Tag Archives: Democratic party

What Kind of “Popular Revolution” Is This?!, by the Saker

It’s easier to start a wildfire than it is to control or suppress it. From the Saker at unz.com:

I have to say that I am amazed that so many folks on the Left seem to think that the current riots in the US are a spontaneous rebellion against police violence, systemic racism, and history of persecution and exploitation of Blacks and Indians, etc. As for the violence, looting and riots – they are either excused as a result of some kind of righteous wrath or blamed on “infiltrators”. In my previous article I tried to show how the Democrats and the US media tried to instrumentalize these riots and to use them against Trump’s bid for reelection. I accompanied the article with a carefully staged photo-op of US Democrats “taking a knee” in solidarity (as if the leaders of the Democratic Party gave a hoot about Blacks or poor US Americans!).

What I did not mention was how the US (and even trans-national) corporate world backed these riots to the hilt. Here are just a few examples of this:

YouTube:

Amazon, Bank of America & Sephora:

And it is not only in the USA. Check out what Adidas in Germany has been up to:

Continue reading

Anonymous Berkeley Professor Shreds BLM Injustice Narrative; Berkeley Responds, by Tyler Durden

It is amazing that a professor at UC Berkeley, of all places, would release, even anonymously, a letter criticizing Black Lives Matter. From Tyler Durden at zerohedge.com:

Update (06/13/2020): U.C. Berkeley’s history department has issued a statement regarding the anonymous letter, and instead of addressing – or inviting a vigorous debate over its content, Berkeley’s response validates one of the letter’s core claims that dissent outside “a tightly policed, narrow discourse” is not welcome.

“An anonymous letter has been circulating, purportedly written by a @UCBHistory professor. We have no evidence that this letter was written by a History faculty member,” the UC Berkeley History department tweeted Friday evening,” adding “We condemn this letter: it goes against our values as a department and our commitment to equity and inclusion.”

Continue reading→

Will the Democratic Party Exist after 2020 Election, by Renée Parsons

I wouldn’t count on the Democratic Party vanishing. We should be so lucky. From Renée Parsons at off-guardian.org:

DNC Debate Oct 15 2019; Westerville, OH, USA (Meg Vogel/The Enquirer via USA TODAY NETWORK)

Even before Rep. Tulsi Gabbard threatened to boycott the October 15th Dem debate as the DNC usurps the role of voters in the Democratic primacy 2020 election and with an impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump on the table, the Swamp was stirred and its slimy muck may be about to come to the surface as never before.

If so, those revelations are long overdue.

It is no secret to the observant that since the 2016 election, the Democratic Party has been in a state of near-collapse, the victim of its own hubris, having lost their moral compass with unsubstantiated Russisgate allegations; those accusations continue as a futile exercise of domestic regime change.

Continue reading

Tulsi Nails it on National TV… US Regime-Change Wars, by Finian Cunningham

Can the Democrats squelch Tulsi Gabbard like they did Bernie Sanders in 2016? From Finian Cunningham at strategic-culture.org:

No wonder Democratic Party bosses and mainstream media are trying to bury presidential contender Tulsi Gabbard. She is the only candidate, perhaps the only politician in the US, who is telling the American public exactly what they need to know about what their government and military are really up to: fighting illegal regime-change wars, and to boot, sponsoring terrorists for that purpose.

It didn’t come much clearer nor more explicit than when Gabbard fired up the Democratic TV debate this week. It was billed as the biggest televised presidential debate ever, and the Hawaii Representative told some prime-time home-truths to the nation:

“Donald Trump has blood of the Kurds on his hands, but so do many of the politicians in our country from both parties who have supported this ongoing regime-change war in Syria that started in 2011… along with many in the mainstream media who have been championing and cheer-leading this regime-change war.”

Continue reading

Will the Clintons Destroy the Democratic Party? by Charles Hugh Smith

Just as salient as the title question, will somebody destroy the Clintons and lock them away? From Charles Hugh Smith at oftwominds.com:

History is full of ironies, and perhaps it will suit the irony gods for The Donald to take down the Republican Party and the Clinton dynasty to destroy the Democratic Party.

Let’s start by stipulating my bias: I would cheer the collapse of both self-serving, venal political parties, which have stood by for decades as the rich have become immeasurably richer and the politically powerful few have disempowered the many. The transparent “populist” bleatings of both parties–“we serve the people!”–sound increasingly like stale, pathetically disconnected from reality Soviet-era propaganda.

