On The Corruption Of Obama And Clinton

Break down that wall of silence.

Yes, they figured they’d get away with all of it because they assumed they were going to win a rigged election. Then when she was to incompetent to win a rigged election, they panicked and the big cover up and counterattack began.

[Saturday-morning update]

Given all of the other revelations that are pouring out, it sure would be nice if there were some discussion in comments about, oh, I don’t know…the actual topic of this post?

[Update a while later]

FBI agents ready to revolt in the corrupt Clinton probe. Long overdue, if true. I think, or at least hope, that Comey’s name will go down in infamy.

[Update a couple minutes later]

Oops, just noticed the date on that. Still, it rings true.

And this one is today: Hillary’s fingerprints are all over the FBI investigation of Trump. This really is (or should be, if we had a press worthy of the name) the biggest scandal in U.S. history.

88 thoughts on “On The Corruption Of Obama And Clinton”

    1. Haidt seems to think that being a moderate is a good thing. Moderates are always your enemy because they are the “Nancy” vs “Charlie Brown” and will pull out the football every time you are about to win. They should be more loathed than the opposing team.
      They are like spies and saboteurs amongst you.

      1. Haidt is pointing out that the increasing hyper-partisanship isn’t productive, actions and ideas are being judged not on their merit but on their source. You’re claim, that “moderates are always your enemy” I think bizarre, and analogous to a husband in a public domestic fight labeling a bystander trying to cool the situation by encouraging reasonable discussion over name calling the enemy, such attacks on would-be moderators do happen, and do result in the couple coming together to attack the peacemaker, but the marriage is still a dysfunctional mess.

        1. Haidt is pointing out that the increasing hyper-partisanship isn’t productive

          Focusing on polarization absent context wont tell you much. Rather than party “purification” we have one party trending toward fascism/socialism/tyranny and the other toward rejuvenating the classical liberalism, individualism, capitalism, and small government ideals the country was founded on. One could say “pure” leftism is communism but that is not what the Democrat party used to be.

          He even says we don’t have a common enemy like in the cold war. Its not that we didn’t/don’t have common enemies but that our friends to the left never viewed any of our common enemies as enemies and still don’t.

          The other reasons he lists are totally wrong. I will only touch on one more, media. Democrats always complain that their strangle hold on the media was broken and people were free to use the first amendment to express points of view that countered Democrat group think. This isn’t a bad thing, its a good thing. The media wasn’t a priesthood of objectivity and truth. It was just as biased as it is today but today there are voices to counter the Democrat narrative.

          More voices expressing views about policies leads to thorough investigation of those policies. This is exactly what we need in a time when Democrats nearly nominated an out of closet socialist and pursue policies to make black shirts happy. But a thorough investigation of proposed policies isn’t actually what people like Haidt want. They want one voice in the media telling people how to think and one party in control of government so that there is no opposition.

          In the world Haidt imagines, we would never have found out about the abuses of the Obama administration or the Hillary campaign working with foreign powers to swing the election.

          1. Haidt even falls for the myth that everyone in the South started voting for Republicans after LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act. The South didn’t start voting Republican until decades later and for much different reasons that Haidt imagines.

          2. Sometimes a “moderate” is solidly on the side of the radical, but has the diplomatic sense to moderate their presentation to hide the elements that would drive away a reasonable person.

          3. The South didn’t start voting Republican until decades later . . .

            Simply wrong, most of the southern states voted Democrat in ’64, only 2 voted Democrat in ’68 and in all elections since ’68 the Southern states have overwhelmingly voted Republican.
            It should also be noted that in the ’68 election the Wallace/LeMay, standing on a segregationist ticket won 4 of the Southern states.

          4. There’s not much I can really say in reply to your above comment, Haidt points out that “hyper-partisans” believe we good, them bad, we stand for America, they stand against America.

            To me, and based on the quotes below, that pretty much sums up the ‘argument’ you’re using, that the Democrats have turned bad so Republicans are justified in hating them (if that’s not your position, please clarify).

            we have one party trending toward fascism/socialism/tyranny . . .

            One could say “pure” leftism is communism but that is not what the Democrat party used to be.

            our friends to the left never viewed any of our common enemies as enemies and still don’t.

