Did you know that 30 years ago, Ceasar Chavez oppsed illegal imigration because such would underminene wages for members of his union. Chavez would no longer be accepted by the Democrats of today . . . . socialists all.
General Robert E Lee of the South and a member of the Democrat slave owner community, would no longer be accepted by present-day Democrats. Woodrow Wilson, the first progressive president, would be rejected today because of his racism. FDR, the only four term president and a Democrat, would be soundly rejected, today. There would be no place for John F Kennedy as well. And, for the purposes of this article, it should be noted that neither Martin Luther King, Jr. nor the labor leader/reformer, Ceasar Chavez, would be accepted.
In short, if the past leadership of the Democrat Party are no longer accepted, we can draw this rather obvious conclusion: The Democrat Party has been replaced by a radical socialist alternative.
And while we may fear such a development, let it be known that a socialist President would be powerless to accomplish his/her goals except via "executive demand." Surprisingly, Barack Obama is our best example of this failing. In eight years, his only major bills were the Dodd/Frank banking reform bill and Obama Care. Dodd/Frank has been rewritten to make it fairly effective. ObamaCare never enlisted more than 20 million people, its cost to consumers have increased over 400%, and today, it has been universally rejected by the socialist Left . . . . seriously rejected. In fact, Biden is the only voice supporting ObamaCare.
Oh, a Democrat majority would raise taxes and increase regulations but next to nothing else would be accomplished in a permanent sense of the word. We know this because such was virtually all that was accomplished under the eight-year Obama Administration and his democrat Super majority.
My point: The radicals will not be able to "fundamentally trasform the United States" without and unless the federal court system is radicalized or suspended . . . and that cannot happened in today's political economy. Read the Right-Hand margins of this blog, and you will be reminded that Barack's express purpose for running as President for fundamental transformation
Showing posts with label Democrat Party. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Democrat Party. Show all posts
A little truth about the history of the Democrat Party, a history they want you to believe the GOP created.
 |
| Editor, click to enlarge. |
I watched the Fox News program, Kit Carson, today, and was startled to see the sad role that Manifest Destiny played in the conquest of the Western United States. The following was taken from Wikipedia, hardly a conservative outpost, and, adds to the history of the once, imperialistic/racist collective, that was the Democrat Party through the 1960's. I don't mention this to blame Dems for the past, but, if they think they can turn the tables and blame the GOP for that which they created, well, that is not going to happen here, at Midknight Review ~ editor, John Smtihson.
Historians have emphasized that "Manifest Destiny" was a contested concept—Democrats endorsed the idea but many prominent Americans (such as Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses S. Grant, and most Whigs) rejected it. Historian Daniel Walker Howe writes, "American imperialism did not represent an American consensus; it provoked bitter dissent within the national polity.... Whigs saw America's moral mission as one of democratic example rather than one of conquest."[4]
Newspaper editor John O'Sullivan coined the term Manifest Destiny in 1845 to describe the essence of this mindset which was a rhetorical tone.[5] It was used by Democrats in the 1840s to justify the war with Mexico and it was also used to divide half of Oregon with the United Kingdom. But Manifest Destiny always limped along because of its internal limitations and the issue of slavery, says Merk. It never became a national priority. By 1843 John Quincy Adams, originally a major supporter, had changed his mind and repudiated Manifest Destiny because it meant the expansion of slavery in Texas.[6]
Merk concludes:
- From the outset Manifest Destiny—vast in program, in its sense of continentalism—was slight in support. It lacked national, sectional, or party following commensurate with its magnitude. The reason was it did not reflect the national spirit. The thesis that it embodied nationalism, found in much historical writing, is backed by little real supporting evidence.[7]
With the 2008 election under his belt, B Obama decided that he did not need the workingman's vote. Today, his socialist Progressive Party is about to pay the price for that nonsense, unless they can change the tide of popular opinion.
Unconvinced by Democrats
Percentage of white men voting for a Democratic presidential candidate
College graduate
40%
30
No college degree
20
10
0
’84
’88
’92
’96
’00
’04
’08
’12
The upward trend of white males voting
"Democrat," began just before Bill Clinton, and was an
established fact of life, during his tenure as president. During
those years, 37% of the white male vote went to Democrats. The Bush
years brought an end to that reality, with white men voting for Democrats
only 34% of the time.
