Thousands are demanding that the Massachusetts attorney general arrest and prosecute Bill Clinton following reports that he may have violated state election laws.
An online petition on Change.org, which has accumulated more than 88,000 signatures, calls for the “immediate arrest of President Bill Clinton for clear, knowing, and egregious violation of the campaign laws to swing an election in a significant way.” The petition is directed to Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey, a Democrat.
The petition was created after video emerged of Clinton shaking hands with election clerks inside a Massachusetts polling station on Super Tuesday. Critics have argued that the video is evidence of Clinton campaigning for his wife, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, inside a polling location, which is forbidden.
Clinton was also seen holding a rally close to the entrance of a polling site, thanking people for voting for his wife.
“Thank you all for participating. I especially thank those of you who are supporting Hillary,” Clinton said through a megaphone outside a polling location in New Bedford, according to the Boston Globe.
The website for William Gavin, the secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, indicates that the “solicitation of votes for or against, or any other form of promotion or opposition of, any person or political party or position on a ballot question” is forbidden inside or within 150 feet of polling places on Election Day.
Galvin’s office reached out to Clinton’s campaign to remind them of the Election Day rules.
“He had the right to go into the polling locations, and say ‘Hello’ to workers who were there. The issue is, you can’t go inside and say, ‘Vote for my wife,’ or ‘Vote for Hillary,’” Galvin told the Globe in an interview Wednesday.
“Photos and video show him clearly greeting and talking up election workers inside,” the petition alleges. “After being told to refrain from this activity, which is a 3rd degree Voter Violation Felony, for which Clinton indeed must have known the law and chose to violate it, Bill Clinton does not vote in Massachusetts, and would have no other business in a polling station on election day besides campaigning for his wife.”
Galvin also said that is office was “annoyed” by Clinton’s speech outside the New Bedford polling place but that he did not interrupt voting.
Clinton narrowly beat Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) in Massachusetts on Tuesday, winning 50 percent of the vote to his 49 percent.
In Massachusetts, it’s illegal to campaign for any candidate more than 150 feet from a polling place while voting is taking place. But Bill Clinton not only campaigned for his wife outside polling locations within that legal requirement, he also stepped inside the polling location itself, which some thought would unduly influence voters even if he did follow the letter of the law.
The National Association of Secretaries of State compiled a state-by-state list of electioneering laws at polling places. The Massachusetts law explicitly states:
Within 150 feet of a polling place… no person shall solicit votes for or against, or otherwise promote or oppose, any person or political party or position on a ballot question, to be voted on at the current election. No campaign material intended to influence the vote of a voter in the ongoing election, including campaign literature, buttons, signs, and ballot stickers, may be posted, exhibited, circulated, or distributed in the polling place, in the building where it is located, on the building walls, on the premises where the building stands, or within 150 feet of an entrance door to the building.
Here is video of Bill Clinton campaigning outside the Buttonwood Park Warming House, a polling location in New Bedford, MA, clearly within the 150 feet limit.
The 42nd President of the United States was warned of the rules by local election officials before he toured at four different locations today.
He was also told that he couldn’t urge voters to support Hillary Clinton in the gymnasium of the Holy Name Church in West Roxbury, where he went inside and shook hands with voters – which is technically not a violation of the law, as long as he did not approach voters or actively solicit votes or campaign inside the building. Clinton also went inside the Newton Free Library in Newton, MA with Boston mayor Marty Walsh in tow. Both are prominent, well-known Hillary Clinton supporters.
President Clinton walking into Newton Free Library on Super Tuesday ’16!
12:12 PM – 1 Mar 2016
“Even a president can’t go inside and work a polling place,” Massachusetts Secretary of State William Galvin told the New York Times. “He can go in, but he can’t approach voters… We just took the extra precaution of telling them because this is not a usual occurrence.
“You don’t usually get a president doing this,” he noted.
Some commentators even questioned whether the ex-President’s very presence inside a polling place defied the law for “campaign materials,” due to the pull such a figure commands. However, despite some misquoting of the Boston Globe by some sources, it does not appear that he actively campaigned inside the polling stations themselves.
It was after his West Roxbury and Newton stops that Clinton went on to the Buttonwood Park Warming House in New Bedford, Massachusetts, to campaign for the former First Lady with New Bedford mayor Jon Mitchell. While a video circulating on Youtube claims that Clinton’s Secret Service detail shut down the voting precinct for several hours, the Massachusetts Secretary of State’s office told US Uncut that while traffic was heavy in New Bedford, polling stations remained open.
Massachusetts polls close at 8 PM Eastern. As of this writing, the race between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders in the Bay State is neck-and-neck.
Courtesy of Hillary’s hubby…
Via Fox News:
North Korea announced Tuesday it has upgraded and restarted all of its atomic bomb fuel production plants in a warning to the U.S. weeks after a standoff with South Korea.
