Wednesday, 12 March 2014
THE QUOTE OF THE DAY
Today's quote comes to us from Republican consultant Andrew Sere, talking about what it means to the Democrat Party that as weak a candidate as David Jolly - a former Washington lobbyist - was able to defeat as formidable a candidate as Alex Sink, by invoking ObamaCare:
this environment, the only thing Democrats can do is hope for
Republican opponents who come from professions even more unpopular
than Washington lobbyists, and I'm not aware of any tow-truck
drivers on the GOP ticket this year"
Now that is the definition of short and to the point.
Great line, Andrew. Well deserving of today's Quote Of The Day honors.
|Hopelessly Partisan @ 15:15 PM
THE DARTMOUTH DISGRACE
On March 2, I blogged about a group of Dartmouth students, who presented the school with an extensive list of what I considered ridiculous, bizarre and overtly racist demands -- and threatened "physical action" if they were not met.
Here are their demands:
The list of demands, written by "concerned Asian, Black, Latino@, Native, Undocumented, Queer, and Differently-Abled students," include:
. Racial enrollment quotas for Black and Latino students to "at least 10 percent each"
. "Ensure that 47 percent of post-doctoral students are people of color"
. "Ban the use of 'illegal aliens, illegal immigrants, wetback' and any racially charged term"
. Mandate cultural competency and sensitivity training for professors
. "Ask staff/faculty to use students' and employees' preferred gender pronouns"
. Enroll more students in the country illegally (undocumented students); and provide them free legal assistance and financial aid
. Convert ethnic studies programs into full-fledged departments
. Incorporate into each department at least one queer studies class
. Increase the interdisciplinary academic focus on sexualities
. Enact curricular changes to force students to study social justice and marginalization in depth
. Provide gender-neutral bathrooms in every building on campus
. "Create a policy with serious consequences against hate speech/crimes"
. Create a policy penalizing and discriminating against students who use the Indian mascot
. Require school's conservative paper give up "Dartmouth" name if they use term "Indian"
Enacting these changes and the many others listed on the lengthy demand letter, its authors stated, will "eradicate systems of oppression as they affect marginalized communities on this campus."
"These systems-which include racism, classism, sexism, heterosexism, and ableism-are deployed at Dartmouth and beyond as forms of institutional violence," the letter states. "We demand that Dartmouth challenge these systems by redistributing power and resources in a way that is radically equitable."
The unnamed students go on to assert that by March 24 - the first day of spring term - Dartmouth administrators must publicly respond to each item raised in the letter with "its exact commitment to each one of its demands" and that reparations that require funds "have a monetary commitment in the 2014-2015 fiscal budget."
What a joke. What a bunch of puerile racist jerks they are. Could that garbage be more objectionable?
The correct answer, of course, would have been "no" - loud and clear - followed by a threat of expulsion unless the "physical demands" part of their screed were summarily withdrawn with an apology. But, this being Dartmouth, I was skeptical that it would happen.
Well, as it turned out, my skepticism was very well founded.
Excerpted from Thomas Lifson's blog at American Thinker:
Dartmouth College is teaching its student body a terrible lesson: physical threats against the rich pay off big-time. Alec Torres writes in National Review Online:
Having been threatened with "physical action" by an unknown number of anonymous students if it did not respond to a list of more than 120 demands, the Dartmouth administration promptly surrendered last week and is planning on spending at least $31 million to satisfy the students' will.
College President Phil Hanlon and Provost Martin Wybourne made a statement last Thursday in response to the so-called "Freedom Budget" - the eight-page letter and list of demands made by the anonymous students - saying, "Diversity is one of the cornerstones of our academic community and, like you, we want Dartmouth to be a campus where our students gain the confidence and skills to work and lead in a global society."
Are Phil Hanlon and Martin Wybourne stupid? You would inherently think otherwise, them running an Ivy League school and all. But this pretty much speaks for itself, doesn't it?
Can they possibly be so uncomprehending as to not see that the demands for specific quotas being made by these obnoxious twits - as an override to trifling little components such as accomplishment and free choice - are the antithesis of "diversity"? Evidently not.
