Does Amnesty Bother Mitch As Much As Ted and Jeff?

In the next few weeks leading up to February 27, as the House’s DHS funding bill sits in the Senate after Tuesday’s test vote resulted in only 51 for, we will find out what kind of Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is. What that means is, before the Department of Homeland Security’s funding runs out on that date, McConnell will have to decide whether to stick with the House version of the bill that links DHS funding to rolling back Obama’s executive action on immigration, or to put together a “clean” bill as Senator Hatch has called for. Hatch’s position on immigration is a long way from Senator Cruz’s of course, and that brings up the question of McConnell’s real aim. Was Tuesday’s vote McConnell’s way of letting Cruz and Sessions get what they want and at the same time turn them into convenient scapegoats that can be blamed if DHS runs out of money on the 27th?


One answer to the Democratic filibuster in the Senate is to campaign on the ground in so-called purple states and force enough Democrat Senators to the table, 6 of them in fact, to reach the 60 votes required. As a commentator at the Washington Examiner's website succinctly put it, "Tell me specifically how you convince 6 democrats to break the filibuster." Can you put together enough of a grassroots campaign in 3 weeks to make 6 Democrats change their mind as well as Nevada's Dean Heller? And before you can ask these questions, does the Senate leadership even want to do any of this?

The problem is that immigration authorities are largely self-funded by fees and cutting off funding for DHS would in theory hurt the anti-terrorism and security portions of the department, rather than immigration. That means the optics for the GOP are supposedly negative if funding is cut off. Supposedly, because in fact the majority of DHS employees are deemed essential, and will stay on the job even if funding is officially cut off. In other words, it's mostly theatre and the vital men and women in the Department of Homeland Security will still be on the job doing their work after February 27th. The question remains, however, over who will emerge as the villains and who as the good guys. And a large part of that answer depends on whether Obama's amnesty bothers the Senate Majority Leader more than Senators Cruz and Sessions bother him.

Posted by Keeley at February 5, 2015 1:14 PM
Comments
Comment #387867

This is phenomenally stupid. The Republican House is going to shut down DHS, because… Why? Because they can’t pass legislation through the Republican Senate? They are going to furlough 30,000 perfectly innocent people who have nothing to do with their inability to do their job, and not pay over a hundred thousand others who will keep doing their jobs anyway, because… Why?

The leader of the opposition has invited a foreign leader to stand in our legislature and criticize the United States? This, in an effort to break up negotiations conducted by the US, UK, Russia, China, France, and Germany with Iran. I see. And this is a good idea because… Why? Israel is an ally, but the other countries are not? And bombing Iran is a good idea?

Conservative Republicans are certainly covering themselves with something. And it is not glory.

Posted by: phx8 at February 8, 2015 11:44 AM
Comment #387907

phx8 “This is phenomenally stupid”
This is in reference to your post, right?
I thought so. You are sounding like the normal anti-semite.

Posted by: tom humes at February 9, 2015 11:45 PM
Comment #387915

Where do you get ‘anti-semite’ from here, Tom? How is this different than calling someone racist for not liking Obama’s policies?

Debate the issues, insulting the poster is out of bounds and its time we get back to that on this site. Last warning.

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 10, 2015 7:52 AM
Comment #387917

Enough.

“Critique the Message, Not the Messenger. This means you may critique any points made in another person’s writing or comments. But, you may not criticize the person themself, nor their right to comment at WatchBlog. This also means you may not criticize categories of people who visit and participate at WatchBlog (e.g. All Democrats are commies or, All Republicans are idiots). To be in compliance, critique of what other WatchBlog participants say, must be aimed at the points being made in their content.”

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 10, 2015 11:50 AM
Comment #387938

So you deleted my comment?

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at February 10, 2015 3:34 PM
Comment #387941

Since it violated the rules, I unpublished it. Especially since the comment right before it had just warned against doing that. I would have thought that it was pretty obvious.

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 10, 2015 3:42 PM
Comment #387942

Please explain to me just how it violated the rules.

Was anything in the post untruthful?
Was anything in the post personal?
Did I use the word “you” too often (one of David’s pet peeves)”

Did I accuse a “group” of being an idiot?

Look at the threads over the past several weeks, and then look at the posted comments to those threads.

I’m sorry to say this but Watchblog seems to be becoming irrelevant.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at February 10, 2015 3:57 PM
Comment #387946

So, you want me to basically repost what you wrote and have a ‘discussion’ about it?

I wasn’t going to do that since it pretty much defeats the purpose of unpublishing the comment to begin with, but perhaps it would be a good exercise for everyone else to see…

Here is what you wrote:

the meme dujour from the right is that perhaps the Crusades and Inquisition might have not been so bad after all, and that the slave owners were just trying to “save” the slaves from the devil.

