The party of old white men would have GLADLY voted for Herman Cain for President, had he not been savagely gang-raped by the press before he ever got out of the starting blocks.
Same thing with Allen West: He's a HERO amongst true conservatives, and this includes whites. Hence, he was viciously raped in his bid for a second term in Congress (and I believe his wife and family were being intimidated at the same time, as well).
The absolute worst fear of the leftists in control right now is that a conservative black person gain ANY traction on the national political stage. Hence, savage rapes, with collusion from and coordination with the media, and in West's case, collusion from the government of the State of Florida. Vote fraud at its finest.
Racists are indeed running rampant in this country right now. It's just not who the media tells us they are...
By the way, I've listened to both Mia Love and Tim Scott speak. If memory serves, I've even posted up interviews of Mr. Scott before, probably on this very thread. They both rock. Kudos for their conservative values, and their courage.
Conservatives are presently being denounced - in loud, shrill, hateful voices - as racists by the left. It'd be funny, if it wasn't so vile, heinous and pathetic.
And so untrue.
I came across this interview of Senator Tim Scott (R-SC) a few moments ago while soaking up news and current events at The American Spectator. They just published this interview today, and it's fascinating and enjoyable.
Mr. Scott, in my opinion, has all the makings of being a great American president at some point down the political road. If he ever gets that opportunity, and if I'm still alive to see it, he'd have my support, and my vote.
Contrast Mr. Scott's words, life experiences and values with those of our present president, and see if you don't agree: THIS is what an American president should sound like.
quote:
Great Scott! South Carolina’s junior senator on race, education, and growin’ up po’.
By Kyle Peterson, The American Spectator, October 2013
Tim Scott is not a type-A personality, which makes interviewing him an interesting experience. So many members of Congress lean forward in their chairs, spit words forcefully and rapidly, shuffle in late and then duck out early, headed toward the next vote, the next speech, the next fundraiser.
Scott leans back in his chair, legs crossed, hands folded. He’s a master of the deadpan delivery, so his jokes are all the funnier in that they arrive unannounced. He speaks leisurely and thoughtfully, as if imparting hard-earned wisdom or sharing a story over a cup of hot cocoa. And Scott does have a story to tell—which starts, as he says, with growin’ up po’.
“Not poor, po’. Could not afford the O-R,” he says, flashing his trademark grin, the one so broad it shows the gums above his top teeth. “I smile now, but I wasn’t smiling then.” After her divorce, Scott’s mother moved the family into her parents’ two-bedroom, one-bathroom house. His grandparents shared one bedroom, and he, his mother, and his brother shared the other. “It was hard times but it was great times, because one of the things that my grandmother did was she filled the house with love and discipline.”
But by high school, he was struggling, failing four classes at once, and, by his own account, more interested in football than academics. “Growing up in North Charleston in a single-parent household, I’ll tell you that—for me—it seemed like the only way out of poverty for a kid like me was either athletics or entertainment,” Scott says. “There weren’t any other options.”
It was a Chick-Fil-A franchisee named John Moniz who showed him how to think his way out of poverty. Scott would buy French fries at the restaurant (“because he had some really cute girls that worked there,” he explains). Moniz took an interest in the young man; the two struck up a conversation, then another. Scott says Moniz changed his worldview. Instead of seeing problems as external and out of his control, he began to seek solutions within himself.
There’s a bit of Christian self-help about the way Scott speaks. Moniz had introduced him to the work of Zig Ziglar, and in a speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference earlier this year, he quoted John C. Maxwell. Scott says things like, “You can be a victim or a victor,” and “When you find your ‘why,’ you find your way.”
Moniz died of a blood clot in 1985, at the age of 37. Scott was just 19, and he vowed to honor Moniz’s memory with the way he lived his life. The day before the funeral, he drafted a personal mission statement: to positively impact a billion people with a message of hope and financial responsibility. He wrote it down in blue ink on a three-by-five notecard. He still has it.
After taking a degree in political science at Charleston Southern University, Scott got into the insurance business. He built his own Allstate agency from the ground up—selling the whole portfolio: auto, life, health, property, casualty, home, renter’s—that, at its peak, employed about eight people.
