UPDATE – Hillary Campaign and DNC emails substantiate the video. Bob Creamer is shown in multiple DNC emails about events where they are sending agitators:
Legendary undercover journalist James O’Keefe strikes again. This time inside the workings of the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Campaign.
In the video you see top DNC operatives like Scott Foval, Deputy Director of People for the American Way, a DNC think tank, and Bob Creamer, husband of Congressman Jan Schakowsky (D-ILL).
As you can see top DNC staffers hire violent agitators, they use pressure groups to coordinate illegally between Hillary’s Campaign, SuperPAC’s and the DNC. They also say in the video that people from Iowa and Wisconsin are “Racist as f^ck.”
Not only were they paid to start violence at Trump events, but were paid to act as if they were there on behalf of Bernie Sanders.
Newt Gingrich points out that political violence is a federal crime. Where is the FBI?
The bias of Raddatz is as clear as it could be. As you can see that several times when he gets into the Clinton scandals revealed by her own emails recently released by WikiLeaks she tries to interrupt Speaker Gingrich.
This is a must see. Uninformed people might see Donald Trump on NBC and think he is a buffoon, forgetting that it is just an entertainment show. Those of us who have read his books know that he is brilliant and a visionary who is focused on results.
You will be very pleased with how clear thinking Donald Trump is:
Wow! Newt Gingrich on Obama’s pathological inability to deal with reality “We have an elite who is unwilling to tell the truth”:
Here is Sarah Palin who was on point and quite clever. Her theme – Go on the offense:
I am sure readers have heard by now that Mitt Romney is blaming the 47% who is “on the take” and “isn’t paying taxes”.
Political Arena contributor Warren Roche put together this brilliant and entertaining montage, “Where is the love?”:
While it was impolitic for Mitt to include veterans and retirees in that number there is some truth to it, but in saying it they way he did left him open to be demagogued and attacked as hating retires, the disabled and veterans.
How many times will Republicans get whacked in the “battle of the narratives” before they learn? Or is the current crew in charge so used to fooling themselves that they have to be swept out for the party to have a chance in future elections?
At least some people get it:
I just think it’s nuts. First of all it is insulting. It is like WalMart after a bad week saying “The customers are being unruly”. – Newt Gingrich
“You have a political problem when the voters don’t like you, but you have a real problem when the voters feel like you don’t like them”. – George Will
Governor Bobby Jindal:
Yours truly had this to say a few days ago in Facebook Notes:
Much of the blue collar in this country used to be solidly in the Republican corner, but they feel like they have been lied to and taken for granted. Since the 2003 Bush tax cuts there have been ZERO domestic policy victories for this group of voters. That is why they are disillusioned and believe that no matter who they vote for government will just gets bigger, the economy will just get smaller while jobs dry up and flee the country. They feel squeezed and while they know that the Democrats are bad, they no longer have confidence in the Republican party. That is why these voters are staying home.
What isn’t helping is Republicans with an entitlement mentality who actually have the nerve to believe that just because the Democrat in power is a failed neo-Marxist Saul Alinsky radical that the man they cram down our throats is entitled to the blue collar conservative vote, and when they don’t get it they call them imbeciles.
Texas Senator Ted Cruz gets it as well and comments on why so many blue collar Republicans stayed home again:
Complete transcript fact-check of the debate – LINK
Frank Luntz Reaction From Undecided Voters Immediately After Final Presidential Debate – LINK
Hi all. I live blogged it while I was listening to it on the radio. I will outline my thoughts and clean it up later as I am dead tired.
I had three initial observations.
1- Obama is trying to posture Romney by talking down to him.
2- On some issues such as Egypt and the Muslim Brotherhood neither of them is willing to say what needs to be said about the leadership and our strategy there. It is the elephant in the room that they are both dancing around.
3 – Obama’s strategy is smart as a matter of rhetoric: Find every slight inconsistency in every statement Romney has ever made on these issues over the last few years and make a mountain out of it…. thus distracting people from the “its because of the video” lie and other lies coming from this administration (like fast and furious and other issues). Of course as time goes on the situation on the ground changes and thus what Obama’s critics say will change in light of that…. so 100% statement consistency over the course of several years would show foolishness and Romney should have said so.