Back up where anyone from ‘the right’ suggests that the Crusades and Inquisition weren’t bad and that the slave owners were saving the slaves from the devil.

You just accused an entire group of people of one political thought of being torturers and racists…

Now, provide the evidence that your statements are in any way accurate.

Look at the threads over the past several weeks, and then look at the posted comments to those threads.

I have. Which is why I said ‘enough’ and gave warning. It’s getting as bad as a Disqus comment section here, this site was originally put together with a singular purpose of avoiding this. The owners aren’t doing much to police it, there is no main editor policing it and personally I’ve had enough of it.

I’m sorry to say this but Watchblog seems to be becoming irrelevant

And you think the solution is to continue down the path it has been going and continue allowing this type of mudslinging to become the norm?

I’m very disheartened with what has happened to the site, since Cameron got bored with it, the new owners promised changes to the site over a year ago and nothing has happened. But that doesn’t mean we should just give up and let it become a festering hell hole.

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 10, 2015 4:45 PM
Comment #387947

It is always a balance between making a comment that is interesting and controversial and worth discussing, versus making personal attacks and trolling. Well, actually, there is not that much of a balance, is there?

When I point out the GOP Congress is failing, I am not the only one noticing. A lot of people are criticizing the GOP for its poor start. They have managed to shoot themselves in the foot several times; first, by making their very first legislation an ant-abortion bill that was so extreme, the GOP women refused to support it, forcing Republican men to withdraw the bill. That was their first shot out of the box! The GOP did well in midterms by stoking fears over illegal immigration, ISIS, and ebola. The radicals in the House rejected the Senate bipartisan compromise bill on immigration, and replaced it with one favored by one of the most bigoted men in Congress, Steve King (IA).

Now Jeb and Romney both came out saying Republicans should support amnesty for 11 million illegal immigrants. Obama used an executive order to provide some help short term. But the GOP got so caught up in its own rhetoric about how Obama was an unconstitutional lawless dictator that they were trapped. The trapped themselves in a device of their making.

Because the base believes what they were told. The conservative base is afraid. And they don’t understand why the party leaders aren’t afraid after all. So now the GOP is in the incredibly, phenomenally stupid position of defunding DHS.

The situation with Netanyahu is just as bad. Boehner should never have extended that invitation, and Netanyahu should not have accepted it. Now, once again, they are trapped in a device of their own making.

Ooof. And these people want to prove they can govern?

Posted by: phx8 at February 10, 2015 4:57 PM
Comment #387951

Rhinehold,

My point is that there are no posts at all that I have seen.

What good is that?
If it is spam, yeah, I get it. But the folks that have been the heartbeat of this site for years have dwindled to a paltry handful.

Now perhaps it is because you have been unpublishing them, but a little notice would have been nice.

As for my comment about the “right”. That is where these comments are coming from, and I have yet to see anyone from the left or middle agree with those comments, and I have seen no one from the right condemn them. No one here has posted a thread on these comments.
If anyone has been offended let them step up and prove Obama wrong. Obama made his comments, and is being eviscerated for making them.

Were any of his statements untrue or irrelevant?

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at February 10, 2015 5:10 PM
Comment #387952
That is where these comments are coming from, and I have yet to see anyone from the left or middle agree with those comments, and I have seen no one from the right condemn them.

Please provide a link where anyone from the right has said that the Inquisition was a good thing and that slave owners were saving the slaves from the devil.

I’ve done a search and haven’t come across anything.

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 10, 2015 5:17 PM
Comment #387958

“The leader of the opposition has invited a foreign leader to stand in our legislature and criticize the United States?”

Really? Have you read the speech that Netanyahu will read? Is the left really worried that his speech will change American public opinion or even world opinion. Is he that powerful?

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 10, 2015 7:03 PM
Comment #387959

RF,
Superficially, the Netanyahu appearance amounts to little more than diplomatic bad manners. The more important underlying motivation for this speech is to undermine the negotiations between the US, UK, Germany, France, Russia, and China with the Iranians. The deadline is this March, and there is a real possibility that a deal will be reached to stop any further development of the Iranian nuclear program.

The problem is, neither the right wingers represented by Netanyahu nor the Neocons of the GOP want this deal to happen. Part of that is not wanting Obama to succeed. A bigger part is distrust of Iran. The Neocons and the right wing Israelis want to bomb Iran now, and that requires splitting the US away from its allies such as the UK, France, and Germany.

If Netanyahu and the Neocon conservatives have their way, there will be a bombing of Iran, and that will result in perpetual war. The Israelis have pursued that kind of approach for the past six decades with their neighbors, and it becomes a circular, self-fulfilling prophecy, an endless round of violence.

We can do much better with a deal. Oddly enough, circumstances have placed us in a position where we have a lot of goals in common with Iran, especially in regard to ISIS. The Iranians have been hurt by sanctions and they want them lifted. Meanwhile, we have been quietly working together against ISIS, even though neither side wants to admit it. Again, the Israelis do not want to see the US developing that relationship. It is in the Israeli interest to make it Israel and the US against the world. That is their approach.