            Democrats always complain that their strangle hold on the media was broken and people were free to use the first amendment to express points of view that countered Democrat group think.

            Democrats nearly nominated an out of closet socialist and pursue policies to make black shirts happy

            They want one voice in the media telling people how to think and one party in control of government so that there is no opposition.

          5. “Haidt points out that “hyper-partisans” believe we good, them bad, we stand for America, they stand against America.”

            It’s very clear that the new left hate everything America ever stood for. The only real question is whether the Republicans do, too.

          6. Simply wrong,

            Look at local elections and congressional not Presidential. What are we to make of the South voting for Reagan when all the other states did too?

          7. Haidt points out that “hyper-partisans” believe we good, them bad, we stand for America, they stand against America.

            Do you even know anything about Haidt’s progressives? Their ideology is explicitly based on the USA being illegitimate since its founding and the need to overthrow the current system and replace it with some always unsaid system (but always turns out to be communism when you dig into it).

            You lament people can’t just get along but don’t know why they disagree. There are fundamental disagreements about the role of government and the control it should exert over society.

            The Republicans haven’t even “moved to the right.” They are pretty much the same as they have always been. The Democrats embracing socialism does not mean the Republicans are moving further right. If anything, Republicans have become more socially liberal.

            Hey, these people want to tell you what to eat, how to dress, what car to drive, what kind of house to live in, what hobbies to engage in, and what words you can use. Why don’t you just shut up and agree to their demands?

            What are you hyperpartisan? Why shouldn’t we have a 100% tax rate? Are you greedy? We really need to put the workers in charge of the means of production. They wouldn’t even worry about profits.

            The real problem is that because of the internet people can get more information about what is going on and educate themselves about history and economics. The other real problem is that the media no longer speaks with one voice telling people what we think they should know.

            More voices engaging in free speech, more avenues of access to information, and more people vigorously debating policy are good things. We can have all that without the Democrats going full communist but resisting that isn’t a sin as many people would have you believe.

          8. Simply wrong, most of the southern states voted Democrat in ’64, only 2 voted Democrat in ’68 and in all elections since ’68 the Southern states have overwhelmingly voted Republican.
            It should also be noted that in the ’68 election the Wallace/LeMay, standing on a segregationist ticket won 4 of the Southern states.

            Once again, we have a kiwi telling Americans what life was like in America. I guess no surprise that the ignorant don’t know they are.

            In 1982, 2 years after Reagan’s landslide victory over Carter, who plain sucked; Texas, Florida, Georgia, Alabama, South Carolina, Oklahoma, and Arkansas (Guess who that was!) all voted in a Democrat Governor. It was California that year which voted in a Republican Governor. With the exception of Texas, which voted in a Republic governor in 1978, all the other states had Democrat governors from passage of Civil Rights Act until 1980.

          9. Do you even know anything about Haidt’s progressives?
            Haidt describes himself as a moderate, the real question is: Do you actually know the goals of US progressives or have you just signed up to the hyperpartisan conservative narrative about them?

            Their ideology is explicitly based on the USA being illegitimate since its founding and the need to overthrow the current system and replace it with some always unsaid system (but always turns out to be communism when you dig into it).

            Simple answer is you’re just spouting the narrative, you go find me evidence that the democratic party wants communism in the US.

            You lament people can’t just get along but don’t know why they disagree. There are fundamental disagreements about the role of government and the control it should exert over society.

            FFS, that’s ALWAYS what political disagreements between the left and right are about!

            The Republicans haven’t even “moved to the right.” They are pretty much the same as they have always been. The Democrats embracing socialism does not mean the Republicans are moving further right. If anything, Republicans have become more socially liberal.

            I addressed this in my reply to Jon, which you’ve probably now seen so again you’re wrong about what I think and know (just as you are wrong in your understanding of the goals of your political adversaries).

            Hey, these people want to tell you what to eat, how to dress, what car to drive, what kind of house to live in, what hobbies to engage in, and what words you can use. Why don’t you just shut up and agree to their demands?

            Actually not an unfair summation, leftists want government to meddle in peoples lives, this is new? Nope, but the extent of their desire is increasing, but that still does not make them communists, nor, as long as they’re not advocating the nationalization of the productive sector, does it make them socialists. They remain social democrats.