The declaration by North Korea’s state media agency claimed that the country’s main nuclear facility at Yongbyon, in the country’s northwest, was “in full operation.” An official quoted by the state news agency KNCA said North Korea’s nuclear weapons are being improved in “quantity and quality.” The complex had been shut down in 2007, but officials vowed to restart it after conducting North Korea’s third nuclear test in 2013.
The threats could deepen a standoff between North Korea and the U.S. and its allies over fears the country’s nuclear tests could bring it closer to its stated goal of an arsenal of nuclear-tipped long-range missiles that can hit the U.S. mainland. The announcement also is likely meant to put pressure on Washington to restart talks that could eventually provide the impoverished North with concessions and ease rigid international sanctions.
Kathleen Willey, the former Democrat activist who claims she was sexually assaulted by President Bill Clinton, is calling out Hillary Clinton for a new ad that expresses the presidential candidate’s purported concern for the survivors of sexual assault.
“She’s a money-hungry hypocritical witch who will do anything for money,” Willey told the American Mirror.
In the ad, which is only about 17 seconds long, Hillary Clinton states: “I want to send a message to every survivor of sexual assault. Don’t let anyone silence your voice. You have a right to be heard, and you have a right to be believed. We’re with you.”
Willey pointed out she got a different message from Hillary when she accused Bill Clinton of sexually assaulting her.
“She believed what happened for sure. She just chose to ignore the plight of all of his victims, thus enabling him to continue to abuse and rape women in the future,” Willey said of Hillary.
“She’s a lying pig. I cannot believe that she had the gall to make that commercial. How dare she? I hope she rots in hell.”
See the ad:
Willey, author of the book “Target: Caught in the Crosshairs of Bill and Hillary Clinton,” has been critical of Hillary Clinton in previous interviews.
WND reported a few months ago Willey’s statements about the Clintons’ mental health.
“[Hillary] is really looking awfully haggard these days,” Willey told “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio.”
“After watching [Bill’s] performance with [NBC News’ Cynthia] McFadden, when he said that I’ve gotta pay my bills, I think he’s showing early signs of dementia or something. He’s not the old Bill Clinton that we all remember. I mean, he was all over the place. Now you’re seeing clips of [Hillary] talking to herself all the time. I think that I want somebody in there who knows what they’re doing, and money isn’t the No. 1 issue for them. They have enough money. They made $30 million… in the last 15 months on speaking engagements. Isn’t that enough?”
WND reported last month that Willey, who with her husband, Ed, founded Virginians for Clinton and helped send Bill and Hillary to the White House in 1992, was shocked when Hillary claimed she and the president were broke when they left the White House in 2000.
“For her to say dead broke… I can tell you what it is to be dead broke and owing money,” she told WND in an interview.
Willey goes way back with the Clintons. While serving as a volunteer in the White House and facing financial hard times, she says she met with Bill Clinton in the Oval Office to request a paying position. But instead of getting help, she says, she was subjected to “nothing short of serious sexual harassment.”
Distraught, Willey fled Clinton’s presence, only to discover that her husband had committed suicide that same afternoon.
Later, she was drawn “unwillingly” into the Paula Jones lawsuit, the Ken Starr investigation and impeachment proceedings.
Willey wrote about her experiences with Bill Clinton’s sex addiction and Hillary Clinton’s revenge in the book “Target: Caught in the Crosshairs of Bill & Hillary Clinton.”
What would Hillary say?
Former President Bill Clinton raised eyebrows on Friday night when he paused to snap a photo with two prostitutes at the star-studded charity ball Unite4Charity.
Clinton, 67, was working the crowd at the fancy LA gala when he paused to take a picture with two young fans, Ava Adora and Barbie Girl, two sex workers from the Moonlite Bunny Ranch brothel in Moundhouse, Nevada.
The working girls were the invited guests of Dennis Hof, the 68-year-old proprietor of the brothel made famous by HBO’s series “Cathouse.”
“These two girls are just incredible fans of Bill Clinton,” Hof told the Daily News. “They kept saying, ‘Please take me, Daddy.'”
Hof brought 23-year-old Adora and 22-year-old Barbie to the event along with longtime pal, porn superstar Ron Jeremy.
On her website, Adora describes herself as a “passionate lover.” Barbie Girl’s bio boasts that she specializes in “devirginizing parties.
Clinton gave the event’s keynote address, and also received the gala’s Unity Award from Forest Whitaker.
“Clinton was going through there pretty fast, and the girls happened to get up front. They told Clinton that they were big fans and they took the photo,” Hof continued.
Clinton, Hoff confirmed, was busily snapping photos with well-wishers, and didn’t realize that he had posed for a picture with ladies of the evening.
“He didn’t know they were hookers,” Hof said. “But I guess when you’re a President, you like pretty girls too.”
Hof also contradicted a previous TMZ report that the girls had snuck in and were thrown out after snapping the picture.
“There’s no truth to that,” Hof said. “They stayed for the entire event and enjoyed it. The girls were enthusiastic about the event, and thrilled to meet Clinton. It was a great night for a great cause.”
