Two years ago, under the Muslim Brotherhood’s Egyptian leadership, the Obama administration was going to sell Egypt F-16 fighter jets and tanks. Then the regime change gave way to a more U.S.-friendly Egyptian administration. Mohamed Morsi was arrested, and Abdel Fattah el-Sisi was elected. And the Muslim Brotherhood was declared the terrorist organization that it is. OK fine.
Two years later, Sec. of State John Kerry, the Obama administration, is holding up that aid. Kerry said a decision would come “very soon” on the F-16 fighter jets, tanks and other material the Egyptians say they need to combat an extremist threat operating in the Sinai Peninsula and spilling over from lawless Libya.
One would think that it would be in U.S. interest to give Egypt this kind of aid. But wait, Kerry also said he wants to certify Egyptian progress on human rights, democracy and the rule of law. Odd thing to demand of our ally, when demanding no such thing of our enemy, Iran, who routinely tortures, kills, and imprisons political prisoners and Christians every day.
It’s been a whole three days since the ATF shelved their idea “at this time” to ban 5.56 ammo used in the most popular rifle in the United States today, the AR-15,
As predictable as the sun rising in the East, Congressional Democrats, not taking no for an answer, are at it again.
In light of the cop shootings in Ferguson, if these Democrats really want to protect cops, like they claim they want to do, then they should call for a ban on Liberals, not bullets.
There is no rash of cop killings, not even one, happening with AR-15 ammo. However, there are murder attempts happening from the racially charged rhetoric from liberals, the race industry, our President and Attorney General.
It was four years ago that President Obama, through the US Export-Import Bank, extended $3 billion credit to Brazil to finance infrastructure projects and offshore oil drilling. See, he really is for offshore drilling. Just not in his own country.
The money was for Petrobras, Brazil’s state-owned oil company. Essentially, it was for Brazil’s top politicians.
In today’s news, four years later, Petrobras can’t borrow money for a used car. Their credit rating is junk. And it all began four years ago with bribes and kickbacks.
Everything he touches turns to . . . No, it’s not gold. Another Solyndra, another Arab Spring, a new Libya, fall of Iraq, rise of ISIS, jobs for terrorists, nukes for Iran. You name it. And that’s just over there. Over here there is chronic long-term unemployment and falling family incomes. Obama’s wealthy donor friends excepted.
And to think we still have two more years with this wrecking ball in The White House.
Democrats on the House committee investigating the deadly 2012 Benghazi attacks are demanding that the panel’s Republican chairman, Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C, withdraw a subpoena for Hillary Rodham Clinton’s personal emails and schedule a hearing for Clinton to testify immediately.
Now, as has recently been revealed, the former Secretary of State before, during and after the Sept 11 2012 attack in Libya, that resulted in the death of our Ambassador and three other Americans, never used the government email system she was required by law to use, right from the start of her role as Sec. of State.
Never mind all the reasons (and there are plenty) that Hillary would not want her communications to be available for public, and FOIA, scrutiny, but when you are the head of the State Department, your communications having anything to do with the State Department’s Consulate in Benghazi are relevant.
In fact, using then Senator Clinton’s own words, “It is a subject that we are absolutely required to explore.”
To think that her mail sever was her own personal mail server, in her house, goes way overboard what the law says about the handling classified information. That in itself is indefensible and, a felony. And reason enough to hold all of her communications on that server under subpoena. The contents of that would be typical Clinton. Making a come-stained blue dress look like child’s play.
That Democrats on the House investigative committee don’t want to do their job is beyond incompetence. It is obstruction. All Hillary’s emails need to see the light of day. Not just the ones she volunteers to turn over.
Talk about bad timing. A convicted felon can not run for public office. Can you say . . . Elizabeth Warren?
That’s what the Dems on the committee think they are protecting.