            More voices engaging in free speech, more avenues of access to information, and more people vigorously debating policy are good things. We can have all that without the Democrats going full communist but resisting that isn’t a sin as many people would have you believe.

            Of course that’s so, but “Democrats are evil” and “communism” is not “vigorously debating policy” rather it’s creating a false and misleading narrative, telling lies and deliberate distortions to mislead.

          10. Do you actually know the goals of US progressives or have you just signed up to the hyperpartisan conservative narrative about them?

            I live in a blue state. Most of the people I’ve known over the years have been Democrats. I went through two areas of study dominated by leftist ideology. I’ve had countless discussions with leftists. I’ve followed their direct action campaigns very closely since the late 1990’s. I listen to their speeches and now, thanks to the magic of technology, I watch live streams of their protests.

            Some of the best people at dissecting and communicating what is going on in the Democrat party are the people who were once Democrats and have left them. There are a ton of these youngsters on YouTube.

            I know a lot about the progressives, the problem is that many Democrats don’t understand them. They just fall for the silly catch phrases and identity politics.

            so again you’re wrong about what I think and know

            OK, why don’t you try saying what you think. We can only go by what you say, so if you mean something other than how people interpret your posts, then clarify. Also, feel free to demonstrate some knowledge about the topic of progressive ideology instead of just telling people who have dealt with it for decades they are wrong.

        2. Andrew, your thinking is weak as usual. Moderates of your own team will always and gladly stab you in the back if it gets them brownie points from your opponent. Bill is correct. Historic examples abound if you would only look.

          An example from Canada – a large number of hunting associations approved the government banning or restricting various “black rifles” because “you can’t use them for hunting” rather than standing with their fellows to prevent the restrictions.

          Guess what, even if the shark eats you last – you still get eaten. Thinking you in all your virtue will be the exception is what is bizarre.

          1. Moderates of your own team

            You haven’t even got that bit right, and the balance of your comment is more ‘us good, them bad’ nonsense, it seems that you and others commenting here, in your emotional state, are beyond comprehending that politics is not a battle between good and evil, it’s a battle between people who have different ideologies. Ideologies aren’t “good and evil” in any objective sense, people believe in ideologies because they believe those ideologies will make their lives better. Some work better than others at creating wealth, freedom and stability, if you don’t think that their ideology will do that give reasons why. The goal of the rational person should be to argue rationally – as Jordan Peterson did, not to label the enemy with pejorative terms for the sake of an ego trip.

          2. ‘us good, them bad’

            Hmmm…

            Ideologies aren’t “good and evil” in any objective sense,

            Oh there you go. We aren’t allowed to object to other people’s policies because we are like all the same ideologies man.

            You are mistaken to think the differences are because of opposition to perceived group identity rather than specific policies or ideological goals. At least in terms of the modern right. The modern left is very much motivated by perceived group identities. You need to brush up on what Identity Politics actually is.

            I don’t think Perterson is a moral relativist.

          3. Oh there you go. We aren’t allowed to object to other people’s policies because we are like all the same ideologies man.

            Are you sure that’s not you Cathy??

            I don’t think Perterson is a moral relativist.

            Peterson accepts there’s “a biological basis for social morality”, I’m not claiming what his views on objective vs relative morality are beyond that.

          4. You can’t use the language of moral relativism and then get upset when someone points it out.

            When it’s a misrepresentation of my position of course I can. The “biological basis for morality” I (and Peterson and Haidt) have is a hell of a lot different to the Post Modernist view of relative morality that your comment seems to be suggesting.

          5. You can’t use the language of moral relativism and then get upset when someone points it out.

            When it’s a misrepresentation of my position of course I can.

            Try being more clear. I am just going by what you are writing. If you want to relate something to your theory of biological morality, then try that.

        3. It’s not productive if you’re trying to push culture ever-more leftwards. Which is what ‘moderates’ have been doing for a hundred years now, by compromising away our freedom piece by piece.

      2. People without firm beliefs or principles, ready to go along with whatever the in-power group demands. Allies today, enemies tomorrow. They are next to useless other than to determine which way the wind is blowing.