In 2008, with the advent of B Hussein Obama,
there was an admitted spike, dispelling the notion of "rampant
racism" within the white male community. By 2012, that reality had
been completely reversed, however, by an Obama election strategy that
overtly/deliberately ignored the white blue collar vote. And, that
voting block responded in kind.
Now that Obama is on his way out, a lame duck
since March 23, 2010, and the passing of the "Affordable Care Act,"
his "take no prisoners" and his antagonism against the working/non-union white man,
has created a very real problem for the Democrat Party in the coming 2014
and 2016 elections.
The New Democrat/Socialist Party was soundly defeated across the
board, in the 2010 midterms. 800 Democrat state legislative
positions flipped from Dem to GOP, 30 state governors were elected or
re-elected to office, 6 seats were picked up in the Senate and House
Democrats, under the leadership of the most profoundly liberal House
Democrat speaker of all time, Nancy Pelosi, lost their hold on that
legislative body. That was 2010.
2012, saw Obama win a second term. What was
not reported, however, was the fact that an estimated 6
million projected Democrat voters, did not show up for that
election, with the hard-count, vote total, for Barack Hussein, coming in
at 1.2 million less than in 2008. Instead of building on the '08 total of
66.9 million votes, hoping to take that vote total over the 71 million
mark for the first time in history, the Dems brought in just over 65
million, more than 6 million short of their national goal. While
Romney lost that election, he garnered 2.4 million more votes than the
feckless John McCain. Obama had bragged about being able to win elections
without the blue collar vote, and his mindless Progressive associates had
climbed on board, with this assumption. Now, a growing
population of Boobs, has decided that such was not a sustainable
strategy.
Today, the Democrat Party is in far worse
elective shape than in 2010, and the white man, who voted for Der
Slickster in 2008, has told the New Socialist, anti workingman
party, to go to hell. The leadership within that party, is beginning to
realize the folly of having alienated the white male vote. Evidence for this conclusion is a whiny article written in the NY Times, on March 2. Problem:
they are going to have to live with this failed strategy through two
election cycles. The damage done to the Progressive Movement is already
"in the bank," and vote totals are the only unknown . . . . but
it will not be good.
Me? I think their stupidity is both predictable and humorous. I have written, over and over again, that the Obama's are the worse thing to happen to the Democrat Party . . . . . . . . ever. Time seems to be proving me correct in that claim.
Even his best buds at the WaPost, see Obama as living and working in an alternative universe, one that has little to do with present day, foreign realities. (Here is the part where I get to say, "I told you so.")
The Post’s View
President Obama’s foreign policy is based on fantasy
By Editorial
Board, Published: March 2
FOR FIVE YEARS, President Obama has led a foreign policy
based more on how he thinks the world should operate than on reality. It was a
world in which “the
tide of war is receding” (from an Obama speech in June of 2011 - blog editor) and the
United States could, without much risk, radically reduce the size of its armed
forces. Other leaders, in this vision, would behave rationally and in the
interest of their people and the world. Invasions, brute force, great-power
games and shifting alliances — these were things of the past. Secretary of
State John F. Kerry displayed this mindset on ABC’s “This Week” Sunday when he
said, of Russia’s invasion of neighboring Ukraine, “It’s
a 19th century act in the 21st century.”
That’s a nice thought, and we all know what he means. A
country’s standing is no longer measured in throw-weight or battalions. The
world is too interconnected to break into blocs. A small country that plugs
into cyberspace can deliver more prosperity to its people (think Singapore or
Estonia) than a giant with natural resources and standing armies.
Unfortunately, Russian President Vladimir Putin has not
received the memo on 21st-century behavior. Neither has China’s president, Xi
Jinping, who is engaging in gunboat diplomacy against Japan and the weaker
nations of Southeast Asia. Syrian president Bashar al-Assad is waging
a very 20th-century war against his own people, sending helicopters to drop
exploding barrels full of screws, nails and other shrapnel onto apartment
buildings where families cower in basements. These men will not be deterred by
the disapproval of their peers, the weight of world opinion or even
disinvestment by Silicon Valley companies. They are concerned primarily with
maintaining their holds on power.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)