Scott’s first foray into public life came in 1995, when he ran for and was elected to Charleston County Council. He made headlines shortly thereafter when he led the council in posting a plaque of the Ten Commandments outside its chambers, knowing full well that a costly lawsuit likely lay in store. “I wouldn’t say money is not a concern, but it costs more for us not to have a moral compass,” Scott told the Associated Press at the time. After a battle with the ACLU, a circuit judge ruled the move unconstitutional and ordered the plaque removed, but Scott clearly hasn’t changed his mind: a copy of the Ten Commandments hangs on the wall in his office even today.
Scott spent more than a decade on county council, after which his rise was nothing short of meteoric. Following the retirement of an incumbent state legislator, Scott won a seat in the statehouse in 2008. Another retirement brought a hard-fought battle for a U.S. House seat, which Scott won in 2010. Then in December of last year, Jim DeMint, the state’s beloved two-term Tea Party senator, announced he was retiring to lead the Heritage Foundation. South Carolina’s governor, Nikki Haley, had the power to appoint a successor, but a week went by, and Scott convinced himself that it would not be him. Then the call came at about 5 p.m. on Sunday night.
The announcement was made the next day, December 17, and on January 3, 2013, Scott was sworn in. Then came the transition. Scott moved out of his House office and into a larger Senate one, beefed up his staff from about 15 to 40, opened district offices back home, and held an official event in each of South Carolina’s 46 counties. “Essentially,” he says, “it’s like starting a brand new company.”
Because Scott was appointed to the Senate, South Carolina law requires that he face voters during the next election. Thus, Scott will be on the ballot in 2014 to win the final two years of DeMint’s term, and again in 2016, to win a first term of his own. So far, however, no Republican challengers have emerged. (Lindsey Graham, the Palmetto State’s senior senator, will also be on next year’s ballot, and has already drawn three challengers from the right.)
It’s not difficult to see why Scott has quickly become a beloved figure in the GOP. He’s a magnetic speaker, and his 15-minute speech at this year’s CPAC was, in this correspondent’s opinion, one of the finest. He’s a social conservative and an evangelical Christian who tells me he tries every day to be “a consistent witness of the faithfulness of a risen savior.” And during his time in both chambers of Congress, he built a strong conservative record. Voting against a raise in the debt ceiling last year. Fighting the National Labor Relations Board (“a rogue agency running amok”). Opposing the “Gang of Eight” immigration bill. (“There’s no doubt that we are a land of immigrants. But we are also a land of laws.”)
But the topic he seems to want to talk about most during our interview is education. “It’s very difficult to have real economic empowerment without a solid foundation of education,” he says. Scott supports charter schools and expresses skepticism that one brand of centrally directed public education can adequately serve all of America. But he says the conversation needs to go beyond that, and that everything should be on the table. He even suggests what is every self-respecting schoolboy’s worst nightmare: the abolition of summer break.
The Asian students who dominate fields like science, engineering, and math, Scott points out, spend many more days in school than do Americans. “So can we do in 180 days what other kids are doing in 243 days?” he asks. “Well, 63 days over 10 years, it makes a difference.” (With a proposal like that, we joke, he’s lucky the voting age is 18.)
The American debate over education is shot through with discussions of race: the history of forced busing, white flight from cities, the black-white education gap. But that’s not Scott’s focus. He doesn’t talk about fixing our urban schools; he talks about fixing all our schools.
As a rule, Scott wants nothing to do with Democratic racial politics—and he never has. When running for Charleston County Council at the age of 29, he told that city’s newspaper of record, the Post and Courier, that he didn’t consider himself a “black Republican,” but instead a “Republican who happens to be black.” The next year, 1996, he served as statewide co-chairman of Sen. Strom Thurmond’s re-election campaign. When asked recently how he could’ve worked for a man who’d once run for president on a Dixiecrat platform of segregation, Scott told the New York Times that Thurmond had repented: “The Strom Thurmond I knew had nothing to do with that.” After being elected to the House in 2010, Scott declined to join the Congressional Black Caucus, saying in a statement that “My campaign was never about race.”