Let’s say I’m a relatively disinterested observer other than my fervent wish that both corrupt, self-serving parties slide into the dustbin of history, the sooner the better.

The Republicans were hijacked by Donald Trump and given a binary choice:accept Trump as their candidate and have a chance of winning, or reject him and guarantee losing. After surveying the wreckage left by the Bush dynasty and Romney’s loss, the Repubs swallowed their distrust and distaste for The Donald and chose winning over losing–the easily predictable choice for all politicos.

Continue reading

Democrats Have Become the Party of Nonwhite Immigrants and Sexual Deviants, by Paul Craig Roberts

The Democrats are catering to a diverse array of groups, but mainstream white voters isn’t one of them. From Paul Craig Roberts at paulcraigroberts.org:

In the last presidential election, the Democratic candidate for president, Hillary Clinton, dismissed the white American working class as the “Trump deplorables,” “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic – you name it.” Now Nancy Pelosi wants the House of Representatives to censure President Trump for sticking up for America and its white core population.  What more proof do we need that the Democratic Party does not represent the core population of America?

We hear a lot from Democrats about “white supremacy.”  Yet whites are the only people who are unprotected by racial quotas and preferential treatment in university admissions, hiring, and promotions.  Whites are the only people unprotected by prohibitions against hate speech.  Any hurtful thing can be said about white people—and is.  White people are the only people who can be arbitrarily fired for speaking their mind or simply stating truths that Identity Politics, or some black person, doesn’t want to hear.  

White people still have to listen to demands from blacks for reparations for slavery as if those currently alive, white and black, have had anything to do with slavery.  Indeed, scholars have concluded that as many or more white Americans alive today are descendants of white slaves as blacks are of black slaves.  What about reparations for descendants of white slaves?

In those long ago times, slavery was a fact of life, not something that white people did to black people.  As I have pointed out on many occasions, the supply of black slaves in the New World originated in the black Kingdom of Dahomey which sold black captives from the black king’s slave wars first to Arabs and then to Europeans.

Continue reading

ACLU’s Opposition to Kavanaugh Sounds Its Death Knell, by Alan M. Dershowitz

The ACLU could plausibly have opposed Brett Kavanaugh on the grounds that he’s weak on civil liberties. Instead, it argued that the presumption of innocence should be thrown out, Ford believed, and Kavanaugh rejected. From Alan M. Dershowitz at gatestoneinstitute.org:

  • So why did the American Civil Liberties Union oppose a Republican nominee to the Supreme Court and argue for a presumption of guilt regarding sexual allegations directed against that judicial nominee? The answer is as clear as it is simple. It is all about pleasing the donors. The ACLU used to be cash poor but principle-rich. Now, ironically, after Trump taking office, the ACLU has never become so cash-rich, yet principle-poor.
  • The problem is that most of the money is not coming from civil libertarians who care about free speech, due process, the rights of the accused and defending the unpopular. It is coming from radical leftists in Hollywood, Silicon Valley and other areas not known for a deep commitment to civil liberties.
  • The old ACLU would never have been silent when Michael Cohen’s office was raided by the FBI and his clients’ files seized; it would have yelled foul when students accused of sexual misconduct were tried by kangaroo courts; and it surely would have argued against a presumption of guilt regarding sexual allegations directed against a judicial nominee.
  • When the ACLU’s national political director and former Democratic Party operative Faiz Shakir was asked why the ACLU got involved in the Kavanaugh confirmation fight, he freely admitted, “People have funded us and I think they expect a return.”
President Trump greeting Brett Kavanaugh and his family. Why did the American Civil Liberties Union oppose a Republican nominee to the Supreme Court and argue for a presumption of guilt regarding sexual allegations directed against him? (Photo: Wikimedia Commons)

Now that Brett Kavanaugh has been confirmed, it is appropriate to look at the damage caused by the highly partisan confirmation process. Among the casualties has been an organization I have long admired.

Continue reading

The untold truth about Obama’s former CIA director, John Brennan, by Richard Galustian

When John Brennan departs this vale of tears, as a loyal lackey of the Deep State but an incompetent intelligence agent, will he get as big a send-off as John McCain? Probably not, but will still be undoubtedly impressive. From Richard Galustian at theduran.com:

Let’s get something clear from the start. In 1976, in his 20s, John Brennan was a card carrying communist who supported the then Soviet Union, at the height some might say of the Cold War, so much so he voted and assisted Gus Hall, the communist candidate for President against a devout Christian, Jimmy Carter who ultimately won the Presidency.