Romney was smart to ding Obama on skipping Israel on his apology tour. Obama, responds by talking about about what he did much later, not even addressing the apology tour. Of course what he did much later doesn’t help the bad message that Obama sent when he did that as it set an attitude that shaped what has happened in the middle east since. I think that to the uninformed Obama won. Obama’s narrative on the middle east was such utter nonsense and so easily demonstrated so and Romney really failed to capitalize on that. I think that Romney went in with a strategy of being agreeable and safe, but is THAT the kind of leadership we are looking for?
And Obama takes credit for the Iron Dome missile defense shield in Israel when he and his party opposed this technology from minute one?
On Mubarak and Egypt:
Leave him there or side with him? First of all let’s be clear, the people especially women and Christians were better under Mubarak. Muslim Brotherhood is seeking out political enemies and crucifying them, using armored vehicles against Christians etc.
When we worked with Britain and The Vatican to undermine the communists in Eastern Europe we cultivated that resistance over the course of years. We knew who they are and we were ready for the big push when the time came.
But in the so called “Arab Spring” we didn’t know who we are helping and the Muslim Brotherhood played the State Department and the White House like a Stradivarius.
And after it became obvious that we were helping the bad guys who were talking peace and democracy and never meant it this White House was committed and wouldn’t change course…probably for political reasons…or worse.
Obama worked to set up a narrative or vision of his policy in the middle east, of course it was wishful thinking and a total coverup of the evils that are going on there as perpetrated by the Muslim Brotherhood whom Obama helped bring to power. Romney was weaker on the battle of the narratives. I sorta wish we had Newt tonight because this would have been such a one sided blowout if he was there.
Also, foreign policy debates like this require boldness and the ability to construct/deconstruct a narrative expertly. What if you face a situation like the old Iran/Iraq war when it served global interests to make sure that neither side won that war? Or what if you have the Muslim Brotherhood/Al-Qaeda vs Assad in Syria and a “bait & bleed” strategy serves interests best? Sometimes there are no good answers and the options are “terrible and “more terrible”.
Mitt had a few good moments, but not enough to warrant a sweeping win:
Obama’s crack “The Cold War is Over” may sound cute, but someone forgot to tell Putin
On a side note – I am watching a video of Sarah Palin’s post debate analysis and she has this thing nailed pretty well. I want to know who is advising her because she has been hitting home-runs for about the last 20 months on this stuff.
My worst fear with Mitt Romney is that he may have failed into the Bill Kristol/State Department false narrative which I wrote about HERE:
There are/were many in the State Department, elite media and some in the Republican Party who have totally bought into the propaganda from the Muslim Brotherhood–that they want peace, free elections, and so forth–when anyone who studies their history going back to WWII knows very well what their agenda is. Bill Kristol from the Weekly Standard, as well as some on the famed internet Republican Security Council, fell for the “Arab Spring” false narrative. How quickly we forget history. The Mullah’s in Iran spoke to the Carter Administration about freedom, democracy and social justice; look at what they did as soon as they got into power. The same goes for what happened in Lebanon, and then Gaza when they had elections. Now look at the disaster that is Egypt and Libya, and yet some Republicans continue to say we should help Syrian rebels with arms, which would essentially be handing Syria as well to the Muslim Brotherhood/Al-Qaeda.
Republicans would love to see a genuine democratic, pro-western revolution in the Muslim world as we had in Eastern Europe, but today many forget that it took years of cooperation between Reagan, Thatcher, and the Vatican to cultivate pro-western forces and influences in secret right under the communist’s nose. We were ready to come in with monetary, logistical and other support when those forces made a major push. We knew very well who it was we were supporting, and we had an overall strategic concept in mind. Many Republicans jumped on the Arab Spring bandwagon because they bought the pie in the sky narrative from the State Department and they really wanted to believe it. Why? Because the false narrative targeted the freedom loving sensitivities of most Republicans perfectly. In short, they selected tidbits of truth, omitted others, and made a false reality that fit ever so perfectly into an ideological box.
I am concerned because Dan Senor is Mitt Romney’s chief foreign policy adviser and Kristol is one of Senor’s mentors, but that is as far as I can go with my concern’s with Senor because the sins of the mentor do not necessarily fall on the student and I have no idea what Senor is telling Romney. In my opinion, based on what I saw tonight, it is clear that Niall Ferguson has a much more objective and more intelligent view on middle east policy.