Thus, Scott has little sympathy for others’ racial politics. When the Supreme Court struck down portions of the 1965 Voting Rights Act this summer, Scott sent out a statement celebrating the occasion. He points out the absurd heights to which federal officials have taken their oversight and says it results in wasted money. In January, for instance, the Justice Department sent an attorney from its civil rights division to monitor a city council special election in Branchville, S.C.—a town with roughly 800 eligible voters.
I ask Scott whether he ever gets sick of having these conversations, of being asked what it’s like to be (if you’ll pardon the phrase, Senator) a black Republican. He handles the questions deftly. First, a bit of disarming humor: “Most people want to know what it’s like to be a bald Republican,” he says.
Then a humble demurral: “Our country has been fascinated by race since the existence of the country. It’s been part and parcel of who we are. So it would be silly of me to say that, oh, I’m sick and tired of talking about race. Because we’re going to talk about race for the next 50 years as well.”
And then, finally, the strong, opinionated finish: “Do I like talking about race as a predominant factor in elections? Of course not. That’s why I think the VRA decision was an important one. Because life has changed over the last 40 years, especially in South Carolina. I’m only here because voters have changed and evolved as well.”
The irony that is missed by the Useful Idiots who twice elected this travesty, is that virtually all actions taken by this pResident serve the Rich and hurt the Poor. Think about it.
Ramirez gets it exactly right in a single picture. This is what we have done to ourselves by granting power to this petty despot. We had better wake up.
There is something psychologically wrong with Barack Hussein Obama. He is a very sick man who needs therapy. This statement is not offered as an insult.
Obama on Garner: 'My Tradition is Not to Remark on Cases' by Senior Editor-at-Large Joel B. Pollak who edits Breitbart California.
In his remarks Wednesday on the non-indictment of the New York police officer who allegedly choked Eric Garner to death during a routine arrest, President Barack Obama claimed that he does not involve himself in such controversies. "My tradition is not to remark on cases where there may still be an investigation," he said.
The opposite is true: from Skip Gates to Trayvon Martin to Michael Brown, Obama nearly always weighs in.
Even more bizarre was the fact that Obama upstaged New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio. The news networks had all been awaiting the mayor's press conference at 4:45 p.m. ET. Yet Obama broke in with his own remarks at about 4:43 p.m., interrupting his own pre-scheduled address to a gathering of Native American leaders at the White House to offer his take on the grand jury decision before local officials had their chance to react.
There was no particular urgency to hear the president speak. In contrast, it was important to hear the mayor speak, given the possibility of violence on the streets of New York.
With activists threatening to attack the Christmas tree lighting at the Rockefeller Center Wednesday evening, and demonstrators massing in Times Square, the mayor's message of non-violent protest was urgent. Yet Obama insisted on upstaging de Blasio.
Obama's goal was to connect a local controversy to "the larger issues that we've been talking about now for the last week, the last month, the last year, and, sadly, for decades--and that is the concern on the part of too many minority communities that law enforcement is not working with them and dealing with them in a fair way." Just over an hour later, on MSNBC Al Sharpton announced a Dec. 13 march in Washington along the same lines.
However, it is not clear, based on the available evidence, that there is much of a connection between the Garner case and earlier controversies.
For one thing, Garner is a more sympathetic victim than either Martin or Brown: though he did not obey officers, he did not use violence in any way. Furthermore, there is no evidence of racism in any of these cases--though Obama, Sharpton, and others are implying that race is the common denominator.
Some conservatives, notably my colleague John Nolte, have expressed solidarity with the protests in New York over Garner's death. In addition to shared horror at the video of the confrontation, some conservatives have also felt genuine outrage at the fact that police were trying to enforce a tax on cigarettes, and concern about the apparent use of excessive force.
A similar moment of left-right unity had occurred in the early days of Ferguson, as libertarians joined liberals in shared criticism of the apparent "militarization" of police forces nationwide.
Yet this harmony, too, will not last, because the measures that Obama is proposing and that Sharpton, et al. are demanding involve more intrusion by the federal government, not less. Their primary concern is not abuse of power, but imposing collective guilt for what de Blasio, in his (delayed) remarks, called "centuries of racism."