It should not be our approach.

Posted by: phx8 at February 10, 2015 7:20 PM
Comment #387961

“The Israelis have pursued that kind of approach (unwarranted military response) for the past six decades with their neighbors, and it becomes a circular, self-fulfilling prophecy, an endless round of violence.”

Totally false.

“The Iranians have been hurt by sanctions and they want them lifted.”

Totally true.

The writer has a narrow view of Israeli ambition. For them, it is survival.

The entire world deserves to hear every pertinent voice with regard to any deal with Iran.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 10, 2015 7:31 PM
Comment #387971

Royal Flush,

What was the origin of Hezbollah? Tit for tat, tit for tat…

Posted by: Rich at February 10, 2015 9:27 PM
Comment #388008

I am guilty of being a critic of the Messenger. So are the many that put their thoughts to press guilty. It is semantics at work. Everybody is a critic of the Messenger. That is why each entry is made on WB. Each person becomes the critic of what was written and therefore becomes the critic of the Messenger.

I have been labeled wrongfully many times. I have been called foolish, stupid, etc. many times. This is because the writer disagrees with me. I have never called someone a name that was degrading. The closest is saying someone was ignorant which is not degrading it is factual in making the correct analysis. I am not thin skinned.

The whole approach is the us of semantics. When one is a critic of the Messenger in one persons view, that same person may take the attitude of not being a critic of the Messenger on the other side of the coin when the same use of the type of argument is given. Semantics may let some think they can pontificate about the righteousness of the other person while they employ the same standards. I have never demanded someone be removed or edited from WB.

I have stated my case here. It is my true believe. That is what my take is. I have no beef with anybody on this site. I have no personal stake with others. My integrity is more important despite what others have judged me for.

Posted by: tom humes at February 11, 2015 4:39 AM
Comment #388031

No Tom, if you disagree with what someone says, you are criticizing the message that they are presenting, you are not criticizing the messenger. There is a difference and it is not semantic at all.

An example from what you mention… Saying someone is stupid is different than saying what someone is saying is stupid. One is criticizing the messenger, the other is criticizing the message.

When we had a full time editor, despite what many thought of the way he editied the site, those kinds of attacks were pulled and the debates were still lively and heated, but we tried to keep the focus on the message and not the person. Calling someone racist, anti-semite, stupid, ignorant, etc was agaisnt the rules and those comments pulled.

Unfortunately, as time has wore on, things have changed a bit. First Cameron shied away from the site for other interests. David, the editor, then left. Then the site was sold by Cameron to the new owners. As a result, the monitoring of comments has not been happening and the violation of the rules has been rampant.

I’ve been swatting spam comments for months now, it is starting to look like they are finally giving up for the most part. Unfortunately, I cannot devote full time to the site like I wish I could, personal issues and work are hard on my time atm. I also know that my taking it up on myself to start re-policing the site is going to be met with disapproval, but I am not blocking anyone or even threatening to do so. I just want to try and make sure that we all conform to a little decorum and follow the basic rules that have been part of this site since it was created. I may be tilting at windmills, but it’s not like I haven’t been accused of that before…

So yeah, let’s have at each other’s arguments and views, hit them hard and fast! But let’s leave out personal attacks and gross generalizations. We are all just people who hold strong views and want this country to be a better place, remembering that the person on the other side of the comments are human beings with similar motivations (though with different opinions) is a good way to start.

Despite what many may thing, I don’t hate or even dislike anyone on this site. By coming here you show that you have strong opinions and want to communicate them. I may strongly disagree with those opinions, but the goal is to attack the opinions or arguments or positions, not the person personally. Feel free to decry any view or position, but leave it there, don’t direct it to the people behind them…

The rules are visible by link above the post button and by clicking that post button you are agreeing to abide by them.

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 11, 2015 7:38 AM
Comment #388105

rhinehold

I would have to agree that the site does at times turn into a free for all, however I would also be careful not to let the pendulum swing to far the other way as to have the participants walking on egg shells.

Direct personal insults should be off limits, but reasonable criticism of entire groups so long as it’s backed up with facts, should not.

Posted by: dbs at February 11, 2015 5:02 PM
Comment #388167

dbs, agreed. I won’t be unpublishing anything but the most egregious of violations. Anything borderline may result in me, and hopefully others, calling it out. But yeah, only things like ‘you are stupid’ or ‘xxx are morons’, etc will be removed. ‘you are being stupid’ or ‘xxx are acting like morons on this topic’ would be just fine. It doesn’t attack them personally but their actions.