The ex-commander-in-chief was one of the honored guests at the charity event, which also featured Robert De Niro and Martin Scorsese. But Ava Adora and Barbie Girl only had eyes for Clinton.
“They didn’t have any interest in Sean Penn or Robert DeNiro,” Hof said. “But Clinton they loved meeting.”
The Other McCain looks at President Conflation and sums him up perfectly!
Just got through watching President Obama lying on TV, and the method of his dishonesty is what fascinates me. He (and other liberals) engage in a sort of rhetorical prestidigitation, whereby health insurance is conflated with health care. In other words, the Democrats would have you believe, if you don’t have insurance, you just get sick and die. But what they never mention is that most people are healthy, and the vast majority of Americans — whether healthy or sick — had health insurance before ObamaCare was enacted.
If you were part of the X-million who did not have health insurance (those numbers were always estimates, and there was serious disagreement about how many were in the supposedly pathetic legion of The Uninsured), that didn’t mean you were doomed to die a painful death without benefit of medical care.
Most people without health insurance were healthy young people. But by relentlessly hyping the allegedly widespread misery of The Uninsured, liberals sought to justify a complex new federal regulatory apparatus that changed health insurance for everybody — including people who already had insurance with which they were satisfied.
The President therefore promised that everybody who already had insurance could keep it, and further promised that their rates would not go up as a result of the new law. But he lied.
Now, the President is attempting to convince us that everything is just hunky-dory. People who continue to oppose this law, the President would have us believe, are against health care — that is to say, he is conflating this legislation with health care per se, so that if you are against this particular law, you’re pro-cancer or something.
That’s right: Republicans want people to get sick and die, because illness and death are the only alternatives to the President’s policy.
How morally retarded is the Left? The Other McCain lets us know
The split between lawmakers and the White House reflects the dilemma the president finds himself in as he seeks to follow through on last week’s acknowledgment about his incorrect promise on health care coverage.
Good freaking grief! How far removed from our senses are we? Why is anyone making excuses for Obama’s BALD-FACED LIE? He LIED, and many Democrats lied with him. This was not a broken promise, it was a lie, PERIOD! And it was a lie told, and repeated to pass a bill these miscreants KNEW would force most American’s off the insurance they chose, and onto plans the government mandates! How tough is it to connect the dots here? If the government can tell you you MUST buy a product, in this case health insurance, then they can tell you what type of health coverage you MUST have. Honestly who did not see this coming?
Maybe more to the point, why would anyone defend, excuse, or spin this? Because those defending this un-American abomination actually think the government should do whatever it takes to reach the desired end, in this case, socialized medicine. Those defending this do not love liberty, they detest it! They care about the “common good”, they are Marxists! They are fine with deceit because they like the end game, so the means do not matter. It is all about the Collective as Donald Douglas notes
This is literally painful, from Jonathan Cohn, at the New Republic, “Bill Clinton Is Wrong. This Is How Obamacare Works” (via Memeorandum):
The Affordable Care Act includes a so-called grandfather clause. That allows insurers to keep renewing plans, without changes or benefits and prices, as long as they were available before March 2010, when the Affordable Care Act became law. But the non-group market is volatile: Very few people stay on plans for more than two years anyway. And the grandfather clause is narrow, by design: If insurers made even modest changes, the protection goes away. Those plans are subject to the new regulations that take effect in January. As a result, the majority of people who buy insurance on their own are learning they can’t have what they had before, even though Obama promised everybody they could. Either their premiums are going up, as insurers accommodate the new regulations, or the plans are disappearing altogether. In those cases, people have to find new plans. And the sticker price of what they’ll find is higher than what they pay now.
This is not a glitch or an accident. This is the way health care reform is supposed to work. And it’s important to put these changes into context. For one thing, it’s a small number of people relative to the population as a whole. The vast majority of Americans get coverage through employers or a large government program like Medicare. These changes don’t really affect them. The law also anticipates these changes by, among other things, offering tax credits that discount the premiums—in many cases, by thousands of dollars. (Other provisions of the law, like a limit on insurance company profits and overhead, should restrain prices more.) As a result, many people buying coverage on their own will be paying less money for benefits that are as good, if not better, than what they have now.
But there are real people who must pay more and, in some cases, put up with less. Some of them are people walking around with junk insurance, the kind are practically worthless because they pay out so little. Some of them are young people, particularly young men, whom insurers have coveted and wooed with absurdly low premiums—and make too much money to qualify for substantial subsidies. And some of them are reasonably affluent, healthy people with generous, open-ended policies that are hard to find even through employers. Insurers kept selling them because they could restrict enrollment to healthy people. Absent that ability, insurers are canceling them or raising premiums so high only the truly rich can pay for them.
Those people are the ones everybody is hearing about now, partly because they are a compelling, sometimes well-connected group—and partly because, absent a well-functioning website, stories of people benefitting from the law’s changes aren’t competing for attention. It’s impossible to know how big this group is. The data on existing coverage just isn’t that good. The anecdotes are frequently, although not always, more complicated than they seem at first blush. It’s probably one to two percent of the population, which doesn’t sound like much—except that, in a country of 300 million, that’s 3 to 6 million people. Most experts I trust think they represent a minority of people buying coverage on their own, but nobody can say with certainty.