If you’ve ever tried to engage in an informed debate on race in America, you will quickly learn how intolerant or unwilling some people can be. The trick is in finding someone willing to have a discussion on race in (as President Obama put it in July 2010), “a truthful, mature, and responsible way, the divides that still exist.”
Given a little curiosity, there is a lot to learn about our history. And by “our” I mean American, in this post, History Of Civil Rights, Republicans And Democrats. My contribution to “Black History Month.” The plethora of documented and sourced material in there totally debunks the lie that the GOP of today is, or was, the lynchers, slave owners, and segregationists of Blacks. Something that needs to be done if there ever is to be an honest airing of the race grievance community with the goal of actually reaching the “post-racial” America that our first Black president said he would be a part of.
Picking an educated Black man (Reginald Dogan), who used to write for the local newspaper, and who constantly reminds us of our horrible racial past, seemed to me to be the right place to begin this discussion.
Suffice it to say, the Democrat party has set a hook so deep into the hearts and minds of the majority of Blacks that the discussion Barack Obama says we need to have has become impossible (at least with the person I hoped to engage), as shown by this attempt. Which was reinforced by another and current writer (Troy Moon) for the local newspaper. You know, the people we’re supposed to look up to as being smart, relevant, and impartial.
Of course, their level of intolerance and selective interpretation of “free speech” is nothing new. It’s who they are. But that’s not going to stop me from trying to reach out to save the savable. And it shouldn’t stop you either.
Commenting on Reggie’s post of lynchings from Southern States in the 19th and 20th centuries, the first comment from a reader was, “Reginald – don’t look now but it’s 2015!” Continue reading Race, Democrats, And The Hook→
As a Democrat legislator, how can you be caught by surprise by the fine that Obamacare levies on taxpayers for not buying a government-approved health insurance policy when, it was all Democrats and only Democrats who voted for it?
It is obvious that they did not read their own law that they voted for. It is also obvious that the sheeple in their party followed them blindly down the same path.
It is obvious too that there would have been no surprise about the tax penalty if the media had done its job.
As Black History Month (February) comes to a close, there is some Black history that relatively few people are aware of, but should be.
Since the 1960’s, the Democrats and public education have effectively re-written history to the point that Blacks born since that time do not know the truth about their history and that of the Democrat and Republican parties. Surprising news for many Americans, not just Black democrats.
Slavery is quite possibly the most influential issue underlying American politics from 1776 to 1865, and the single greatest issue in the formation of the Republican party. Slavery was an issue that caused a divide in the colonies. The humanity of it was so divisive, that the formation of a unified country was impossible without some solution.
The Democratic Party was the party of white popular sovereignty in the North and plantation slavery in the South. The short form is, the Democrat Party was the party of the four S’s: slavery, secession, segregation and now socialism. In its formation, slavery wasn’t something they wanted to abolish. Democrats of the day took a moderate position on slavery. They, as a national platform, said it was OK as long as the states wanted it. By 1850, the Republican Party was formed as the anti-slavery party. How it all shook out up to Lincoln’s assassination in 1865 is explained HERE.
Slavery, and the abolition of it, was so important that a Civil War was fought over it. Frederick Douglass, the former fugitive slave and best-known African American spokesman wrote of his break with the apolitical and pacifist Garrisonians and his embrace of political abolition. He was a supporter of the early Republican movement and during the Civil War helped mobilize northern blacks and freed slaves for the Union cause. He campaigned extensively to recruit black regiments for the Union Army and agitated the northern public to support emancipation and civil rights for blacks.
It was Democrats who fought against civil rights in the 1950’s and 60’s. It was Democrats who fought against de-segregation.
Democrat Georgia Governor Lester Maddox famously brandished ax handles to prevent blacks from patronizing his restaurant. In 1954, Democrat Arkansas Governor Orville Faubus tried to prevent desegregation of a Little Rock public school.
It was Martin Luther King Jr. who wrote President Dwight D. Eisenhower, both republicans, requesting a swift resolution allowing the students to attend school.