It would be better if we all pitch in and try to avoid those over the line attacks and call out others who are doing the same. I don’t like to unpublish comments and would rather spend what little time I have fighting spam and publishing comments that get caught up in the spam filter…

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 12, 2015 6:53 AM
Comment #388187

Well, we have a new sheriff in town? I am always reminded of Blazing Saddles when I use the description sheriff. When Cleavon Little was appointed sheriff the subsequent town meeting had him pointing a gun to his head and shouting “Nobody move or I shoot the xxxxxx”. Everybody backed away.

Good luck with your policing efforts, it is long overdue and a welcome inclusion however I too hope that it does not deter others from commenting sensibly but ardently.

The xenophobia displayed by some politicians does seem a bit over the top. The DHS funding debate is now centered on a discussion of President Obama’s actions rather than the safety of our country. This seems to me the exact opposite of what should be discussed. Oh well sausage making by any other name is still sausage making.

Posted by: Speak4all at February 12, 2015 9:53 AM
Comment #388192

Rhinehold, it seems you may be a bit overly sensitive when it comes to this comment insulting a whole group of people.

“the meme dujour from the right is that perhaps the Crusades and Inquisition might have not been so bad after all, and that the slave owners were just trying to “save” the slaves from the devil.”

Further you have added an extra hurdle of your own, the requirement to prove this comment has been made by “the right”. There are times when one needs to state ones perceptions of someones comment IMHO. I say let these types of comments be heard and lets discuss the validity of these perceptions.

I mean look at your follow up comment “You just accused an entire group of people of one political thought of being torturers and racists…” well, did he? I don’t think so, he said nothing about racist or torturers, perhaps this is one of those politically correct moments we seem to encounter today.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obamas-speech-at-prayer-breakfast-called-offensive-to-christians/2015/02/05/6a15a240-ad50-11e4-ad71-7b9eba0f87d6_story.html

http://news.yahoo.com/rebellious-nevada-ranchers-slavery-remarks-dim-republican-support-030749922—finance.html;_ylt=A86.J7wG0txUFA8A5X4nnIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTEzNTlvam9mBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDNwRjb2xvA2dxMQR2dGlkA1lIUzAwMl8x

Posted by: j2t2 at February 12, 2015 11:25 AM
Comment #388207

j2t2, I’m sorry but ‘meme dejour’ is not a description of some outlying individuals who make outrageous statements. It is similar to calling all Democrats ‘communists’, don’t you think?

“the requirement to prove this comment has been made by “the right”.” It is a reasonable requirement if you are saying that the ‘meme dejour’ from the right is that thinking.

I addition, Rocky also said that no one from the right is speaking out against ‘these comments’, but your own link clearly shows that they are.

I’m sorry, but the comment was out of bounds. Otherwise we should just allow the ‘Democrats are baby rapers’ comments because the ACLU supports Nambla’s right to free speech or ‘Democrats are supporting a revolution’ because some members of the left-leaning Communist Party in California is putting out flyers trying to get black people to revolt and kill white people… Those won’t fly and neither will calling ‘the right’ racists and torturers.

You have a right to think that I am ‘overly sensitive’ to the comment, but I think once you have been accused of such baseless things as a means to counter your arguments like many of us have had to suffer, you might think differently. It adds nothing to the debate and is clearly stated in the rules for that reason specifically.

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 12, 2015 12:38 PM
Comment #388263
The leader of the opposition has invited a foreign leader to stand in our legislature and criticize the United States

No matter what Netanyahu’s speech sounds like; he could never criticize the United States as much as Obama has done…on foreign soil!!!

Regarding personal attacks, or criticizing the messenger rather than the message…aren’t the writings of Saul Alinsky based upon personal attacks…attacking the messenger instead of the message? Haven’t we seen Democrats from the days of Bill Clinton personally attack or try to destroy the reputation of anyone who opposes or disagrees with them? In fact we can go back to the days of Clarence Thomas to see the work of Democrats in action as they tried to destroy his chances of becoming a SC justice?


Posted by: Sam Jones at February 12, 2015 8:46 PM
Comment #388264

Rule #5 and 12:

5.“Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.

12.“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions

Posted by: Sam Jones at February 12, 2015 8:52 PM
Comment #388340

Saul Alinsky? Whoo boy! I will attempt to comment about this without ridiculing or being demeaning, this will be a challenge. I had never heard of Mr. Alinsky prior to some comments by people here and from Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, etc., etc.. I understand that he was from Chicago so maybe that is how the connection is made back to President Obama but so was Al Capone, that could also explain why they refer to our President as a thug I guess. You know Richard Nixon was the first US President in modern times to open up relationships with China. Do you think he was influenced my Mao Tse Tung and was maybe a communist at heart?

Your conception of our President has always seemed a bit on the derogatory side. I’m not sure how you can use such accusatory comments about him with any sense of credibility but hey that is what this blog is for.

