000 gift, paid by the Donald J. Trump Foundation, violated federal rules that prohibit charities from making donations to political candidates. Trump and his team also failed to disclose the large gift to the Internal Revenue Service, instead reporting that the donation was given to an unrelated group with a similar name – effectively obscuring the contribution.

Bondi ultimately decided not to open an investigation against Trump’s embattled for-profit education business.

Just so I have it right, when it comes to Democrats, his donations are strictly for cronyism based reasons. It’s because “you wanna be friendly with everybody.” But when it comes to the Attorney General who is deciding whether to investigate him, Trump’s donation had nothing to do with being friendly with her.

Is that about right? Do you believe that?

Photo Credit: Fox News Screen Capture
Trump Says Donation to Florida AG Came With No Strings, Unlike Donations to Democrats

Piers Morgan Now Bullying 12-Year-Old Girls, Still Losing Debates

aryanna-gourdin

You may have seen the brouhaha surrounding 12-year-old Aryanna Gourdin, who posts photos of her and the animals she harvests on trophy hunts. I know the producers at Piers Morgan’s latest miserable television show saw them, because they invited the huntress and her dad on the show.

And then Morgan went all Morgan-y on her:

“How would you feel if I came to your house one day and I hunted down your pet cat and I killed it and I then posted pictures of me celebrating the slaughter of your pet cat?’ Mr. Morgan asked.

This is what passes for logic to the anti-gun, anti-hunting left.

A pet cat is equal to a giraffe, or something.

Gourdin’s father was quick to jump in, calling it a trick question. It’s not a trick question. It’s a stupid question.

Who owns a wild animal? No one. It’s wild.

 

Furthermore, the caretakers of the area singled out the giraffe she harvested because he was a problem:

“This giraffe was an old bull unable to reproduce and a danger to the other giraffes. In Africa they’re in a 30 year drought and food and water are scarce. By removing this giraffe it will ensure survival of the species by making sure there are enough resources to sustain the rest of the healthy herd. This bull was a danger to the others and will provide food for several orphanages and villages in the area.”

But even if that wasn’t true, even if the giraffe had just been born, it wasn’t anyone’s property, which makes the comparison to the cat asinine.

The correct response wasn’t, “That’s a trick question.”

The correct response was, “Well, Piers, there’s a difference. The cat is my property. It’s mine. So you can’t destroy what is mine. But even if it wasn’t, PETA kills thousands of cats and dogs every year. Are you condemning them? I killed one giraffe. They kill thousands of animals. Where’s your moral indignation over that? Furthermore, all the meat harvested from this giraffe fed 800 orphans in the area, so apparently you prefer that the problem giraffe lived and the orphans went hungry. Why do you hate orphans, Piers? Why do you hate orphans?”

At least, that’s where I would have gone.

Photo Credit: Facebook
Piers Morgan Now Bullying 12-Year-Old Girls, Still Losing Debates

Clinton, Obama Chose to Appease China Rather Than Accept High-Level Defector

14796171021_8fafb0603a_k

This story makes you wonder who Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is really concerned with helping – America, or the communist Chinese. When a high-level Chinese defector, bearing case and documents, told an American consulate he feared for his life, it didn’t take long for Clinton and Obama to make a decision to turn him over to the Chinese government:

Critics say Clinton’s handling of the defection of Wang Lijun, a close aide to a regional Communist Party leader, was a blunder and lost opportunity for U.S. intelligence to gain secrets about the leaders of America’s emerging Asian adversary.

Instead of sheltering Wang and granting him political asylum, Clinton agreed to turn him over to Chinese authorities in Beijing, and claimed he was not qualified for American sanctuary because of his past role as a police chief accused of corruption.

However, the defector’s case highlights Clinton’s policy of seeking to preserve U.S. ties with China’s communist leadership instead of pursuing much-needed intelligence gathering on China at a time when Beijing is emerging as an increasingly threatening power.

According to Bill Gertz, writing at The Washington Free Beacon, Clinton wrote about the event in her book Hard Choices, but, this may come as a shock, wasn’t exactly truthful about how it went down:

Details of the mishandling of the Wang defection have been kept secret by the Obama administration, and Clinton’s version of events were contradicted by U.S. officials and the official Chinese account. Instead of gaining long-term access to a valuable defector with inside knowledge of Chinese strategy and policies, Clinton contacted the Chinese government in Beijing and allowed security officials to take Wang into custody outside the U.S. consulate some 30 hours after he entered the property in a daring bid to flee China for the United States.

Clinton wrote about how appreciative the communists were about her playing ball with them:

The former secretary of state also stated she did not realize the significance of Wang’s offer to defect or the impact it would have. Additionally, she ordered complete secrecy surrounding the case to help Chinese leaders avoid a scandal during a major leadership transition in the coming weeks.

“We had no idea how explosive his story would prove or how seriously Beijing would take it,” she wrote. “We agreed to say nothing about the matter and the Chinese were grateful for our discretion.”

So grateful they showed contempt and disrespect to President Obama when he visited recently.

Photo Credit: Mike Mozart/Flickr
Clinton, Obama Chose to Appease China Rather Than Accept High-Level Defector

Zero Hedge – Here’s What Might Happen When The Money Printing Ends

This sounds about right:

2910893574_36d62ca789_b

My best set of guesses is we have another huge deflationary asset bubble collapse at some point, that prime minister Abe goes totally crazy in Japan, that the eurozone does not survive intact, that yen-hedged Japanese equities soar, and gold is a safe haven in this mess (especially when central banks respond with still more QE madness).

The most painful scenario would likely be slow torture along the lines of a 10% correction this year, a 6% correction next year, then a 5% rally, followed by a 15% decline, a 7% rally and another 15% decline, etc., for a period of seven years or so.

At the end of seven or 10 years, investors would be down 40-50% without a crash. It would destroy pension plans. Heck, given 7.5% assumptions, even a flat market for seven years would destroy them.

There is one thing he left out. Everyone will be blaming capitalism, especially the people that caused this to happen.

And then, they’ll start regulating themselves more control over the market.

Zero Hedge – Here’s What Might Happen When The Money Printing Ends

The Difference Between Education and Schooling

6721513707_fc053218b9_z

“Education is a matter of self-mastery, first; then self-enlargement, even self-transcendance—as all possibilities of the human spirit open themselves into zones for exploration and understanding. There are points where the two conditions inform one another, but in schooling, somebody else’s agenda is always uppermost.”

This is why more and more parents are choosing to homeschool, as noted at Reason.com.

Photo Credit: IowaPolitics.com/Flickr
The Difference Between Education and Schooling