Observing the standoff between Faubus and the federal judiciary, King sent a telegram to President Eisenhower urging him to “take a strong forthright stand in the Little Rock situation.” King told the president that if the federal government did not take a stand against the injustice it would “set the process of integration back fifty years. This is a great opportunity for you and the federal government to back up the longings and aspirations of millions of peoples of good will and make law and order a reality” (King, 9 September 1957). Aware that the Little Rock incident was becoming an international embarrassment, Eisenhower reluctantly ordered troops from the Army’s 101st Airborne Division to protect the students, who were shielded by federal troops and the Arkansas National Guard for the remainder of the school year. In a 25 September telegram, King praised the president’s actions: “I wish to express my sincere support for the stand you have taken to restore law and order in Little Rock, Arkansas. . . .You should know that the overwhelming majority of southerners, Negro and white, stand firmly behind your resolute action” (Papers 4:278).
Ignored today is this, it was Roosevelt who started blacks on the path to dependency on government handouts during the Great Depression with his “New Deal” that turned out to be a bad deal for blacks. Even though Roosevelt received the vote of many blacks, Roosevelt banned black American newspapers from the military because he was convinced the newspapers were communists.
Little known by many today is the fact that it was Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois, not Democrat President Lyndon Johnson, who pushed through the 1964 Civil Rights Act. In fact, Dirksen was instrumental to the passage of civil rights legislation in 1957, 1960, 1964, 1965 and 1968. Dirksen wrote the language for the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Dirksen also crafted the language for the Civil Rights Act of 1968 which prohibited discrimination in housing.
December 1, 1955, Rosa Parks claimed her civil right to exist which kicked off the civil rights movement. Leading up to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that passed with more Democrats than Republicans voting against it by nearly 2 to 1. The House version of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was supported by only 61 percent of that Chamber’s Democrats versus 80 percent of the Republicans.
It was Republicans that ended a filibuster by Democrat Senator Robert C. Byrd (former KKK recruiter), preventing a vote on this bill in the Senate. 82 percent of Republicans voted for cloture versus 66 percent of Democrats.
In the final Senate vote on the Act, 82 percent of Republicans voted “Aye” versus 69 percent of Democrats.
President Lyndon Johnson was no supporter of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He also did not like the mass exodus to the Republican Party.
“These Negroes, they’re getting uppity these days. That’s a problem for us, since they got something now they never had before. The political pull to back up their upityness. Now, we’ve got to do something about this. We’ve got to give them a little something. Just enough to quiet them down, but not enough to make a difference. If we don’t move at all, their allies will line up against us. And there’ll be no way to stop them. It’ll be Reconstruction all over again.”
Seeing the exodus of Blacks from the Democrat Party in the wake of all the resistance to freedom and equality for them coming from Democrats and, in an overall sense, to help to erase their foils of the past, the Great Society was the permanent payoff. And, the chain on the leg of poor Blacks and Whites to keep them on the Democrat Plantation.
Senator (later President) John F. Kennedy was opposed to the Civil Rights Act of 1957. As President, he was opposed to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s March on Washington. He had his brother, Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, also a Democrat, had the FBI investigate Dr. King for suspicion of being a communist. RFK also wiretapped Dr. King’s phone communications.
Democrats condemn Republican President Richard Nixon for his so-called “Southern Strategy.” These same Democrats expressed no concern when the racially segregated South voted solidly for Democrats for over 100 years, while deriding Republicans because of the thirty-year odyssey of the South switching to the Republican Party. The “Southern Strategy” that began in the 1970’s was an effort by Nixon to get fair-minded people in the South to stop voting for Democrats who did not share their values and were discriminating against blacks. Georgia did not switch until 2004, and Louisiana was controlled by Democrats until the election of Republican Bobby Jindal, a person of color, as governor in 2007.