        1. You appear to have totally missed the message, Haidt isn’t saying holding to a strong ideological position is not a good thing, he’s saying getting all emotional and demonizing people within your own country because they hold a different ideological position is bad for a country.

          1. “getting all emotional and demonizing people within your own country because they hold a different ideological position” Well, one need only read the comments here to see really good examples. Both sides are doing it, and both sides are claiming the exactly same things about how right they are to do it. I can go to two opposite comment sections and the words are exactly the same.
            On some level, they’re both right, because the other side _is_ doing it right now. It’s just that they are also “the other side”.

          2. holding to a strong ideological position is not a good thing

            It really depends. You can’t make a blanket statement like that.

            It should be pointed out that many of the things people on the right want are not extremist positions but are moderate by their very nature. Not wanting punative tax rates is not the same as wanting no taxes. Not wanting excessive regulation is not the same as no regulations. Wanting a smaller government is not the same as no government. Wanting law and order is not the same as wanting an oppressive police state.

            Having ideologies is a good thing. For a person, it helps guide your life. For a country, it helps guide your society. I am always suspicious of people who say you shouldn’t have any ideology because they always have theirs, they just don’t want you to have yours.

          3. MikeR

            “getting all emotional and demonizing people within your own country because they hold a different ideological position” Well, one need only read the comments here to see really good examples.

            Disagreeing agreeably is a different subject. Andrew and Haidt think there should be no disagreement to begin with.

            Its a fantasy. Even in groups of like minds there will be disagreements.

          4. My statement: Haidt isn’t saying holding to a strong ideological position is not a good thing,

            You quoting me: holding to a strong ideological position is not a good thing

            Spot the difference.

          5. Disagreeing agreeably is a different subject. Andrew and Haidt think there should be no disagreement to begin with.
            Is that you Cathy?

          6. Is that you Cathy?

            Feel free to disagree with Haidt then but I thought you posted the video and expressed your agreement.

            Haidt creates a boogie man out of “hyper partisanship” because Democrats are losing their grasp on power over information and people are gaining the ability to speak out in disagreement. Vociferous and uncouth debate about politics is nothing new and is probably the most civil its ever been, even taking into account the Democrat’s “direct action” actions over the last 18 years.

    2. I don’t know if you are just putting this out there as The End All and Be All Answer of Political Polarization or if it is just an idea that you want to spread for an active discussion. If it is the former, then this guy has his own spin. If it is the latter, than I would argue that the polarization is being pushed from the single party running the country at the top. As the Romans used to say, “dīvide et imperā.” Keep the prols squabbling at the bottom. What better way to do this than to have the 5 or 6 companies that run most of the media in this country make hot button issues out of virtually nothing, while looting the Treasury behind everyone’s back.

      1. Jon, remember how Hayek sees the Conservative-Progressive left-Libertarian triangle? The Progressive left and the Libertarians tow society forward in somewhat different directions while the Conservatives resist the change, because the left outweigh the Libertarians, society as a whole is towed towards the left.

        I’ve argued that leftism (in the form of social democracy) gets stronger as a result of the greater wealth we acquire as time goes on, because we’re all richer, more and more people are willing to see more of their tax dollars go towards “helping” those less well off. If we accept that socialism as traditionally defined is a failure, and that despite the misrepresentation of them, that Democrats are Social Democrats and not socialists (again using the traditional definition) . . . That’s the way it is.

        Democrats will always push for a “fairer”, “more just” distribution of wealth, just a wives (should) push for better home environments for the family. Cry about it as much as you like, but if you want stability at home or in your country and want to win a few battles, you have to talk to the other party rather than throw bricks, throwing bricks looks really bad to the neighbors, and they get to pass judgment – with their vote or by calling the police.

        1. I haven’t thrown any bricks. Projection is a terrible thing.

          My point is that all of this goes way beyond armchair intellectual discussion. Politics is not just studying the thinkers on both sides. There is a reality behind this. Sausages and all that.

          1. Wasn’t referring to you or any individual with that passage. Is this better?

            Cry about it as much as they like, but if people want stability at home or in their country and want to win a few battles, they have to talk to the other party rather than throw bricks, throwing bricks looks really bad to the neighbors, and they get to pass judgment – with their vote or by calling the police.