Netanyahu is already suffering from backlash in his own country for this idea. He may look good to hard line right wing types here and at home but his actions will be taken into account by a lot more people than just his supporters. Stay tuned.

Watched a video last night of President Obama trying to dunk a cookie into a glass of milk. When it doesn’t fit he somewhat exasperatedly says “Thanks Obama”. There hasn’t been a President yet that can reach out to regular people with the kind of self-deprecating humor that he has been able to exhibit. I think that is part of the reason there is an unbridled dislike of him by some, he has an ability to reach people they can never get to.

Posted by: Speak4all at February 13, 2015 10:58 AM
Comment #388341
There hasn’t been a President yet that can reach out to regular people with the kind of self-deprecating humor that he has been able to exhibit.

Um… I had no problem with anything you typed right up until this part… In the same way that Sam’s abuse of Alinsky undermines his credulity, this comment here does yours.

You mention an cookie and glass of milk. When Reagan was shot his first question was ‘what was that guy’s beef?’ and then asked his surgeon if he was a Republican. Reagan was much better than any president since, with the possible exception of Clinton, at reaching out to the ‘regular people’. Obama really doesn’t even come close. Most of his ‘jokes’ are delivered stiff and come across very flat.

I guess what we may need to do is quantify what you consider ‘regular people’?

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 13, 2015 11:10 AM
Comment #388342

BTW, a lot of people have a problem with Reagan’s policies, heck I am one of those. But to deny the fact that he was so overwhelmingly liked by ‘the people’ is incredulous. Similarly with Clinton, he has an undeniable charm that people who meet him can’t help but be affected by. I liken it to the reality distortion field that Steve Jobs had. Bush was even seen to have gotten elected and re-elected because he was well liked by the ‘the people’, it was the more knowledgeable and politically minded that hard huge problems with him, he was seen as ‘the guy you would want to have a beer with’.

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 13, 2015 11:15 AM
Comment #388345

Well that would be your opinion. Never liked Reagan still don’t to this day but would still never say anything derogatory about a sitting or former President of this country that I served, they have attained a position in life I will never, ever be able to. You could be correct that it is in the interpretation of what is considered “regular people”. My interpretation is something myself and quite a few other people see as people who don’t normally come under the influence of someone with the ability to hold the world’s attention so dramatically. That would apply to Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Obama and their predecessors. President Obama has an ability to touch people like none of his predecessors have. Both the supporters and the detractors alike have a very adamant take on his ability to do that. That alone should give credence to the statement about regular people. Your sense of credulity has also been a source of wonderment for myself and others commenting, but as I said this is what this blog is for, isn’t it? I know that my support of President Obama is viewed as an inordinate and misconstrued devotion but honestly I just don’t see it that way. I have been accused of relegating him to messiah status, or being his shoe shine boy, or ignoring his plan to destroy this country (he’s doing a terrible job of that, don’t you think?) but I can handle that. The question then becomes can you handle the fact that I support his actions and see no problems in hoping the best outcome for the remainder of his term in office for both him and our country?

Posted by: Speak4all at February 13, 2015 11:48 AM
Comment #388350

The only qualifications Obama had when entering into politics was that of a community organizer. Saul Alinsky wrote the book on community organizing. He was the go to guy for Obama.

I had never heard of Mr. Alinsky prior to some comments by people here and from Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, etc., etc..

I can’t help it if you have led a sheltered life. Just because you have never heard of him does not mean that he didn’t exist.

I understand that he was from Chicago so maybe that is how the connection is made back to President Obama but so was Al Capone, that could also explain why they refer to our President as a thug I guess. You know Richard Nixon was the first US President in modern times to open up relationships with China. Do you think he was influenced my Mao Tse Tung and was maybe a communist at heart?

Your conception of our President has always seemed a bit on the derogatory side. I’m not sure how you can use such accusatory comments about him with any sense of credibility but hey that is what this blog is for.

You seem to try to make a joke of Obama’s relationship with Alinsky; yet you fail to deny the relationship. My concept of Obama is that he is a traitor to the American dream and Constitution. Here is a good article from the American Thinker, of course it is a conservative source. But how could the left say a conservative source is untrue, when we have just been subject to the lying comments by the liberal media, i.e. Brian Williams.

In order to understand Obama, his relationship with Alinsky, and the left’s agenda; one has to look at the complete picture.

“Radicalism is a cause whose utopian agendas result in an ethic where the ends outweigh and ultimately justify any means. Like the Salvationist agendas of jihad, the Left’s apocalyptic goal of ‘social justice’ is the equivalent of an earthly redemption. A planet saved, a world without poverty, racism, inequality, or war - what means would not be justified to achieve such millennial ends?” - David Horowitz, former 60s Radical — Unholy Alliance; p. 127


Enter Barack Obama

Obama was raised on the mother’s milk of socialism. Both his parents were fellow travelers, who met at the height of the Cold War in a Russian language class at the University of Hawaii. Obama’s grandfather was a close friend of Communist Party member Frank Marshall Davis, sending young Barry (as he was then known) to him for mentoring, despite (or in ignorance of ) Davis being a pedophile. From the time he returned from 4 years in Indonesia and rejoined his grandparents in Hawaii at the age of 10, he was taken often to be with Frank Marshall Davis.