Is that a worthwhile tradeoff for reform? Obviously that’s a matter of opinion. The fact that some people—even a small, relatively affluent group—are giving up something they had makes their plight (genuinely) more sympathetic. They are right to feel burned, since Obama did not make clear his promise might not apply to them. And there’s a principled argument about whether people should be responsible for services they’re unlikely to use presently, whether it’s fifty-something year olds paying for maternity care or twenty-something year olds paying for cardiac stress tests.
Read the whole thing. Utterly astounding.
This is what the president meant by “fundamental” change folks. He is willing to destroy private health insurance to get what he, and his fellow Marxists have long dreamed of, universal health care, which, according to a man I met today at the airport, is a great thing, until you make the mistake of getting sick. And speaking of getting sick, it seems that more Democrats are getting sick of their electoral chances next year
House Democrats delivered a fix-it-or-else ultimatum Wednesday to President Obama, giving his administration until Friday to find an affordable solution for the millions of Americans losing their health plans under ObamaCare — or risk some Democrats backing a Republican solution.
The ultimatum from President Obama’s own party is another sign of the unrest within the Democratic caucus about the cancellation notices. The end-of-the-week deadline is significant, because House Republicans are planning to call a vote Friday on a bill that would extend current policies for another year.
It’s unclear whether Democrats would go so far as to support that bill if the administration does not offer a Plan B. But one senior Democratic source told Fox News that, at a closed meeting Wednesday, Democrats made clear to the administration that they need a proposed fix before Friday’s vote.
The White House has vowed to come up with a solution, but so far has not provided much detail on what such a solution would entail. Press Secretary Jay Carney said Wednesday that the president will make an announcement on possible options “sooner rather than later.”
One senior House Democrat characterized the meeting Wednesday as “heated.” The source said the session consisted of “members telling the administration that they screwed it up and now we have to explain it to the public.”
Another source said that it helps for the administration to hear frank talk “from their friends that they need to get back in front of the problem.”
“No more excuses, just get it done,” the source said.
Of course, if these same Democrats had listened to their constituents three years ago, we would not be in this mess would we? Frankly, every Democrat who voted for Obamacare deserves to get thrown out of office over this.
Donald Douglas links a great piece on our president’s Truth Deficit Disorder
At the San Diego Union-Tribune, “President Obama’s obnoxious bait-and-switch“:
The last time we had a Democratic president who wanted to overhaul the entire U.S. health care system, his measure never even got out of a single congressional committee.
Why? Because Bill Clinton had no compelling response to an insurance-industry ad campaign in which “Harry and Louise” talked about the president’s proposal and the likelihood it would force them to lose their current health coverage and choose from a handful of government-approved options.
The ad campaign was so potent because it understood that most Americans are satisfied with their health coverage — and thus fear change.
The blowback Democrats faced because of the Clinton health initiative led to a Republican takeover of the House in November 1994 for the first time in nearly a half-century.
Barack Obama knew this history. So when he became president in January 2009 and began his push for a similarly ambitious overhaul of U.S. health care, he told people over and over that if they liked their health plan, they could keep it. There were no caveats. No strings attached. If you liked your doctor, you could keep your doctor.
It’s quite possible that the president said this so many times that he came to believe it. But it is a matter of fact that three months after the Affordable Care Act was signed into law in 2010, the Obama administration issued rules that will force the cancellation of vast numbers of policies. This is from the administration’s own words in the Federal Register: “The Departments’ midrange estimate is that 66 percent of small employer plans and 45 percent of large employer plans will relinquish their grandfather status by the end of 2013.”
So three years and four months ago, the Obama administration anticipated that some 90 million Americans would be forced to change their coverage. Yet as recently as last month, the president once again said, “If you like your plan, you can keep it.”
This is White House dishonesty on an epic scale…
Indeed it is, but that is the leftist way, and President Obama is an ideologue, Clinton was a politician. And, the Democrats in 2010 were dead set on shoving this law down our throats. Those famed harry and Louise ads would not have helped in 2010. No amount of public outcry against Obamacare worked. No polls showing the people did not want Obamacare worked either. The Left saw an opportunity, and took it. That is the problem with Democrats today isn’t it? They have moved so far Left that they are no longer even Liberals, they are Leftists.
If I could talk to Michael, I would ask him if he would prefer to be beaten and battered by three thugs, or be spray painted. I would ask this because Smerconish seems to think vandalism is worse than assault and battery
Just so you understand that Liberals really DO think that hateful words are worse than actual violent crimes. Moral Retardation much Smerconish?
YEP! He did, and I agree Monica is more doable
Maybe it takes a Southern good ol’ boy to understand why Bill Clinton liked more cushion for the pushin’, as fellows say down home.
