Dem debate: Obama love fest, trip to Pandersville

No right thinking person would subject themselves to an entire Dem debate, but watching sporadically, it was clear that Socialist Bernie Sanders and Leftist Hillary Clinton have a lot in common. Pandering for minority votes, they are both sufficiently ashamed to be white and heterosexual to pass liberal muster. Hillary can even affect what she regards as a ghetto accent when she thinks it benefits her. They both hate the rich, which amounts to a chromic case of self loathing for Hillary. Neither can give away American citizenship fast enough to the illegals who invade our country — and they each brag about their exemplary record in doing so.

Clinton blasted Sanders for not being sufficiently bonded to Obama.  Sanders countered by saying, “One of us ran against Barack Obama. I was not that candidate.”

The dreary drone-fest ended seven minutes before the announced conclusion — which would have provided plenty of time for moderator Judy Woodruff to disclose her donation to the Clinton Foundation. She didn’t.  Not a single question was raised about Clinton’s private server housed in her basement or the fact that her laxity with emails containing classified information has put our national security at risk and is acknowledged by officials to be “a serious matter.” The ongoing FBI investigation of the Clinton Foundation or subpoenas issued by the State Department? Not a single question. Hillary’s reprehensible Benghazi lies or her myriad scandals? Nope. Her deep connections to George Soros? Not a word.

The debate hosts saw nothing of consequence in any of those topics.

But what do Democrats care? Meet some of Hillary’s supporters.


7 Responses to Dem debate: Obama love fest, trip to Pandersville

  1. Clementine says:

    Hillary’s supporters are brain dead. That they view the Bill of Rights as antiquated and in need of being replaced is an obscene testament to American’s failed public school system which is run by liberals. I’d bet not a single of of those dunces could locate Iran on a map.

  2. MacBeth says:

    Hillary is too damaged to be the eventual Democrat nominee. Liberal billionaire Michael Bloomberg, who switches political parties as often as most of us change our underwear, will buy his way in. Hillary should be behind bars but the Obama administration will give her a pass. Indicting her is an indictment of Obama.

  3. Kent says:

    SRAZ: should have titled this post, “We watched this so you didn’t have to.”

  4. Villanova says:

    The latest news aimed at boosting Hillary is that the DNC is now allowing campaign contributions from federal lobbyists.
    This is in today’s Washington Post:

  5. Saguaro Sam says:

    You must keep in mind that Hillary Rodham was mentored, from the time she was in high school, by a man to whom she was introduced while doing volunteer work. That man was Saul Alinsky.
    The Saul Alinsky who went on to write the book entitled “Rules for Radicals” and dedicated the book to Lucifer.

    Alinsky, another man from Chicago, understood that young people had to be indoctrinated.

    Take a look at these passages from his book, and think about what we are witnessing today:

    “Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history… the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.”


    “The Revolutionary force today has two targets, moral as well as material. Its young protagonists are one moment reminiscent of the idealistic early Christians, yet they also urge violence and cry, ‘Burn the system down!’ They have no illusions about the system, but plenty of illusions about the way to change our world. It is to this point that I have written this book.”

    1. The Purpose

    In this book we are concerned with how to create mass organizations to seize power and give it to the people; to realize the democratic dream of equality, justice, peace…. “Better to die on your feet than to live on your knees.’ This means revolution.” p.3

    “Radicals must be resilient, adaptable to shifting political circumstances, and sensitive enough to the process of action and reaction to avoid being trapped by their own tactics and forced to travel a road not of their choosing.” p.6

    “A Marxist begins with his prime truth that all evils are caused by the exploitation of the proletariat by the capitalists. From this he logically proceeds to the revolution to end capitalism, then into the third stage of reorganization into a new social order of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and finally the last stage — the political paradise of communism.” p.10

    “An organizer working in and for an open society is in an ideological dilemma to begin with, he does not have a fixed truth — truth to him is relative and changing; everything to him is relative and changing…. To the extent that he is free from the shackles of dogma, he can respond to the realities of the widely different situations….” pp.10-11

    Notes on Saul Alinsky and Neo-Marxism:

    Alinsky’s tactics were based, not on Stalin’s revolutionary violence, but on the Neo-Marxist strategies of Antonio Gramsci, an Italian Communist. Relying on gradualism, infiltration and the dialectic process rather than a bloody revolution, Gramsci’s transformational Marxism was so subtle that few even noticed the deliberate changes.

    Like Alinsky, Mikhail Gorbachev followed Gramsci, not Lenin. In fact, Gramsci aroused Stalins’s wrath by suggesting that Lenin’s revolutionary plan wouldn’t work in the West. Instead the primary assault would be on Biblical absolutes and Christian values, which must be crushed as a social force before the new face of Communism could rise and flourish. Malachi Martin gave us a progress report:
    “By 1985, the influence of traditional Christian philosophy in the West was weak and negligible…. Gramsci’s master strategy was now feasible. Humanly speaking, it was no longer too tall an order to strip large majorities of men and women in the West of those last vestiges that remained to them of Christianity’s transcendent God.”

    Get It?

    • Conservative Since Birth says:

      Saguaro Sam – you are terrific. You’d think that the “loyal opposition” (the GOPe) would know all that and lead us on the road to what America was founded upon and how detrimental Alinsky/Obama is to this country. I’m not hearing it from them. They just want “their guy” in. The hell with the country.

      We need to win this next election. As I told a Northeast relative earlier today – I’ll vote for anyone but a Democrat. That relative lives in a liberal, ‘progressive,’ tax-the-rich state, but it’s trickling down to those not so rich….let’s call them the good ol’ middle class that is getting squeezed to the point where they’re hurting. My blood relatives are “Republicans” as far as the Northeast goes, but they’ve married some doozies and it’s come home to roost. Now they’re crying.