          2. they have to talk to the other party rather than throw bricks,

            Dude, we do lots of talking. That doesn’t mean people will always come to an agreement. Talking and debate actually lead to the “hyper partisan” problem.

            Haidt presented this as a problem but really it is healthy.

        2. The Progressive left and the Libertarians tow society forward in somewhat different directions while the Conservatives resist the change

          Bullocks. All change isn’t “progress” and progressive ideology is really regressive when it comes to human and societal development. Conservatism isn’t about resisting all change.

          The arc of history doesn’t always bend toward justice and people alive today are not morally superior to those of the past. People who say these things often want to destroy the very societal innovations that allowed our modern life to happen.

          1. Hayek’s description is the best I’ve come across, Peterson and Haidt have both defined “conservatives” in the same way, I’m not, and nor was Hayek, claiming the directing society is towed by the left is a good thing.

            The arc of history doesn’t always bend toward justice and people alive today are not morally superior to those of the past.

            That’s true and poetic – where’d you pinch it from?

          2. The first bit was from an Obama speech, who pinched it from someone else. For Obama and much of the left, it is a magical belief that socialism is a fated evolutionary end point brought to us via critical theory.

  1. The corruption of the Obama administration was readily apparent but our “adversarial” media failed to investigate anything and Obama was able to end run the judicial branch of government through corruption of the executive and the nature of the legislative.

    The IRS finally apologized to a Jewish group targeted by the Obama administration. One could argue that Tea Party and Pro-Life groups could easily get caught up in normal bureaucratic shenanigans or corruption that didn’t reach to the top. But Jewish groups are not conservative. The only reason for them to be targeted is because they didn’t support Obama’s Middle East strategy with Iran and the Islamists. That means the orders came straight from Obama.

    It also isn’t coincidence that calls for gun control north of the border due to gang violence south of the border stopped as soon as Fast and Furious was discovered.

    A true adversarial media that acted as a check on political power wouldn’t have buried all these scandals.

    1. I’m still awaiting for the release of Lois Lerner’s communications within the IRS.

      And Obama’s first AG was held in contempt of Congress. Now it appears his second AG “recused” herself from a decision that she negotiated earlier.

      I’m happy to hear that at least Congress is willing to note that if lying to the FBI is a federal crime; then why did Steele get a pass? He needs to be indicted for his lies. Next, they need to ask the same question about Hillary and the notion that she didn’t compromise classified data. Setting aside intent, she lied about what data was on her server. It wasn’t just yoga tips and recipes.

      1. I’m still awaiting for the release of Lois Lerner’s communications within the IRS.

        It might turn up Obama’s secret email alias.

    1. Not really Andrew. Your position, expressed in the past, is that there is no such thing as evil and deescalation is always the right choice. It’s a simple premise that removes the need for wisdom (when to act and when not to.)

      1. I was using the word “evil” sarcastically. not liking the word – meaning not buying into bad morality as a universal objective rather than having a human biological basis (Peterson also believes social morality has a biological basis) – does not mean not understanding when to act and when not to, I think Peterson has wisdom, he’s wise enough to understand that getting into a vicious escalation with the political other side is destructive (he argues the left and right need each other to have balance and blaming the other side for believing what they believe is counter productive, the best approach is always civil discourse.

    2. Peterson says to aim for peace not winning, that is what Trump is doing. He wants a good deal where both sides get part of what they want.

      This has also been the Republican way of governing, which has led to ever expanding government and spending because compromise means giving people some of what they want but not all of it. The Republicans just never get any reductions, just smaller increases. This is why you see some of the comments above about “moderation”.

      Republicans have always been on the nicer side of things when it comes to disagreements. Being nice to Democrats doesn’t mean that Democrats are nice to Republicans. And being nice while arguing also does not remove the foundation of why there is disagreement in the first place.

      Since Republicans regularly compromise, rarely get anything in return, and are generally good natured in their disagreement compared to the opposition, even when the opposition has an objectively and subjectively horrible ideology, perhaps your lecture would be better directed at the bullies rather than the people getting bullied.

  2. most of the southern states voted Democrat in ’64, only 2 voted Democrat in ’68 and in all elections since ’68 the Southern states have overwhelmingly voted Republican.

