Category: Democrats

A. Ejaculating on a Fat Girl

Posted on Comments

Q. What was Bill Clinton’s most famous accomplishment as president?

Monica Lewinsky has opened up about her infamous presidential affair to reveal that she turned down offers that would’ve amounted to $10million because she ‘didn’t feel like the right thing to do’.

(Perhaps if she had been worried about “the right thing to do” before she fellated the President of the United States . . .)

Lewinsky, now 40, has penned a tell-all essay for Vanity Fair . . .
‘Sure, my boss took advantage of me, but I will always remain firm on this point: it was a consensual relationship. Any ‘abuse’ came in the aftermath, when I was made a scapegoat in order to protect his powerful position,’ she wrote in the essay. . . .

(Being used as a taxpayer-provided semen receptacle? That was “a consensual relationship” and OK. Being exposed for doing so — and for filing a perjurious affidavit in a federal civil rights lawsuit — is, however, “abuse.” If Clinton had not been in “his powerful position,” Lewinsky would not have been so eager to suck him off, but when the administration’s defenders, including its hired liars in the press corps, predictably circled the wagons to defend The Big He, Lewinsky seemed surprised to learn that her fate was incidental to process. But I could go on all day about this. Back to the story . . .)

‘Sure, my boss took advantage of me, but I will always remain firm on this point: it was a consensual relationship. Any ‘abuse’ came in the aftermath, when I was made a scapegoat in order to protect his powerful position,’ she wrote in the essay.
‘The Clinton administration, the special prosecutor’s minions, the political operatives on both sides of the aisle, and the media were able to brand me. And that brand stuck, in part because it was imbued with power.’
She went on to say that she is fully aware of the impact of the relationship and she is coming clean with her full feelings. . . .

(Yes, “she’s coming clean.” He, on the other hand . . .)

 

Benghazi: A Hole in the Tick-Tock

Posted on Comments

Tick-tock: Journalism jargon for a story that recounts events in chronological order, as if accompanied by the soundtrack of a ticking clock.

Last summer, at the request of American Spectator editor R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr., I spent several days trying to get the White House Press Office to answer a simple question:

The President of the United States is not only the most powerful man in the world, but also the most public, his daily life chronicled to the minute by the national press, his every word and action reported and analyzed by journalists and commentators. What the American president says and does is always automatically newsworthy and therefore it is profoundly mysterious that a hushed silence surrounds one of the most disturbing events of Barack Obama’s presidency, the Sept. 11, 2012, terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens.
Where was the president? This is a simple question, one to which the American people might reasonably expect an answer, but more than nine months after that deadly night, we still have not gotten a detailed answer and most in the media seem to have lost all interest in the question. . . .

You can read the rest. The point was, and is, that we never got the “tick-tock” version of the White House’s Benghazi story — we don’t have a timeline of where Obama was and what he was doing, during the tragic events of Sept. 11, 2012. Here we are, nearly a year later, and journalists still haven’t gotten the tick-tock. Patterico did some poking around over the weekend:

Here is an interesting tidbit from the White House Visitor Logs for 9/11/12: Obama met with three people, at an unknown time, for “debate prep.” . . .
Obama appears [from the official White House schedule] to have been gone from the White House for much of the early part of the day. He observed a moment of silence on the South Lawn; visited the Pentagon Memorial; visited veterans at Walter Reed in Bethesda; returned to the White House; and met with Leon Panetta at 5 p.m. There are not too many holes in his schedule during the day — increasing the chances that the “debate prep” took place in the evening, after the meeting with Panetta . . . in other words, when the Benghazi attack was unfolding.

Patterico makes clear we don’t know when that happened, because we never got that tick-tock, and thus the question:

“What difference, at this point, does it make?”

It makes a difference because everybody — including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the likely 2016 Democrat presidential nominee — spent weeks lying about what happened.

When the truth began to trickle out, the White House press corps was negligent in its duty, and let the Benghazi lies go unexamined during the weeks while President Obama got himself re-elected.

We still don’t have the whole truth, but Democrats are calling for a “boycott” of a congressional investigation trying to get the truth, many in the media are dismissive of the investigation, and thus actively participating in this partisan cover-up!

The questions must be answered, and those who participated in the cover-up — including the media — must be held to account.

 

A Typical ObamaCare Nightmare

Posted on Comments

The damage caused by the ObamaCare catastrophe — arguably the worst federal public policy initiative of the past 40 years — are usually discussed in terms of politics and macroeconomic statistics: X-number of jobs lost, an X-percent decline in President Obama’s poll numbers. True enough, the harms of the paradoxically named “Affordable Care Act” have impacted our entire society, hindering economic growth, incentivizing job losses, and resulting in policy cancellations and higher premiums for millions of Americans.

