Tag Archives: Democratic Party

Democrats: A Party of Clowns

Our Founding Fathers would surely cringe in supreme embarrassment at the sight of a “president” and a political party sucking up to comics and “entertainers” clowns and jesters in a desperate bid to revive their plummeting fortunes.
H/t my friend Bob W.
~Eowyn
Jon Stewart’s Comic Relief 2010
By George NeumayrAmerican Spectator – October 28, 2010 
Once upon a time jesters courted kings. Now enfeebled kings court jesters. Panting after the approval of the smug comedian Jon “Stewart,” Barack Obama taped an interview for The Daily Show on Wednesday.
The smirking jester is also scheduled to hold a kind of charity benefit for his sickly king this weekend, a Comic Relief 2010 called The Rally to Restore Sanity. Obama and the Dems are suffering from a debilitating political disease, but Jon, Whoopi, Robin and Joy, among other celebrity jesters, stand ready to help them in their affliction.
No cure appears likely, though. Comic Relief 2010 may raise a little money and get some college students to the polls, but it is surely too little too late. As many dismayed Democratic strategists even suspect, Obama’s ill-advised Daily Show appearance is a harbinger of defeat.
It is reminiscent of John McCain’s odd decision to host Saturday Night Live shortly before election day in 2008. McCain’s campaign started as a joke and ended as one, with McCain fishing for laughs off SNL parodies that were predicated upon his imminent defeat.
At a time of high unemployment, Obama is content to play the empty celebrity, appearing on shows as shallow as his policies and delivering trendy messages about the latest anxiety of the coastal elite — the “gay teen suicide epidemic.”
“Can The Comedian Save The Vote?” asks Matt Drudge of Stewart. No, this jester can’t save his king. Still, Stewart is feeling his oats, basking in near-universal approval from the liberal elite. They can’t get enough of him and live in dread fear of losing his approval. A desperately contrite Rick Sanchez, so grateful to Stewart for taking a reconciliation phone call from him after his firing, pronounced the comedian the “classiest” guy in the world.
While Stewart engages in a lot of cutesy mugging and seemingly self-deprecating humor about such accolades, he takes himself very seriously indeed. His own liberal assumptions are exempt from mocking, and he claims to be deeply pained by “phoniness” at the highest levels of society. Yet somehow this concern about phoniness doesn’t extend to something as basic as his own name, which is not Jon Stewart but Jon Leibowitz, or his own role in high society. The self-proclaimed puncturer of all things phony has a phony name, and the jester has no intention of dropping his mask or reforming his juvenile ways.
The most respected liberal in America, according to one recent poll, throws his spit balls, then makes sure to hide in the bushes. On Crossfire several years back, he made it clear that he thinks others — but not he — are “hurting” society.
A cocky celebrity wanting it both ways is hardly news, but it is notable that the Democratic Party is now led in large part by comics. Stephen Colbert testified before Pelosi’s Congress as an honored guest; SNL alumnus Al Franken sits in the Senate; comedienne Joy Behar vets presidential candidates on The View; and Bill Maher is treated like Mark Twain.
Had Joy Behar lived a century ago, she would have been a lewd barmaid somewhere. Now she is an important Democratic “opinionmaker,” browbeating this or that public figure. She stomped off the set in an elephantine huff the other week after Bill O’Reilly failed to pay sufficient homage to Islam. But this week the defender of religions of peace cast Sharron Angle into the fires of “hell” and called her a “bitch.”
One wonders how long Behar would avoid a stoning if she ever talked like that in Saudi Arabia. The ladies of The View are lucky the show is not shot in Riyadh.
Liberalism, perhaps under the influence of its foul-mouthed jesters, has suspended some of its old sensitivities, as its practitioners call Meg Whitman a “whore” (an honorable if insufficiently regulated line of work from liberalism’s point of view), Angle a “bitch,” and everyone from Juan Williams to Christine O’Donnell “crazy.” Is that any way for liberals to talk about the mentally ill? And who knew that New Age NPR executives used “feelings” and “psychiatrist” so easily in punchlines?
Obama himself, trying hard to impress Jay Leno early in his term, used the “Special Olympics” as a punchline during that late-night appearance. But it is his administration and party which look increasingly lame and laughable as they court comics.
George Neumayr is editor of Catholic World Report and press critic for California Political Review.