    It is the mark of a simpleton to judge a region’s electoral behavior solely by looking at presidential elections. I live in Georgia, where the legislature was still majority Democrat until 2002. All of the constitutional officers but one were Democrats. A bare majority of the U.S. House delegation may have been GOP in 1999, but only one of the state’s two Senators was a Republican — and when he died in 2000 the Democrat governor replaced him with a fellow Democrat.

    The story is the same across the South; except for Presidential and House voting trends, most Southern states remained solidly Democrat well into the 21st century.

    1. It is the mark of a simpleton to judge a region’s electoral behavior solely by looking at presidential elections.

      No, because it’s Presidential elections we’re looking at, when LBJ said “we’ve lost the South in my lifetime and in yours” he was, not surprisingly, referring to Presidential elections because the Civil rights act is a federal law and was expecting voter retaliation at Federal elections. Which is exactly what happened including four states voting for the pro-segregationist Wallace/LeMay ticket in ’68

      1. As Pelosi might say, Andrew you really don’t know what you are talking about.

        But I’ll give you credit; you pulled off the bob duty of derailing one of Rand’s post by spamming it.

        1. Andrew you really don’t know what you are talking about.
          Then nothing to refute my point. I’ll go further: To improve their electoral chances many Southern state and country Democrats distanced themselves from the Federal Democrats support anti-segregationism.

          1. Ya, the Democrats controlled the South until only just recently and even now, they still do in some areas. That means that haven’t overwhelmingly voted Republican.

            And what is with “Federal Democrats?” There is this myth that there was more than one Democrat party. There wasn’t.

          2. You claim to look at Presidential elections, but the only election before 1980 and the Civil Rights Act, in which the south voted for a Republican President was 1972 Nixon landslide. Otherwise, you try to make the claim that George Wallace is a conservative just shy of calling himself a Republican, which is total bullshit to anyone that lived in the South during the era. Did you live in the American South in the 1960’s and 70’s, Andrew? No?

            This would be like me claiming New Zealand was run by the Orcs, because the Elfs left them alone until the Hobbits made an uproar, and then pasting links to discussions of the films as evidence that I knew the truth. It’s moronic, yet that’s what you are doing, Andrew.

            1980 was the Republican turning point nationally, as Reagan showed fiscal conservatism by pushing free market ideas and opposing the spread of Communism. It was still 10 more years before southern states voted out their Democrat state legislators and governors. Those of us that lived here during the time know this, because we were part of that change. Where were you, Andrew?

            You can still find white Democrats in the South, buy them a beer, and mention diversity and watch them explode into a racist rant. They’re Democrats because their family was, and Pop and Uncle Bob got them a job with the local. They wouldn’t have that job without Democrats protecting the union, which keeps out the immigrants and colored.

          3. Wodun, have you never heard of the term”Southern Democrat”? It denotes more than geography, for generations after the US civil war many Southerners whose ideological home might otherwise be the Republican party were Democrat’s because it was the Republican Party that band slavery – an action that in turn led to the Southern break-away and the civil war. it’s only in recent years that that hatchet is finally getting buried and Southerners, at the state and local level, are voting more Republican as you’d expect due to their rural and conservative background.

          4. You claim to look at Presidential elections, but the only election before 1980 and [after?]the Civil Rights Act, in which the south voted for a Republican President was 1972 Nixon landslide.

            They did support Carter in 76, but in 68 only 2 southern states voted Democrat, the vote for segregationist Wallace was certainly a protest vote against the Democrats passing of civil rights. So you’re right that the protest vote against the Democrats did only last until ’68 and possibly to some extent until ’72. – Which makes sense when you take into account that the majority from both parties in the US Congress voted for civil rights. From ’80 onwards the strong Southern Republican vote was likely more about the Urban – Democrat / Rural – Republican split.

            Otherwise, you try to make the claim that George Wallace is a conservative just shy of calling himself a Republican,
            Nonsense, I never suggested or implied that.

          5. whose ideological home might otherwise be the Republican

            Why? And why were they Democrat before the Civil War?

            at the state and local level, are voting more Republican as you’d expect due to their rural and conservative background.

