The Democrats: Too Old and Too White?

Leftwingers’ taunts in 2008 and 2012 have come back to haunt them. 

In the jubilation of the Obama election victories of 2008 and 2012, the Left warned Republicans that the party of McCain and Romney was now “too old, too white, too male — and too few.” Columnists between 2008 and 2012 ad nauseam berated Republicans on the grounds that their national candidates “no longer looked like America.” The New York Times stable crowed that the Republicans of 2008 were “all white and nearly all male” — not too long before McCain chose Sarah Palin as his running-mate. In reaction to the defeats of McCain and Romney, Salon and Harper’s ran stories on the “Grand Old White Party” and “Angry White Men.”

For Democratic progressives, Hawaiian Barack Obama could not be of mixed ancestry and decidedly middle class, but simply “black” or “African American” — as if he had shared the Jim Crow experience of Clarence Thomas. Nor was there any allowance that race itself had become hard to sort into neat categories in a nation of immigration, intermarriage, and assimilation, in which millions of Americans were one-half this and one-quarter that. Rachel Dolezal and Shaun King proved that well enough by successfully constructing themselves as white for quite a long time. 

Liberals had reversed the vision of Martin Luther King Jr.: The color of our skin, not the content of our character, is what matters. Superficial appearance, the ossified politics of the tribe — the curse of the world outside the United States, where corpses have piled up in the Balkans, Rwanda, and Iraq — alone mattered. Identity politics dictated that a shrinking white insular conservative party lacked the Democrats’ “inclusiveness” and “commitment to diversity.” Icons like Barack Obama were what mattered.

Via: National Review

Continue Reading....

FreedomWorks’ Congressman of the Month - John Fleming August 2015

Each month, FreedomWorks will spotlight a Member of Congress who embodies our key principles of less government, lower taxes, and more freedom. For the inaugural edition of FreedomWorks’ Congressman of the Month program, we’re highlighting Rep. John Fleming of Louisiana. Fleming was one of the first to join the House Freedom Caucus, and has been a consistent voice for liberty in Congress, since he was first elected in 2008.

A physician by trade, Fleming has demonstrated a willingness to lead on the health care debate that many of his colleagues lack. In 2013, he worked with the Republican Study Committee to introduce the American Health Care Reform Act, one of the most conservative alternatives to ObamaCare to b seriously proposed. Fleming was also a key player in the 2013 fight to defund ObamaCare.

Fleming’s opposition to ObamaCare has not weakened. Last month, he introduced the Helping Save Americans’ Health Care Choices Act, to promote and expand the use of health savings accounts. Health savings accounts are a better alternative to third party payer systems, because they promote price transparency and competition among health care providers. When patients see where their money is going, they act to spend it more wisely, encouraging lower prices and better services across the sector.

Fleming’s bill raises the current contribution limits on Health Savings Accounts, allows spouses access to the accounts, expands the number of services covered by the accounts, and expands eligibility for the accounts. These type of reforms are essential to reduce the cost of actual health care, as distinct from tinkering with insurance markets as the Affordable Care Act and many competing proposals have tried to do.

Fleming has proved to be an uncompromising defender of freedom in other policy areas as well. Where many were tempted to accept minor reforms in large legislative packages this year, Fleming rejected the argument that we have to give up a lot to get a little. He opposed the USA Freedom Act, arguing that it did not go far enough in protecting Americans from domestic spying, despite heavy pressure from inside his own party.

Fleming took a similar stand on the Student Success Act, a reauthorization of No Child Left Behind that admittedly would make a number of positive reforms. But Fleming’s dedication to the Constitution, which provides no role for the federal government in education, led him to oppose the bill on principle, especially impressive given the Majority Whip’s personal commitment to the bill.

Fleming has also proved that he is not afraid to stand up to House leadership, being one of the Members who opposed the rule to advance trade legislation, earning the vocal ire of Speaker John Boehner. This was the same vote that almost cost Rep. Mark Meadows his subcommittee gavel.

For being a principled leader who continues to work tirelessly to reform the health care system and bring back constitutionalism to Congress, we’re proud to name John Fleming our Congressman of the Month!

Via: Freedom Works

Continue Reading.....

In L.A., Obama addresses Washington’s dysfunction: ‘I did not say I would fix it’

BEVERLY HILLS, Calif. — President Obama wrapped up a day he began with an angry and frustrated reaction to the mass killings in Charleston, S.C., by acknowledging that he has been unable to change the culture of polarization and gridlock in Washington.