Here is a fact check of the debate from Chris Wallace:
Let us be clear. Huma Abadin is not under allegation. Her brother is a big shot in the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood (her mother is also a prominent figure) and has stated that the pyramids and such in Egypt should be blown up because they are idols and he says that all Christians are mentally ill – LINK [Note – the source for this is Walid Shoebat who is an Arab Palestinian so claims that this is some sort of racist play is nonsense – Editor]. The Muslim Brotherhood wants Sharia Law through any means, be it an election, or take over by force in Jihad. They say so when speaking in their native language, but in English they talk about peace, love and social justice.
Why does it matter who her brother is? Because, according to security regulations which have been in place for decades, if you have had contact with an enemy or sworn enemy of an ally your security clearance is limited. The greater the contact the greater the limits. For national security reasons conflicts of interests have to be nipped in the bud. The question is, and this is just one question asked, why was she not properly vetted?
By the way, notice how agitated and hostile the clearly biased reporter from Politico is. This is just a single example of many why Politico has not well respected as a news organization.
Andrew C. McCarthy has two very informative articles on this issue that should be read before anyone can have a truly informed opinion on this issue:
Questions about Huma Abedin: A State Department adviser has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood – LINK
Huma Abedin’s Muslim Brotherhood Ties: Michele Bachmann has every right to ask questions – LINK
Note: Frank Gaffney and John Bolton also agree – LINK and the Center for Security Policy has a piece on this issue HERE.
“I guarantee you if Santorum was considered a threat, they’d be pulling out quotes from him and twisting them and turning them, and turning him into a pretzel, too. If they thought Ron Paul was a threat … they’d be turning him into a pretzel, too. Romney pulled the same thing with Fred Thompson.
He pulled the same thing with Rudy Giuliani. Ladies and gentlemen, if you are conservative, if you are tea party activists, you’ve got to step back and say, ‘What the hell is going on here?’ All these commercials aimed at destroying opponents, not in communicating facts, not in advancing our principles, not focused on Obama, who’s the problem, but turning people into monsters.”
Zeke Miller had this chart up on BuzzFeed last night outlining television spending by super PACs supporting the four remaining Republican candidates for president. Romney’s spending advantage is no secret, but at a glance like this, it is pretty jarring.
In Mississippi Newt Gingrich is holding on to a slight lead with 33% to 31% for Mitt Romney, 27% for Rick Santorum, and 7% for Ron Paul…
In Mississippi Gingrich’s net favorability is +33 (62/29) to +32 for Santorum (60/28) and +10 for Romney (51/41)…
In Mississippi 44% of voters describe themselves as ‘very conservative’ and Romney’s getting only 26% with them. But he’s still in the mix because Gingrich leads Santorum only 35-32 with them…
In Mississippi folks who’ve decided in the last few days go for Gingrich over Santorum 37-29 with Romney at only 15%.
The Mississippi presidential primary will be held tomorrow, Tuesday March 13.
I have mixed views about the idea of pulling out of Afghanistan’ but I believe that the facts are in Newt’s favor. I do not like the idea of leaving the Afghans, especially the women, to the hands of a never ending stream of Taliban coming from Pakistan. I like the idea that many tens of thousands of jihadists go to Afghanistan to get themselves killed fighting our military. However there is almost no chance that the larger strategic goals in the area will ever be achieved. The culture is too backwards and tribal.
I think that our best bet is to evacuate all of the women and children who want out as well as those who threw their hat in the ring with us and leave. We should leave with a firm warning that if Afghans ever attack us again we will respond with Bremen like force.
March 11, 2012—Republican presidential candidate and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich told Face The Nation this morning it was time for the U.S. to leave Afghanistan. “I think that we have to reassess the entire region,” Gingrich said, adding further, “I don’t think that we have the willpower or capacity to fundamentally change the region.”
Gingrich’s recommendation is perhaps the best thing I’ve ever heard him say throughout his entire campaign. The financial cost of the war in Afghanistan is an immense burden to the American taxpayer – estimated to be $113 billion this year alone – even as the debt continues to skyrocket and our military sees deeper and more dangerous cuts to cover the costs of the ongoing Global War On Terrorism.
This is a disaster. Political science text books make it clear that what Newt accomplished with the Contract With America is one of the greatest acts of political genius in history…and Mitt is on the wrong side of it.
