Previous 21 - 30 Next
BTW, let's take note here that Judge Allegra is due mucho kudos if these allegations pan out. He's not going to let himself be made into a rubber stamp. (q)The House Oversight Committee and the Senate Judiciary Committees ... should both be looking into this is and demanding answers, especially with confirmation hearings for attorney general nominee Loretta Lynch later this week. (/q) The timing is auspicious. Will the Congressional Republicans be watchdogs now that they have majorities in both chambers, or lapdogs? There's your opportunity, with a judge calling out the ATF & DoJ on stunts that would get you or me, & our lawyers, thrown under the jailhouse. There's your work in front of you, get to it. I hope Judge Allegra doesn't have an untimely accident.
When I was a kid, NASA probably would have rated super-high and understandably so. They actually, like, launched spacecraft and explored outer space. The FBI had long been a traditional fave & possibly the Secret Service as well, while the CIA (& predecessor OSS) might have had a following partly due just to the "exotic" factor. I think the Coast Guard and Park Service rangers were also getting warm fuzzies. Had the individual military services as such instead of DoD been included in this poll, I should think they, esp. the Marines, would still get hi marks from all but the hard Left. It is pitiful, however, how the once-highly-esteemed have fallen: NASA: hitching rides with Russians while shilling for anthropogenic "climate change" and Islamic relations. CDC: shilling for gun-grabbers and politically correct exotic diseases. (Give them credit, tho, they seem to have contained Ebola) Speaking of the IRS, do I remember correctly back in the early '70's there was a short-lived TV crime drama series about the IRS (No, Not leaning on conservatives, destroying evidence, lying to Congress, no this show depicted the IRS agents as GOOD guys), in the vein of the old shows about the FBI?
That is one of my biggest beefs with Romney: he didn't play to win in 2012, & let Obama get re-elected. Even without the "flexibility" remark getting out, all should know a second, lame-duck, term for Obama was very dangerous.
I don't think this is coincidence. The appearance of weakness, indecisiveness, and ideological disinclination to defend America & legit American interests legally, diplomatically, and militarily, INVITES hostilities and incursions, saber-rattling, and instability generally. Remember Saddam Hussein thought he could get away with invading Kuwait because of the tepid response of Reagan to the Khobar Towers bombing, never mind examples like Vietnam.
It's come to this: agencies of the federal government, wielding enforcement powers, i.e. the DO, ATF, IRS, etc, openly behave like gangsters and conspirators. If something like this were even SUSPECTED to happen under a Republican PotUS (think Nixon, who just talked about misusing the IRS to harass individual opponents) the pop media and Dems everywhere would be going batguano 24/7, impeachment filings would start, the Left (think the Bush-haters of the 2000's) would be out in force with some sympathetic character analogous to Cindy Sheehan front-& center every news cycle. Holder and Obama? Meh. Phony scandal. Nothing to see here. Just racists trying to impede a black President and AG.
In response to:

Don’t Run, Mitt. Don’t Run

Don't Tread On Me3 Wrote: Jan 26, 2015 6:40 AM
It's FAR too early to be settling on the 2016 nominee. The establishment wants to lock it in early so Tea Partiers can be shut out, there won't be public primary debates on issues like immigration, Obamacare, energy, etc, and they'll save more $$$ in shortened primary campaigns to hand over to the consultants to tell them to pander to leftists and Demmies more.
In response to:

This Is “Forward”?

Don't Tread On Me3 Wrote: Jan 26, 2015 6:28 AM
"Forward" as in when there's an abyss yawning just in front of our feet.
1. As many have already said, the true private-enterprise middle class are not going to get favors of the elite statist ruling class. A middle class who basically doesn't need government providing all their needs and are desirous of liberty, is a threat to the elite class, and are actually targets of this class-envy rhetoric. 2. When such as Obama makes mouth-noises about "the middle class" they're either pure dog-whistles with no real meaning, intended just to catch interest and create favorable impressions, or the term refers to government mandarins and spear-carriers, the "working poor" getting handouts, and certain special protected groups such as unionized workers. 3. No, the Republicans can't out-Democrat the Democrats. It's pathetic to try to buy off their base with "free stuff" for a free hand in lawmaking. The real Republican middle class know now bad laws damage them badly, and are focused on abolishing bad laws and passing a few good, necessary laws, not getting pork. 4. The radical Dems and other statists don't CARE about the Laffer effect or the low revenues high income, corporate, and estate taxes generate, esp long term. The OBJECT is to cripple true free enterprise and essentially replace it with a government fiat economy where (some) people work but what they produce isn't what they take home because the elite kleptocrats will be able to confiscate at will and decide who gets what. Instead of a natural economy based on the lawful free trade of services and property rights among the people where merit and price/demand/supply determine who deals with whom, the ruling class want to control an artificial economy driven by confiscation and rewards bestowed by the rulers. To the kleptocrats, taxes are a good in themselves apart from revenue. Notice that one subtext you catch more and more, e.g. when Hairy Reed presumed to criticize American companies for exposing as little foreign revenue to US taxation as possible, is that the peasants are OBLIGATED to keep right on producing despite confiscatory taxes and rely on the generosity and superior judgement of their government betters for their needs and wants. 5. The statists don't WANT the peasants to save their own wealth under their own control. They want to confiscate this "excess", decide who gets what, and have the peasants dependent on Big Sugar Daddy Government for their needs and wants down the road.
If they thought she really is a loser or spineless RINO, they would be talking her up and declaring they could "work with her" and lots of other warm fuzzies. Their attitude is born of fear that they actually might face her in an election and have to actually defend their radical actions and positions after being called out!
The same people who are "ready for" Benghazi Hillary will resume Quayling Palin, whose pinkie is more qualified than Hillary ever was. IMO the treatment Sarah's gotten since 2008 reflects fear of defeat and conservatism, not genuine impression of incompetence or unelectability. Dems love those Republicans who will either lose, or at least reliably advance their agenda if actually elected and act like a custodian and placeholder until the next Dem President is elected. It would take the wind right out of the Dems' "1st female PotUS" narrative. It would be funny to watch the media and Demmies try to float the usual turd that anyone who opposes their ID-group candidate is bigoted (in this case misogynist and sexist) when a Republican woman is running, not to mention parroting the "war of women" meme again. She'd be serious challenge for Bush, Romney, Huckabee, & the rest of the RINO herd. The only way Hillary has a prayer in the general is to succeed in running against Tina Fey instead of Sarah!
Previous 21 - 30 Next