            What do you mean by rural? What do you consider makes them conservative in this context? What is it about living in a rural environment that would make someone vote Republican? Could the economic message of the Reagan years appealed to Southerners?

          6. Why? And why were they Democrat before the Civil War?
            They weren’t they were yet to be born.

            What do you mean by rural? What do you consider makes them conservative in this context? What is it about living in a rural environment that would make someone vote Republican?

            Maybe, like everyone else, I’m under the impression that these days in America the rural states tend to vote Republican with the larger more urban states tending to vote Democrat. I’m not going to bother explaining why that trend exists, but you could try looking it up, the reasons are easy to find.

      2. Andrew yesterday:
        and in all elections since ’68 the Southern states have overwhelmingly voted Republican.
        It should also be noted that in the ’68 election the Wallace/LeMay, standing on a segregationist ticket won 4 of the Southern states.

        Andrew today: Nonsense, I never suggested or implied that.

        If you think you didn’t imply it; that just suggest to me again; you don’t know what you are talking about. The Democrats that left LBJ for Wallace didn’t vote Republican down ballot.

        1. That’s a big misrepresentation Leland where do I “try to make the claim that George Wallace is a conservative just shy of calling himself a Republican,”?

          Pointing out that Wallace/LeMay were standing on pro-segregationist policies does not make them “just shy of calling himself a Republican”, unless you’re claiming that Republicans are also pro-segregationist, and since a considerable majority in Congress voted in favor of the civil rights act, if that’s what you’re claiming you’d be wrong.

          1. The big misrepresentation is in all elections since ’68 the Southern states have overwhelmingly voted Republican.

            That statement of yours is wrong, and you can only believe it is true by implying other things to be true that simply are not.

  3. Democrats will always push for a “fairer”, “more just” distribution of wealth,

    As long as you agree that fair and just don’t mean the same to each group I’d agree completely.

    To the democrat, theft is fair and justified as long as they get to decide the redistribution. Or as Obama’s father infamously put it… we will tax 100% and give you what you need.

    1. There’s also what they claim to do, and what actually happens. 8 years of Obama just shrunk the middle class, increased the unemployed, and despite several stimulus acts, ended up generating near flat line growth.

      1. near flat line growth

        Is flat line growth a problem? Is the rate of economic growth expected to increase with geometric progression?

        1. Is flat line growth a problem?

          In a closed system, probably not.

          However, Obama and Democrats were pushing for more immigration and open borders over 8 years. This created a rush of low skill and low paid workers, that rich Democrats could hire instead of providing higher pay to current employees to keep up with inflation. This increased the total number of unemployed people in the United States over those 8 years. The poor got poorer, wages were stagnant, but the richest 10% managed to get richer.

          In one year, we had a President push to slow the rate of immigration and remove regulatory burdens that prevented small business from competing with “too-big-to-fail” government protected corporations. And a tax cut was passed for individuals and businesses. The result has been a growing economy that has provided jobs at a faster rate than immigration, lowered unemployment, and driven up incomes naturally rather than by artificial laws.

          But the immigration and open border talks did help Hillary and Obama make deals with Russia to give them 20% of America’s uranium ore for kickbacks to the Clinton Foundation. One more example of the rich getting richer.

    2. As long as you agree that fair and just don’t mean the same to each group I’d agree completely.

      Oh, I agree with you there.

      Or as Obama’s father infamously put it… we will tax 100% and give you what you need.

      Haven’t been able to find that quote. Are you sure it’s not just more lies to smear Obama?

      Of course governments from left to right have to tax to survive, so while taxation can fit the definition of theft, all governments (excluding those with other sources of income) are guilty to some extent.

      1. The question you’re not asking Andrew is which govt. programs deserve to survive?

        Only one govt. service is essential. The one that keeps us from serving other govts.

  4. So Rand posts an article on the corruption of Obama and Clinton when they were in office, and Andrew instantly changes the subject to polarization.

    Well that’s typical.

    And it will be ignored by me.

    It was clear that many things Obama did were extra-Constitutional – in some cases he even said so himself right before he did it.

    It was also clear that the complicit MSM gave every one of them a good leaving alone.