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0
 

Obama on Anti-Depressants

Ulsterman of News Flavor recently had another conversation with the anonymous “White House insider” whom Fellowship of the Minds calls DeepThroat2 (DT2). See Ulsterman’s previous interview with DT2 HERE.
According to DT2, Obama is battling severe depression and is on anti-depressant meds. Obama is also very angry and smoking more than a pack of ciggies a day — all signs of a man who’s very stressed but who remains in denial that he himself is the source of the problem. 
This is consistent with the syndrome of pathological narcissism. When a narcissist finds the world no longer conforming to his grandiose view of himself, and other people have become critical instead of adoring, he typically falls into a severe depression. Most narcissists eventually come out of their depression cockier than ever, with a redoubled grandiosity instead of humility.
For a narcissist to really change requires that he shed his grandiose self-conception and look at himself honestly. In short, a narcissist must stop being a narcissist. But the very nature of pathological narcissism prevents narcissists from admitting they have a problem and to seek professional help. As psychiatrist M. Scott Peck explains, “To receive treatment one must want it, at least on some level. And to want it one must consider oneself to be in need of it. One must, at least on some level, acknowledge his or her imperfection.” But imperfection is something to which the narcissist, by the very nature of his disorder, will not and cannot admit. That is why psychiatrists say pathological narcissism is one of the most difficult-to-treat conditions in the lexicon of mental illness. [Read more about pathological narcissism HERE.]
~Eowyn

Design by bkeyser: https://www.cafepress.com/RTKArtistry


The following Qs & As are compiled from Ulsterman’s article of September 27, 2010:
Q: So you state that President Obama is depressed?  How did you come by this information?
DT2: From a direct source still working within the White House on a daily basis. As I had stated previously, tensions at the White House have reached a critical stage. The infighting among staff is off the charts. More recently, the president has increasingly withdrawn emotionally from the day to day demands of his job – he has become what was described to me as “empty”.
Q: Do you mean to say the president is not doing his job?
DT2: Not exactly. He is there, he is getting briefed throughout the day, but President Obama appears to have emotionally shut down, not entirely mind you, but a great deal. It has worsened since I was last there. His natural detachment has become almost chronic to the point of being disconcerting to staff around him. It appears President Obama is suffering from severe depression.
Q: And why do you think this is happening?
DT2: Well for one, he was completely unprepared for the job of being President of the United States. The demands on one’s time, the emotional and physical toll, are considerable. Second, the failure of the administration to effectively communicate to the American people. You have to understand that Obama believed that his ability to orate would be enough – that is proving to have been a considerable mistake on Obama’s part, and he is not dealing particularly well with that reality.
Q: why…should your opinion on the condition of President Obama be viewed as legitimate?
DT2:  I certainly understand a healthy dose of scepticism. I still wish to remain anonymous, and for those still supporting the president, I would understand how they would wish to dismiss any reports that diminish President Obama in any way. The fact remains though, I know what I know. And I know what I have been told by very reliable sources still at the White House. There are staff increasingly dissatisfied with this president. When that happens, word starts to get out.
I would also add what you well know. I have been quite accurate on my previous discussions with you. I indicated there would be a mass exodus of staff from the White House days and even weeks prior to those leaving became public. Larry, David, Rahm, and more have or are in the process of leaving. Your readers need only check the dates of when you published with the public announcements of those departures to confirm that fact. I have been very truthful. I indicated Pelosi was under intense pressure and challenge from within her own party. That has also proven to be accurate.  What I have told you to date has been the very thing that has developed surrounding the White House – and what I am telling you now is also just as accurate.
[…] call this process a test balloon, the kind that is often run up in politics. We are gauging the reaction by those within the party, as well as critical supporters outside the party. In essence – can we count on Obama for 2012?  We are conceding November 2010. We are about to get our asses kicked. Ok, so be it – let’s get our –expletive- together for 2012. The most critical component of that of course, is Barack Obama. Will he hold up? Can he prove as effective a candidate for 2012 as he was in 2008?Q: So just how bad is the president’s depression?
DT2: It is my understanding it is pretty bad.
Q: Is he being treated?
DT2: You will need to be more specific, do you mean by a doctor?
Q: What I mean specifically is medication. Is the president receiving medication for his depression?  (Long pause)
DT2: I believe…yes, I believe he is. I believe he has been for some time actually. As to something more specific, I do not know. Nor do I care to say.
Q: Just to confirm then – it is your belief that President Obama is on anti-depression medication?
DT2: Yes – that is what I just told you.
Q: Smoking? The president is still smoking then?
DT2: Yeah – I thought that was pretty common knowledge. Yeah, the president is still smoking. The problem is, he’s apparently smoking a great deal, and for a man approaching his 50th year, having smoked for so long, that cannot be a good thing.  I’ll put it this way – the smoking is considerable enough that it has become an issue.
Q: An issue?  Who has the issue specifically?
DT2: I would assume his family.  I know the White House – his staff. Certainly his doctors. They have noted the increase in his smoking over the last year. It has apparently alarmed some of them considerably.
Q: So what are we talking about here? More than a pack a day?
DT2: Oh yeah, more than that. The guy is under a lot of stress, that is no secret….
Q: So how would you describe the overall mood of the White House these days?
DT2: Troubled. Concerned. Uncertain.  And angry. A lot of anger.
Q: And what about the mood of the president himself?
DT2: The same.
Q: You have been kind enough to leave our readers with a tidbit of information to further prove the validity of your claims. What can you leave us with this time regarding what is coming from the White House or the Democratic Party that has not yet been picked up by the mainstream media?
DT2: Just prior to the midterm elections, a significant figure within the party is going to break out and talk publicly to the media about much of what has and is going on both at the White House and Congress. We need to have a bit of a cleansing process as a party, and this individual is now willing to do just that. It may actually be more than one. From there we can start the process of rebuilding and recovery. It will be much the same as we did back in 1994. That playbook is still as legitimate today as it was then. Don’t count out the Democratic Party – we will be back, and back in a big way, and I still believe back in time for 2012.
To read the interview for yourself, GO HERE.