The very worst has been suffered by small businesses (both owners and employees) and by self-employed independent contractors. Statistics cannot adequately express what at an unprecedented nightmare many people have gone through. One of these ObamaCare victms, blogger Rich Vail, describes his frightening ordeal:

Last fall we received a letter saying that because of the myriad of changes that HHS had ordered health insurance companies to make to individual policies that were purchased on the open insurance market, that our health insurance would be cancelled…and it was despite they lies presented by President Obama and Sen’s Ben Cardin and Barbara Mikulski. “If you like your insurance, you can keep it, period.”
Because last year was a pretty good year for me, we don’t qualify for subsidies…so my insurance which had costs us $132 per month rose to $137 per week. We had the choice of paying that or the rent…
The problem now is that I have four fractured ribs…

Read the whole thing and please hit Rich’s tip jar. I did.

 

#RapeCulture? FBI: Illinois Democrat Bragged About Molesting 6-Year-Old Girl

Posted on Comments

When he resigned last month, many people were shocked to learn that an Illinois Democrat was under investigation for federal child pornography charges. Now court documents provide a lurid glimpse of The Pervert Party in action:

Former Illinois State Rep. Keith Farnham was charged Monday with using both personal and state-owned computers to trade hundreds of images and videos depicting child pornography and engage in graphic online chats in which he allegedly bragged about sexually molesting a 6-year-old girl.
The federal criminal complaint alleged that Farnham, 66, a Democrat from Elgin, possessed two videos depicting child pornography on a computer that was seized from his state office in Elgin a week before his abrupt resignation in March. Authorities also linked a Yahoo! email account used by Farnham to a online trading forum in which he chatted with other users about his sexual preferences, according to the charges.
“12 is about as old as i can handle,” Farnham allegedly said in one online chat in November, according to the charges. “i love them at 6 7 8” . . .
According to the charges, the investigation began when homeland security agents received a tip from its Cyber Crimes Center that email address [email protected] was being used to trade child pornography on the Internet.
A search of Yahoo! logs showed a series of graphic instant messenger conversations between last June and January in which kimdavid5582 allegedly chatted with three other users about sexual preferences and exploits, according to the charges. Authorities later traced the Internet usage to the Comcast account at Farnham’s home, according to the charges.
In one online conversation in November with a person identified only as “User A,” Farnham allegedly described in detail a sexual encounter with a 6-year-old girl.
In another chat a few weeks later, Farnham allegedly told User A, “i wish i had access to all the vids and pics ever made.”

Hat-tips: Memeorandum and Gateway Pundit.

 

Washington Post Shocked — Shocked! — to Learn Failed President Is Unpopular

Posted on Comments

Gloom, despair and agony for Democrats:

Democrats face serious obstacles as they look to the November elections, with President Obama’s approval rating at a new low and a majority of voters saying they prefer a Congress in Republican hands to check the president’s agenda, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.
Obama’s approval rating fell to 41 percent, down from 46 percent through the first three months of the year and the lowest of his presidency in Post-ABC News polls. Just 42 percent approve of his handling of the economy, 37 percent approve of how he is handling the implementation of the Affordable Care Act and 34 percent approve of his handling of the situation involving Ukraine and Russia.
Obama’s low rating could be a significant drag on Democratic candidates this fall — past elections suggest that when approval ratings are as low as Obama’s, the president’s party is almost certain to suffer at the ballot box in November.
Republicans are favored to maintain control of the House, with the focus now on whether they can take control of the Senate. One key question about November is who will vote. Turnout in midterm elections is always lower than in presidential elections, and at this point, key elements of the Republican coalition — namely white voters and older voters — say they are more certain to cast ballots this fall than are younger voters and minorities, two groups that Democrats and Obama relied on in 2008 and 2012.

The Republican National Committee sent out an e-mail release:

MSNBC is calling Obama “politically toxic” while CNN notes this is a low for Obama’s entire presidency. In other news, Democrats are scrambling: Alison Lundergan Grimes, Debbie Wasserman Schultz and other Democrats are really busy kissing Tom Steyer’s ring in Chicago this week while Elizabeth Warren will headline Netroots Nation.
“This poll shows people want Republicans to fight back against the Obama agenda– from foreign policy to ObamaCare and the economy. Those 2014 Democrats who have overwhelmingly supported the extreme Obama agenda are going to suffer at the election booths for putting donors interests above that of their constituents.” — Raffi Williams, RNC Spokesman

Of course, with John Boehner and Mitch McConnell running the show for Republicans in Washington, we cannot underestimate the potential for them to fuck up everything between now and November. The question is, can the GOP Establishment fuck up bad enough to overcome the Obama-induced unpopularity of Democrats?

 

Goldberg Misses His Own Punchline

Posted on Comments

by Smitty

Goldberg goes for a fairly straightforward South Park play in discussing Obama’s foreign policy, “Obama’s foreign-policy plan B”, but misses the obvious gag: the whole thing is an extended Plan B Abortion pill.

Keith Koffler enumerates, by country, most of #OccupyResoluteDesk’s non-triumphs. He’s missing my personal favorite, and Obama’s first cock-up, which was Honduras.