But he also challenged Democratic supporters to do their part to make the political changes rather than remain disillusioned about the inability of the nation's capital to respond to gun violence and other problems.

"When I ran in 2008, I in fact did not say I would fix it. I said we could fix it," Obama told an audience of about 250 at a fundraising event here at the stately hillside home of film mogul Tyler Perry. "I didn't say, 'Yes, I can.' I said, 'Yes, we can.'"

The president continued: "If you’re dissatisfied that every few months we have a mass shooting in this country killing innocent people, then I need you to mobilize and organize a constituency that says this is not normal and we are going to change it."

Obama arrived here Thursday afternoon to kick off a four-day California trip during which he will attend four Democratic fundraisers in Los Angeles and San Francisco, speak to the U.S. Conference of Mayors and play golf in Palm Springs.

During his appearance at the fundraiser at Perry's house — which was to raise money for the Democratic National Committee — Obama was aiming to rally his audience ahead of the 2016 presidential election cycle. He cited accomplishment, including improvements in the economy, but the tragedy in Charleston could not be avoided.

In addressing the tragedy, Obama sounded notes of frustration about the state of Washington's dysfunction, and he cited a letter he received from a man in Colorado who had voted for him twice but expressed disillusionment over the continuing gridlock.

Via: Washington Post

Continue Reading.....

[FLASHBACK] Highlights From the New York Times’ 2008 Hillary Clinton Endorsement

AP

In June 2007, just as the Democratic presidential primary was heating up, Bill and Hillary Clinton wrote a $100,000 check to a New York Times charity group. In January 2008, the Times editorial board endorsed Hillary over her much trendier rival, Barack Obama. The endorsement makes for an intriguing read in retrospect. Here are some highlights:

Fawning praise

The Times editor clearly had a difficult time choosing between the “brilliant” Hillary Clinton and the “incandescent” Barack Obama. Ultimately, it seems, it was Hillary’s “abiding, powerful intellect” that won the day. “We are hugely impressed by the depth of her knowledge, by the force of her intellect and by the breadth of, yes, her experience,” the editors wrote.

‘Firstness’ fatigue

The Times was definitely excited to have a choice between two historic candidates, but was getting tired of hearing about it all the time:

By choosing Mrs. Clinton, we are not denying Mr. Obama’s appeal or his gifts. The idea of the first African-American nominee of a major party also is exhilarating, and so is the prospect of the first woman nominee. “Firstness” is not a reason to choose. The times that false choice has been raised, more often by Mrs. Clinton, have tarnished the campaign.

No doubt the Times will maintain its intellectual consistency on the issue of “firstness” throughout the 2016 campaign.

If you like your plan, you can keep it

On the issue of healthcare, the Times favored Hillary because “She understands that all Americans must be covered—but must be allowed to choose their coverage, including keeping their current plans.”

Oops.

Obama’s naivety re: Iraq

Despite Hillary Clinton’s more hawkish voting record, the Times argued she was better equipped to handle the situation in Iraq. Obama, the Times presciently observed, most likely had not thought through his plans for Iraq beyond “end the war,” which could lead to disastrous consequences:

Mrs. Clinton seems not only more aware than Mr. Obama of the consequences of withdrawal, but is already thinking through the diplomatic and military steps that will be required to contain Iraq’s chaos after American troops leave.

Via: WFB

Continue Reading.....

‘The News’ now planted progressive propaganda

In October of 2008 Obama and the Dems threw the Fundamental Transformation of America up in garish, jaw-dropping neon lights and the world thereafter was never to be the same.

The communications world now digital gave an about-to-be-jettisoned America its first digital dictator.

Back then David Axelrod astroturfing portrayed Obama’s promised Brave New World as an empty screen, one on which Obama could be projected in whatever image folk wanted him to be, history’s first free phone and easy food stamp president.

Down at core, the new messiah of Hope & Change was nothing but another politician with a deeper trick bag than those who came before him, offering nothing more substantial than a cheap carny’s card trick, a diversion and an outright lie, because Marxist progressives had already corralled the unknowing masses into a malleable ongoing transition—a transition from which there would be no way back.

