Showing posts sorted by date for query James Carville. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query James Carville. Sort by relevance Show all posts

James Carville Loses It, Says House GOP and the KGB Are in Cahoots



James Carville Loses It, Says House GOP and the KGB Are in Cahoots

The party of Weirdness from Outer Space........




WOW....they could be twins.  Guess carville didn't get the memo, the FBI already discredited that line of stupidity.
And Carville.......your shit DOES stink

Image result for pile of crap animation

Don't forget to follow the Friends Of Liberty on Facebook and our Page also Pinterest , Twitter , tumblr and Google Plus PLEASE help spread the word by sharing our articles on your favorite social networks.
🚂🇺🇸💨 
Friends Of Liberty is a non-partisan, non-profit organization with the mission to protect and defend individual freedoms and individual rights.

Democrats Are Politically Brain Dead Says:


Democrat James Carville... '80% Of Democrats Are Politically Brain Dead'



“Ideologies aren’t all that important. What’s important is psychology.

Democrats Are Politically Brain Dead Says :


Democrat James Carville... '80% Of Democrats Are Politically Brain Dead'




Admittedly this is an older quote but I feel that since we are headed into what is likely the most important presidential election of our lifetime, I feel this is definitely worth bringing back into the spotlight.

Obama Doesn't Really Care About The American People


Obama ‘Doesn't Really Care’ What The American People Think



Former Democratic strategist James Carville sounded a little exasperated Thursday when he admitted President Obama “doesn't really care” what the American people think about his presidency.
The Fox News contributor sat down with Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly and “The Five” host Andrea Tantaros to discuss President Obama’s consistently depressed poll numbers.
Carville noted that the president’s low numbers have been “stable” at about “43.6 [percent approval] — which is not very good, but not collapsing.”

OBAMA WAS VOTED INTO OFFICE TWICE ON THE BASIS OF RACE!

by F J Rocca





By definition, racists judge people by stereotyping them according to race, by assuming that all black people have big lips and like fried chicken, that all Asians are inscrutable, or that all Italians are mobsters. There are as many stereotypes as there are categories of human being: women, tall people, fat people, Christians, Jews, Gays, people of a certain nationality or even people from a certain region of one’s own country. If you judge people by stereotype you are practicing prejudice, of which racism is one kind.

Voiceless Victim:

 By Nathan Embry




Economic Freedom



Economic freedom is one of many sacred liberties individuals enjoy in our great country. Economic freedom allows for individuals to trade with others as they see fit and in their own best interest. It also allows for sellers to create and offer products of their own choosing, and buyers then elect to purchase that product or to not. Our economy is the largest and most robust in the world partly due to the financial liberty we enjoy.

an open letter from the American people







IS THIS MAN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE LEADER OF THE FREE WORLD, MENTALLY ILL?




A Shrink Asks: What's Wrong with Obama?

By Robin of Berkeley, American Thinker

So what is the matter with Barak Obama?

Ted Cruz for President


 


In 2008, a young, first-term Senator ran for President. His mother was an American citizen and his father was from Kenya. That did not deter him as he was designated a natural-born citizen and thus eligible to hold the office. He won and we have endured four years of his first term and now are watching as his second term is demonstrating further his incompetence and loss of political power. Barack Obama, however, is proof that a Senator with a similar background can run.


That is why I am endorsing Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) to be the next nominee of the Republican Party to run for President in 2016. He would be the best candidate to oppose Hillary Clinton, widely believed to already have the Democratic Party nomination. His debating skills are extraordinary, but it is his record in public life that commends him to lead the nation out of the morass of general decline into which it has fallen.


One Cruz donor who has known him for decades summed it best. “He’s fearless.” Columnist George Will has described him “as good as it gets” and the National Federation of Independent Business said of his senatorial campaign that his election was “critical to the small business owners in (Texas and) also to protecting free enterprise across America.”


His father, Rafael, was born in Cuba and fought with Fidel Castro until his communist regime revealed itself and turned on him. He escaped Cuba, arriving in Austin, Texas, speaking no English and with $100 he sewed into his underwear. He washed dishes to help pay for his schooling at the University of Texas. His father is currently a pastor in Dallas.


Cruz was born in Canada to an American mother and, when his family moved back to Texas, he attended high school in Houston and went on to receive a bachelor’s degree from Princeton University and a law degree from Harvard University where he was the primary editor of the Law Review and a founding editor of the Latino Law Review.


He worked on George W. Bush’s 2000 presidential campaign and, when Bush was elected, he appointed Cruz an associate deputy attorney general. Prior to his election as Senator, Cruz had served as the Solicitor General of Texas, the State’s chief lawyer before the U.S. Supreme Court. He was the youngest and would be the longest serving Solicitor General in Texas as well as the first Hispanic to hold the office. His previous experience as a law clerk to former Supreme Court William Rehnquist has served him well.


As Solicitor General, Cruz authored more than 80 U.S. Supreme Court briefs and argued before it 43 times, securing a number of landmark national victories defending U.S. sovereignty against the U.N. and the World Court, the Second Amendment, the constitutionality of the Texas Ten Commandments monument, the words ‘under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, and other key decisions.


