If you've ever seen a movie in which a boat is caught in a storm. At first the waves are distant and the crew ignores them. Then suddenly the storm has swept in and everyone is running for cover, doing anything they can to prepare for a storm that's already here. And that's the left wing of the Democratic party right now, too slow to recognize the storm because of its media cocoon and now rushing to throw anything they can at it, from voter fraud to scandals and smears.
As it emerges, the nation's "first black President", William Jefferson Clinton was instrumental in trying to get Meek to step down in favor of Crist. Meek is black, Clinton as it turned out, was not. As Jim Hoft points out, this is also the third time that the Democratic party (hurrah for multiculturalism) have tried to get a black candidate to step out of the way of a white candidate.
But it's not just the perverse racial politics at work here. Meek wasn't told to step down in favor of another Democrat, like Greene was, but in favor of Charlie Crist, who until recently was a Republican. In Rhode Island, the Obama Administration tried to nudge out Frank T. Caprio, the Democratic candidate, who then told Obama to shove it... in favor of Lincoln Chaffee, also formerly a Republican.
Complicating matters further still, both Meek and Caprio were Hillary Clinton supporters. Which means the Obama Administration is sabotaging the Democratic party by choosing to back liberal Republicans over Clinton supporting Democrats. Why Bill Clinton chose to go along with it in the Meek case, when he's actually been out there championing Democrats who supported Hillary, is a little more confusing.
But not that confusing, because while Bill Clinton may play the loyalist returning favors to his old pals, the Clintons are actually in bed with Crist. Hillary Clinton's senior adviser Mark Penn is helping Crist. So why would the Clintons sell out Meek? Because Meek has no real shot at winning, and the Clintons need to show that they can pick and shepherd along winners, if they're to regain their stature in the party. And Florida remains a key state in any Presidential election. Hillary Clinton has not given up on her Presidential ambitions.
It's a gamble, but it's not a dumb gamble. Bill Clinton is playing the long game. He's preparing the ground for 2016.
But that takes us over to the voter fraud. There are too many incidents to list altogether, though the situation in Arizona is right up there. It's safe to say that there will be extensive voter fraud, but that means Republicans need to win by a higher margin. Close races are much easier to swing with some last minute "missing ballots" delivered straight from the animal shelter or the Bahamas. But the bigger the margin of victory, the harder it is to just waltz up with some new numbers, unless you're Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
The Democrats however are preparing the ground with accusations of fraud and intimidation. A major target has been Bill Randall, a black conservative, who is has been smeared by Brad Miller's campaign. Bill Randall has come a long way, and like most black conservatives, is seen as a particular threat. The resurgence of the smear campaign against Clarence Thomas is a sad reminder of just how much that's so.
The Randall-Miller debate held echoes of the O'Donnell-Coons debate, with Miller following the elitist liberal playbook by sneering that he doesn't understand what Randall is saying.
The big difference of course is in the money.
U.S. Rep. Brad Miller, a Raleigh Democrat, has a huge money advantage over his Republican challenger Bill Randall, according to the latest campaign finance reports filed with the Federal Election Commission.
Miller had $441,393 in his campaign kitty as of Sept. 30, compared to $23,084 for Randall. Randall also reported $43,822 in campaign debts, while Miller reported $14,007 in campaign debts.
Overall, Miller has reported raising $805,072 for his campaign, while Randall reported raising $165,548 for his campaign, including money he raised in his hard-fought primary. Randall was a tea party candidate, but there is little evidence that he has received any help from the national tea party, which apparently does not see the 13th House District as a winnable target.
But the Democrats and their pet media lapdogs are still threatened by Randall enough to begin smearing him with accusations of poll intimidation. This during a week where it finally emerged that the New Black Panther party thugs got a deliberate pass from the Obama Administration. A decision that says it's not about race, as much as it is about liberalism.
If we are ever going to get out of this mess, electing leaders like Bill Randall will be crucial in that regard.
Moving on to Mr. Aqua Buddha himself, the Rand Paul mess is predictably just that. The Paul campaigns have always drawn their share of assorted thugs, truthers, anti-war activists and the like.
The media has tried to cynically paint Mike Pezzano, one of the attackers, as a conservative, but he's nothing of the sort-- as Lisa Graas has exposed.
Pezzano's Meetup interests include legalizing pot, bashing Bush, Democratic Underground, opposition to globalization-- in other words, Pezzano has more in common with the MoveOn.org protester he attacked, than with normal Republicans. He's part of a libertarian fringe whose only overlap with Republicans is an endorsement of smaller government. But if that's all it takes to be considered a conservative Republican, then Lyndon LaRocuhe's followers would qualify too. And that's clearly wrong.
By carrying water for the likes of Pezzano, conservative bloggers are playing into the hands of liberals, who want to use him to define the Tea Party and conservatives. Lisa has pointed out that is not a Tea Party issue. Considering George Soros just dumped a million on Pezzano's favorite cause, they're not all that far apart.
The Pauls are not conservative. They have more in common with LaRouche and their campaign attracts lunatics and thugs. Which is natural when you're pandering to people who think that the United States is controlled by a secret conspiracy of bankers and that Bin Laden is a CIA agent. But instead of treating them the way both parties have treated LaRouche, Rand Paul got the welcome mat from the Republican party. He might win, but what his victory will cost the Republican party is a whole other story. This latest incident is a small taste of what's to come.
Finally the media is desperately touting Jon Stewart as a national figure, talking up his influence and his rally.
It's hard to find a more pathetic act of desperation than turning your party leadership over to a comedian. Early on, the Democrats began spreading the meme that Rush Limbaugh is the real head of the Republican party. Now the Democrats have decided to go one better by making Jon Stewart the head of the Democratic party.