And, already, the media's leftists are grinding the political axe, with CNN's Jeffrey Toobin blaming the grand jury decision on the fact that Staten Island is more conservative than the rest of the city--never mind that there was no evidence of the multi-racial jury's political affiliations.
Obama wants a debate about race and politics, not about law or policing. It is a useful distraction from the lame-duck Obama presidency's continued failures.
It is also a debate calculated to divide Americans anew.
In 2009, after Obama accused a Cambridge policeman of acting "stupidly" in arresting Professor Gates, the result was a "beer summit" that involved both officer and arrestee. By now, Obama is no longer even bothering with gestures of reconciliation. He pointedly excluded any members of the Ferguson law enforcement community from his White House meetings on the issue this week.
What is worst is that deep down, Obama knows the truth. He cannot quite bring himself to say that America's police actually target black people on purpose, so he refers instead to perceptions in minority communities. He seems desperate to be seen by those communities as an effective leader, instead of as the disappointment he has come to be.
So he fans the flames, regardless of the damage, seizing the spotlight as power slips from his grasp.
This is what Liberalism and Obama(also created by Liberalism) have given us which is already known by those who read history.
Merry Christmas.
War Clouds By Victor Davis Hanson · Dec. 4, 2014
The world is changing and becoming even more dangerous – in a way we’ve seen before.
In the decade before World War I, the near-hundred-year European peace that had followed the fall of Napoleon was taken for granted. Yet it abruptly imploded in 1914. Prior little wars in the Balkans had seemed to predict a much larger one on the horizon – and were ignored.
The exhausted Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman empires were spent forces unable to control nationalist movements in their provinces. The British Empire was fading. Imperial Germany was rising. Czarist Russia was beset with revolutionary rebellion. As power shifted, decline for some nations seemed like opportunity for others.
The same was true in 1939. The tragedy of the Versailles Treaty of 1919 was not that it had been too harsh. In fact, it was far milder than the terms Germany had imposed on a defeated Russia in 1918 or the requirements it had planned for France in 1914.
Instead, Versailles combined the worst of both worlds: harsh language without any means of enforcement.
The subsequent appeasement of Britain and France, the isolationism of the United States, and the collaboration of the Soviet Union with Nazi Germany green-lighted Hitler’s aggression – and another world war.
We are entering a similarly dangerous interlude. Collapsing oil prices – a good thing for most of the world – will make troublemakers like oil-exporting Iran and Russia take even more risks.
Terrorist groups such as the Islamic State feel that conventional military power has no effect on their agendas. The West is seen as a tired culture of Black Friday shoppers and maxed-out credit card holders.
NATO is underfunded and without strong American leadership. It can only hope that Vladimir Putin does not invade a NATO country like Estonia, rather than prepare for the likelihood that he will, and soon.
The United States has slashed its defense budget to historic lows. It sends the message abroad that friendship with America brings few rewards while hostility toward the U.S. has even fewer consequences.
The bedrock American relationships with staunch allies such as Australia, Britain, Canada, Japan and Israel are fading. Instead, we court new belligerents that don’t like the United States, such as Turkey and Iran.
No one has any idea of how to convince a rising China that its turn toward military aggression will only end in disaster, in much the same fashion that a confident westernizing Imperial Japan overreached in World War II. Lecturing loudly and self-righteously while carrying a tiny stick did not work with Japanese warlords of the1930s. It won’t work with the communist Chinese either.
Radical Islam is spreading in the same sort of way that postwar communism once swamped postcolonial Asia, Africa and Latin America. But this time there are only weak responses from the democratic, free-market West. Westerners despair over which is worse – theocratic Iran, the Islamic State or Bashar al-Assad’s Syria – and seem paralyzed over where exactly the violence will spread next and when it will reach them.
There once was a time when the United States encouraged the Latin American transition to free-market constitutional government, away from right-wing dictatorships. Now, America seems uninterested in making a similar case that left-wing dictatorships are just as threatening to the idea of freedom and human rights.