Not that Sydney Leathers is particularly thin, but when it comes to the question of which gal looks like she’d appreciate a dinner date at Cracker Barrel — country fried steak and gravy, turnip greens, pinto beans, hashbrown casserole, biscuits and cornbread — I don’t think there can be any question: Monica is the plus-size winner.
What a lovely girl! Her green eyes are beautiful, her dark hair is beautiful and her mouth . . . Well, of course, I’m a happily married man, but this is strictly a hypothetical scenario, remember?
That’s why I was so strongly in favor of President Clinton’s impeachment. He was under oath when he was asked about Monica and, if he had any regard for truth, Bill would have had no choice but to answer: “Oh, hell, yes. I did that gal every day of the week and twice on Sunday. Honestly, I just couldn’t help myself. That chubby young gal flashing her thong panties at me? Like the song said, I took one look and I was fractured. Tried to walk and I was lame.”
What could I add?
Bill and Hillary Clinton praised the Supreme Court’s reversal of a key provision in the Defense of Marriage Act Wednesday, calling the 1996 law “discrimination.”
“By overturning the Defense of Marriage Act, the Court recognized that discrimination towards any group holds us all back in our efforts to form a more perfect union,” the Clintons said in a statement posted on the Clinton Foundation website. “We are also encouraged that marriage equality may soon return to California.”
The former president and his wife, the former secretary of state, concluded, “We applaud the hard work of the advocates who have fought so relentlessly for this day, and congratulate Edie Windsor on her historic victory.”
Left unmentioned was the fact that Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act into law while president. The 1996 Clinton-Gore ticket ran ads on Christian radio stations taking credit for the legislation, which prevented federal recognition of same-sex marriage.
The Defense of Marriage Act also allowed states to withhold recognition of gay marriages that were legal in other states. Senate Democrats voted 32 to 14 in favor. House Democrats supported it by a margin of a margin of 188 to 65.
Liberal stalwarts Joe Biden, Paul Wellstone and Barbara Milkulski were among the Democratic “yes” votes.
Democratic strategist Robert Shrum has said that Clinton urged John Kerry to support state-level gay marriage bans during the 2004 presidential campaign. Clinton has denied the charge.
Hillary Clinton also supported DOMA as a Democratic senator from New York. Even as she argued against a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, she described marriage as “not just a bond, but a sacred bond between a man and a woman.” She cited her own troubled marriage with Bill as a reason for that belief.
Clinton then invoked “the fundamental bedrock principle that [marriage] exists between a man and a woman going back into the mists of history as one of the founding foundational institutions of history and humanity and civilization, and that its primary, principle role during those millennia has been the raising and socializing of children for the society into which they are to become adults.”
Early in her presidential campaign, Clinton insisted to the YearlyKos convention that “DOMA served a very useful purpose.”
Both Clintons now favor gay marriage. Hillary Clinton is considered the frontrunner for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination.
To think we Conservatives considered Bill Clinton the most shameless liar once. Then, we were introduced to President Barack Obama. If Clinton was Pinocchio then Obama is Mega-Pinocchio. Bob Owens has the presidents latest batch of whoppers
There is a special sort of loathing that Barack Obama has for the United States that seems to manifest itself seemingly every time he steps foot on foreign soil. Speaking in front of an audience in Mexico, he blamed the United States for supplying Mexicowith the guns used in cartel drug violence that has terrorized much of that country:
“Most of the guns used to commit violence here inMexico come from the United States,” President Obama said during a speech at Mexico’s Anthropology Museum. “I think many of you know that in America, our Constitution guarantees our individual right to bear arms. And as president, I swore an oath to uphold that right, and I always will.”
“But at the same time, as I’ve said in the United States, I will continue to do everything in my power to pass common-sense reforms that keep guns out of the hands of criminals and dangerous people. That can save lives here in Mexico and backhome in the United States. It’s the right thing to do,” Obama added.
Obama has blamed the American people numerous times for gun violence in Mexico. In 2009, the President, Attorney General Eric Holder, and then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton repeatedly claimed that “90-percent” of guns recovered from cartel crime scenes were traced to the United States.
The “90-percent lie” was conclusively debunked by Obama’s own Department of Justice in sworn testimony before Congress, as an ATF official was forced to admit that just 8% of firearms recovered from the scenes of gun crimes in Mexico came from the United States.
Of the 8% of American “civilian” guns recovered at crime scenes, 302 murders of those murders were traced directly to guns smuggled to the Sinaloa cartel via Operation Fast and Furious, a weapons smuggling plot that transferred 2,500 guns to narco-terrorists that the Obama Administration wants to ban.
Via Operation Fast and Furious and up to nine other gun smuggling operations, the Obama Adminstration provided potentially tens of thousand of “civilian” guns to different cartels. Put bluntly, the Obama Administration is likely the greatest supplier of American“civilian” firearms to the Mexican cartels.