In Obama’s book, Dreams from My Father, there is a strange revelation, perhaps intended as a signal of Davis’ stamp on Obama’s socialist creds. Obama makes this odd observation:

“The visits to his (Davis’) house always left me feeling vaguely uncomfortable, though, as if I were witnessing some complicated, unspoken transaction between the two men, a transaction I couldn’t fully understand.”

Dedicating the young Obama to the elder socialist mentor for the collective cause, perhaps? One hopes there were conditions protecting the ten year old from worse than indoctrination, in this “transaction.”

Obama did everything Alinsky prescribed. He went to Chicago, home of Alinsky and the place where Davis had worked for the communist revolution. Obama trained at the Industrial Areas Foundation, an Alinsky training institute. He organized in Chicago and did voter registration and training for ACORN. He went to law school. He built political alliances. He kept a tight lock on his records and his past.

As for Judeo/Christian morals. Forget it. Alinsky trained his radicals in the spirit of no-holds-barred methods. In Alinsky’s mind, the American power structure was evil to its core and justified any means necessary to change the “world as it is” into the “world as it should be.” Both Barack and Michelle Obama include these Alinsky code words in their speeches, and we should not mistake their meaning. No means are out of bounds.

So no matter what jokes are made, one cannot deny the relationship between Obama and his mentor. This also ties in with Obama’s love for the designs of radical Islam. Their goals are his goals. He claims to be a Christian and yet exhibits a love affair with radical Islam.

The Informal Alliance between Socialists and Islamic Radicals

In his 2004 book, Unholy Alliance, former 60s radical David Horowitz defines the reasons underlying the left’s rationale in dealing with the radical Islamic terrorists and their national sponsors. Leftists in the Western world, explains Horowitz, are not bothered by the religious dimension of the Islamic fundamentalists. Secular leftists rationalize this religious pathology, “believing that religion itself is merely an expression of real-world misery, for which capitalist property is ultimately responsible.”

According to Horowitz, leftists maintain an unwavering faith in universal rationality that tells them “even people who blow themselves and little children up in the expectation of a place in heaven, and seventy-two virgins besides, must ultimately be inspired by real-world grievances.”

Horowitz goes even further and defines the over-arching connection between Islamic fundamentalists and their secular socialist enablers, striking the heart of the matter for both: faith. Underlying both the goal of a worldwide Islamic caliphate and the international socialists’ dream are their “common utopian expectations.”

Horowitz explains the commonality thusly:

“The Greek scientist Archimedes said, ‘Give me a lever and a place to stand and I will move the world.’ This is an archetype of the radical outlook, both secular and religious, which believes it has identified an institution and an agency that will move the world. The radical Islamist believes that by conquering nations and instituting Sharia, he can redeem the world for Allah. The socialist’s faith is in using state power and violent means to eliminate private property and thereby usher in the millennium.”
Obama’s one piece of signature legislation in the Senate is the Global Poverty Act, aimed at curing what socialists deem as the root cause of all violence and war — poverty.

In this belief, Obama has high-powered company. He is joined by a cabal of international socialists, especially his biggest-moneyed backer, George Soros. Soros himself backs a global tax on wealthy countries, especially the United States. And Soros, like Obama, believes that the Global War on Terror is ill-intentioned and based on the desire of conservatives to build lasting American hegemony.

The current economic meltdown, coupled with the well-laid foundation of socialist radicals throughout this Country, now threaten to bring America closer than we’ve ever been to joining the international collective. And Barack Obama has demonstrated that he will do anything — anything — it takes to be The One to close their long-envisioned revolutionary deal.

Obama’s claims that Global Warming is more dangerous than ISIS to humanity is further proof of his disconnect with reality; considering that Global Warming is one of the greatest hoaxes to ever be pulled on humanity. But it is another crisis that would result in the stealing of money from those who have to give to those who have not. And it would especially rob the United States. Tell me, when has Obama ever praised American exceptionalism? Which of Obama’s associates believe in American exceptionalism? What goal of Obama’s has ever meant to help America? None…

Posted by: Sam Jones at February 13, 2015 12:05 PM
Comment #388351

Speak, you are misinterpreting. I don’t mind or care that you like him and agree with is policies. I might disagree with you on much of that, but it doesn’t ‘bother’ me.

However, you keep saying that he has the ability to touch people like no president before, and I’m sorry but that just doesn’t hold up to the reality. Look at Reagan’s likeability approval statistics for example, Obama has never once come even close to that.