In the late 1930s, it was pathetic that countries with strong militaries such as France and Britain appeased fascist leader Benito Mussolini and allowed his far weaker Italian forces to do as they pleased by invading Ethiopia. Similarly, Iranian negotiators are attempting to dictate terms of a weak Iran to a strong United States in talks about Iran’s supposedly inherent right to produce weapons-grade uranium – a process that Iran had earlier bragged would lead to the production of a bomb.
The ancient ingredients of war are all on the horizon. An old postwar order crumbles amid American indifference. Hopes for true democracy in post-Soviet Russia, newly capitalist China or ascendant Turkey long ago were dashed. Tribalism, fundamentalism and terrorism are the norms in the Middle East as the nation-state disappears.
Under such conditions, history’s wars usually start when some opportunistic – but often relatively weaker – power does something unwise on the gamble that the perceived benefits outweigh the risks. That belligerence is only prevented when more powerful countries collectively make it clear to the aggressor that it would be suicidal to start a war that would end in the aggressor’s sure defeat.
What is scary in these unstable times is that a powerful United States either thinks that it is weak or believes that its past oversight of the postwar order was either wrong or too costly – or that after Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, America is no longer a force for positive change.
A large war is looming, one that will be far more costly than the preventative vigilance that might have stopped it.
When the Law Is a Drag By Victor Davis Hanson, Dec 2, 2014
In the Ferguson disaster [1], the law was the greatest casualty. Civilization cannot long work if youths strong-arm shop owners and take what they want. Or walk down the middle of highways high on illicit drugs. Or attack police officers and seek to grab their weapons. Or fail to obey an officer’s command to halt. Or deliberately give false testimonies to authorities. Or riot, burn, and loot. Or, in the more abstract sense, simply ignore the legal findings of a grand jury; or, in critical legal theory fashion, seek to dismiss the authority of the law because it is not deemed useful to some preconceived theory of social justice. Do that and society crumbles.
In our cynicism we accept, to avoid further unrest, that no government agency will in six months prosecute the looters and burners, or charge with perjury those who brazenly lied in their depositions to authorities, or charge the companion of Michael Brown with an accessory role in strong-arm robbery, or charge the stepfather of Michael Brown for using a bullhorn to incite a crowd to riot and loot and burn [2]. We accept that because legality is becoming an abstraction, as it is in most parts of the world outside the U.S. where politics makes the law fluid and transient.
Nor can a government maintain legitimacy when it presides over lawlessness. The president of the United States on over 20 occasions [3] insisted that it would be illegal, dictatorial, and unconstitutional to contravene federal immigration law — at least when to do so was politically inexpedient. When it was not, he did just that. Now we enter the Orwellian world of a videotaped president repeatedly warning that what he would soon do would be in fact illegal. Has a U.S. president ever so frequently and fervently warned the country about the likes of himself?
What is forgotten about amnesty is that entering the U.S. illegally is not the end, but often the beginning of lawlessness. Out here in rural central California we accept a world where thousands drive [4] without insurance, licenses, and registration. Fleeing the scenes of traffic accidents earns snoozes. There is no such thing as the felony of providing false information on government affidavits or creating made-up Social Security numbers. Selling things without paying taxes and working off the books while on assistance are no longer illegal. The normative culture is lawlessness.
Amnesty, granted through a lawless presidential act, will not stop but only encourage further lawlessness. If someone has become used to ignoring a multitude of laws without consequences, there is no reason why he should suddenly cease, given that punishment for breaking the law is still considered a politically-incorrect rather than a legal act — and that even with amnesties it will still be far easier and cheaper to break than obey the law. Who will deport an illegal alien beneficiary of amnesty when he again breaks the law? Amnesty will be seen as both reactive and prophylactic, a waiver for both past and future behavior.
More disturbingly, we have engendered a strange culture of justifiable lawlessness: those who are deemed exploited in some ways are exempt from following the law; those without such victim status are subject even more to it. Executive authorities compensate for their impotence in not enforcing statutes for some by excessively enforcing them on others.