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0
 

Obama Presidency & Democrats In Crisis, Says DeepThroat2

A longtime Washington D.C. insider and former advisor to the Obama election campaign and transition team — obviously a big honcho in the Democratic Party — gave a series of interviews to Ulsterman of News Flavor. The informant is anonymous, so let’s call him or her “DeepThroat2.”

DeepThroat2 paints a picture of an administration in crisis, a president increasingly withdrawn from the job of President, and disenchantment and near-rebellion within the national Democratic Party about Obama. Other stunning revelations:

  • Neither Obama nor the Congressional Democrats actually read the health care Obamacare bill before they approved it and The Fraud signed it into law. Not only did they not read it, the White House staff think it’s funny that Obama had not read it.
  • If Obama doesn’t “shape up,” the Democratic Party will look to someone else for 2012, probably Hillary.
  • No matter what the electoral outcome of November 2, Nancy Pelosi must go. She’s “political poison.”

Below are excerpts of what DeepThroat2 told the reporter in those interviews.

A big h/t to beloved fellow Dave in Atlanta

~Eowyn

We have a solution for the Democratic Party!

White House Insider: What The Hell Have We Done?

by Ulsterman – News Flavor – September 18, 2010

“I have been at the White House during this and other administrations, done meetings both formal and informal, and talked regularly to White Housers over the last two years who enjoy top level access.  That is a big thing – access.  I could get at it, but let me tell you, the feedback I got, and the things I saw with my own eyes and heard with my own ears, it was a terrible letdown.  This is not 2008 anymore, not by a long shot.”