The presentation of Obama from Denver’s faux Greek Temple was followed by a mass media bombardment of Obama pictures.  For the masses,  his omnipresence courtesy of the World Wide Web was as inevitable as it was inescapable.

Somewhere before this process got up to full speed,  the mainstream media, the one we thought we all knew, dropped all pretense of balance and accuracy and departed Stage Left.  Since investigative journalism had already become a dying art, few really missed it.

Those of us in the ‘alternate media’ naively celebrated replacing the not so dearly departed as the mainstream media alternative.  Little did we realize that Internet giants like Google and Facebook, in league with Big Government,  were already working to suppress conservative alternate media by redirecting all Internet traffic to progressive-supporting news sites.

Via: Canada Free Press

Continue Reading.....

Guy Who Created Obama’s ‘Hope’ Poster: ‘Americans Are Ignorant And Lazy

Shepard Fairey, the artist who designed Barack Obama’s “Hope” poster that symbolized his 2008 campaign, said that he thinks Americans are largely “ignorant, lazy, uneducated and complacent.”

In an interview with Esquire, the 45-year-old said Obama hadn’t even come close to living up to his expectations, but he thinks the American people are to blame for that.

“We also need a public that isn’t so uneducated and complacent,” Fairey said. “I hate to say Americans are ignorant and lazy, but a lot of them are ignorant and lazy.” (RELATED: Shepard Fairey Is A Fraud)

“Obama has had a really tough time, but there have been a lot of things that he’s compromised on that I never would have expected. I mean, drones and domestic spying are the last things I would have thought [he’d support].”

But Fairey, who was a “big supporter” of Occupy Wall Street, thinks Obama’s goals were thwarted because things were out of his control.

“I’ve met Obama a few times, and I think Obama’s a quality human being, but I think that he finds himself in a position where your actions are largely dictated by things out of your control.”

“What frustrates me to no end are people who want to blame Obama or blame anything that is something that if they were actually doing anything as simple as voting, it might not be as bad as it is.”

Via: Daily Caller

Continue Reading....

Vending Machines Must Post Calorie Counts and Other 2014 New Regulations

If we were to design a regulatory framework from scratch, for any sector of a modern economy, it would make no sense to ignore regulatory costs and benefits.

It would make even less sense to implement new rules and regulations and then worry about their impact.

But that’s pretty much what we do in the U.S., where we allow politics to trump common sense.

The 2008 financial crisis is the perfect example. For decades the industry has been as regulated as any on the planet, and some of these rules clearly contributed to the crisis.

But we still allowed politicians to blame the crisis on the free market and then institute more of the same regulations that led to the meltdown. The overall reach of federal regulators goes well beyond the financial sector, though, and nobody should be surprised that the economy is just muddling along.

How bad is the regulatory environment?

The ninth annual Red Tape Rising report gives a great overview; it tracks the volume and, to the extent possible, the cost of federal regulations.

(Two of my colleagues, James Gattuso and Diane Katz hosted a Heritage Foundation event to introduce the report. Anyone can watch online.)

Believe it or not, the federal government doesn’t officially track regulatory costs as it does with things like taxes and spending.

But executive branch agencies that promulgate “major rules”—defined as those expected to cost the economy $100 million or more annually—provide some cost estimates for the rules they issue. These agencies estimated that their major rules from 2014 will cost the economy approximately $80 billion per year.

These are the regulators’ cost figures, though, so they probably underestimate the true cost. Estimates from various independent sources put these costs from hundreds of billions of dollars to over $2 trillion annually.

Via: The Daily Signal

Continue Reading....

While Hillary Slept: Wasn’t Awake For President’s Briefing On Benghazi

Great commercial, 2008, we need someone who knows the military, tested and ready to lead:

Reality 2012. Here’s what we got in reaction to Benghazi:

Via: Weasel Zippers

What Hillary Clinton left off her LinkedIn profile

On Thursday, Hillary Clinton, like many American job seekers, created a profile on LinkedIn, a social networking site in which users’ pages double as a makeshift résumé.

Like most “everyday Americans” looking for work, Clinton presented the best possible version of herself. For instance, the former first lady included her 2016 presidential bid on her profile but opted not to include her failed candidacy in 2008.

But the omissions don’t end there. A past résumé of Clinton’s, buried on the Rockefeller Archive Center’s website and mostly forgotten to history, reveals how the Hillary Clinton of the 1980s sought to promote herself — long before she became one of the most famous women in the world. Whether due to space constraints or in light of all she’s done since then, Clinton’s LinkedIn profile leaves out much of this early Hillary.