This is not some reporter or blogger saying this and it sure isn’t Alex Jones, this is Larry Sabato who is the most quoted political scientist alive. Sabato writes many of the political science texts used in universities. While this writer believes that many professors are full of it, Sabato has credibility in spades.
Newt Gingrich blasts NBC’s David Gregory and the elite media for deliberately misleading the American people about this made up “access to contraception” issue. No one is being denied access to contraception and not one politician is trying to ban it, yet the elite media and the Democrats are either saying or directly implying that this is what Republicans are trying to do.
The Obama Administration is trying to make the Catholic Church pay for abortion pills.
“I am astonished at the desperation of the elite media to avoid rising gas prices, to avoid the president’s apology to religious fanatics in Afghanistan, to avoid a trillion-dollar deficit, to avoid the longest period of unemployment since the Great Depression, and to suddenly decide that Rush Limbaugh is the great national crisis of the week,”
Aside from the brief tangent into cookdom where Hartman says that Justices Scalia, Alito, and Thomas want the Supreme Court to run your lives, (actually in countless speeches they say that the court was never meant to be five of nine judges making decrees on how our society is run) this video is spot on and it is what I learned when I took Constitutional Law at IU under Judge Allen Sharp.
Thom Hartman:
I agree with Newt Gingrich. Not about politics, of course. But, Newt is right about the Supreme Court. And progressives should pay attention. On this, Gingrich agrees with former President Thomas Jefferson – and most of the other founders of this country. Let’s break it down. First, Newt’s assertion that the Congress can pass laws that limit the powers and behavior of the Supreme Court. The Constitution, in Section Two of Article Three which establishes the Judiciary, does give Congress the power to define and limit what the Supreme Court can and can’t do.
Here’s the exact language -“[T]he Supreme Court shall have appelate jurisdiction both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.” Yes, that’s what the Constitution says – in plain black and white. If Congress disagrees with – for example – the Citizens United decision, or the Bush v. Gore meeting – they can simply pass a law that says that the Supreme Court has overstepped its authority and that’s the end of that.
Why, you may ask, did the Founders write it this way? The answer is really simple. They wanted the greatest power to be closest to the people – and Congress is up for election every two years. It’s the body in our representative democratic republic that is closest to the people. It’s where they wanted most of the power, which is why it’s defined in Article One of the Constitution – the first among equals. As Thomas Jefferson wrote in an 1820 letter to Mr. Jarvis, who thought Supreme Court justices should have the power to strike down laws, “You seem to consider the judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy….The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal… I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society, but the people themselves.”
Please read the Constitution. Nowhere in it does it say that the Supreme Court can strike down laws passed by Congress and signed by the President. Nowhere. And for the first fourteen years of our Republic, the Court never even considered the idea. As Newt pointed out, Hamilton wrote in Federalist 78 -“[T]he judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever….It proves incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power; that it can never attack with success either of the other two.”
But in 1803, a hard-right-wing Chief Justice named John Marshall ruled, in a case named Marbury versus Madison, that the Supreme Court could strike down laws as unconstitutional. President Jefferson went apoplectic. He wrote that if that decision wasn’t challenged by Congress: “[T]hen indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de so [a suicide pact]. … The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they may please.” But Marshall and the Court backed down, somewhat. For the next twenty years, he never again ruled a law unconstitutional. He never again said that a few unelected Judges were the Kings of America, with nobody who had the power to undo their decisions. But that’s what Scalia and Thomas and Roberts and Alito want you to believe. They can make George W. Bush President, without any appeal. They can make money into speech, they can turn corporations into people, and the rest of us have no say in it.
And they’re wrong.
It’s not what the Constitution says. We don’t have kings in America, and it’s time to seriously debate and challenge the doctrine of Judicial Review – the claim by the Court itself that it has that power. Jefferson wrote – “The judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working underground to undermine our Constitution… I will say, that ‘against this every man should raise his voice,’ and, more, should uplift his arm.” Why? Because, Jefferson said, “For judges to usurp the powers of the legislature is unconstitutional judicial tyranny….One single object…will entitle you to the endless gratitude of society; that of restraining judges from usurping legislation.” The power of We The People should be with the People and their elected officials, not 5 lawyers who have claimed the right to rule over every other branch of government.
“If you are not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.” – Malcolm X
Political Arena 