The enforcement of affirmative action began with Richard Nixon‘s 1969 Philadelphia Plan (crafted by black Republican Art Fletcher
who became known as “the father of affirmative action”) that was
merit-based and set the nation‘s first goals and timetables. Nixon was also responsible for the passage of civil rights legislation in the 1970’s.
Democrats have not only invented but have perfected a tactic that could not be more successful politically, nor more divisive socially. Democrats prefer political success to your economic and personal success. It’s called ‘identity politics.’ If this is news to you, it breaks down like this. Divide the people into distinct and separate groups. No longer look at you as Americans, as one people. You are Black, you are Poor, you are Old, you are Female, you are Gay, you are Pro-Choice, you are here illegally. All of which the Democrats have a solution for, and all of which Republicans are cast as being against. But not only against their policy, but against you. Identity politics does two things simultaneously. Casts groups as victims, and casts the opposing political party as being evil, mean people. Their success depends on casting half of America as bad people. That’s where Democrats set their moral standard. Because of this, you see the families, especially in the minority communities, falling apart. The consequences of which is low income, low employment rates, and high crime. And encourages those on the receiving end of government programs to vote for the party that is cast as the ones giving them. You see, moving up and out of government dependency is not their goal. It is the goal of the party (Republican) that detests identity politics. Convincing people to make that switch is a steep climb from where we are today.
There are many success stories of what can be done to unleash the human spirt and the potential in everyone. It starts with personal responsibility and hard work. The rewards are all there for everyone to reap.
Firsts of minorities in power, and empowered, are all over the Republican Party. The media just doesn’t like to point to them because, they have their own party and it starts with a D. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, General Colin Powell, Sec. of State Condoleezza Rice, Gov. Bobby Jindal, Senator Tim Scott, Rep. Mia Love, Mike Hill, Florida State Representative, Elbert Lee Guillory, Louisiana State Senator. This is not an all inclusive list, but you get the point.
It’s one thing for the president to violate the oath he took to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. It’s quite another to demand, as a dictator would, that those under him also violate the same oath.
Can’t help but notice the smoke and mirrors President Obama (and Democrats in general) is blowing over the DHS funding bill. He says he wants a clean bill to fund Homeland Security.
OK fine. Give us a clean immigration bill, and don’t try stuffing it into your DHS budget. That way, you’ll have the clean DHS funding bill you asked for, and Congress, not you, can deliberate your immigration/amnesty proposal on its own merits.
Obama is the one playing politics with the security of our country.
Never ceases to amaze me, given the track record of this administration, how genetically gullible, or genetically faithful to this regime, people can be.
The full text of the rules will not be revealed to the public until after the FCC’s vote on Thursday morning.
The gullible have been conditioned to believe in vapor. Beginning with “hope and change.” Then there was the “Affordable Care Act.”
Who did not have hope? Everyone had hope. What we didn’t know, well, what people who voted for Obama didn’t know, is just what his hopes were and what kind of change he had in mind. The Affordable Care Act turned out to be anything but affordable. In fact, the President won the “lie of the year” for it.
Now comes the next nondescript, warm and fuzzy sounding set of government regulations called Net Neutrality. Sounds quite “fair” doesn’t it? There’s nothing about the internet that is broken or that requires the government to step in and take it over too! Where is the evidence that things the government controls actually works?
Ask yourself, given recent history, and given the fact that we can’t know, and therefore won’t have the opportunity for public input, what kind of regulations we are in store for until after it is voted on by the FCC, what makes you think the end result will be anything good for the country or compatible with the First Amendment? Especially since this takeover is being done entirely outside of the legislative process. By-passing Congress yet again.
Where is your confidence that the end result will be anything that anyone wants?
One can not even say “anything that is being promised” because the Obama administration (the most open and transparent one) is keeping its content secret. That should tell you that the purpose has nothing to do with fairness or neutral-ness. It has everything to do with control of yet another sector of the private economy and content, aka speech.
fought over it. 