I accept that if I burn a single old grape stake that has been treated with a copper-based preservative, I will be facing huge fines by environmental protection agencies, whose zeal will not extend to nearby residents who have created illegal compounds of rental Winnebagos with jerry-rigged wiring and stop-gap sewage or who dump wet garbage [5] along the side of the road. In the old days the dumpers at least used to sift out incriminating documents with names on them; now they leave them in, without worry over the consequences.
Our bureaucrats thirst for the single infraction by the law-biding citizen who can pay — to compensate for their impotence amid endless crimes by the law-breaking who are deemed unable to pay. That idea of redistributive enforcement permeates the entire federal government.
When Americans receive that dreaded letter from the IRS in the mail, demanding that they pay additional taxes with interest — or else — they cannot act in the way the IRS now acts: ignoring government requests, losing documents, hiding emails, taking the Fifth Amendment. If Americans were to follow the lawless culture of Lois Lerner and her associates at the IRS, then the IRS and the entire system of voluntary tax-compliance would simply implode. Try the following when the IRS calls:
“Sorry, I need two more years to find those documents.” “You never sent me that tax notice!” “My accountant, not me, did it.” “Oh, oh, I lost that receipt.” “I plead the Fifth and can’t give you that information.” “Nope, those are private communications and I won’t hand them over.”
Indeed, the problem with the Obama administration is that the government’s own bureaucracies — the IRS, VA, Secret Service, GSA, EPA, Justice and State Departments — have so serially broken their own statutes and lied about their misconduct, that it is now almost impossible to reassure Americans that they, too, cannot do what their own government sees as some sort of birthright.
The fuel of lawlessness is untruth. What amazes about President Obama is not that he occasionally misstates facts — every president has done that — but that he so serially says things that are untrue and yet he must know are so easily exposed as untrue [6]. When the president on over 20 occasions swears he cannot legally grant amnesty and then does so, or when he swears he cannot comment on an ongoing criminal case when he habitually has done just that, or when he insists that Obamacare will not result in higher premiums and deductibles or loss of doctors and health plans when it does precisely that, or when he asserts to the world that a mere demonstration over a video caused an attack on our consulate in Benghazi when he knew that it did not, or when he utters iron-clad red lines, deadlines, and step-over-lines that he knows are mythical [7] or denies he has done just that — when he does all this, then almost everything he asserts must be doubted.
We now live in an era when we expect a federal bureaucrat — whether the attorney general or the secretary of Defense or the secretary of Labor — to illegally jet on family or political business at the public expense, or the president of the United States to pick and choose which elements of the law he finds useable and therefore are to be enforced and which bothersome and therefore ignored.
For this administration, the law is a drag.
What separated the United States from a Peru or Nigeria or Mexico or Laos or Russia was the sanctity of the law, or the idea that from the highest elected officials to the least influential citizen, all were obligated to follow, according to their stations, the law. Under Obama, that sacred idea has been eroded. We live in a world of illegal immigration and amnesties, Ferguson mythologies, and alphabet government scandals, presided over by a president who not only does not tell the truth, but also seems to be saying to the public, “I say whatever I want, so get over it.”
Remember when this liar Thug bleated that a $9 Billion debt was un-American? This Community Organizer has destroyed The United States of America for future generations. Mission Accomplished, •••••••.
The Traitor who Occupies the White House has a good idea. Let's hobble the US economy further by not passing Keystone and destroy energy production while allowing China to give a vague promise to start reducing emissions by 2030. This is criminal behavior. A division of Chinese soldiers landing in Oregon would do less damage to our country than this jerk.
This is interesting, but not surprising: A democrat advocating vote fraud. In this case it took place during Landrieu's bid for reelection. It does make it a teeny bit more surprising, however (and a LOT more interesting), that the man advocating the vote fraud is the father of Landrieu's Chief of Staff, and tells the crowd not to worry, the soon-to-be DA is corrupt, too, and you won't be prosecuted:
Too funny . . . NY Times . . . . pretty much the opposite of a NEWSpaper . . buries the story . . . then ascribes the Dems problems in the South to 125,000 den voters fleeing the South following Katrina in 2005. . . Yeah . . yeah . . .that's it.