He was named one of the best 50 litigators under 45 by American Lawyer magazine and one of the 50 Most Influential Minority Lawyers in America by the National law Journal. Texas Lawyer ranked him one of the 25 Greatest Texas Lawyers of the Past Quarter Century.


A recent National Review Online blog post by Robert Costa was titled “Cruz 2016” said he is considering a presidential run according to his friends and confidants. A Republican insider said “If you don’t think this is real, then you’re not paying attention. Cruz already has grassroots on his side and in this climate that’s all he may need.” Republicans fearful that Hispanics would automatically vote for a Democratic candidate can put that fear aside if Cruz was the GOP candidate. He would garner a significant margin of their votes, enough to get him elected in a tight race. Chad Connelly, the chairman of the South Carolina Republican Party said “Conservatives think he’s a rock star. I hear about him from everybody.”


Indeed, Cruz was in South Carolina this past week giving a rousing speech—without notes or a Teleprompter—to a gathering of Republicans and also spoke at the National Rifle Association. He is being received in a fashion that only a promising candidate normally receives.


Critically, the Costa article said, “Cruz isn’t worried that his birth certificate will be a problem. Though he was born in Canada, he and his advisors are confident that he could win any legal battle over his eligibility.” Given the fact that Obama’s birth certificate is widely believed to be a forgery and the path that was smoothed for him by the Democratic Party that would appear to be a foregone conclusion.

A May 3rd Washington Times article cited Michael C. Dorf, a constitutional law professor at Cornell University who said that Cruz “likely does not have any constitutional barriers standing in front of him” and noting that the Congressional Research Service “also weighed in on the issue in 2011 with an opinion that sounds favorable to a Cruz candidacy.”

Even famed Democratic Party strategist, James Carville, speaking on ABC’s “This Week”, said, “I think he is the most talented and fearless Republican politician I’ve seen in the last 30 years. I further think that he’s going to run for president and he is going to create something. I’m not sitting here saying he’s going to win, and I think Senator DeMint is right. I’ve listened to excerpts of his speech in South Carolina. He touches every button, and this guy has no fear. He just keeps plowing ahead. And he is going to be something to watch.”


Proof that Cruz is making an impact in Washington is the fire he is drawing. A recent Heritage Action for America communique noted that he is “under attack by Washington liberals” and is seen as “a threat to the big-government elites.” The committee lauded Cruz because he “has no interest in playing by corrupt Washington rules” and “even some of his so-called friends have resorted to ad hominem attacks” that include calling him a jerk, a liar, immature, narcissistic, and whiny.”  That’s often a sign that a politician is beginning to make a reputation by not going along to get along.


Among the early rivals for the GOP nomination are Marco Rubio of Florida, but his defense of the proposed immigration law that is little more than amnesty for 11 million illegal aliens will hurt him among Republican voters in the primaries. Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky is also expected to make a run for the nomination, along with Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker and Louisiana’s Bobby Jindal.


At this early point in time, I don’t see any of his rivals gaining sufficient support to gain the nomination. And I can see him winning the 2016 election in a landslide. Hillary is just old news.


I don’t know what kind of president Cruz would be, but I do know he would not be as boring, incompetent, ineffectual, or a constant liar and embarrassment that the current one is.

Editor's Note: I am not a constitutional scholar. To those who say Cruz is not eligible I say this is a matter for the courts. If, however, Obama can be deemed eligible, then Cruz may be as well. The courts, during Obama's first term, refused to address the issue.

By Alan Caruba

The Weekly Standard





COLD OPEN
So what is marriage, really? That's the question asked by Sherif Girgis, Ryan Anderson, and Robert George in their new book titled (shockingly!) What Is Marriage? It’s a smart book on an important subject.

'positive thinking' Go's Bust!

Ultimate 'positive thinking' scheme goes bust

 
 

October 29, 2012
Stephen Stone, RA President

About three years ago, a graduate of Brigham Young University — a large Mormon institution heavily populated by "positive-thinking" returned LDS missionaries (see last week's column) — said he was dissatisfied with politics as usual, and undertook to create a "one-stop political website" that would effectively and reliably educate voters.

Romney Killed It

Romney Killed It



Holy smokes. I can't believe what I saw. And it was strange because as I'm watching it I'm thinking that Mitt was killing it. But then I wondered if maybe I'm just in the tank for Romney or something and I had lost any sense of reality. Romney was prepared. Like crazy prepared.

Romney outed Obama as ill prepared. So after the debate my brothers and I were all texting each other things like "He won going away, right" and "Was that even close?"

And now even the media is saying Romney won. Believe me in the next few days the media will savage Romney. Bad. But reality was so clear that they couldn't lie about it. Even James Carville said Romney won. The CBS insta-poll said Romney crushed Obama in the debate. Hilariously, the anchor essentially apologized for the small sample and said it wasn't very scientific or anything. In that poll, 46 percent said Romney won. 22 percent said Obama. That's double folks.