The Obama Administration also definitively the top supplier of military weapons to the cartels, via massive arms shipments to the Mexican government, despite the fact that significant amounts of military arms shipped to the Mexican government winds up in cartel hands via corruption. At least 10,30 Ar-15s were known diverted to drug cartels… and yet, the Obama Administration kept supplying them with massive amounts of weapons, nearly 10 times what was sold during the Bush Administration
Also remember that one of the goals of Fast and Furious was to use it to push for more gun control here in America. Lies, lies, and still more lies from the Democrats. They have proven themselves to be willing to say anything to further their agenda. Remember something else too. Remember that the lap dog media makes it possible for the Democrats to lie about Fast and Furious, Obama’s past and radical ties, and about the events in Benghazi. Odd that one of the biggest problems in this nation is a media that refuses to use their right to uncover the truth.
I decided earlier today to do a post outlining the Rules of Leftism so everyone could come to grips with the undeniable truth about the evil I call Leftism.
1- When a Leftist says “by any means…” BELIEVE them! They have a moral compass guided by one thing. If it helps them win, it is moral.
2- Leftism is an ideology of convenience. A Leftist, or a Liberal (a Leftist in training) can change their stance on an issue depending on what party is in power. Just because Leftists wanted to kick Clarence Thomas to the curb over accusations of sexual harassment, did not mean far more serious allegations about Bill Clinton mattered to them.
3- Leftism is just another bastard child of Marxism. Leftists never wish to be called out for what they really are, which is Communists. Everything Marx believed in, they believe in. Never be fooled by their rhetoric.
4- Leftism is about one thing, control! Control of you, your earnings, your property, your kids, your rights, and certainly your thinking!
5- Leftists often use the term “power to the people”. Yet, everything they strive for seeks to dis-empower people. As Dennis Prager says the bigger the state, the smaller the individual, and the Left has yet to meet a state that is too big or an individual that is powerless enough,
6- The Left HATES your gun more than anything else. Why? Well because Leftism is all about Collectivism, and the ultimate enemy of Collectivists is Individualism. And nothing promotes Individualism more than the right to keep and bear arms. There can never be the Leftist Utopia as long as the right to keep and bear arms is in place. That right, given by the Creator, and protected by the Constitution our Founders gave us is the one liberty that all other’s hang on. The Left knows this, which is why they seek to destroy that liberty.
7- Leftists do not believe in God-given, or natural rights. They believe all right MUST come from, and be controlled by big government. God-given rights cannot be touched by government. They are as inherent to us as is our soul. The Founders listed such rights, and constrained the government from restricting those rights. The Left has been trying to undo that ever since the birth of America.
8- Leftists seek to allow government to control individual liberty for the “common good”. To the Left, individual liberty, be it free speech, self-defense, freedom of religion, is to be trampled when it becomes a detriment to that common good. And, of course, only a Leftist government can “properly” judge what the common good is.
9- Leftists love freedom of speech, as long it they approve of it!
10- Leftists are not racists, or sexists, they are Marxists. Yes a Leftist will use racist, and sexist attacks on women and minorities when it suits them, But their motivation is not to discriminate, it is to USE those minorities to gain electoral power. And that electoral power can then be used to “fundamentally change” America.
11- The Left divides, then labels people, so as to control them. The Left uses this tactic with great effect. They have used it with women, Blacks, Hispanics, Homosexuals, Asians, the old, the young. First they convince people in a certain group that EVERYTHING in their life revolves around their sexuality, or gender or race. This allows the Left to convince any group that they must THINK as a group, or they are a traitor to that group. Next, the Left convinces these groups that Conservatives hate them, and that the only hope for their gender, sexuality, or race is to vote against the Conservatives.
12- Ignorance is the fertilizer that fuels Leftism. Leftism thrives on the uneducated. And as well on those that have been indoctrinated rather than educated. This is why Leftists always want more focus, and money for education, mandatory pre-school, and for everyone to go to college.
13- Leftists hate powerful corporations, and powerful groups like the NRA, but worship at the altar of all-powerful government. It is horrible to the Left when a health insurance company will not cover you. But, if the government dictates who gets care, and what type of care, well that is Utopia. The Left hates it when gas prices are high, and the people suffer as long as “big oil” is profiting. But if the oil industry were nationalized, and the government made all the money, and gas prices were even higher? Yes, Utopia!
Take these rules, pass them around, and never ever forget them!
Of all the headlines that came out about Obama’s gun control Kabuki Theater today, THIS is the one that might make my skull collapse. Via Steve at MCT
Leader of Fast and Furious wants to study how guns get into hands of criminals
And he said it with a straight face folks! Of course, the media has pretty much blacked out Fast and Furious, like they blacked out Benghazi. And Obama’s radical ties, and his radical church, and so on and so on. They make such useful idiots for Obama!
Another day, another Leftist ass hat contracts one of the many Liberal Maladies I have diagnosed mover the years. The ass hat, in this case, is Ed Schultz, the malady? Truth Deficit Disorder or TDD!
The hits keep coming from libtalker Ed Schultz, who’s kicking off the new year on a roll.