And that completes the transition of the Democratic party to a joke. An unfunny joke, but a joke nonetheless.
Stewart's heavily hyped Daily Show interview with Obama barely managed to pick up 3 million viewers.
About 2.8 million people tuned in for President Obama’s interview on “The Daily Show” Wednesday night.
It was the first visit by a sitting president to the news satire show, and it was worth almost an extra million viewers for the program, which normally averages about 1.9 million viewers for its 11 p.m. airing.
Wow. A whole 3 million. And despite the big man with the big ears from the White House coming on down, Stewart couldn't even beat Bill O'Reilly. Now that's influence, gang.
Going international now, Elder of Ziyon has a rather disturbing idea supposedly being floated out of Washington D.C.
According to the sources, the agreement that the US is pushing involves recognition of a Palestinian Arab state exactly along the 1949 armistice lines in return for Palestinian Arab agreement to lease parts of "Arab" eastern Jerusalem and the Jordan Valley to Israel for somewhere between 40 and 99 years.
This is an American proposal, coming in response to Israeli insistence that the US adhere to the letter that George W. Bush sent to Ariel Sharon that large settlement blocs would remain under Israeli control.
The wickedly clever part of this is that it would mean a complete abandonment of Israel's territorial rights, without the need for an immediate expulsion and ethnic cleansing of the Jewish population. But from a legal standpoint, such territory would be part of the PA.
I don't imagine that Netanyahu would ever sign on to this, as it would essentially strip Israel of much of its territory and create the potential for some ugly havoc to be played at the international level. Yet I suspect that a Barak or a Livni would find such a proposal politically seductive. The real roadblock here might come from the Arab-Muslim side.
And what would this mean for Jews? It would mean a return to Dhimmi status, living as an oppressed second-class minority among Muslims. The Point of Return blog has some reminders of just what that was like. (Hat tip Solomonia)
In the Farhud, the anti-Jewish riots in Iraq in 1941, 180 Jews were murdered and 700 were injured. In the course of violent demonstrations that flared in Egypt in November 1945, 400 Jews were hurt, and much Jewish-owned property was looted and damaged. Rioting in Libya, also in November 1945, was much more costly: 130 Jews were murdered and 266 were injured. The December 1947 riots in Syria left 13 Jews dead (eight of them children ) in Damascus, and 26 wounded. In Aleppo, 150 houses were damaged, five schools and 10 synagogues were torched, and there were dozens of Jewish casualties. At the same time in Aden, Yemen, 97 Jews were murdered and 120 were injured; some Jews who experienced these events deem them "the holocaust of Yemenite Jewry."
These are a few of several dozen anti-Jewish attacks and massacres perpetrated in Arab states during the course of the 20th century. What do most teachers and pupils in Israel know about these events? Nothing.
And things have not gotten better since then. They have only gotten worse. As David Horrowitz aptly reminds us...
The Islamic terrorist organization Hamas makes no secret of this agenda. Its Egyptian founders and Palestinian inspirers were active followers of Adolf Hitler and enthusiasts of the Nazi Holocaust. The founding charter of Hamas, which promises that “Islam will obliterate Israel,” memorializes the Egyptian admirer of Hitler, Hassan al-Banna, as “the martyr…of blessed memory.” The same document contains the genocidal incitement of the Prophet Mohammed to “kill the Jews,” to hunt them down “until they hide behind the rocks and the trees, and the rocks and trees cry out ‘O Muslim, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him.’”
In 2006, these Islamic Nazis took possession of the Gaza Strip, which is unoccupied except by Hamas and is Jew-less (because the Palestinians would kill any Jews that moved in their state). Hamas has turned Gaza into a terrorist fortress, launching rockets into Israeli schoolyards, hospitals, and townships, and launching them from Palestinian schoolyards, hospitals, and townships to ensure that the maximum number of civilians – both Jews and Muslims – would die for their cause. They will win the Armageddon they are planning, they boast, because “the Jews love life and we love death.”
Why not just give up Jerusalem to the KKK or Charles Manson. If anything it would be safer.
To that end let me conclude with Herbert Zweibon's A History Lesson for Friends in the new Outpost
Do they know that Jordan is an Arab Palestinian state carved out of 82% of the land promised to the Jews for their state in all of Palestine? Are they even aware that Jordan illegally annexed Judea and Samaria (the so-called West Bank) and East Jerusalem after Israel’s war of Independence in 1948, and this was recognized only by two states, Pakistan and England? Any bets?
Have they looked at a map? Do they see Israel’s narrow waist in the old Green Line (to which the peace processors would have her return) and how easily her population centers could be overrun?
Would these legislators dream of giving up strategically valuable portions of our southern states to accommodate enemies whose stated intention was to destroy America? Well, that answers itself.
These are patriots and decent people who have been misled by a biased media and academy and Jewish organizations and yes, the bludgeoned-by-Obama Israeli Prime Minister, all peddling the perverse illusion that this tiny territory would satisfy the blood lust of Israel’s enemies.
It is not only Ahmadinejad that threatens Israel with genocidal jihad. Shmuel Katz put it best: the conflict indeed has a root cause and it is “the determination of the entire Arab nation, under the inspiration of Islam, to rule over the whole area from the Persian Gulf to the Atlantic Ocean and the southern border of Turkey to the southern border of the Sudan.” The Arabs’ liquidationist designs are rooted in Arab history and woven into the very fabric of the Islamic faith.
And that's all there is to it. Except the ultimate mission goes well beyond that and to the world itself.