DNC plumbing the depths with PP

Democrats, DNC or DCCC have some election ads calling Republicans and conservatives extremists and radicals for being anti-Planned Parenthood.

Imagine, in 2014 it is considered “radical” and extremist for a candidate to oppose an institutional baby-killing agenda. So being pro-life is now radical.

Here is just one of many ads from Dems and the DNC with a common message .


Script:

Nan Hayworth:
“I am proud to be a radical.” — [speech to Sons of Liberty in 2010 ]
Narrator:
Tea Party millionaire Nan Hayworth.  She calls herself a radical.
But what does that mean for you?
Hayworth opposed a woman’s right to choose.
And voted to eliminate funding for Planned Parenthood.
And on Social Security, Hayworth wants to risk seniors’ benefits on Wall Street.
So now, when Nan Hayworth says:
Nan Hayworth:
“I am proud to be a radical.”
Narrator
We know exactly what she means.
The DCCC is responsible for the content of this advertising.

We know exactly what Dems mean. It leaves little doubts. A war on babies has been transformed into some Republican “war on women”.

In another ad, a Democat is praised as an “advocate” for Planned Parenthood. Yet the same candidate claims to stand against special interests — “reducing the influence of special interests”.

Being considered radical or extreme for pro-life positions is how far, or low, we’ve come.
War on humanity anyone? What if the 50 million plus cast their votes?
What’s your definition of radical?

RightRing | Bullright

Tight security on secret Democracy Alliance

Security Tight at Secretive Democracy Alliance Meeting

Billionaires and millionaires rub elbows behind closed doors with Democratic pols and progressive foundations

BY: Alana Goodman | Free Beacon
May 1, 2014 4:15 pm

Democrats have long railed against the lack of transparency in political funding, but security was airtight this week as a hush-hush network of progressive moneymen and activists held a closed-door conference to map out their plan to shift U.S. policy to the left.

At the elegant Ritz Carlton hotel in downtown Chicago, wealthy donors, Democratic politicians, and representatives from left-leaning activist groups met for a conference hosted by the Democracy Alliance, a progressive donor network that funnels millions of dollars to undisclosed activist groups and political causes.

The four-day conference, which was closed to the public and media, drew high-profile Democrats including DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, and White House adviser Valerie Jarrett.

Access to the conference was invite-only and tightly controlled. Democracy Alliance officials manned a table outside the entrance to the conference areas, where attendees heard speeches by progressive rising stars like New York Mayor Bill DeBlasio and Kentucky Senate candidate Alison Lundergan Grimes.

More at http://freebeacon.com/politics/security-tight-at-secretive-democracy-alliance-meeting/

Got to love how the hypocrisy on the Left is on full display. Reid makes his daily rants against the Koch bros and they have such a gathering of elites clearly setting the agenda. And at the very same time they are spouting their minimum wage talking point and telling everyone they are the spokespeople for the middle class. What BS.

Trial lawyer lobby: Democrats’ golden parachute

The many, the proud, the arrogant… and the powerful

Trial Lawyers Spend Big on Democrats

BY: Washington Free Beacon Staff
April 2, 2014 8:10 am

Rep. Bruce Braley (D., Iowa) shot to fame last week for his cringeworthy gaffe, making Iowans question whether or not he really is the man for the Iowa Senate seat, for which he is running.

In front of a group of trail lawyers, Braley mocked Grassley saying he is “a farmer from Iowa who never went to law school.”

Though he has since issued an apology, Braley’s dig at Grassley could cost him the election as Americans are becoming weary of lawyer politicians and a legal system they believe is out control. […]

More: http://freebeacon.com/politics/trial-lawyers-spend-big-on-democrats/

Becoming? Americans have been weary of them for years. It’s the kind of self-serving flatulence that’s ruining our environment. (not the only)

John–“two Americas”– Edwards should be their poster child. If people think Democrats stand for the little guys, think again.

“I loved it for the decades I did it, and I think it’s what I was born to do,” — Edwards said on opening a new law firm last fall, with an office in DC.

It’s always for the poor, little people. (wink wink)

RightRing | Bullright

Surprise, biggest political donors not Republican

None of the Top 10 Biggest Political Donors are Republican

BY: Washington Free Beacon Staff
February 18, 2014 2:20 pm

The Center for Responsive Politics (CRP) released its list of top all-time donors. It totaled contributions fro 1989 to 2012 from PACs and individuals affiliated with the heavy hitter organizations.

CRP designated each of the heavy hitters as Democrat, Republican, or “on the fence,” meaning between 40 and 59 percent was donated to each party. In some cases, percentages did not add up to 100 due to third party donations.

None of the heavy hitters in the top 10 were Republican (three organizations in the top 10 were on the fence). A Republican-leaning organization did not make an appearance on the list until number 17.

Details: http://freebeacon.com/none-of-the-top-10-biggest-political-donors-are-republican/

Doesn’t quite fit the narrative. Surprise!

RightRing | Bullright

Return of the money changers

While most of America wants to see the money changers out of the Capitol temple, this president ups the ante to bring in more of them. Then, no doubt, he will complain about the money and influence in politics.

Obama thinks what we need is more money and special interest influence. His rebooted campaign raises so many questions on so many levels.