Clinton’s 1980s résumé and the LinkedIn profile list her first job as a staff attorney for the Children’s Defense Fund in Massachusetts, but nowhere on LinkedIn does she mention her summer in Texas in 1972 campaigning for liberal icon George McGovern. After that experience, from January to August 1974, Clinton famously served on the Impeachment Inquiry Staff for the House Judiciary Committee investigating President Richard Nixon, another position not mentioned on LinkedIn.

Between Clinton’s job at the Children’s Defense Fund and her start at the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock, Clinton taught criminal law at the University of Arkansas School of Law in Fayetteville, in addition to directing the school’s legal aid clinic and two prison projects. As part of her work for the Cummins Prison Project, Clinton helped prepare an amicus brief that helped secure clemency for a mentally handicapped man on Arkansas’ death row.

While at the University of Arkansas, Clinton also published multiple articles not listed under “publications” on LinkedIn. Her first prominent publication came in the December 1973 issue of the Harvard Educational Review, an article titled “Children Under the Law,” which drew criticism from numerous prominent Republicans during Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign.

Via: Politico

Continue Reading.....

Tech Expert: HealthCare.gov Discredits Liberalism

The Internet does weird things to people. One of those weirdnesses comes from the tech-savvy community on the left, who sincerely embrace an agile, entrepreneurial, bottom-up culture in their professional and voluntary pursuits, yet forcefully argue for the top-down paternalism of forcing people to buy health insurance, imposed by a bureaucracy that can’t build a website.

President Obama wants you to believe the disastrous launch of HealthCare.gov won’t impede the same bureaucracy from implementing Obamacare more broadly. But the odds aren’t good, for reasons that go far beyond the website itself.

HealthCare.gov is an object lesson in the perils of big bureaucracy and crony capitalism. These issues are at the heart of the broader conservative critique of big government. Liberal blogger Matt Yglesias tries to argue that HealthCare.gov doesn’t discredit liberalism. He is right to be concerned that it might.

No one has a better understanding of this issue than Clay Johnson, who traded partisan politics (including helping to elect the President in 2008) for helping government build better technology. He is furious, and rightly points out that the issue stems from federal procurement laws.

But things like bad procurement laws don’t come out of nowhere. They arise in dysfunctional cultures that are the result of highly politicized decision-making processes. Part of the blame lies with successive Congresses. But part of it, if we’re being honest, is the rigidly bureaucratic culture of government itself. No one who values getting things done quickly and efficiently would ever build a system like the one we have now.

Via: The Foundry

Continue Reading.....

U.S. housing regulators seek over $6 billion from BofA: FT

(Reuters) - U.S. housing regulators are looking to fine Bank of America more than $6 billion for its role in misleading mortgage agencies during the housing boom, compared with the $4 billion to be paid by JPMorgan Chase & Co, the Financial Times reported on its website, citing people familiar with the matter.

The FT said the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), pursuing claims on behalf of finance agencies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that back about half the existing U.S. home loans, are seeking the penalty. (link.reuters.com/muc93v)

FHFA and Bank of America (BofA) could not be reached for comment outside of regular businesshours.

Countrywide Financial Corp, the mortgage lender acquired by BofA in July 2008, has cost the bank more than $40 billion in litigation expenses and other charges linked to its bad subprime mortgages. The bank set aside an additional $300 million for mortgage litigation in the latest quarter.

JPMorgan reached a tentative $4 billion deal with the FHFA on Friday to settle claims that the bank misled government-sponsored mortgage agencies about the quality of mortgages it sold them, according to a person familiar with the matter.

JPMorgan also reached a tentative $13 billion deal with the U.S. Justice Department and other government agencies to settle investigations into bad mortgage loans the bank sold to investors before the financial crisis, a source familiar with the talks told Reuters on Saturday.

Via: Reuters

Continue Reading.....

ANTI-INCUMBENT SENTIMENT AT RECORD HIGH

BUT WILL THEY CARRY THIS SENTIMENT INTO THE BALLOT BOX?  ANSWER:  NOT USUALLY!!!

Anti-incumbent sentiment is at an all-time high as Americans become more disgusted with a Congress that is setting records for low approval ratings. 