First week into 2013, Schultz insisted that Bill Clinton was never tried in the Senate after he was impeached by the House. Schultz followed with the laughable claim that gun laws in Chicago, a city with some of the nation’s toughest restrictions on firearms, “don’t even exist.
Schultz is tripling down on his ignorance, making an egregiously false claim on his radio show yesterday while talking about whether schools should allow teachers to arm themselves (h/t for embedded audio clip, Brian Maloney at mrctv.org) –
“Would it be a deterrent if, you know, say perpetrators know that there’s guns in the schools? How do we know they wouldn’t view that as a challenge? I mean, we got a goofy world out there. I’m just not convinced that packing a small firearm is the best defense or certainly not the best defense. You know, you want to make the best defense? Make the school a damn fortress. I mean, you could do that, I mean but, is that reasonable? Is that the right thing to do? Is it necessary? And so I’m just, is it nec-, haven’t we had enough school shootings where this is necessary?We’ve never had a civilian stop a shooting.”
Never? Really Ed? REALLY?? Well, folks, this has to be TDD. Poor Ed, you gotta feel for the blathering buffoon. He wants so badly for his numerous falsehoods to be true that he has developed an inability to grasp what everyone else sees, that he is, in fact, a lying bag of baboon dung! Mark Hemingway has some facts that lay waste to Ed’s delusional rantings
In response to last week’s massacre in Connecticut, Mother Jones has put together a “study” on mass shootings that makes a pretty bold claim:
In the wake of the slaughters this summer at a Colorado movie theater and a Sikh temple in Wisconsin, we set out to track mass shootings in the United States over the last 30 years. We identified and analyzed 62 of them, and one striking pattern in the data is this: In not a single case was the killing stopped by a civilian using a gun.
There are a couple of major problems here with arguing that armed civilians don’t stop mass shootings. One is that when armed civilians are present, they often stop mass shootings before they can become mass shootings. One of the criteria Mother Jones used to define mass shootings is that “the shooter took the lives of at least four people.” So then, consider the following:
– Mayan Palace Theater, San Antonio, Texas, this week: Jesus Manuel Garcia shoots at a movie theater, a police car and bystanders from the nearby China Garden restaurant; as he enters the movie theater, guns blazing, an armed off-duty cop shoots Garcia four times, stopping the attack. Total dead: Zero.
– Winnemucca, Nev., 2008: Ernesto Villagomez opens fire in a crowded restaurant; concealed carry permit-holder shoots him dead. Total dead: Two. (I’m excluding the shooters’ deaths in these examples.)
– Appalachian School of Law, 2002: Crazed immigrant shoots the dean and a professor, then begins shooting students; as he goes for more ammunition, two armed students point their guns at him, allowing a third to tackle him. Total dead: Three.
– Santee, Calif., 2001: Student begins shooting his classmates — as well as the “trained campus supervisor”; an off-duty cop who happened to be bringing his daughter to school that day points his gun at the shooter, holding him until more police arrive. Total dead: Two.
– Pearl High School, Mississippi, 1997: After shooting several people at his high school, student heads for the junior high school; assistant principal Joel Myrick retrieves a .45 pistol from his car and points it at the gunman’s head, ending the murder spree. Total dead: Two.
– Edinboro, Pa., 1998: A student shoots up a junior high school dance being held at a restaurant; restaurant owner pulls out his shotgun and stops the gunman. Total dead: One.
These are just a few examples of mass shootings being prevented. I’m sure there are many more that meet this criteria. But, as you can see, in every incident, the would-be shooters were stopped short of killing four people because an armed civilian—or in some cases, an off duty cop—was present.
Newsbusters (link above) also points out that the Oregon mall shooting was stopped, likely in great part by an armed civilian
Back on Dec. 11, a gunman shot two people to death at a mall in Clackamas, Ore., then took his own life when he saw a 22-year-old patron with a concealed carry permit draw his weapon.
“He was working his own gun,” Nick Meli told KGW Channel 8, describing how he positioned himself behind a pillar when he heard gunfire. “He kept pulling the charging handle and hitting the side.”
The Channel 8 report continues —
The break in gunfire allowed Meli to pull out his own gun, but he never took his eyes off the shooter.
“As I was going down to pull, I saw someone in the back of the Charlotte move, and I knew if I fired and missed, I could hit them,” he said.
Meli took cover inside a nearby store. He never pulled the trigger. He stands by that decision.
“I’m not beating myself up ’cause I didn’t shoot him,” said Meli. “I know after he saw me, I think the last shot he fired was the one he used on himself.”
See how TDD can ravage people ability to be honest? Please help stamp out TDD in our times. You can help by exposing Liberal lies, and yes, by reading this blog. PLEASE do not let THIS happen to you!
Of the many maladies that afflict Liberals, maladies I have diagnosed in an effort to cure the Left and bring Liberals into the light of the founding principles, Consistent Inconsistentitis is especially troubling. This malady seems to rob those it attacks of the ability to stand on any belief for long. Typical cases include Liberals who are vehemently anti-war when a Republican is in the White House, but suddenly soften that opposition to the war when a Democrat assumes the office of president. I could name many more examples, but I want to get to Michael Moore here. Moore is one of the most bitterly anti-second amendment Leftists out there. Every school shooting Moore resurfaces from his donuts to viciously berate gun owners, the NRA, and so on. One of the ideas that many on the Right, and some on the Left have put forward to hopefully prevent school shootings is to place armed guards in schools.
