Well, thanks for showing us how you distort the "truth" in your blog titles. Is there a number of character limits on when you compose those? Surely Catholic would have fit in the title.

Your blog title for today: "Democratic Party Leaves Its Supporters" ,but those of us who recognize BS when we see it, see you state: Catholic Democrats are leaving the Democratic Party, as are others."

So we see your tarnished standards of "reporting" once again exposed by your basic hatred of Obama.

BTW, you never got around to stating who "as are others' were did you?

Well, that wouldn't be Hispanics, blacks, women, males under the age of 50, is it?

You blew it on your Memorial Day blog. You blew it yesterday with your sexist remarks, and today you blew it again.

May, you are in for a huge disappointment in November.

Good observation. What drives anyone to that state of mind?

I would suggest hate comes as a results of the haters brought on by their own misadventures. They have a warped belief they are always right, and are never willing to admit they are wrong or apologize for any reason. To do so would be an admission of weakness.

These actions are what separate leaders from losers. History leaves a trail of big losers.

Ego-centrism always comes up on the losing side.

Nardelli left the Democratic Party because of matters of her faith and not her political beliefs.

If Nardelli left the Democratic party after seeing Joe Biden endorse gay marriage, then I would have to say her decision was not only religious but also political.

I would like to know where Nardelli was when Catholic priests were sexually abusing boys under their watch, and we all know this practice had been going on for decades if not centuries. When the big brouhaha came out over this, where was she then? Why didn't she give up her religion then? After all, who wants to receive the sacrament from a child abuser? This is the religious part of her. On to the political part of her.

Nardelli would deny equal rights to those who are gay. Traditionally, marriage has been between a man and a woman. Whoever said it was the norm? Committed loving couples whether they be man and woman, woman and woman, or man and man should have an equal playing field. To make those who are not man and woman second class citizens is blatant discrimination, not to mention latent homophobia.

Barack Obama, as a black member of our society, would easily recognize second class treatment. He has seen it, and he has felt it in the flesh. He acted on a wrong to make a right.

http://front.moveon.org/why-rush-limbaugh-is-the-biggest-case-of-the-pot-calling-the-kettle-black-ever/?rc=fb.fan

Enjoy!

I've been a registered Republican since 1968. Still am as a matter of fact. However, I was part of that "change" in 2008. Why? Because the GOP of today is NOTHING like the GOP I signed up with back then. Sadly I've watched then got further to the right and more extreme for that past 40 years.

I've always been a Republican,BUT,I have voted for Democrat candidates in many elections. I have always had a tendency to vote for whom I considered the better candidate in an election. But Barak Obama has put a whole different twist to the Democratic party,I could never vote for this person. There is still too much mystery about who he really is and was in his past. And sometimes it seems that he wants to create dissent in American. Seems like as if he does not want harmony amongst the American citizens.

Thank you for your insight.

Edevol touched upon the problem of hate in the matter of Obama and the current Democratic Party. The United States and Western Civilization have been the leaders to which Edevol refers. With Obama’s help, the Losers like Russia, Cuba, China, North Korea, and Iran are becoming the leaders.

Hate seems to be what Obama is filled with. Hate is a characteristic of Socialism, especially the full-blown forms of Marxism and Fascism. Those of different skin color, ethnic backgrounds, religious beliefs, economic status, social status, income levels, and work ethic must be hated and punished if Socialism is to succeed. Obama is using the same tactics used by Castro, Pol Pot, Lenin, Mao, and Hitler – groups must be picked to hate, scapegoat, rob, punish, and destroy. For Obama, it is the “upper 1%” –- those who have worked hard and achieved the American Dream for themselves and countless others.

If Obama cannot develop hatred for Bain Capital and the upper 1%, Obama fears he cannot defeat Romney. Barack Obama’s attack on “venture capital” has been his primary attack plan against Mitt Romney. The difficult problem for Obama is that Bain Capital alone has a far better track record of saving companies and has created more jobs than Obama has during his entire Presidency.

Former Democrat congress man Artur Davis goes from D to I to R

"There’s a new Virginia Republican eyeing a run for office, one who was an Alabama Democrat not so long ago.

Former congressman Artur Davis is making his party and geographical switch official, as The Fix notes. After spending eight years in Congress from Alabama and running unsuccessfully for governor, Davis writes on his Web site that he has made no firm decisions yet about a future campaign.

“If I were to run, it would be as a Republican,” he writes. “And I am in the process of changing my voter registration from Alabama to Virginia, a development which likely does represent a closing of one chapter and perhaps the opening of another."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/virginia-politics/post/artur-davis-eyes-run-as-virginia-republican/2012/05/30/gJQATMmg1U_blog.html

Yet you have no problem hating President Obama, nor does the GOP have any problems hating everyone else.

Do you see a conflict here?

"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."

Winston Churchill

I wish you on the Left could function without bringing “hate” into every discussion you cannot win with logic and common sense.

I do not know Barack Obama. Barack Obama has not invited me to have a beer with him at the White House. I highly doubt that Barack Obama and I would enjoy the company of each other, but I would be willing to give it a try.

My concern with Barack Obama is that Obama is trying to make a pretend Marxist Utopia of the United States of America. My concerns are not at all complex and are clearly explained. Marxism and Fascism have not created anything of benefit to humanity that I can find, only sadness, suffering, and death.

"For Obama, it is the “upper 1%” –- those who have worked hard and achieved the American Dream for themselves and countless others."

Why don't you just...stop. You are a deceiver and you know it, and frankly I'm sick of it- especially implying that the 1% are more important than the 99% in our society. You consistently talk about how wonderful the rich are while showing zero respect for middle-class and lower-class workers. Not everyone can be rich- everyone can aspire to be the best they can be, but not every profession is set up to make its members wealthy.

What if someone wants to be a teacher? Or a police officer? Or an electrician? Or the owner of a small business? Or an esthetician? Or an NCO? Do you realize that these individuals are in fields that will never truly allow them to be rich? And that the measure of success isn't always based on one's bank statement?

But, it doesn't surprise me- when you make comments such as these, YOU, not President Obama, are the elitist snob who puts the rich up on a pedestal- you and your ilk give lip service to people like firefighters and teachers (wait, scratch that, you don't really respect teachers- basically categorizing them as puppets for the left), but you truly don't respect nor care about them. The Right worships the military when they are sent to die, but care very little for what happens to them when they come back.

YOU are woefully out of touch with everyday Americans. You are certainly in touch with the 1%, so your comments, while still irritating me, ultimately do not surprise me. That's not class hatred- that's reality.

What a pathetic joke- no, the Left tries its best to consider ALL those in our society, not just the 1%. If it were up to the Right, it would basically be "everyone fend for himself/herself." A country can't function like that- unless it has no heart or compassion for its people.

BmpRd, I would ask you this: will you be better off with a President Obama or a President Romney? It's a simple question, but that involves complex thought. If, after considering this, you feel you would be better off without Romney, that is perfectly understandable. But to say you wouldn't vote for Obama because there's still too much mystery about him- well, don't you think that's a bit silly? He's been in office for close to 4 years- and contrary to what the Extreme Right tells you, Obama has been "vetted" as much as any candidate. There are questions about Romney's religion, about his origin- are you going to let those stop you??? How about Romney's record- shouldn't that be the criteria?

I would actually be OK with Romney as President if the American people vote Obama out due to his record. I would be disappointed if the election swayed in Romney's favor because people thought Obama wasn't born in the USA. It has been very unfortunate that many candidates have lost Presidential elections due to factors that didn't truly represent their qualifications:

1. Nixon in 1960- most agree that his uncomfortable performance in the debate sealed his loss. Not very fair for him.

2. Dukakis in 1988- Willie Horton- nuff said.

3. Kerry in 2004- swift boat

4. Bush in 1992- Perot

5. Tilden in 1876- Electoral Commission

Hopefully, people will vote based on these candidates' past records, not on silly factors that do not matter or what the candidates say.

Obama is no Marxist. This is a point lost on some who like to highlight the president’s indebtedness to the ideas of the late radical Saul Alinsky, who was no Marxist either. Rather, Alinsky was a radical leftist and a proponent of “social-ism” before Blair named it. He believed that all institutions, indeed the system itself, should be bent to the needs of the underprivileged and the downtrodden in the name of social justice. Bent, not broken. Like the progressives and various Marxists, Alinsky was a proponent of radical pragmatism, using the tools available to change the existing order. This was the core of what the New York Times, in a remarkable 1913 analysis surveying Theodore Roosevelt’s ideas in the wake of his third-party campaign for president, dubbed T.R.’s “super-socialism”: “It is not the Marxian Socialism. Much that Karl Marx taught is rejected by present-day Socialists. Mr. Roosevelt achieves the redistribution of wealth in a simpler and easier way”—by soaking the rich and yoking big business to the state. “It has all the simplicity of theft and much of its impudence,” the Times asserted. “The means employed are admirably adapted to the ends sought, and if the system can be made to work at all, it will go on forever.”

President Obama’s health-care plan is a pristine example of this approach. He is long on record saying he would prefer a single-payer system if we could design one from scratch. But since he has to work from within the confines of the existing system, he has given us ObamaCare instead—which, again, is now merely a “critical first step.” It uses insurance companies as governmental entities, akin to utilities, to provide a now-mandatory government service. The insurance companies will make nominal government-decreed profits on top of government-decreed “fees” and “premiums” (the quotation marks are necessary given that rates will be set by government and enforced by the Internal Revenue Service).

Obama still scoffs at the suggestion that he is a socialist largely to delegitimize his opponents. During his address to House Republicans at their retreat in December 2009, Obama ridiculed Republicans for acting as if his health-care scheme were some “Bolshevik plot.” In responding to the “Tea Parties” organized to oppose the expansion of government, Obama has explicitly likened those who describe his policies as socialist to the “birther” conspiracy theorists who foolishly believe he was actually born outside the United States: “There’s some folks who just weren’t sure whether I was born in the United States, whether I was a socialist, right?”

He reserves for himself the mantle of technocrat, disinterested, pragmatic, pushed to use the powers of government by the failings of his predecessor and the madness of the free market. He is not interested in ideology; he is interested in doing “what works” for the greatest number of Americans (he has often said that his guiding insight to government’s role is the notion that we are all our brothers’ keepers). Indeed, Obama goes further and often insinuates that principled disagreement with his agenda is “ideological” and therefore illegitimate. In a speech on the eve of his inauguration, he proclaimed that “what is required is a new declaration of independence, not just in our nation, but in our own lives—from ideology and small thinking, prejudice and bigotry.” In other words, to borrow a phrase from Lionel Trilling, ideology is an irritable mental gesture.

Denying that you are an ideologue is not the same thing as proving the point. And certainly Obama’s insistence that ideology is something only his critics suffer from is no defense when stacked against the evidence of his actions. The “pragmatic” Obama is only interested in “what works” as long as “what works” involves a significantly expanded role for government. In this sense, Obama is a practitioner of the Third Way, the governing approach most successfully trumpeted by Blair, who claimed to have found a “third way” that rejected the false premises of both Left and Right and therebylocated a “smarter” approach to expanding government. The powerful appeal of this idea lies in the fact that it sounds as if its adherents have rejected ideological dogmatism and gone beyond those “false choices.” Thus, a leader can both provide health care to 32 million people and save money, or, as Obama likes to say, “bend the cost curve down.” But in not choosing, Obama is choosing. He is choosing the path of government control, which is what the Third Way inevitably does and is intended to do.

Still, the question remains, What do we call Obama’s “social-ism”? John Judis’s formulation—“liberal socialism”—is perfectly serviceable, and so is “social democracy” or, for that matter, simply “progressivism.” My own, perhaps too playful, suggestion would be neosocialism.

The term neoconservative was assigned—and with hostile intent—to a group of diverse thinkers who had grown convinced that the open-ended ambitions of the Great Society were utopian and, ultimately, counterproductive, even harmful. At first, few neoconservatives embraced the label (as late as 1979, Irving Kristol claimed he was the only one to accept the term, “perhaps because, having been named Irving, I am relatively indifferent to baptismal caprice”). But as neoconservatism matured, it did become a distinct approach to domestic politics, one that sought to reign in government excess while pursuing conservative ends within the confines of the welfare state.

In many respects, Barack Obama’s neo-socialism is neoconservatism’s mirror image. Openly committed to ending the Reagan era, Obama is a firm believer in the power of government to extend its scope and grasp far deeper into society. In much the same way that neoconservatives accepted a realistic and limited role for the government, Obama tolerates a limited and realistic role for the market: its wealth is necessary for the continuation and expansion of the welfare state and social justice. While neoconservatism erred on the side of trusting the nongovernmental sphere—mediating institutions like markets, civil society, and the family—neosocialism gives the benefit of the doubt to government. Whereas neoconservatism was inherently skeptical of the ability of social planners to repeal the law of unintended consequences, Obama’s ideal is to leave social policy in their hands and to bemoan the interference of the merely political.

“I would have loved nothing better than to simply come up with some very elegant, academically approved approach to health care, and didn’t have any kinds of legislative fingerprints on it, and just go ahead and have that passed,” he told CBS’s Katie Couric. “But that’s not how it works in our democracy. Unfortunately, what we end up having to do is to do a lot of negotiations with a lot of different people.”

Whereas Ronald Reagan saw the answers to our problems in the private sphere (“in this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem”), Obama seeks to expand confidence in, and reliance on, government wherever and whenever he can, albeit within the confines of a generally Center-Right nation and the “unfortunate” demands of democracy.

As with Webb’s Fabian socialism, one will never be able to say of Obama’s developing doctrine, “now socialism has arrived.” On the night the House of Representatives passed the health-care bill, Obama said, “This legislation will not fix everything that ails our health care system. But it moves us decisively in the right direction.” Then, speaking specifically of another vote to be taken in the Senate but also cleverly to those not yet satisfied with what had been achieved, he added, “Now, as momentous as this day is, it’s not the end of this journey.”

Under Obama’s neosocialism, that journey will be endless, and no matter how far down the road toward socialism we go, he will always be there to tell the increasingly beleaguered marchers that we have only taken a “critical first step.”

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/what-kind-of-socialist-is-barack-obama/

Grendelair,I can't speak for Dr. May concerning him hating Obama. But I for one do not support Obama nor do I respect him,I respect the office of the President of these here United States,but I do not respect the person sitting in the White House. I still think that there are too many unanswered questions about Obama's past. But there is no hate towards Obama as a human being.

jmarie,I don't know what you are trying to tell us,but I do not understand anything you say in you comment. You wrote a lot of words,but,what is it you want us to know?

With Obama’s help, the Losers like Russia, Cuba, China, North Korea, and Iran are becoming the leaders.

You really need to explain your outlandish statements and back them up with proofs.

You deserve a gold medal. Nailed him good.

It astounds me that there are still those who believe there is some problem with Obama's birthplace. Teh Stupid is still strong, evidently.

amgems,As the saying goes; "where there's smoke there's fire". There's too many stories out there about Obama,they may not all be true,but the odds of some of them stories being true is also very great. And,somebody,somewhere does know the whole story. So someday,somebody will talk,it's only human nature for someone to eventually "spill the beans".

I copied an article that was written in 2009 concerning exactly where Obama's political leanings are. He is not a marxist. He is more of a democratic socialist. His idealogue isn't quite in sync with the that group, though. The democratic socialists will support any far left leaning democrat running for office in attempts to further their agenda...which is to get rid of the 2 party system and replace it with their one party idealogue. In the meantime, Obama is considered a neosolcialist whose push toward a socialist uptopia will be ongoing and never ending march in an attempt to create something that has never truly has existed in history. While I can respect his resolve to make the world a better place, I don't really believe it is realistic. Not to mention, he talks a good talk, but he really doesn't walk the walk.

Sorry, pardner. The facts are out there, and the only people with issues are buffoons like Donald Trump, Orly Taitz, and the gullible suckers who just can't get over the idea of a black man in the white house not wearing a servant's uniform. The only smoke out there is what's being blown up your nether portions, and the only fire is the morons of the KKK burning crosses.

*********

You may find it's a bunch of fun-loving people roasting marshmallows, too.

Careful when you accidentally do a double post and leave a string '*'s.

You could get flagged for being offensive. Some folks have overactive imaginations running in the gutter.

Thanks-I sometimes forget about The Central Scrutinizer.

May: "...If Obama cannot develop hatred for Bain Capital and the upper 1%, Obama fears he cannot defeat Romney. Barack Obama’s attack on “venture capital” has been his primary attack plan against Mitt Romney..."

May, I see you are still buying the conservative twist on Bain Capital. If Obama was attacking "venture capital", then why is he calling out other individuals in other venture capital companies?

Romney claims of business experience comes from his work at Bain Capital. The Bain Capital business model or any other venture capital company does not apply when it comes to the entire country.

The "venture capital" governor of Michigan has taken over several cities in the state of Michigan, put in a single manager, kicked out the democratically elected leaders of those cities, and those managers have the power and have sold off city assets.

So if Romney is President, and a state goes bankrupt, can we expect to see Romney selling off assets of the state?

Yes, those are extreme examples, but it simply shows how Romney's "management" experiences would not be good for our nation.

From ABC news: "Mar 8, 2012 5:58pm Hate Groups on the Rise in U.S., Report Says

"...“We’ve never had a count that high before,” Mark Potok, the author of the report, told ABC News. “It’s just steady significant growth, 3, 4, 5 percent every year going back to the turn of the millennium.”

Potok said the increase from 2000 to 2008 was primarily fueled by the immigration debate.

“Around 2000, we saw very dramatically neo-Nazi groups, Klan groups and similar kinds of groups simply drop their propaganda about the alleged evils of black people, of gay people, of Jewish people in order to concentrate pretty much 100 percent on illegal immigrants,” he said. ”In 2008, we have two more factors come into play. We have Obama and the economy.”

The most recent report reveals that there where two types of hate groups that saw a significant increase from 2010 to 2011: anti-Muslim and anti-gay groups.

Anti-Muslim hate groups tripled from 10 to 30 last year, and anti-gay hate groups increased from 17 to 27..." http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/03/hate-groups-on-the-rise-in-u-s-report-says/

Perhaps a new presidential poll needs to be conducted with these groups as respondents.

Wonder what party they identify with and who they will vote for?

"Wonder what party they identify with and who they will vote for?"

Yeah, I wonder too..................NOT.

It's interesting that GOP is adopting the Catholic church as its mascot of Obamian persecution lately. For almost the first 200 years of American history, the political opinions of Catholics were QUITE irrelevant (thank you very much.)

The fact that Republicans are aligning with Catholics on the issues of abortion and gay marriage and not on the issues of immigration and social welfare programs makes me think this is an alliance of convenience and not entirely of principle.

I smell opportunism.