According to a Pew Research survey, "a record-high 74% of registered voters now say that most members of Congress should not be reelected in 2014," and only 18% say that most lawmakers in Congress should be reelected. 

Pew notes "at similar points in both the 2010 and 2006 midterm cycles only about half of registered voters wanted to see most representatives replaced." In addition, though "voters have been more positive about reelecting their own members of Congress than members as a whole... only 48% of voters say their own member of Congress should be reelected" while "38% say he or she should be replaced."

"That is as negative a balance on this question as at any point in the last two decades," Pew notes. 

In 2010, Pew notes that only 29% wanted their own Representative defeated in an election, in which 58--the most in more than a half-century--ultimately lost. Today, 36% want their own Representative defeated. 

Democrats (54%) are slightly more likely than Republicans (47%) "to say that their own representative should be reelected." According to the survey, only 43% of self-identified independent voters want their own Representative to be elected.

Via Breitbart

Continue Reading.....

How Mich. Rebuts Redistricting/Polarization Claims

Dave Weigel wrote a brief post on gerrymandering last Friday in response to my piece on the same topic. He used Michigan as an example of how Republicans were able to use redistricting to enhance their standing in the House, particularly by shoring up vulnerable members, thereby contributing to extremism.

Before responding, I think it’s important to note up front, as Weigel does, that this isn’t really a black-and-white issue, a fact that is easily glossed over. People run along a continuum of opinion regarding how much redistricting contributed to the GOP’s House majority and to polarization. We might place Tom Friedman at one pole, as he seemingly laid our increasingly divided nation at the feet of redistricting, Citizens United, and Fox News. At the other end are those political scientists who find little to no effect from redistricting. In the middle are people like Weigel, Charlie Cook, and myself, who think redistricting played a role, but who disagree -- sometimes strongly -- on the extent to which it mattered and how much other factors contributed.

From my point of view, redistricting helped Republicans gain between five and 10 seats that they wouldn’t have otherwise won, by shifting the median district rightward. But even this is more a function of polarization than a cause of it.

Weigel’s Michigan example is actually instructive in showing the limits of what redistricting contributes to polarization. At first blush, it looks like a classic case of a horrendously gerrymandered state. Barack Obama defeated John McCain by 16.4 percentage points there, more than twice his national average. Mitt Romney ran a much stronger race four years later, but the president still managed to win by a healthy 9.4 points. Yet under the Republican-drawn maps, the president ran better than his statewide 2008 showing in only five districts (of 14), and ran ahead of his national showing in just six. Romney carried nine of these districts outright.

As Weigel writes:

It’s not like gerrymandering created Justin Amash. It shored up Tim Walberg. Who's Tim Walberg? He was a Club for Growth-backed candidate who primaried a moderate Republican in 2006, lost in the 2008 Democratic wave, came back in 2010, and benefited when the new GOP legislature drew a map that packed Democrats in Detroit and Flint-centric districts, shoring him up to make no news but provide reliable "no" votes on anything that did not delay or defund Obamacare.

Via: Real Clear Politics

Continue Reading....

CRUZ: 'BOLD COLORS,' NOT 'PALE PASTELS' KEY TO WINNING IN 2014

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) said Republicans have a chance to take back the majority in the Senate in 2014 only if the party boldly differentiates itself from Democrats. 

“I think 2014 can and should be a very good Republican year and I think if Republicans stand for principle, we’re going to win in 2014," Cruz said in an interview with David Brody of the Christian Broadcasting Network. 

Cruz argued that the 2006, 2008, and 2012 election cycles were "disastrous for Republicans," because in "all three of those cycles Republicans followed the philosophy of keep your head down, don’t rock the boat, don’t stand for anything, don’t take any risks and we’ll just somehow magically win at the polls."

Cruz contrasted those election cycles with 2010, where "Republicans stood strong for principle, we stood against Obamacare, we stood with the American people and we won a tidal wave election."

"Now what do all of the voices of Washington say now? ‘We need to return to the pattern of ’06,’08, and ’12. We need to return to not standing for anything, not risking anything, not rocking the boat,'" Cruz said. "That is a path to losing. The way you win elections is you paint in bold colors not in pale pastels. You stand strong for the American people just like Ronald Reagan did."

Cruz said "that’s the path to victory" and emphasized that "if Republicans do that I think in 2014 Republicans can and should take a majority of the U.S. Senate."