Evidently, they are so scared of being called racists by a bunch of cowards hiding their identities (just in case someone in the Dartmouth hierarchy decides to treat this as the disgrace it is and comes after them, no doubt), that they are willing to be their racist complicitors. "We'll do anything you ask...just don't call us names, we can't take it."
It is hard to tell who is more pathetic: the "students", or hanlon and wybourne. Call it a tie.
I pity any parent who pays for their child's Dartmouth education. And I pity any Dartmouth student who thinks he/she is getting one.
|Hopelessly Partisan @ 11:52 AM
BILL DE BLASIO'S CRIME PREVENTION "SUCCESS"
Let's start with the obvious. Any mayor who thinks the first two months of his mayoralty - during which his policies either have not gone into effect at all or have not had nearly enough time to be measured - shows that his policies are a success, is doing one of two things: He is either:
- talking like a fool, or
-talking like an amoral politician who hopes that the people he is talking to are fools.
Excerpted from Jennifer Fermino's article in today's New York Daily News:
back at critics who said his policies would be a boon to criminals,
Mayor de Blasio said crime has fallen during the first weeks of his
watch - with homicides dropping 21%.
naysayers suggested you couldn't bring down crime while bringing
police and community back together," de Blasio said "I think
these last 10 weeks show, yes you can."
at a press conference with NYPD Police Commissioner Bill Bratton, the
mayor said crime overall is down 2% since he took office on Jan. 1
through March 9, with a 14% drop in shootings compared to the same
period last year.
Can you believe the cajones of this man?
Did he happen to notice the WEATHER in New York City for January and February? Like the fact that it was among the most frigid and snowy January/February periods in the city's history? Does Mayor de Blasio understand that when the weather is bad, people don't go out -- not even criminals?
Police Commissioner Bill Bratton certainly does. To his credit, Bratton did not have the stomach to lie about those statistics the way de Blasio did. His quote? "Jack Frost
is the best friend of a police officer".
Bingo. Exactly right.
Maybe it is that Bill de Blasio is stung so bad by the fact that his poll numbers have taken a dramatic nosedive since he was elected (talk about buyers' remorse!). Maybe that is why he felt compelled to, however ridiculously, try taking credit for a tiny window of statistics within a time period where external conditions would virtually guarantee a lowering of criminal activity no matter what policies were in place.
Or maybe we should just eliminate the "l" and "a" from his name, and start calling him Bill de BS-io.
Tell you what: let's revisit the crime statistics later in the year, when criminals are more easily able to go about their, er, chosen profession, and see how they stack up then. Fair enough?
There's a little something for you to worry about, Mr. Mayor.
|Hopelessly Partisan @ 08:26 AM
THE TODAY SHOW - BURYING A STORY FOR BARACK
It is about 7:50AM as I type this.
We have had the Today Show on for the entire time.
My wife thinks they may have mentioned David Jolly's defeat of Alex Sink in yesterday's special election for Florida's 13th district. But if it was mentioned at all, it was in passing during the middle of the half hour...when they briefly mentioned NBC's new poll which shows President Obama's numbers tanking.
In other words, they buried the story - which is that Jolly, a virtual unknown, running in a district that voted for Obama in 2012, wildly outspent in TV advertising, whose opponent was a major Florida political figure, and had a libertarian candidate siphoning off votes he otherwise would likely have gotten....won anyway.
How could this have happened? The answer is simple, because there was one major issue in the campaign: ObamaCare.
Jolly advocated repeal; Sink advocated keeping it in place but improving it. Jolly won.
This is a huge defeat for Democrats, and will almost certainly inform the way dozens and dozens of them run in November...i.e. they will be running away from ObamaCare.
But at the Today Show, it is not worth mentioning.
If burying this story does not establish Today (and, more broadly, NBC News) as little more than a propaganda arm of Barack Obama and the Democrat Party, I don't know what could.
UPDATE: Now, via Kyle Drennan's blog at newsbusters.org, I can give you specifics.
My wife was right about the Today Show mentioning David Jolly's win over Alex Sink in passing. It provided all of 23 seconds to the story...while starting it by mentioning that the district had been Republican for 42 years (the implication being there was no big deal about Jolly's win) - without mentioning that its demographics have changed dramatically, Barack Obama won it two years ago, Democrat Alex Sink way outspent Jolly in TV ads, and ObamaCare was the major issue.
That is not covering a news story, that is covering Democrats' backsides.
And the worst part? Today gave MORE coverage than either CBS's Early Moring (20 seconds) or ABC's Good Morning America (10 seconds).
These are not news organizations. These are Accomplice Media, with an objective of protecting and defending Barack Obama and his fellow Democrats.
They have no shame. And they certainly have no claim to being "journalists".
|Hopelessly Partisan @ 07:47 AM
Tuesday, 11 March 2014
DAVID JOLLY'S VICTORY
Today there was a special election in Florida's 13th congressional district, due to the death of 21 term incumbent, Republican William Young. It pitted Republican David Jolly against Democrat Alex Sink.
Florida's 13th, once pretty solidly Republican, has started trending more Democrat in recent years. This did not affect Mr. Young who, over time, became something of a no-brainer for district voters. But, with him gone, the seat was definitely in play.
President Obama won Florida's 13th by a about 2% in 2012.
Both candidates ran, in large part, on their positions regarding ObamaCare. Mr. Jolly advocated repeal. Ms. Sink advocated fixing the problems she acknowledges with ObamaCare and keeping it in place.
Alex Sink is a very well known commodity in Florida State Politics - a former Chief Financial Officer for the state, and its last Gubernatorial candidate. Additionally, reports are that her campaign outspent Jolly's on TV advertising by something like 3 to 1. As recently as yesterday, the Washington Post was telling us that she had the edge.
The actual results? David Jolly is now the congressperson from Florida's 13th district. He won the district by about 2%...despite a libertarian pulling almost 5% of the vote, most of which would likely have gone to Jolly in a two-person race.
A better known, far better funded Democrat losing in a district that went Democrat two years ago? When the key issue was ObamaCare?
I am waiting to hear Debbie Wasserman Schultz's explanation of what happened here. This should be good.
UPDATE: Here is Debbie Wasserman Schultz's statement:
special interest groups poured in millions to hold onto a Republican
congressional district that they've comfortably held for nearly 60
years. Tonight, Republicans fell short of their normal margin in
this district because the agenda they are offering voters has a
singular focus - that a majority of voters oppose - repealing the
Affordable Care Act that would return us to the same old broken
health care system. While
tonight Democrats didn't win, we are proud of Alex and the race she
ran based on a vision of opportunity for all and an agenda that would
grow the middle class and protect Florida’s families".
Yeah, sure, Debbie. A Republican political nobody beats the Democrat's last Gubernatorial candidate in a district that is trending Democrat, and this is a problem result for...Republicans.
Let me end with by characterizing what Ms. Wasserman Schultz said the way we would have in my old neighborhood: she's so full of $#I+ that her eyes are brown.
|Hopelessly Partisan @ 21:24 PM
SONIA SOTOMAYOR: WHY IS SHE ON THE SUPREME COURT?
What is the sole function of the United States Supreme Court? It is to decide what is and is not constitutional.
Excerpted from an article at truthrevolt.com:
Monday, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor stated that she
believed that women and minorities had to crash the halls of power in
order to "change the dialogue in this country." She said
that "money" was the obstacle to women and minorities having a
say in government, adding, "we're going to have to work the
political system at the highest level."
was speaking at the University of Washington, pushing her book, My
Beloved Life. A
student questioned if she was optimistic about the future of the
country. She stated, "I'm very optimistic about the power of
minorities to change the dialogue in this country."
Is Sonia Sotomayor's understanding of her role - to "work the political system" and to push "the power of minorities" over ruling on constitutionality - consonant with what a Supreme Court justice's role actually is?
Why is she on the Supreme Court?
|Hopelessly Partisan @ 21:06 PM
LOVE & MARRIAGE: PRE-TEEN STYLE
Apropos of nothing political....
I just got this from my sister, who got it from our cousin-in-law...or something (once I get past immediate family, I have a lot of trouble figuring this stuff out).
It is supposed to be real pre-teen children's answers to questions about love and marriage.
Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. I certainly don't know. But regardless, I think it is pretty funny. Maybe you will too.
HOW DO YOU DECIDE WHO TO MARRY?
-You got to find
somebody who likes the same stuff. Like, if you like sports,
she should like it that you like sports, and she should keep
the chips and dip coming.
-- Alan, age 10
person really decides before they grow up who they're going to
marry. God decides it all way before, and you get to find out later
who you're stuck with.
-- Kristen, age 10
WHAT IS THE RIGHT AGE TO GET MARRIED?
is the best age because you know the person FOREVER by then..
-- Camille, age 10
3. HOW CAN A STRANGER TELL IF
TWO PEOPLE ARE MARRIED?
might have to guess, based on whether they seem to be yelling at the
-- Derrick, age 8
4. WHAT DO YOU
THINK YOUR MOM AND DAD HAVE IN COMMON?
don't want any more kids.
-- Lori, age 8
DO MOST PEOPLE DO ON A DATE?
are for having fun, and people should use them to get to know each
other. Even boys have something to say if you listen long enough.
-- Lynnette, age 8(isn't she a treasure)
the first date, they just tell each other lies and that usually gets
them interested enough to go for a second date.
Martin, age 10
6. WHEN IS IT OKAY TO KISS SOMEONE?
-- Pam, age 7( Love her )
law says you have to be eighteen, so I wouldn't want to mess with
-- Curt, age 7
-The rule goes like this: If you kiss
someone, then you should marry them and have kids with them. It's the
right thing to do.
-- Howard, age 8
7. IS IT
BETTER TO BE SINGLE OR MARRIED?
better for girls to be single but not for boys. Boys need someone to
clean up after them.
-- Anita, age 9 (bless you child
8. HOW WOULD THE WORLD BE DIFFERENT IF PEOPLE DIDN'T
sure would be a lot of kids to explain, wouldn't there?
Kelvin, age 8
WOULD YOU MAKE A MARRIAGE WORK?
your wife that she looks pretty, even if she looks like a dump
-- Ricky, age 10
Ok, now back to politics - where very little is funny, but an awful lot looks like it was concocted by pre-teen children.
|Hopelessly Partisan @ 17:46 PM
HILLARY CLINTON INTEGRITY UPDATE
Did Hillary Clinton receive dirty campaign money when she ran for the Preaidency in 2008?
The fact that we are talking about Hillary Clinton, in and of itself, should probably provide an answer to that question. But, in case you're one of those folks who see her as innocent and pure, please read the following excerpt from Dave Boyer's article
for the Washington Times:
Despite Hillary Rodham Clinton's promise that she
had scrubbed illegal cash contributions from her 2008 presidential campaign,
prosecutors revealed Monday that the mastermind of Mayor Vincent C. Gray's "shadow campaign" also
funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars to aid Mrs. Clinton's bid for the White House.
Jeffrey E. Thompson's scheme included
diverting more than $608,000 in illicit funds to a New York marketing
executive, Troy White, who organized "street teams" to raise Mrs. Clinton's visibility in urban areas
during her Democratic primary battle against Barack Obama. Mr. White pleaded guilty to a
misdemeanor in the case.
Prosecutors said that
from February to May 2008, Thompson used two firms to disburse
$608,750 in "excessive and unreported contributions to pay for campaign
services in coordination with and in support of a federal political candidate
for president of the United States and the federal and the candidate's authorized
committee." That candidate was Mrs. Clinton.
Are you surprised to find out that Hillary Clinton's campaign would accept this kind of money...even though Ms. Clinton continues to profess her personal purity?
If so, you must not know very much about Hillary Clinton. So let me help you out:
-As a newly minted lawyer, fresh out of Yale Law School, Clinton got a plum position as one of the staff lawyers for the Watergate committee. But she didn't last there. The Chief Counsel, Jerome Zeifman - himself a Democrat - got rid of her
- giving her no reference or recommendation - because he considered her work to be shoddy and dishonest.
-And then, of course, there was that stint at the consummately corrupt Rose law firm in Little Rock - where, as her husband became the state's Attorney General an then its Governor, she became a partner and then a senior partner, without having to engage in almost any litigation at all.
Knowing this, why would anyone be surprised that illegal $$$ was being funneled into her presidential campaign? And why would anyone be surprised if it happened again in a 2016 run?
I'll be posting additional information about Ms. Clinton's, er, integrity as it becomes available.
And it is an excellent bet that there will be plenty more to post.
|Hopelessly Partisan @ 15:13 PM
THE TODAY SHOW'S PRIORITIES
This morning, The Today Show's Natalie Morales started a segment on the so-called "bridgegate" scandal with this:
huge day in the ongoing bridgegate scandal in New Jersey. Governor
Christie's former aide, who ordered those now-famous bridge closures
will appear in court today."
The segment continued with Kelly O'Donnell reporting that the aide, Bridget Anne Kelly, was going to be in court today to assert her right to plead the fifth amendment.
My point in telling you this?
Last week, lois "the liar" lerner appeared before the House Oversight Committee hearings on the IRS scandal, and pled the fifth amendment - under circumstances in which, it is very probable, she had no legal right to do so, and will be cited for contempt.
No "huge day" for that. Today didn't even report it.
On the Today Show, therefore, it is "a huge day" when Bridget Anne Murphy argues she has fifth amendment rights regarding the closure of a couple of lanes on the George Washington Bridge.
But when the former head of the IRS's Tax Exempt Division invokes fifth amendment rights - probably illegally - regarding accusations that she and others used the IRS to suppress the free speech of groups critical of the current administration?
Those, folks, are the Today Show's priorities. How do you like them?
|Hopelessly Partisan @ 13:07 PM
OBAMACARNAGE: REALITY VERSUS BS
Arnold Ahlert, writing for frongpagemag.com, has put together an excellent, well referenced piece on just how bad ObamaCare really is, and just how completely President Obama and his fellow Democrats are lying to us about how it is working out.
Here's a taste - but please do not deny yourself the informational content of Mr. Ahlert's entire piece:
ObamaCare is an unworkable monstrosity. And even as Obama & Co. push back the day of reckoning for virtually every major requirement of this mega-stinker (e.g waiving corporate mandates for two years, reversing field and allowing people whose policies are not compliant with ObamaCare to keep them anyway), it still is a disaster of catastrophic proportions anyway.
Anyone out there still think Democrats will proudly be running on ObamaCare this year? Hello Debbie Wasserman Schultz.....anyone home?
|Hopelessly Partisan @ 10:57 AM
hopelesslypartisan.com, is a web site which is dedicated to honest, blunt, debate on the issues of our time.
In conjunction with the ads on this site,
third parties may be placing and reading cookies on your browser,
or using web beacons to collect information.
At "Hopelessly Partisan" we discuss all issues, big and small. Such as:
-Will President Obama end the pretense that he cares about the constitution, and simply declare himself King?
-Do President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry actually believe Iran will keep to any nuclear deal?
-How many people really signed up for ObamaCare (other than the ones whose insurance was canceled because of it)?
-How much more coverage will media provide for "bridgegate", without evidence that Christie was personally involved?
-Will media ever seriously cover Hillary Clinton's role in the Benghazi massacre?
Right down to:
-How many more excuses will media make for richard sherman's low-class outburst after the Seattle-San Francisco playoff game?
-Has Chris Matthews irretrievably gone over the deep end?
-Is Justin Beiber headed for personal disaster...and does any girl over the age of 15 - or any male of any age - care?
In here, nothing is sacred and nothing is out of bounds.
So settle back, preferably after laughing your way through a copy of "The Hopelessly Partisan Guide To American Politics", and let the battle begin. In this blog, your opinion counts every bit as much as anyone else's, maybe even more.
And to show that my willingness to provide all sides of the issues is sincere, here are links to a variety of web sites, from the left, the middle (more or less) and the right. Read them and either smile in agreement or gnash your teeth in anger!!
TO THE LEFT
Crooks and Liars
The Huffington Post
IN THE MIDDLE
Real Clear Politics
TO THE RIGHT
Front Page Magazine
Sweetness & Light