We were led to believe this man was one thing, but everything I have seen, heard, and understand, points to the indisputable fact he is not what we hoped for. Not what we were promised. Maybe he might have been. Maybe a full term or two in the Senate and he would have had the experience and maturity to handle the job of President of the United States.  But right now – the man is simply not up to the task, and yet it is loyal Democrats who are paying the price for his incompetence and incoherence.  The health care bill?  Do you know I was told he has never read the bill?  Not one part of it?  NOT ONE.  Sounds like something you would hear on one of the talk radio shows, right?  And I wouldn’t normally consider such a possibility, but this came directly from one of those good Democrats who might now see their political careers ended because they supported that bill and now its being used against them like some political sledgehammer.  How is that supposed to make someone who put their career on the line feel?  Betrayed.  A whole lot of us are feeling betrayed these days and it just pisses me off.”

“They [Democratic Congressmen/women] were asked one question – did they read the bill?  This Congressperson admitted they hadn’t.  Like a lot of them, they had voted for it, but hadn’t read it.  That was a mistake, sure, but the thing is over 2000 pages, right? Well, after admitting they didn’t read the bill they are told in a laughing way mind you, “That’s ok – neither has the president, so you can’t expect him to take on a bunch of town meetings on it, right?”  So that was it.  Nice, huh?  Bye-bye, thanks for playing, and good luck with the -explitive- storm coming your way this summer.”

“I followed up with this story with someone in the White House.  Guess what? The president was briefed on the [health care] bill – he never read it – it was a damn running joke among all of them!” 

“There were some who voiced concerns.  Some who pushed for a more clear economic agenda.  Apparently Obama wanted none of it – he was obsessed, absolutely obsessed with getting some kind of healthcare legislation.  And the ones who did voice concerns…they are, or will be, among the first to go.  And it’s coming sooner rather than later.”

Democrats need to rise up within the party and say enough is enough. We have allowed ourselves to be carried far too far to the left of the mainstream. You know what word I cannot stand? Progressive. Enough with this “progressive” crap.  Shut up about it.  We are Democrats. Anyone who wants to call themselves a Progressive I say show them the door – they are doing nothing but killing the Democratic Party. And regardless of whether or not we survive the November midterms with a majority, Nancy Pelosi must step down or be removed as Speaker.  That is an absolute must – I cannot emphasize that point enough.  She is political poison on the national level.  Second, President Obama must fully engage himself with the requirements of the job.  He must surround himself with people who understand the tone and temperament of the country because he clearly does not.  And if he can’t or won’t do this, he needs to not run for reelection in 2012.”

“…if he [Obama] does not fully engage in the job of president.  If he does not even begin to live up to his own potential…Democrats  must take measures to provide an alternative in 2012. The country simply cannot afford another second Obama term like these first two years.  It is simply too difficult a time for America to have the Democratic Party act so irresponsibly.” 

“My ties to the 2008 Obama campaign feel more and more these days  like a dishonorable victory.”

“All kinds of news is going to be coming surrounding the Obama White House and the Democrat leadership.  Watch for Pelosi in particular.  That will be the key when you know the door is getting kicked open and the truth of just how chaotic things have become gets out into the open.  I will say it again – Pelosi is the key.  It is going to be ugly for Democrats, but people need to keep the faith.  The party will emerge from this – and hopefully in time for 2012.” 

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0
 

Hawaii Democratic Party Did Not Certify Obama's Eligibility

In the United States, to become a party’s (e.g., the Democratic Party) presidential candidate, one must go through the following:

  • Step 1: Receive the votes of the majority of party delegates from the 50 states.
  • Step 2: The delegates’ votes are tallied and certified at the party’s national convention.
  • Step 3: Each state’s party must certify that the candidate is constitutionally eligible to be President of the United States of America.
  • Step 4: After the parties of all 50 states produced their Certificates of Nomination, the Chair of the National Party Convention also signs off certifying that the nominee indeed is constitutionally eligible.