David Haig, as Inspector Grim, speaks to Obama for all of us:

No, Barack’s foreign policy has never been other than a phoned-in, hashtagged abortion. In his defense, it’s just never easy. As tempting as an isolationism sounds, that’s not going to work. However, Obama’s superficial non-interventionism, backed by Spec Ops guys and drones in the night, is proving an expensive lesson in how not to do it, either.

While falling short of jumping on the neo-con bandwagon, I hope the GOP can craft a foreign policy featuring principle, simplicity and strength. Such would counterbalance Obama’s chaotic, Byzantine weakness.

If we can’t have John Bolton for POTUS, let’s at least have him for Secretary of State. After the last two buffoons, we need somebody to pick up the pieces.

If Bundy Had Married His Cattle, Lefties’d Celebrate “Diversity” #BundyRanch

Posted on Comments

by Smitty

Stacy had picked up this story a couple of days ago, when the BLM backed down. For now. Per ABC:

A group of armed militia and protesters, some sporting nametags reading “domestic terrorist,” remain camped out on a cattle ranch in Nevada, where they have been purportedly defending the property since a tense showdown ended with the federal government last week. A 20-year struggle between rancher Cliven Bundy and the Bureau of Land Management over decades of alleged illegal cattle grazing on public land ended last Sunday, with the government backing down from a controversial week-long cattle round-up.

Harry Reid was his usual conciliatory self, as Instapundit notes:

Yes, Protestors at Bundy Ranch Were ‘Domestic Terrorists.’ That’s a lie, but it’s a dangerous one, since it seems to pre-justify government violence while egging on tension. That’s unwise. If they decide to actually become domestic terrorists, Harry, I expect you’ll be among the first to know.

for which standard Ed Driscoll offered a more thorough test:

We’ll know they’re domestic terrorists when Rolling Stone runs dreamily-lit photos of them on their cover, Robert Redford makes a movie about them, and an ambitious young leftwing politician launches his career in their front parlor.

The ‘terrorist’ line suggests a couple of gags:

 

Could Bundy himeslf make a worse Senator than Elizabeth Warren?

Can that mighty herd displace Harry Reid in the Virtuoso Crapflooding department?

Clearly, Bundy is a proxy for all Tea Partiers. This is really all about flogging the base in preparation for November. The rule of law is at stake in this case, as noted at Powerline:

. . .the question of whether Bundy and/or his supporters would be justified in engaging in armed resistance if the federal government attempts to carry out the court orders with which they disagree.

I say that armed resistance would be wrong. As John explained, “legally, Bundy doesn’t have a leg to stand on.” Legally, he is required to pay the grazing fee and limit the grazing of his cattle. His claim that the federal government doesn’t own the land in question is simply wrong and has been rejected by the courts.

Bundy can refuse to pay the grazing fee, just as I can refuse to pay my taxes. But in a nation governed by the rule of law, non-compliance with the law has consequences. Armed resistance to those consequences is, as I say, wrong.

It would be great to try to connect Bundy to Rosa Parks, but I don’t see much overlap. No, this is clearly about distracting from the failure of ObamaCare, and prepping the troops for November.
Thus, let the conservatives be more energized, and let Reid be hoisted on his own foul petard in the next Congress.

Cherokee Princess Fauxcohantas

Posted on Comments

In her new book, Elizabeth Warren blames the controversy over her fake Cherokee ancestry on “some blogger,” and since William Jacobson of Legal Insurrection was particularly merciless in exposing her lies, he’s giving credit where credit is due:

In fact, Warren has no one to blame but herself for her false claim to be Cherokee. Read Elizabeth Warren Wiki, and these posts responding to the claims in her book:

Warren will be launching a nationwide book tour.  Someone who wants to meet Warren is Twila Barnes.
Barnes is the Cherokee Genealogist whose groundbreaking genealogical research exposed the falsehood to Warren’s claims.  Barnes and her team of Cherokee genealogists traced Warren’s family lines back to the early 1800s and documented that Warren’s family not only was not Cherokee or other Native American, but also that they never lived as such:

Barnes also debunked much of the “family lore” used by Warren to justify claiming Native American status.  One of my favorites was Barnes’ discovery that Warren’s maternal great grandfather, on the supposedly Cherokee bloodline, was featured in the local newspaper in 1906 as being white and having shot an Indian. And also Barnes’ discovery that Warren’s parents’ wedding was joyously announced in the local newspaper, which would contradict Warren’s claim that her parents had to elope because her father’s family would not tolerate their son marrying an Indian.

 See, here’s the thing: With a huge national fundraising effort, Warren could get herself elected to the Senate in Massachusetts in 2012, but her larger ambitions — her admirers want her to challenge Hillary Clinton for the Democrat nomination in 2016 — require that this controversy disappear. It won’t disappear, because the facts are at odds with Warren’s version of the story.

The fact is that Elizabeth Warren has zero Native American ancestry. She lied about her ancestry — and even invented stories about her parents’ marriage — in order to justify “checking the box” on forms to qualify for affirmative action consideration.

Elizabeth Warren is a liar and a Democrat, but I repeat myself.