Nazis, France and Bernie… oh my!

Some people, particularly in the media, do not quite understand the dynamics of the Bernie Sanders’ campaign. And the ones who do are not talking much.

You see there is a darker side to the whole ordeal, aside from politics as usual. How that is handled makes it interesting to say the least. It’s not just politics as usual.

Exhibit A: Chris Matthews compares the Bernie campaign to the Nazi invasion of France. Well, heads explode. Matthews is suddenly public enemy one. Bernie people are enraged.

(Ironically, the Justice Democrats were yelling the loudest. Is that funny?)

It’s not the first time a Nazi analogy has been used in politics. What gives? Only now they are furious. Bernie himself has compared Trump to a dictator. Ads are running in Miami comparing Trump to dictators like Chavez etc.

Now Chris will be introduced to the brown shirts. There is no anecdote to the Bernie Bros. After all, Bernie suggested they were Russians or cyber-bots anyway. Ha ha.

Democrats to Matthews: it’s over, resign now!

Who knows, we may get to Normandy before it is over?

Right Ring | Bullright

Democrat vs Socialist: is it a trick question?

So what is the difference between a Democrat and a Socialist? Well, just don’t ask the head of their Party, Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Inquiring minds want to know.

Chris Matthews asks but can’t get an answer from DNC Debbie.

And gee, just what Party is she in charge of?

Her talking points do not allow her to answer a question. No one programed that answer into the system. All she can muster is her spew stew about Republicans.

She did try substituting the word progressive, but even that did not turn out so well.
Cue theme for Twilight Zone. (good thing she isn’t a Miss America contestant)

The social fabric of Islamic terrorism

Try to unpack some of these statements.

“We haven’t always gotten it right,” Vice President Joe Biden said Tuesday as he opened the summit. “But we have a lot of experience integrating communities into the American system, the American dream.”

“Groups like al-Qaida and ISIL exploit the anger that festers when people feel that injustice and corruption leave them with no chance of improving their lives,” Obama wrote in an op-ed article Wednesday in the Los Angeles Times. “The world has to offer today’s youth something better.”

To the State Department, Marie Harf talks about it as a social problem. Chris Matthews opens describing it as evil, and her answer is the social ills at the root of the problem. But she criticized other strategic thinkers as being too simplistic.

Harf “We’re killing a lot of them, and we’re going to keep killing more of them. … But we cannot win this war by killing them,” department spokeswoman Marie Harf said on MSNBC’s “Hardball.” “We need … to go after the root causes that leads people to join these groups, whether it’s lack of opportunity for jobs, whether –”

Chris Matthews who pointed out; “There’s always going to be poor people. There’s always going to be poor Muslims.”

“If we can help countries work at the root causes of this — what makes these 17-year-old kids pick up an AK-47 instead of trying to start a business?”

While Harf wants to return to the social roots and mores, she has overlooked the social ill that is Islamic radicalism. They are returning to their roots of violent jihad that gave rise to Islam from the beginning. As soon as they had enough adherents to wage regional jihad war on others that is what they did. That is how it spread. So what ISIS is doing has historic precedent. This is their social program or paradigm.

If, as she says, we want to treat and deal with underline conditions and causes, how can you do that while evading the premises of faith on which it is built? Their central purpose and cause is Islam. Do people think a jobs program or youth after-school basketball is going to solve that? It seems ISIS recruits are taking a vow into communal poverty in joining, as a central tenant. Remember bin Laden’s gripe with Saudi Arabia and others that their material wealth outstripped, corrupted the tenants of Wahhabi Islam. So they aren’t interested in a better, more civilized society since barbarism is their social model — as long as their Islam is the central authority controlling it.

Right, lets address some of the social inadequacies. (all of which are centered on their Islamic faith) A faith that can create an edict to justify slaughter of anyone or marry children, or anything else they deem necessary for jihad. Those are the rules of the road. Including the use of Taqiyya toward the same ends. When these are their rules, it tells you what social deficiencies are really involved. Plus the fact that they certainly are not going to listen to an outsider telling them to reform or bringing them enlightenment.

Obama also said in his op-ed in the LA Times:

Governments that deny human rights play into the hands of extremists who claim that violence is the only way to achieve change. Efforts to counter violent extremism will only succeed if citizens can address legitimate grievances through the democratic process and express themselves through strong civil societies. Those efforts must be matched by economic, educational and entrepreneurial development so people have hope for a life of dignity.

Obama wants to apply the blanket of human rights to an ideology that doesn’t accept human rights. That’s probably why we have the millennium-old problem. Obama should consult his old buddy Bill Ayers and the Weather Underground — with their radicalism and militant violence — who have been absorbed into academic institutions. Similar to the way Obama’s gang have endorsed the Muslim Brotherhood. Creative radicalism? Look at their successes across Egypt and Libya. It goes full circle with Obama.

Lastly, their latest justifications for their social poverty-talk formula is saying Bush made similar comments. They would refuse Bush’s advice or doctrines anywhere else, but now channel Bush to support their case. Under Bush, we did not know how wide spread the problems were. Bush also proved to be naive with a tin ear on the subject too.

However, Obama, as a fellow radical himself (above), should have some understanding of basic tactical strategies involved. They aren’t too far removed from progressives’ rules for radicals. Some people wish we could win over radical hearts and minds of progressives too. That has proved futile.

So Obama decides to have an extremism summit. At the same time he is willing to make a deal with Iran’s nuclear ambitions. But one thing they are not doing is connecting the dots of terrorism and ISIS with Iran, in general. They want to draw imaginary distinctions where none really exist, but yet they want to lump all terrorism under one “extremist” umbrella. Even if we had extremists under another banner committing terrorism, it would not be on the international scale as these caliphate-crazed Islamists. It would be an outlier. So they can shove their Timothy McVeigh comparisons.