Frank Luntz's focus group was even more startling. I think it was like 22-3 who said Romney won. And 15 of the people in the panel had voted for Obama last time.

I loved the line from Romney about where our rights come from. He made it plain that our rights come from "Our Creator." Obama constantly drops that part.

I thought Lehrer wasn't too bad to be honest but I can't believe we didn't get to any questions about religious liberty. But Romney did give a shout-out about it.

Update: CNN poll says 67-25 percent that Romney won. Wow. I'm afraid to put on MSNBC for fear of seeing some kind of breakdown.

Update2: Oh my. I just saw this from MSNBC. Chris Matthews is absolutely losing it. Someone should take away Matthews belt and shoelaces.

 


Transition and Transaction





Transition and Transaction

The transition of the old Democratic Party to what exists today should not surprise or confound conservatives. Nor should Alinsky's tactics seem foreign. After all, for nearly 40 years, Republicans and the conser...vative agenda have been getting hammered by the left through the successful use of Alinsky tactics.

In that cause, radicals and the liberal-left gravitated toward the print and electronic media, toward the university professorate and the law. The left, consciously or unconsciously, adopted Alinsky's rules. The impact changed the nature of the Democratic Party and the direction of the United States. Increasingly, the left is succeeding in changing the nature of the Republican Party as well.

Suffice to say the greatest change has taken place in the relationship between the state and the individual. America is rapidly descending from a representative Constitutional Republic to a collectivist empire controlled by elites of one sort or another.

Alinsky's influence on the modern Democratic Party indicates that the ends do indeed justify the means. As Alinsky states in "Rules for Radicals" it was foolish to believe that means are just as important as the ends. He states that "to believe in the immaculate conception of ends and principles ... The practical revolutionary will understand ... [that] in action, one does not always enjoy the luxury of a decision that is consistent both with one's individual conscience and the good of mankind."

Sadly, not enough Republicans and conservatives learned Alinsky's rules until late in the game. A sign of hope is the fact that the new media, including talk radio and the Internet, are changing all that. One can hope it is not too late.

In any event, Alinsky's rules include:

"Wherever possible go outside the experience of the enemy. Here you want to cause confusion, fear and retreat."

"Make the enemy live up to his/her own book of rules. You can kill them with this. They can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity."

"Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also, it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage."

"The threat is generally more terrifying than the thing itself."

"In a fight almost anything goes. It almost reaches the point where you stop to apologize if a chance blow lands above the belt."

"Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it." (Think Gingrich, Lott and the success of name-calling used by the likes of Bill Clinton, Paul Begala, James Carville, Maxine Waters and others against conservatives and Republicans. Think of how Clinton "enemies" like Paula Jones or Linda Tripp were treated.)

"One of the criteria for picking the target is the target's vulnerability ... the other important point in the choosing of a target is that it must be a personification, not something general and abstract." (Trent Lott comes to mind. Meanwhile, a former Klansman by the name of Sen. Robert Byrd got away with saying "nigger" on Fox News at least three times, and he still maintains his Senate seat and power.)

"The enemy properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major strength." For instance, Democrats imply conservatives are racists or that Republicans want to kill senior citizens by limiting the growth of the Medicare system, they imply Republicans want to deny kids lunch money without offering real proof. These red-herring tactics work.
Of course, Republicans reaction to all this is to immediately go on the defensive. Seldom do they unleash their pit bull orators or strategists. Rather than use the immense amount of data available to prove the conservative case, Republicans tug their forelocks, say "yes sir," and hope the accusations and name calling will go away.
Why is it that Republicans consistently fail to point out the monumental failures of the new Democrats? Failures such as the massive disaster that is the "war on poverty." On that topic alone Republicans should be drilling the public in every media venue and at every opportunity. Then and only then should Republicans offer alternatives to the failed policies of the Democratic left.

Republicans should pound relentlessly on the fact that the Democratic Party was hijacked by leftist reactionaries way back in the early '70s. The reactionary left is the obstructionist left. They do nothing but defend and cling to the failures of the past. That fact makes them reactionaries rather than radicals or progressives.

Unfortunately, Republicans still pretend that nothing has changed regarding the basic philosophy of the political parties. They refuse to understand the horrendous notion that Democrats tell us the U.S. Constitution is flexible. That means the rule of law is flexible. If that is the case the law and the Constitution mean nothing. It means that the law and Constitution are twisted by the whims and fancies of the moment.

In fact, in the 2000 election Al Gore maintained the Constitution could and should be manipulated because it was "flexible." Whatever happened to the amendment process?

Bill Clinton used executive orders to circumvent Congress and the Constitution. He used the agencies of the federal government against his enemies. Clinton set an extremely dangerous precedent. Alinsky would have loved it. It is a perfect example of the use of the Rules for Radicals – ends justify the means.

Hillary and Bill Clinton and other powerful former '60s radicals learned from Saul Alinsky. It is about time that a few more Republicans and/or conservatives did as well.