"But if we don’t stand for principle we’re not going to win in November," Cruz said.

Via: Breitbart

Continue Reading.....

[VIDEO] Obama praised company that helped build Obamacare website on ’08 campaign trail

The federal contractor at the center of the Obamacare health-care exchange debacle, CGI Federal, received a hearty endorsement from Barack Obama while he was running for president back in 2008.

During a Sept. 9, 2008 speech to a crowd in Lebanon, Va., then-presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama praised CGI Federal’s ability to create new jobs for Americans as the result of investment in broadband Internet infrastructure.

“You know, I just had a wonderful meeting with a company called CGI that just opened up — Mark Warner talked about it talked about the company in his convention speech — which has located here 300 new jobs in high-tech industries. And part of the reason is is because the state of Virginia built out the broadband lines that allowed them to locate here.”

A financial relationship between CGI Federal — a subsidiary of the Montreal-based information technology company CGI Group — and the U.S. government had already existed even during President George W. Bush’s administration, but reports indicate that relationship improved tremendously since Obama took office.

The Washington Examiner reported on Sunday that the federal government reviewed only CGI Federal’s bid to build the health-care exchange.

CGI Federal did not return The Daily Caller’s request for comment by the time of publication.

The Daily Caller

Continue Reading....

The Hoax of Global Warming, AKA, Climate Change and Death of Coal Mining

Not content with various country killing plans, Obama seeks now to apply more new rules through his infamous Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that greatly concerns those who say his new “change” will be even less loved than the nightmarish “Hope and Change” of 2008. 

These next new changes could possibly result in deaths to our citizens and excessively high costs in their applications; in fact, one of Obama’s own former appointees who has deep concerns that these new coal regulations could kill, was published in the following FoxNews.com story on September 19, 2013.

“New clean-energy rules pushed through by the Obama administration are raising concerns that they could cripple the coal industry—and may require power plants to use technology so risky that even the president’s former top energy official once warned it could ‘kill.’

“The EPA, by Friday, is expected to release a new proposal to set the first-ever carbon dioxide limits for new power plants.

“To meet those emissions caps, power plants would likely have to use what is known as ‘carbon-capture technology,’ which involves burying the carbon underground.

“The technology, which is still under development, remains expensive and not commercially available. But there are lingering safety risks.

Via: Canada Free Press

Continue Reading...

Feds looking into Clinton's 2008 campaign for links to DC corruption case

WASHINGTON –  Federal investigators reportedly are looking into Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign and its ties to a corruption case against a D.C. businessman sources say bankrolled questionable political operations.  

Investigators have been looking into claims that Jeffrey Thompson allegedly shelled out more than a half million dollars to fund secret “street teams” operating in Texas, North Carolina, Indiana and Pennsylvania for Clinton’s 2008 campaign.  

The teams would canvas neighborhoods and look for strategies to target voters in predominantly black and Hispanic precincts.

The Washington Post reported Friday that investigators are now turning their attention to Minyon Moore, a senior Clinton campaign adviser, and her role in arranging the street teams. The development comes as Clinton weighs a 2016 bid for the presidency. 

The issue, according to a review of court documents, is that the creation of an off-the-books campaign with the cooperation of a senior campaign adviser could violate campaign finance rules. However, to do that, the government would have to prove that the creation and funding of the street teams violated federal campaign contribution limits.

Via: Fox News Politics

Continue Reading....

Faces of meth: ‘Five years of Obama’ edition [SLIDESHOW]

Back in 2008 it was fun. Daring. Exciting. The rush was unbelievable. The visuals? Man, this dope is like the best parts of coke and acid. Plus all the cool kids were doing it, but, like, for real — not in a cliche way, ya know?

Young guys and pretty girls from Silicon Valley. All the actors and stuff. Hell, it even made old fogies like Kerry and Reid feel young. We all remember how hard it was to convince Hillary to give it a try, but after she’d had a hit, man, it was like she was flying. Just untouchable.

But things turned south quick. The high was fleeting. It just couldn’t take anyone to those soaring heights anymore. We were all left chasing the hit, never quite catching it.

And before long things were getting desperate. Bad things were happening. Bad men started getting violent in Mexico. Stevens got killed. People started talking about war.

Now everything is different. The smiles are gone. Let these pictures be a warning. Stay away from that dope.

We were liberals once.

And young.

Via: Daily Caller

Continue Reading...