Needless to say, fraud can be committed at each step of the process.
In the last couple of days, the blogosphere is abuzz with the claim that in 2008, the Democratic Party of Hawaii — Obama’s putative birth state — had refused to certify that he was constitutionally eligible for the presidency. As an example, on September 15, the website Obama Release Your Records said outright that “The State Democratic Party of Hawaii would not certify in 2008 that Obama was constitutionally and legally eligible for the Office of President,” citing a Butterdezillion blog post of September 10, which says:

“…somebody claiming to represent the DNC stated on a discussion board that the DNC relies on the state parties to verify Constitutional eligibility for candidates, so the oath by Pelosi and Germond would just confirm that the state democratic parties had confirmed the Constitutional eligibility of the candidates. But this is where the argument totally falls apart, because the Hawaii Democratic Party actually ignored their protocols in 2008 in order to specifically NOT certify Obama’s eligibility as they had done for candidates in the past. IOW, if Pelosi based her decision to certify on whether the state party would confirm eligibility, then she had a duty to NOT certify Obama’s eligibility, because the democratic party of the state supposedly holding Obama’s birth certificate REFUSED TO CERTIFY Obama’s eligibility.” 

I looked into these claims, specifically the primary source documents of Hawaii Democratic Party Certifications of Nomination for Presidential Candidates in 2000, 2004, and 2008. This is what I found.
In 2000 and 2004, the Democratic Party of Hawaii’s official Certifications of Nomination for Al Gore and Joe Lieberman (2000) and John Kerry and John Edwards (2004) both had the following identical language:

This is to certify that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution and are the duly chosen candidates of both the state and the national Democratic Parties by balloting at the Presidential Preference Poll and Caucus held _____ in the State of Hawaii and by acclamation at the National Democratic Convention held ______ in _______.

In 2008, the Democratic Party of Hawaii’s official Certification of Nomination for Barack Obama and Joe Biden carried this language:

This is to certify that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the national Democratic Parties balloting at the Presidential Preferences Poll and Caucus held on February 19, 2008 in the State of Hawaii and by acclamation at the National Democratic Convention held August 27, 2008 in Denver, Colorado.

What the Democratic Party of Hawaii’s 2008 Certification of Nomination left out are these words:

“of the United States Constitution and are the duly chosen candidates of both the state and”

In other words, by omitting the above words, the Democratic Party of Hawaii (DPH) was signalling the following:

  1. DPH is merely certifying that Obama is legally qualified to serve as President by virtue of the ballots of the Democratic Parties of the 50 states. The DPH is not certifying that Obama is legally qualified to serve as President  under the provisions of the U.S. Constitution!
  2. The DPH is also saying that Obama and Biden are NOT the chosen candidates of the state of Hawaii.

Why are we finding out about this only now, 20 months into the Obama presidency? More importantly, what can be done about this?
 According to the Cyclopedia of Law and Procedure, vol. 15 (NY: American Law Book Company, 1905), pp. 338-339:

When the authority to make a nomination is legally challenged by objections filed to the certificate of nomination, and violation or disregard of the party rules is alleged, the court must hear the facts and determine the question.

Before we break out the party noisemakers, here’s some sobering information from p. 339 of the same Cyclopedia of Law and Procedure concerning who can object and the time period for making an objection:

One who is not a member of the party making nominations cannot object to the regularity of the proceedings resulting in the nomination.
It is usually provided by statute that objections to nomination papers shall be made within a designated time after such papers are filed, or within a certain number of days before election. And, after the time for filing objections has passed, in the absence of fraud a certificate of nomination to which no objections were filed and which is regular in form cannot be attacked. At all events such objection should be made before the election, for if not so made the legal authority of a convention will in the absence of fraud be conclusively presumed.

My conclusion:

By omitting certain words in its 2008 Certificate of Nomination — words that were included in its 2004 and 2000 Certificates of Nomination — the Democratic Party of Hawaii was signalling that (a) Obama was not constitutionally qualified to be President; and (b) his nomination does not have the State of Hawaii’s approval and consent.
We conservative bloggers and citizens can scream at the top of our lungs. But only a member or members of the Democratic Party can object to irregularities in the Democratic Party’s certifying of Obama. Happily, Cyclopedia of Law and Procedure also says on page 339 that filing an objection is simple:

“Service of a copy of the written objections to the certificate of nomination of a candidate whose nomination is attacked is sufficient notice.”

Is there a registered Democrat with a conscience out there? Hello? We only need one to step forth….
UPDATE (9/22/10): Please see a proposed action plan for patriots, What Is To Be Done.”
~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0