Both in and out of office, Reagan was always well-liked by the American public — based on ratings measuring the public’s personal opinion rather than its assessment of his job performance. Between 1984 and 1988, Gallup consistently found more than 6 in 10 Americans holding a favorable view of Reagan, including a substantial 81% in October 1986. Even during the 1982 recession, when only about 4 in 10 Americans approved of the job Reagan was doing as president, 6 in 10 Americans rated him on the positive end of a 10-point rating scale. In Gallup’s most recent measure of favorability about Reagan, taken in January 2001, 74% of Americans had a favorable opinion of him, and only 23% were unfavorable.

Only John Kennedy and Abraham Lincoln are considered better presidents by the public. He was listed as the 2nd most admired man in the world, just above Pope John Paul II who was in 3rd. And here again, you are saying that Obama touched more people than Kennedy? Camelot? The way the country idealized him?

I’m sorry to say while you may like him and like his policies, it is in this area of lifting up to a status that he doesn’t achieve that harms you the most in your defense of him.

http://us-presidents.findthebest.com/compare/2-13/Barack-Obama-vs-Ronald-Reagan

http://static.ijreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/obama.trend_.jpg

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/10/ronald-reagan-obama-poll_n_3055489.html

Favorability – which differs from job approval – is the most basic rating of a public figure’s personal popularity. Obama’s exceeds Bush’s at the start of his second term by 5 percentage points, but trails Clinton’s by 5 and Reagan’s by 12.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/01/obamas-favorability-best-since-09-2-1-approval-for-inaugural-address/

Remember of course that Clinton and Reagan’s went up in their second term. Obama’s has stayed relatively flat.

http://www.pollingreport.com/obama_fav.htm

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 13, 2015 12:15 PM
Comment #388352

Sam, just a quick question that you may be able to help me with…

What is the big deal about Alinsky? Why do you hate him so much? His methods are effective, are they not?

conservative author William F. Buckley said he was “very close to being an organizational genius”.
Posted by: Rhinehold at February 13, 2015 12:22 PM
Comment #388354

The problem I have is his organizational skills is, they are used for more than community organization. The goal is to change America into a socialist country. As a libertarian, I’m surprised you support his ideals. One might also consider Adolf Hitler’s organizational skills to be genius; but they did a lot of damage to the world.

Posted by: Sam Jones at February 13, 2015 12:49 PM
Comment #388356

You know last week we got into a discussion about “filters”. I can’t document President Obama’s likeability and I don’t much care for your documentation of other President’s likeability but to each his own, it all susceptible to personal interpretation. My statement is not meant for you to interpret as the total and complete truth, it is merely my perception and the perception of others. We obviously filter differently but that is not new to either of us. I don’t have the time to devote to scouring the internet to come up with the links that would support my contention however that should not preclude my ability to make that statement. Look you take him down, I lift him up. To him it does not matter, as I am certain your and my opinion of him means very, very little if anything at all. You and I are having this discussion and it seems to be something that you cannot accept that I believe him to be the most accepted President by regular people that I can remember. Your refutations to the contrary will not convince me otherwise and I don’t expect my adamant support to sway your opinion either.

I am not sure people hate Saul Alinsky as much as they are wired to accept what they hear and read as the one and only truth regarding his actions and abilities and how that can draw a reflection to someone they don’t like. Just like in our discussion regarding likeability it is in the perception that gives more definition to the end result.

Posted by: Speak4all at February 13, 2015 12:59 PM
Comment #388363
The goal is to change America into a socialist country.

Who’s goal?

I’m surprised you support his ideals

I didn’t say anything about anyone’s ‘ideals’, I asked what you had against him and those methods. Just because someone has read and follows what he wrote doesn’t mean he is that person or that he subscribes to all of his ideals. Kind of like how people try to tie Ayn Rand to all libertarian beliefs, when in fact Rand hated libertarianism (she was an objectivist)…

BTW,

Adam Brandon, a spokesman for the conservative non-profit organization FreedomWorks, one of several groups involved in organizing Tea Party protests, says the group gives Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals to its top leadership members. A shortened guide called Rules for Patriots is distributed to its entire network. In a January 2012 story that appeared in The Wall Street Journal, citing the organization’s tactic of sending activists to town-hall meetings, Brandon explained, “his [Alinsky’s] tactics when it comes to grass-roots organizing are incredibly effective.” Former Republican House Majority Leader Dick Armey also gives copies of Alinsky’s book Rules for Radicals to Tea Party leaders.

Alinsky also wrote that:

[t]he job of the organizer is to maneuver and bait the establishment so that it will publicly attack him as a ‘dangerous enemy.’” According to Alinsky, “the hysterical instant reaction of the establishment [will] not only validate [the organizer’s] credentials of competency but also ensure automatic popular invitation.”

Isn’t that exactly what you are doing here? Playing into that hand?

Additionally, the notion that Alinsky was a ‘socialist’ is not excactly accurate. He believed in giving the have-nots power against the haves. That’s hardly ‘socialist’ thinking, it crosses several political spectrums. He might have been closely linked with communism, but he himself said he would never join the communist party… In the end it’s irrelevant. It’s like saying that following the 10 commandments makes one a Jew automatically… You don’t kill someone? Well, you’re a jew…

BTW, your invoking of Hitler is a sign that you are really out in left field of rationality here. That you can’t separate the methods of someone and their political ideals is scary to me, to say the least.

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 13, 2015 1:41 PM
Comment #388364
I don’t much care for your documentation of other President’s likeability

LOL, ok, so polling the entire country is not as good as what you and your friends think? I like it… I’ll have to use that from now on. My libertarian friends think ‘X’ so therefore no matter what you say we are right. So much easier!

Look you take him down, I lift him up

I don’t ‘take him down’, I comment on issues and views. I don’t think you will ever see anything from me commenting on him PERSONALLY. I don’t dislike him at all. Like Sam, you need to learn to tell the difference between the two…

you cannot accept that I believe him to be the most accepted President by regular people that I can remember. Your refutations to the contrary will not convince me otherwise and I don’t expect my adamant support to sway your opinion either.

And that is why your view cannot be anything other than religious in nature, facts cannot dissuade you from it. It is a belief in something despite the facts and reality. You wonder why people think you treat him as a messiah, this is exactly why.

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 13, 2015 1:47 PM
Comment #388366

Back to your references to my having some religious belief in our President? You can start with the platitudes of “you believe in something with faith and therefore it is a religion”. That does not mean I am forced to believe your platitudes, they are yours and not mine. The polls you cite are not as important as the polls that elect Presidents. He was elected and re-elected and truth be told I would definitely vote for a third term for him to be our President although I can’t imagine that happening within the bounds of legality or his sanity. That again is my opinion. By virtue of his election and re-election he is brought into the domain of several other recent Presidents. Those are the polls I point to. Now you can say that by virtue of that Reagan and Bush 42 should be relegated to the same admiration. I do not make that relegation however I don’t deny your capability of doing so. That is your opinion. I would however have had a beer with either one of them but not because I was so enamored with them but out of respect and admiration of the political and moral will it took for them to attain their position. You need to tell the difference between the two…

I don’t wonder why people think I treat him as a messiah. I do wonder why someone would go to that extent to prove that their perception is something that I would consider important.

As much as I have tried to convince you otherwise I believe that you think I see you as an adversary. I do not. I believe our political beliefs are adversarial by nature and we, through our discussion on this blog, seek to quantify each of our understanding of each other. It doesn’t matter if my belief is that you are misinterpreting my contentions as much as my belief that we are both here to try to discover a better understanding of ourselves and each other. For that I say thank you.

Posted by: Speak4all at February 13, 2015 2:21 PM
Comment #388481

Rhinehold,

“j2t2, I’m sorry but ‘meme dejour’ is not a description of some outlying individuals who make outrageous statements. It is similar to calling all Democrats ‘communists’, don’t you think?”

Sorry I’ve been without a computer for the last week.

Frankly I don’t understand the problem you have with the term “meme dejour”. Hyperbole has reigned supreme on these pages for so long it hardly seems inappropriate.

Last week it was Mr. Obama’s speech at the prayer breakfast, this week it is his war powers request. It seems that he has been called weak, and a tyrant, in virtually the same breath.

What will it be next week?

You have asked me for links to prove my points, yet above we have an interpretation of the President’s entire life from a poster with nary a hint of a link to actually prove any of it, as if these are all well known “facts”.

The internet is at the same time, the best thing that has ever happened, and the biggest waste of time in all of mankind’s history. Yeah, there are facts available, but opinion seems more important, especially if those opinions fit our own.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at February 14, 2015 10:32 AM
Comment #388753

I too would like to understand why Rocky’s comment was unpublished but Sam Jones’ was not. To the uninitiated it would appear that there is a certain amount of prejudice being used to differentiate the two commenters. Rocky’s comments have always seemed to me a fairly objective observation of the inconsistencies of some of the more avid right wing comments made here. While Sam Jones has no problem using his ability to comment to denigrate and accuse a sitting President, with no real substantial validation except his displeasure. It would seem that while Rocky’s observations are not allowed Sam Jones are given a pass. Perhaps an explanation by our new sheriff would help us to understand this anomaly. So far none of the explanations that I have read give any credence to the treatment that Rocky has received.

Posted by: Speak4all at February 16, 2015 11:44 AM
Comment #390728

20150320wengdongdong
jeremy scott adidas

Posted by: dongdong at March 20, 2015 10:18 PM
Post a comment