Yet under four years later, just after the then Soviet Union invaded, just weeks before, Afghanistan and months after the tumultuous Iranian revolution of 1979, which at the time many thought the Soviet Union had a hand in, Brennan was accepted into the CIA as a junior analyst.

At that time, John Brennan should have never got into the CIA, or any Western Intelligence agency given his communist background.

Think on that carefully as you continue to read this.

Also reflect on the fact that Brennan, later in his CIA career, was surprisingly elevated from junior analyst to the prestigious position of Station Chief in Saudi Arabia where he spent a few years.

Continue reading

Don’t Cry for Me, Rachel Maddow, by Howard Kunstler

The hypocrisy surrounding detained immigrant children is so thick you can cut it with blunt knife. From Howard Kunstler at kunstler.com:

The latest artificial hysteria cranked up by the Offendedness Cartel — re: detention of juvenile illegal immigrants — is the most nakedly sentimental appeal yet by the party out-of-power, a.k.a. “the Resistance.” I have a solution: instead of holding these children in some sort of jail-like facility until their identity can be sorted out, just give each one of them an honorary masters degree in Diversity Studies from Harvard and let them, for God’s sake, go free in the world’s greatest job market. Before you know it, we’ll have the next generation of Diversity and Inclusion deans, and America will be safe from racism, sexism, and Hispanophobia.

I won’t waste more than this sentence in arguing that official policy for the treatment of juvenile illegal immigrants is exactly what it was under Mr. Obama, and Mr. Bush before him. I didn’t hear Paul Krugman of The New York Times hollering about the various federal agencies acting “like Nazis” back in 2014, or 2006. You’d think that ICE officers were taking these kids out behind the dumpster and shooting them in the head. No, actually, the kids are watching Marvel Comics movies, playing video games, or soccer, and getting three square meals a day while the immigration officials try to figure out who their parents are, or how to repatriate them to their countries-of-origin if they came here without any parents — say, with the assistance of the Sinaloa Drug Cartel. By the way, these make up the majority of kids detained in the latest wave of mass border crossings.

Actual political leadership among “the Resistance” is AWOL this week. Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer failed to offer up any alternative legislative plan for sorting out these children differently. One can infer in the political chatter emanating from the Offendedness Cartel that immigration law is ipso-facto cruel and inhuman and that the “solution” is an open border. In theory, this might play to the Democratic Party’s effort to win future elections by enlisting an ever-growing voter base of Mexican and Central American newcomers. But it assumes that somehow these newcomers get to become citizens, with the right to vote in US elections — normally an arduous process requiring an application and patience — but that, too, is apparently up for debate, especially in California, where lawmakers are eager to enfranchise anyone with a pulse who is actually there, citizen or not.

To continue reading: Don’t Cry for Me, Rachel Maddow

The Swamp Strikes Back, by J. Christian Adams

Mueller and team could find Russian collusion in the 2016 election, but they’d have to investigate the Clinton campaign. From J. Christian Adams at gatestoneinstitute.org:

  • The culture of the D.C. metropolitan area is one of wealth, privilege and self-proclaimed sophistication. The bureaucrats and insiders know what is best for you, best for your business, best for themselves, and they can make a nice living without being disrupted. Trump campaigned on disrupting this comfortable power perch; that is what they most hate about him.
  • The Russian collusion investigation has not found any collusion because the investigation was never about collusion. It was always about an out-of-control federal government, emboldened by the lawless age of Obama, and flexing its newfound muscle. The Russian collusion investigation is about a clash of cultures, with one culture being the culture of D.C. insiders, and the other being the folks who pay their salaries.

Each week, Robert Mueller’s Wonderlandian investigation into “Russian Collusion” appears “curiouser and curiouser”. Each week, it appears that the entire investigation never really had anything to do with Russian collusion, at least in the Trump campaign; only in the Hillary Clinton campaign, where all the investigators have been conscientiously not looking.

First, Mueller indicted General Michael Flynn for not telling the truth to an FBI squad that appeared unexpectedly at the White House to question him, when now it turns out that Peter Strzok, who interrogated him, said he had not lied. It also now turns out that former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe may later have altered Strzok’s interrogation notes, and then destroyed the evidence.

Mueller then indicted Paul Manafort for allegedly laundering money through an Alexandria, Virginia, oriental rug store — a “process crime”. Notably absent from it in any indictment was mention of Russia, collusion or even elections.

To continue reading: The Swamp Strikes Back

%d bloggers like this: