Showing posts with label Phony. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Phony. Show all posts

Monday, April 17, 2017

Nothing says “organic” and “grassroots” like being partnered with MoveOn and CAP





The progressive left’s grudging admiration for the Tea Party is evidenced in their intense efforts to recreate our successes. I thoroughly enjoyed watching their various manifestations of “leftist Tea Parties” implode and sink into obscurity. From the “coffee party” and “no labels party” to Occupy and Black Lives Matter, the progressive left has tried again and again to manufacture its own Tea Party equivalent.


The irony, of course, is that their current efforts are transparently astroturfed, while ours had/has truly grassroots origins. Their first mistake is in believing their own press about us back in ’09 and ’10. Headline after headline bleated desolately and desperately that the Tea Party was “bogus astroturf,” that it was the brainchild of the Koch brothers and/or Rupert Murdock (and even Jim DeMint), that protesters were paid, that it was neither spontaneous nor grassroots, and on. And on.

Because they didn’t understand or believe that the Tea Party movement was very real, their attempts at recreating its power are focused first on outside organizers and massive funding rather than on tapping into something that will actually speak to a large enough base to inspire a true grassroots movement.

Their second problem is a lack of focus. Instead of focusing on one issue and clear messaging, the progressive left simply can’t pull its disparate demographic segments together....







at Labels: , , , , , ,

Wednesday, January 25, 2017

CBC Fake News Show Hires Actor to Portray Racist Trump Supporter

at Labels: , , , , , ,

Friday, January 6, 2017

"The Southern Poverty Law Center is to 'hate' what Rolling Stone is to rape. It is the biggest peddler of fantasies since Walt Disney."

at Labels: , , , , ,

Monday, October 24, 2016

Top University Stole Millions From Taxpayers By Faking Global Warming Research

at Labels: , , , , , ,

Friday, March 14, 2014

What's Really Behind the Ban Bossy Movement

◼ Quick word association: Bossy = [fill in potential presidential candidate name] - Le-gal In-sur-rec-tion

Why have the word police suddenly descended on us to shape our speech? Can’t boys and men be bossy too? Has there been some epidemic of bossy such that now is the time to act.

A follower on Twitter made the connection to prepping the battlefield for Hillary:





◼ Ashe Schow at The Washington Examiner expands on the point,
Make no mistake, there is always a deeper agenda whenever a seemingly innocent campaign pops up overnight.

On Sunday, Facebook’s Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg launched a new campaign, known as ‘Ban Bossy,’ which would – as you can imagine – encourage people to ban the word “bossy.”

Is there some kind of epidemic of that word being used to keep girls from achieving? Many of the surveys cited by the Ban Bossy campaign are decades old, and a more recent survey by the Girl Scouts of America found that girls are more likely than boys to see themselves as a leader or have the desire to be a leader.

So, why start a national campaign?

For starters, Sandberg is an ally of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016….

Two years ago, Democrats launched a campaign to brand Republicans as engaging in a “war on women,” a campaign with a lasting impact that will no doubt stretch into the 2016 elections if Clinton runs.

Now the Ban Bossy campaign gives Democrats another weapon to use against those who disagree with Clinton’s policy ideas.
I think that’s right. The banning of the terms “illegal immigrant” or “illegal aliens” were an integral part of the amnesty push. So too, any criticism of Hillary’s demeanor will be portrayed as sexist, and the type of belittling done to little girls.

It’s not about Hillary, it’s about our daughters!

Do not underestimate this. We all thought Julia was a joke, until a generation of young, single women voted for Obama.

◼ Think about what's coming up in the next year or two and you'll see why the movement is starting up now. - Ace Of Spades Open Thread
__________________

◼ My Message to Girls: Be Bossy! - Michelle Malkin/Townhall

A bunch of aggrieved women led by Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg launched a high-profile "public service campaign" this week to "ban" the word "bossy." Sandberg, Beyonce, Victoria "Posh Spice" Beckham and first lady Michelle Obama have joined femme forces to combat this phantom menace. In their rarefied world, it's a "very negative experience" and a crippling act of gender discrimination to be called bossy. "This isn't a word we should use," Sandberg complained on National Public Radio.

To which I say: Oh, buck up.

...It is a blessing to be able to make a living exercising the First Amendment. It would be an absolute waste of those precious free speech rights for any woman to pull her punches for fear of, gasp, an adjective.

◼ The power of ‘bossy:’ Banning ‘offensive’ words is easier than defeating what they mean - Tammy Bruce/Washington Times

In 2001, I wrote my first book, “The New Thought Police,” about the left’s mission to defeat conservatism and, consequently, destroy the core of America’s greatness through thought and speech control.

I never would have guessed that more than 12 years later, it would be more relevant than ever.
Leftists have always found it impossible to compete on the details of the issues, so they work to make discussion dangerous. If they can make certain words forbidden, banned or even illegal, all the better.

Because they are unable to persuade people about the rightness of their unjust cause, their mission becomes to frighten clear-thinking people out of the public arena.

The latest iteration illustrating the pathetic absurdity of the left and its reliance on thought and speech Gestapos once again comes wrapped in the cloak of “It’s for the children!” led by one of the more powerful women in business, Sheryl Sandberg, the COO of Facebook.

at Labels: , , , ,

Monday, December 30, 2013

With this kind of health coverage, why on earth did the president make such a show of “signing up” for Obamacare?

◼ The Obamacare Obama gets - Marc A. Thiessen/Washington Post

...since he was showing solidarity with the rest of America, did the president actually get on his computer like the rest of America and try to navigate the disastrous Obamacare Web site he created? Nope. While most people had to plug their personal information into a Web site that ABC News reports still has “serious security vulnerabilities,” the White House decided that for “security reasons” sharing the president’s personal information on government Web sites was unwise. So, an administration official said, “Like some Americans, the complicated nature of the president’s case required an in-person sign-up.”

...If the White House was so confident that “the product is good” and Americans are “willing to be patient,” then they would have been eager for a photo op of the president signing up with other happy customers. But there was no photo op.

Then, to add insult to injury, Obama chose the cheapest of the four plans available — the bronze plan costing $400 a month. Not for his whole family, mind you. They don’t need Obamacare. He chose a low-cost plan just for himself. Which makes sense. He’s not going to actually use it, so why pay sky-high premiums like the millions of people he drove out of their individual market health plans?
at Labels: , ,

Wednesday, August 28, 2013

Report: Anthony Weiner Paying Phony Supporters $15 Per Hour

◼ Anthony Weiner is allegedly paying a firm to provide him with “supporters” at some events, a source has told The New York Post.The New York mayoral candidate used the California firm Crowds on Demand to deliver paid actors to some events, the Post’s report Wednesday claims. - Politico

The actors were asked by the campaign to seem “like either supporters or people who met him and became supporters as a result of that encounter,” the source told the Post. “The people would initially be skeptical and then they ask him various questions but would appear then to be convinced by his spiel.”
at Labels: , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)