    But now the truth – the things most of us already knew or suspected and wrote about in this blog and other places – is slowly being exposed and we are nowhere near the end of the exposure. And there will come a tipping point where not even the MSM can turn a blind eye.

    1. I think a roving college reporter should take some lines from Obama and read them to students claiming they are Trump, and watch the frothing at the mouth.

      For example, can you imagine what people would say if told Trump once said: “We are not just going to be waiting for legislation in order to make sure that we’re providing Americans the kind of help that they need. I’ve got a pen, and I’ve got a phone.” Or “[Liberal college President] and the Board of Regents will soon learn all about being audited by the IRS.”

      Those statements were made in Obama’s first term and a foreshadowing of his rule of law.

      1. Campus Reform (or whatever their name is) has done stuff like this but more of it would be great.

        Words are words though and the most important thing to look at in the Obama years were his actions. Obama gave many great speeches but in instances where he wasn’t telegraphing his corruption, he was claiming to be a person totally at odds with his actions.

  5. it sure would be nice if there were some discussion in comments about, oh, I don’t know…the actual topic of this post?

    Indeed! Squirrels are a pound of pure terror who derail threads every time they appear. This documentary discusses what to do, if you should happen to find squirrels in your internet and explores procedures for removing them:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdiXSsFp29s

  6. Are you sure it’s not just more lies to smear Obama?

    Are you serious Andrew? You believe poor Obama is being smeared? As if the plain dull facts weren’t enough?

    Tell me some lies Andrew. That should be a hoot.

      1. You’re calling me a liar Andrew?

        Google this, written by his father in 1965…

        “Theoretically,” he wrote, “there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed.”

        1. Somewhat different when the quote is presented accurately (haven’t you and I recently discussed the importance of being accurate about what people say when we quote them?)

          Of course it’s technically correct, if the people of Kenya decided to go 100% socialist they could vote in a government with that as an agenda.

          The way you presented it it sounded like it might somehow be relevant to Obama’s Presidency, said in 1965 and about Kenya makes that not the case.

        2. OK, I Googled it, the passage where I found it goes on: “Rather than offering a prescription, Obama Sr was writing both within the historical context of Kenya’s deep economic inequality and in the documentary context off sessional paper No 10. . .”

          I just might have to label you a liar Ken, but I’ll assume you were ignorant of the context.

          1. I have no reason to think not (and I don’t consider Politifact an unbiased source). Certainly Frank Marshall Davis, his greatest influence after his father left him, was, and his mother was certainly a leftist. I don’t think it necessary for someone to admit to being a communist to be a communist (as we found out in the McCarthy era).

          2. Heh, something we also found out during the McCarthy era was that someone didn’t have to actually be a communist to be accused of being a communist!

          3. I find it funny how progressives still like to talk about the McCarthy hearings as a Republican witch hunt for communists, yet now act like having a single meeting with a Russian means you’re colluding with Russia to take over the US government.

            The first time I met a Russian official was because Bill Clinton decided to scrap the Space Station Freedom project and instead collude with Russia to build a Space Station. No one cared when it was a Clinton colluding with Russians. Bill’s actions eventually lead to NASA being totally dependent on Russia to even access the Space Station.

            Ironically, it will be free market capitalist that is likely to help NASA access the Space Station without continued collusion with Russia.

            As for whether Obama was a communist or not; both he and Hillary were very supportive of what Hugo Chavez was doing to Venezuela. And whether you call Venezuela a communist or socialist nation; it still has gone from a first world country to a shithole in just a few years of Chavez’s style of government. It seems both Obama and Hillary are bad at predicting what types of governments are good for their population regardless of what name you want to call it.

  7. The way you presented it it sounded like it might somehow be relevant to Obama’s Presidency

    /sarc… of course not. It was only his father. Obama was a member of a communist organization in Chicago. Damned right it’s relevant.

    1965 is the irrelevant part. You don’t find it shocking that he proposed 100$ taxation as being viable? I didn’t when I first heard about it.

    Plus, I wasn’t quoting on my first mention and I’m not about to quote everything when you can easily look up the exact context yourself. The fact remains both are communists that believe they know what people “need.” Obama made that exact point when he said (again not quoting) that at some point people are rich enough.

    I know what he said and meant. Andrew, you can’t change that with word games.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *