Considering the fact that Clinton WON here in California, it seems a little odd, in fact, even a bit desperate on Pelosi’s part. I read this last night over at Political Intelligence out of Boston.
“….Pelosi, the California congresswoman who is chairwoman of the Democratic National Convention in late August, said if necessary, she will “step in” to resolve the nomination fight by late June.
Well, this just makes a fellow Californian wonder why she would be in such a big fat hurry. I wondered if maybe she had something to hide? Beyond such a flagrant dislike for Hillary Clinton. It’s been difficult to watch women from California not act out of FEMINIST causes in this election process. In fact, I consider their actions to be quite treasonous to FEMINIST ideology, in general. But that is beside the point. I have deep concerns about how Hillary Clinton has been treated by Democrats across the board in what is perhaps the most important election of our lifetimes. Here is the wikipedia on Nancy Pelosi.
Hmmmm. She’s an Italian-American. What irony. I wonder if she took offense at Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s comment about “Garlic Noses.” Perhaps she should, no? All Americans found that offensive. Given this article on contemporary Afrocentrism, there might be a thing or two that Pelosi should inform herself about. It’s reposted at a very informative site in the web, but originally was an op-ed from the New York Times dating from 1992. This site on Race and History, and the fabulous journalists over at Black Agenda Report will open her eyes, I think. To some very important facts about multiculturalism post Martin Luther King. I particularly enjoy the editorials by Glen Ford.
In the meantime, I’m curious about a couple of things about Ms. Pelosi and that “haste” of hers. She is a public servant after all. And a member of the Democratic Party, no? This article off of SFgate seems a little skewed to me. I wonder what Poll they are referencing?
“…Women have pretty much come ’round to accepting Obama,” said Mark DiCamillo, director of the Field Poll. He said the erosion of ground under Clinton in California is the result of Democrats’ growing acceptance of the outcome of the primaries and the fact that Obama could have the required number of delegates for the party nomination by as early as next week…“
I don’t think so. Many, many women support Hillary Clinton. If you read this article from the Politico, you’ll see why.
There is NO EROSION of support for the candidate California voted for in the primary. My sense is that Politico is right on the money. Perhaps, Ms. Pelosi intended all along to see the Feminist vote go Pro-McCain. Because, that is what will happen come Fall. The ideologies and associations of an unvetted, opportunistic, target-marketed, Janus faced candidate have not gone unnoticed by Democratic women, Ms. Pelosi. I shall refer you to Rezko, et al. But back to you, for a moment.
It has been a tremendous concern that the FEC is “closed” right now. Because, without the FEC monitoring things in Washington, questionable events regarding fundraising undertaken during this primary need exploration, don’t they?
You see, the FEC takes care of these sorts of things doesn’t it? I’ve been following a place called Democracy21 in the web. They are such ethical people aren’t they? Democrats are really looking to have our next President be ethical, and so you see, anything resembling unethical behavior is entirely suspect to the American electorate. It seems you have an interest in ethics yourself. According to the wikipedia you introduced something called the “Honest Leadership and Open Government Act” to Congress, didn’t you?
But? It’s looks as if the FEC has had dealings with you in the past, doesn’t it? This is from the archives at NewsMax.com:
Saturday, Oct. 1, 2005 10:35 a.m. EDT
FEC: Nancy Pelosi’s PACs Broke the Law
“…Two political action committees linked to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi have been charged with attempting to circumvent to legal limits on campaign giving, the Federal Election Commission has ruled…”
It’s those PACS and 501’s and 527’s that are concerning many Democratic Women at present. Perhaps you would like to have Hillary Clinton exit because many of us feel she has high ethical standards, Ms. Pelosi? Perhaps she can have some role in reinstating a broken FEC?
Don’t you feel that the FEC is going to take a seminal role in politics in the future because of the ability to do fund raising on the internet in such unprecedented ways? We do.
Well, I’ll try and make this an easy little read, and quick. Because there are some very important things at stake for some of us. Some of you know that I write short stories. Well, I started doing it as a creative outlet during the time I was a therapist to take my mind off working with the homeless.
I got published in the web quite a lot, and for a time was a member of one of the biggest writers groups going in here. The people on the writer’s list would critique each other’s short stories and so forth. Many of those writers are published in the anthologies you find in bookstores in the Erotica section.
I read and critiqued a whole lot of material while I was a member of that list, and ironically, almost no one was writing heterosexual sex. So, since that’s what I am, and the kind of sex I’ve had in life, I thought I better document it. I had no idea there was a movement afoot to stamp out heterosexuality. Can you believe it? Here is the part where it gets confusing, in terms of this election for me. I read an article this morning on Obama’s ties to a thing called Acorn over at The National Review.
I’ve been trying to figure out just what the “New Left” is for quite some time now. This thing has more facets than you can imagine. Here is the lede, from that article:
Inside Obama’s Acorn
By their fruits ye shall know them.
By Stanley Kurtz
“…What if Barack Obama’s most important radical connection has been hiding in plain sight all along? Obama has had an intimate and long-term association with the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (Acorn), the largest radical group in America. If I told you Obama had close ties with MoveOn.org or Code Pink, you’d know what I was talking about. Acorn is at least as radical as these better-known groups, arguably more so. Yet because Acorn works locally, in carefully selected urban areas, its national profile is lower. Acorn likes it that way. And so, I’d wager, does Barack Obama…”
Ever since their article yesterday that I referenced on Hayden, these are some important writers that you need to know. Talk about getting to the bottom of things… This article led me to do a little more research into what that whole Recreate ‘68 thing might be about in part, especially as relates to something Hayden was quoted as saying. So, Obama is supposed to be so all about progress. He has attached that “glittering generality” to his campaign. Well, I found this, by accident. Looks like this is part of that “New Left” gig I’m trying to figure out, and part of the DNC thing coming up in Denver — that Recreate ‘68 thing.
“…We believe that racism, sexism, heterosexism and classism are interconnected, and that these forms of oppression harm both individuals and the progressive movement in our efforts to make real change…”
Real change huh? Well, I suggest you follow what they are calling “Social Justice Training” for yourself. Now, yesterday I read someplace about Dohrn
(She’s a friend of Obama) wanting to “smash monogamy” — well, The Marathon Pundit has unpacked this for you over here…a little snippet…
According to the 1989 book Destructive Generation: Second Thoughts About the ’60s by Peter Collier and David Horowitz, Weatherman trainees underwent grueling rituals of self-abasement and abuse in which their dignity, individuality and even sexual identity was brutally extinguished. On pages 84-87, Collier and Horowitz write;
“[The Weather Underground] initiated a ’smash monogamy’ campaign to destroy bourgeois sexual hang-ups: Once monogamy was smashed, couples who in some cases had been together for years were harangued until they admitted their ‘political errors’ and split apart. “The next logical step was group sex. One of the last taboos was homosexuality, and the Weather command forced itself toward experimentation in this direction, instructing male and female cadres to ‘make it’ with members of the same sex.”
Collier and Horowitz report that, for many aspiring Weathermen, “this was one taboo that was hard to break.” Good heavens. Can you imagine?
Geez, I didn’t know. Personally, they can fuck off if this is the New Left. I like being a heterosexual as a feminist. Guess why? Like other feminists who came of age reading Erica Jong in the 70’s, we ummm…did just what men did, in terms of partners, huh? So, I’m quite sure the RED State married set, ummm, are going to wonder a bit at all of these pals d’O.
GREENS believe in sex, naturally. It’s gotten to plastic as it is. I always thought that, when I was in my writers group. I researched all kinds of things during that time I was writing with them. Like this…on contemporary intimacy.
Are you sensing a problem here? I am.
I’m not a Marxist, and I’m a heterosexual to boot. I don’t like this bullshit either.
By Larry JohnsoncloseAuthor: Larry JohnsonName: Larry Johnson Email: larry_johnson@earthlink.net Site:http://NoQuarterUSA.net About: Larry C. Johnson is CEO and co-founder of BERG Associates, LLC, an international business-consulting firm with expertise combating terrorism and investigating money laundering. Mr. Johnson works with US military commands in scripting terrorism exercises, briefs on terrorist trends, and conducts undercover investigations on counterfeiting, smuggling and money laundering. Mr. Johnson, who worked previously with the Central Intelligence Agency and U.S. State Department’s Office of Counter Terrorism, is a recognized expert in the fields of terrorism, aviation security, crisis and risk management. Mr. Johnson has analyzed terrorist incidents for a variety of media including the Jim Lehrer News Hour, National Public Radio, ABC’s Nightline, NBC’s Today Show, the New York Times, CNN, Fox News, and the BBC. Mr. Johnson has authored several articles for publications, including Security Management Magazine, the New York Times, and The Los Angeles Times. He has lectured on terrorism and aviation security around the world, including the Center for Research and Strategic Studies at the Ecole Polytechnique in Paris, France. He represented the U.S. Government at the July 1996 OSCE Terrorism Conference in Vienna, Austria. From 1989 until October 1993, Larry Johnson served as a Deputy Director in the U.S. State Department’s Office of Counter Terrorism. He managed crisis response operations for terrorist incidents throughout the world and he helped organize and direct the US Government’s debriefing of US citizens held in Kuwait and Iraq, which provided vital intelligence on Iraqi operations following the 1990 invasion of Kuwait. Mr. Johnson also participated in the investigation of the terrorist bombing of Pan Am 103. Under Mr. Johnson’s leadership the U.S. airlines and pilots agreed to match the US Government’s two million-dollar reward. From 1985 through September 1989 Mr. Johnson worked for the Central Intelligence Agency. During his distinguished career, he received training in paramilitary operations, worked in the Directorate of Operations, served in the CIA’s Operation’s Center, and established himself as a prolific analyst in the Directorate of Intelligence. In his final year with the CIA he received two Exceptional Performance Awards. Mr. Johnson is a member of the American Society for Industrial Security. He taught at The American University’s School of International Service (1979-1983) while working on a Ph.D. in political science. He has a M.S. degree in Community Development from the University of Missouri (1978), where he also received his B.S. degree in Sociology, graduating Cum Laude and Phi Beta Kappa in 1976.See Authors Posts (624) on May 29, 2008 at 10:52 AM in Current Affairs | 288 Comments
If you are shocked by the rantings of Falther Pfleger below, hang on to your hats. There are three videos below the fold of this article that you must see, which explains in detail Barack Obama’s religious beliefs. After you watch them I am sure most will agree that Barack and Michelle Obama have some explaining to do. Simply put, they are members of a church that is as much a heresy from genuine Christianity as Al Qaeda is a heresy of Islam. I realize I am touching a nerve in saying this, but it needs to be said.
I believe that “belief” matters. And if you will simply take time to understand the theology underpinning the church that Barack and Michelle Obama have attended for almost twenty years then you will realize why Barack cannot be President. It is based on an ideology of black supremacy and promotes a world view that demonizes white people. No one holding such views, even in the privacy of their pew or confessional, should be allowed anywhere near the office of the President.
Oh and um, some of my friends are gay. I’m glad they can get married here, now.
But, don’t fuck around with my skin color, my religious views (Vedanta) or my goddam “AMERIKKAN” sexuality or your chickens are going to come home to roost.
Is this what the 60’s gave you? I kind of don’t think Americans see things “your way” or your friend’s way. Marxism and Fascism and Racism and anti-Heterosexuality aren’t things we tolerate here, are they?
Do some research DEMOCRATS. About how you have been target marketed to by who and for what. If the media isn’t going to unpack it for you, blogs will.
How interesting to see where your movement led, no?
Well, this morning over at one of my favorite blogs, No Quarter, there was a post up about how Tom Hayden supports Obama. Hayden comes from that generation of activists who were anti-war. The Vietnam war. My question is, what sort of activism has he been doing in regards to Greens of late? What about this war? We don’t see anything like the level of protests that went on back then, do we?
My sense is that Hayden would still be anti-war. So many are, here, now. But? (And this is just practical) Don’t we need somebody at the helm who could actually end it? I think that’s the Clintons. It’s just practical. They already know how to do that. Hillary Clinton is younger than Hayden. He was born in 1939. Way older than I, except, so many of us from Obama’s generation were anti-war, too, weren’t we?
The massive social movements rocked, rolled and reeled their way through the 70’s, depending on where you lived. Yesterday, we talked about Hippies and Yippies and Yuppies a little. Today, we’ll talk about the big sell out, by the radicals of old. It’s a curious thing to see history repeat itself, but, who is protesting what? Why? And where is it leading?
First, this is a brief summary from National Review in order to revisit the era of the 60’s — mostly so you can see (or remember, or learn about) who some of these figures were that you are reading about now, and they are also in the wikipedia. A really good movie to watch is called “Coming Home” — Jane Fonda was in that, and it is all about the Vietnam War, soldiers and veterans. It will give you an idea of what the times looked like, then. Here is that article about Hayden and the Radicals. It’s called “Obama, the Closer.”
Obama is constanly trying to wash his hands of the Baby Boom. But, actually, he’s part of it. Like me, tail-end. This made the two of us closer to GenX. If you think about the transition in the late 70’s early 80’s and you trace it through music, you can see the evolution of rock and roll into punk. That’s my gen. The radicals had started social activism, protests and feminism as movements. Those things came true. For the women of Hillary Clinton’s gen. And beyond, into mine. Down to your age bracket, except? Maybe you feel cheated.
If you are under 30, or even mid thirties, I’m going to guess you’ve been on meds at some point in your life. Maybe you got a fat diagnosis by somebody who called you ADHD or depressed. Your generation had no social activism. Your generation is like a “solo” deal. More than likely you grew up glued to your computer? Hayden’s gen, Hillary’s gen, and my gen didn’t. Our lives were a lot freer.
Also, we knew how to think for ourselves, because in those days, we got fabulous educations. We had really great teachers, and lots of money was spent on us, even if we went to public schools. Probably, we had Liberal Arts educations, as undergrads. Now, the Humanities are not being taught. That is a horrible thing, and a sad thing.
Larry has a post up about rioting if Obama is not elected. Well? Why would you feel the need to riot about that? We vote here. There are three different people to vote for this time around. You get a choice. Two of them will lose. That’s how it goes.
I would imagine that our government would step in to quell riots, if it came to that. It’s not clear what the issue is though? Would the riot be for ending the war? Would the riot be for Black Power? Would the riot be for a person? It’s just not clear what the cause is. One thing is very clear. David Axelrod has orchestrated a massive target marketing campaign. Because the techniques used are those from corporate America in order to sell his client like a brand.
So you think about it. Is a logo worth rioting for? Is it the end of the war? More war? Or do you just want to be able to vote for the person you want?
You are going to get that chance, or have already had it. People from Obama’s generation know how important this election is to our country. We all have our own thoughts about that. Perhaps the answer to this is to let all three run in the fall. Just assume there are three candidates on the ballot. Then the U.S. could vote, “their way.” Somebody will lose, that’s a given. Somebody will win. Nobody wants a candidate stuffed down their throats do they? We vote here for a reason. If that is changing, now, what sort of country do you think we will be living in? I wanted Gore, and he lost to a hanging chad.
Here is that post from NQ, and the comments people made. If this election weren’t so important or so historic you wouldn’t see so much dialogue, research, debate, argument or even fury. Or satire. Nobody can figure the damn thing out. They just want who they want, and that’s it.
By Larry JohnsoncloseAuthor: Larry JohnsonName: Larry Johnson Email: larry_johnson@earthlink.net Site:http://NoQuarterUSA.net About: Larry C. Johnson is CEO and co-founder of BERG Associates, LLC, an international business-consulting firm with expertise combating terrorism and investigating money laundering. Mr. Johnson works with US military commands in scripting terrorism exercises, briefs on terrorist trends, and conducts undercover investigations on counterfeiting, smuggling and money laundering. Mr. Johnson, who worked previously with the Central Intelligence Agency and U.S. State Department’s Office of Counter Terrorism, is a recognized expert in the fields of terrorism, aviation security, crisis and risk management. Mr. Johnson has analyzed terrorist incidents for a variety of media including the Jim Lehrer News Hour, National Public Radio, ABC’s Nightline, NBC’s Today Show, the New York Times, CNN, Fox News, and the BBC. Mr. Johnson has authored several articles for publications, including Security Management Magazine, the New York Times, and The Los Angeles Times. He has lectured on terrorism and aviation security around the world, including the Center for Research and Strategic Studies at the Ecole Polytechnique in Paris, France. He represented the U.S. Government at the July 1996 OSCE Terrorism Conference in Vienna, Austria. From 1989 until October 1993, Larry Johnson served as a Deputy Director in the U.S. State Department’s Office of Counter Terrorism. He managed crisis response operations for terrorist incidents throughout the world and he helped organize and direct the US Government’s debriefing of US citizens held in Kuwait and Iraq, which provided vital intelligence on Iraqi operations following the 1990 invasion of Kuwait. Mr. Johnson also participated in the investigation of the terrorist bombing of Pan Am 103. Under Mr. Johnson’s leadership the U.S. airlines and pilots agreed to match the US Government’s two million-dollar reward. From 1985 through September 1989 Mr. Johnson worked for the Central Intelligence Agency. During his distinguished career, he received training in paramilitary operations, worked in the Directorate of Operations, served in the CIA’s Operation’s Center, and established himself as a prolific analyst in the Directorate of Intelligence. In his final year with the CIA he received two Exceptional Performance Awards. Mr. Johnson is a member of the American Society for Industrial Security. He taught at The American University’s School of International Service (1979-1983) while working on a Ph.D. in political science. He has a M.S. degree in Community Development from the University of Missouri (1978), where he also received his B.S. degree in Sociology, graduating Cum Laude and Phi Beta Kappa in 1976.See Authors Posts (620) on May 27, 2008 at 9:53 PM in Current Affairs | 291 Comments
Obamatons are making not so subtle threats against the Super Delegates–elect Obama or there will be blood in the streets. Leading supporters of Obama are the messengers of doom. Consider Tom Hayden, one of the mainstays of a group called “Progressives for Obama.” He was on NPR this week and said:
“If there were the theft of a nomination, if that was the perception of the Obama supporters, then probably there would be a ‘68 scenario.”
Theft. How in the hell is it theft? Neither Barack nor Hillary have won enough delegates to win the election. Barack has 1661 and Hillary has 1499. CNN maintains you need 2026 to win the nomination. So, you don’t have to be real smart to realize that both candidates do not yet have enough votes and will require the support of the Super Delegates in order to win. In other words, it is in the hands of Super Delegates.
Leave it to Barack’s folks to threaten race riots. Intimidation through the threat of violence, even race violence, is one of Obama’s insidious weapons in stampeding super delegates like a herd. Here’s a radical alternative. Let’s use reason and intelligence. Is that feasible?
For starters, Super Delegates should take a look at the terrific analysis presented by Peniel Cronin. Cronin uses cold hard facts to demonstrate that Hillary, not Barack, is most deserving of the support of the Super Delegates. She has won more votes and won more in states that will count for Democrats come the fall. I challenge any Obamaton to refute these facts. Please download and read: 2008caucusreport.pdf
But the Obama fantasy train wants passengers to believe that Hillary is behind. That Hillary cannot win. It is a damn lie. Read the rest
Thanks Axelrod. You really pulled off a number here didn’t you? On purpose, Alinsky-style. But, I think you just thought the whole feminist vote was dead, babe.
Nope. We already know who we want, just like you know who you want. Keep threatening like this? Did you really intend another Republican win? You’ll get that. From the comments alone on the blogs I frequent, that’s the trend du jour.
Some times we live in. I guarantee you, though, this is definitely not the 1970’s. We’ve all been through that already. Haven’t we? If you want to fight something, why don’t you fight those who target market to you?
If I were you? I wouldn’t let them get away with it. An artist I met in here called Flineo makes fab films commenting on this whole thing…here is the latest…
by Peter Collier and David Horowitz, Weatherman trainees underwent grueling rituals of self-abasement and abuse in which their dignity, individuality and even sexual identity was brutally extinguished. On pages 84-87, Collier and Horowitz write;