NYT: Obama’s Backers Seek Big Donors to Press Agenda

President Obama’s political team is fanning out across the country in pursuit of an ambitious goal: raising $50 million to convert his re-election campaign into a powerhouse national advocacy network, a sum that would rank the new group as one of Washington’s biggest lobbying operations.

But the rebooted campaign, known as Organizing for Action, has plunged the president and his aides into a campaign finance limbo with few clear rules, ample potential for influence-peddling, and no real precedent in national politics.

In private meetings and phone calls, Mr. Obama’s aides have made clear that the new organization will rely heavily on a small number of deep-pocketed donors, not unlike the “super PACs” whose influence on political campaigns Mr. Obama once deplored.

At least half of the group’s budget will come from a select group of donors who will each contribute or raise $500,000 or more, according to donors and strategists involved in the effort.

Unlike a presidential campaign, Organizing for Action has been set up as a tax-exempt “social welfare group.” That means it is not bound by federal contribution limits, laws that bar White House officials from soliciting contributions, or the stringent reporting requirements for campaigns. In their place, the new group will self-regulate.

Officials said it would voluntarily disclose the names of large donors every few months and would not ask administration personnel to solicit money, though Obama aides will probably appear at some events.

“No precedent”? – That is until Obama created one, another historic first for the Radical in Chief. He sure is working at leaving a lasting legacy/stain on our nation.

The Left’s Soros-funded influence is not enough. They need more big money and big donors. Sure it will be the largest lobby and influence in Washington, what would you expect from a usurping dictator?

And for giving the big money, get big meetings with the president. Misinformation Secretary, Jay Carney claims this is not selling influence. How is it not? Officials appearing at events are not soliciting money either. (pardon my Casablanca chuckle)

Yet another conflict the media can pretend does not exist. The Obama Alinskyites can trot out their “the American people don’t care about any of this” excuse

Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/23/us/politics/obamas-backers-seek-deep-pockets-to-press-agenda.html?ref=nicholasconfessore&_r=0

Obama’s unfairness doctrine

 

Obama tells us the buck stops with him. Except of course, how it stops with Bush; or Congress; or greedy businesses that “didn’t build that”; or Supreme Court decisions he doesn’t like; etc. He will always call for accountability on others while escaping from it himself. When he says he is responsible it is followed by an excuse or blaming someone else. When a problem happens tied to his administration, he is nowhere to be found or seen running away.

He’s the quintessential politician always in pursuit of the “gotcha moment” against his opponents, while he goes around criticizing gotcha politcs. He will be divissive while accusing others of “the politics of division”. He will claim to represent all the people while talking and catering only to his special interests, and castigating others.

He will show a lack of respect to our allies while claiming he is the best friend they ever had. He will jeopardize national security while claiming all he cares about is protecting America. He’ll claim to be the most caring commander in chief to the troops while asking them to pay more for services or undercutting their values in his policies.

He will claim to want a level playing field and everyone to “pay their fair share” but demand some people should not have to. He associates himself with monopolists who game the system and pay next to nothing in taxes, even making them advisors. Yet he’ll attack others for using loopholes to scam the system. He’ll demand loopholes for his prefered groups. He’ll say we cannot afford spending abroad on wars while unilaterally engaging in a new country using our resources and money.

He’ll accuse others of politicizing issues while he politicizes the same issues. He’ll call out others for their tone, while he sets a negative tone and divides people — like no one else. He will talk about and claim to be following the founders while he characterizes the Constitution as a flawed document.

He will stand up for those who protest while criticizing anyone in dissent with his policies. He will claim there is no red America or blue America while dividing America by color, race, ethnicity, sex, income, background, where they live or job.

He’ll claim to be fiscally responsible while not getting a single budget passed. He’ll claim he is lowering the debt while increasing it. He’ll claim to want a better future for America while he destroys the vision for our future. He’ll claim America is a great country while he attacks and criticizes America’s actions.

He’ll boast about having killed a leading terrorist and many others while banning the word terrorism from use everywhere else. He claims to be combating terrorism, while refering to it as workplace violence.

He’ll claim to endorse the free market and capitalism system while doing everything in his power to curtail or diminish it. He’ll claim to be reducing spending while proposing all kinds of new spending as “investment”. He’ll claim to be for “compromise” while stating he won’t give one inch on his plans. He’ll claim to oppose government mandates while instituting government mandates, even over state controls.

He’ll claim to support religious tolerance, while cracking down on freedoms and forcing laws on religious institutions. He’ll claim to stand for religious freedom while picking fights and forcing mandates on those of conscience. And he accuses others of religious intolerance. He’ll claim to stand for the rule of law while ignoring and refusing to enforce laws to suit his ideology. He’ll accuse others of being ideologues.

He says he supports an all of the above strategy for energy, while supporting only some of the above and attacking others.

He said he support traditional marriage, then refused to enforce existing law.

He says he’s for reform except then opposes it.

He wants to rein in spending while increasing his spending.

He says he is for choice but he opposes it.

He says he is against containment policies while supporting policies of containment.
He says he does what he says… then does not do what he said.

He claims to be totally transparent while he evades, hides the truth and lies. Then claims he is honest with the people.

He’s always telling us he is consistent while being inconsistent.

He’ll say his leadership is unquestionable while following the lead of his special interests; or leading from behind.

And he would claim all this is consitent with “social justice”, and his platform.