Several versions of the plan are out there, including mine. Some, like me, advocate for retired police/military to be hired to be in schools as a deterrent and as a first line of defense. Others have advocated active duty police, others have advocated allowing teachers with concealed carry permits to arm themselves in schools. The NRA on Friday issued a plan for police officers to be in schools, and the Left went ballistic, ignoring the fact that Bill Clinton placed police in schools during his presidency. Some on the Left mocked the idea of “part-timers” patrolling schools. Some feared that armed teachers would suddenly snap, because liberals actually believe guns can hypnotize people and turn them into killers apparently. Moore of course, was among those outraged that anyone would dare suggest armed security for students. After all, clearly there is no place for armed security in Moore’s perfect Marxist Utopia.
Mocking the idea of self-defense is not new for Moore though, as is mocking the notion that armed security might actually deter or stop an evil person intent on murder. That is why Moore has armed security guards. Wait, what? Yes, here is where Moore’s inconsistencies catch up to him. Matt at Conservative Hideout clues us in on one of Moore’s security guys being busted for a, wait for it, gun violation. HE is important enough to have armed protection, but school children? Average Americans? They are not elites like Moore, or Rosie O’Donnell, who thinks gun owners ought to be imprisoned, but has no problem with armed security for her kids.
Hmmm, it is odd, Liberals freak whenever anyone suggests that guns can make us safer in any way, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary, yet rely on ARMED security to make them safer. Michael Moore where IS your consistency? Of course, Moore’s first answer would likely be that his security is “trained”. Trained, it seems, well enough NOT to be familiar with gun laws. Of course, the Left does not stop at not wanting armed teachers, they do not want armed police either. So it is not the “trained” part of the equation that they dislike. It seems that it is the idea of guns they find so troubling. Any gun, wielded by anyone, even law enforcement, in schools is simply unthinkable to Liberals. So why do Liberals not berate Moore who preach that guns are bad while being surrounded by armed security? Two words, Consistent Inconsistentitis.
The Lonely Conservative notes that the Left is going bat shit crazy over the NRA suggestion that we actually use armed police/guards/teachers to protect our kids in school, yet when Bill Clinton PUT armed guards in schools, there was no outrage at all. A classic case of Selective Outrage Syndrome
The other day Senator Barbara Boxer proposed turning our schools into mini police states patrolled by the National Guard. There was no outrage by the progressives or the media that I found. I also don’t recall much media outrage when former President Bill Clinton not only proposed, but also implemented putting armed guards in our schools. The internet and blogs were in their infancy at the time, so it’s possible that most progressives weren’t even aware of the policy, a policy thatPresident Obama cut funding for, by the way.
But when a similar proposal was made by the NRA outrage erupted immediately. My goodness, they’re suddenly concerned about what things cost! As if giving public workers rich benefit packages is more important than keeping our children safe. If only they had this much outrage over the budgets of our state and local governments.
Let’s get even more confusing. Clinton proposed more security for schools in the wake of the 1999 Columbine shooting. It turns out that Columbine High School did have an armed sheriff’s deputy on the scene the day of its tragic shooting spree. That deputy exchanged fire with one of the killers twice, drawing their attention away from killing unarmed teenagers. The deputy and his backup also helped organize the evacuation of students from the school. Though the deputy’s presence obviously did not stop the attack from happening, it likely did save many lives.
Let’s pile on even more confusion. The NRA today proposed protecting our children to a level similar to the way we protect our banks and many public buildings: With armed security. As we’ve established, this idea has been around for more than 12 years and was once proposed by a Democratic president. Many on the anti-gun left responded to today’s proposal not with a thoughtful rejoinder, but with calls to shoot Wayne LaPierre.
And yes, Columbine, and several other school shooting did happen while the assault weapons ban the Left wishes to bring back was in place, but the Left ignores that fact too. Why do I call Liberalism an ideology of convenience? This is why. They need no facts, just emotions to “know” something. They say a horrible event could have been stopped by a law. Yet when you point out that such a law did exist, and did not prevent such horrible events, they just repeat their disproved mantra. It is convenient to be able to “take a stand” and speak “truth to power” when you can use emotion, rather than reason. And it is convenient to say that to do something, anything is better than doing nothing. It is convenient because when that “something” fails, or even makes things worse through unintended consequences, think gun free zones here, you can feel better because you meant well. How convenient indeed!
When I first heard accusation that Obama talked all about himself during the memorial service I thought perhaps some folks were just looking for something to criticize. Well after watching this clip, I can say they were NOT wrong!
The video cuts off before Obama got to the girl he had a crush on in sixth grade. Good grief, it almost looked like he had no clue what to say