Has anyone noticed the great jobs programs from all the aid to Palestinian areas? That’s a stunning example of where the money goes? It all depends on your definition of “jobs.”

But “all aboard the social-jobs train”. Wait, there’s another idea: how about training them to be social workers? Eureka, that’s it!

RightRing | Bullright

Axelrod: look at the Republicans, not Obama

Trot out the political guru, Axelrod, and the diversion campaign. Obama has more problems on his plate than a Chinese buffet but somehow “it’s the Republicans, stupid”. Thus sayeth Axelrod. That’s the condensed message. He told Chris Mathews:

David Axelrodent
Misinformation Department

I think a lot of this emanates from the nature of the Republican base, and a lot of these guys are throwing red meat to the base. … You mentioned Speaker Boehner, the real question is the Republican leadership going to tolerate that? Boehner has yet to really stand up to these folks, and this is something that really deserves to be repudiated and you’d hope he would. One thing I would say though, Chris, delegitimization of presidents is something that we’ve seen now. It happened under the Clinton administration. We all remember how vituperative those times were and there were people on the left who aimed some of that at George W. Bush. Now, admittedly, it’s spun out of control now, because these folks are in control of the Republican party. So it’s at a fevered pitch now.

Of course, what else can he say. Its a broken record. Now reincarnate the Clinton years to show how bad they were, after running on Bill Clinton’s legacy and record. The bipartisan, unifier in chief resorts to straight partisan politics and attacks. Well, it is all they know.

His statement leaves lots of room for anyone who hasn’t yet had an Obama lobotomy to remember the truth. The truth about Bill Clinton and George Bush for starters. “Some of that at Bush”? And now “it’s spun out of control” because the Chicago thugster-in-chief  is having to face some inconvenient truths, chased with a miserable record. Can’t have that. So attack Republicans rather than deal with the truth and his record of failure. Now he runs around the country to rally his same old, low-info voter base.

But take a closer look at Axelrod’s words: (italics)

I think a lot of this emanates from the nature of the Republican base, and a lot of these guys are throwing red meat to the base.

That “nature of the Republican base”–whatever that is — must be super busy, in its lack of real power; but no way could it cause all these problems. Then, supposedly it uses them as fodder against Obama? – crazy. The “red meat” is just the scandals and problems your boss created all over the place. Now he wants to blame his opponents for both. If you want to blame them for something…(read on)

You mentioned Speaker Boehner, the real question is [is]the Republican leadership going to tolerate that?

That’s right, except is he going to tolerate what the out of control liar in chief is doing? Just how much and how long will the GOP leadership tolerate that?

Boehner has yet to really stand up to these folks, and this is something that really deserves to be repudiated and you’d hope he would. – that needs repudiated.

No, wrong again. The problem is not Boehner standing up to these folks. If anything when will he listen to them? You have it backwards. It’s his job to represent the people, and not for the people to represent them.

But when is he going to stand up to this dictator hell bent on ruining the country and the Constitutional process, just for his twisted ideology? That’s what the people want to know — not “is Boehner going tell people to shut up?” when the problems emanate from the White House and all around it. And when are we going to hold Boehner accountable for the failure to stand up, and not doing more to prevent it? That’s what people want to know.

One thing I would say though, Chris, delegitimization of presidents is something that we’ve seen now.

Did you happen to notice George -“not our president”-Bush in the last decade anyplace, or how he was treated? Delegitimized from election day on.

Oh now you have to reach back to Clinton to make your appeal. Clinton at least did work with Congress. But Obama’s reelection was all about the 2nd coming of Clinton. It was about how he would work with others. It was about following Clinton’s lead, wasn’t it? He even enlisting Clinton to deliver the closing arguments because the thugster couldn’t.

It happened under the Clinton administration. We all remember how vituperative those times were and there were people on the left who aimed some of that at George W. Bush.

Oh it did, poor Clinton. Everyone but you remembers, even the left. I think the verbal abuse and attacks leaving ugly scars was mostly on Bush.

Now, admittedly, it’s spun out of control now, because these folks are in control of the Republican party. So it’s at a fevered pitch now.

Still do not remember the Bush years or history, do you?. Now “admittedly it’s spun out of control”? A super-sized admission! How big of you. Now it’s at a “fevered pitch”, really?

Where were you the eight years preceding Obama? Right, in Chicago planning. Remember the “insurgent campaign” you ran. Heck, Dubya was Obama’s entire target of it. Obama decided to run against the guy that wasn’t running. Are you really talking “fever pitch” now?

He also told  MSNBC earlier that Syria images were compelling and hard to ignore.

“There’s nothing more impactful than film, pictures, images, and those images are searing. Everyone has seen them,” David Axelrod, former senior adviser to Obama and MSNBC contributor, said on Morning Joe. “Plainly, there needs to be action. The question is, what action?”

Obama was elected partly because of his skepticism about the war in Iraq and his belief of not becoming involved with issues of unknown cost, consequences, and duration, said Axelrod, who added the president needs to consider all options before taking action.

“I expect that they will take action, whether it’s the no-fly zone…or surgical strikes, we’ll see,” Axelrod said.

Partly? Oh, stop it David, he was elected on that premise. It was his whole campaign. It is where he differentiated himself from Hillary. He was the anti-Bush, anti-war, anti-action candidate. As irony and reality would have it, here he is combating weapons of mass destruction in Syria.That while we are busy dealing with this WMD in the White House, along with the media’s complacency about it.

Now I am waiting to hear how Republicans are responsible for this, or maybe Bush. I think Axelrodent is the proper name for him.

photo