OFA

State Dem leaders livid at Obama organizing group OFA

Leaked emails from a Democratic Party listserv account reveal the anger of local and state Democrat leaders at the relaunching of President Obama’s activist group, Organizing for Action (OFA).  Many Democrats around the country believe that the group siphons money and people from state parties, which directly led to the party losing more than 1,000 state legislative seats during the Obama years.

Daily Beast:

The nonprofit, which functions as a sort of parallel-Democratic National Committee, was founded to mobilize Democratic voters and supporters in defense of President Obama’s, and the Democratic Party’s, agenda. Instead, the organization has drawn the intense ire, both public and private, of grassroots organizers and state parties that are convinced that OFA inadvertently helped decimate Democrats at the state and local level, while Republicans cemented historic levels of power and Donald J. Trump actually became leader of the free world.

These intra-party tensions aren’t going away, especially now that OFA “relaunched” itself last week to protect the Affordable Care Act, boost turnout at congressional town halls, and train grassroots organizers gearing up for the Trump era.

This is some GRADE A Bulls**t right here,” Stephen Handwerk, executive director of the Louisiana Democratic Party, wrote in a private Democratic-listserv email obtained by The Daily Beast. Handwerk was reacting to news of OFA’s post-election retooling, which was shared “without comment” to the group of state-level Dems by Crystal Kay Perkins, executive director for Texas Democrats.

“It also to me seems TONE DEAF – we have lost over 1,000 seats in the past 8 years… all because of this crap,” Handwerk continued. “Let’s get through the next two weeks – but then we gotta figure this out and keep the pressure on. WOW.”

Others on the thread shared these sentiments.

“Yes, it sure is,” Katie Mae Simpson, executive director for the Maine Democratic Party, replied. “OFA showed up in Maine, organized a press conference on saving [Obamacare], with one of our Dem legislative leaders speaking, all without ever mentioning that they were in state and organizing. They hired someone I know, which is somewhat helpful, but my god, they don’t have a very good alliance-building process.”

Such grievances, though expressed privately, are nothing new among state Democratic Party leadership.

“[With] all due respect to President Obama, OFA was created as a shadow party because Obama operatives had no faith in state parties,” Nebraska Democratic Party Chair Jane Kleeb told Politico last week.

“I love and adore everything about President Obama except for OFA,” South Carolina Democratic Party chairman Jaime Harrison (who is also running to chair the Democratic National Committee) said at a recent DNC “future forum,” according to The Washington Post.

The friction between the regular Democratic Party and OFA was predictable.  OFA, despite promises from President Obama and OFA’s backers, never functioned as anything except Obama’s private organizing army.  Any coordination with the DNC or local state parties happened only when the political interests of the president dovetailed with those of the local party infrastructure.  Otherwise, OFA monopolized fundraising and hiring political operatives at the expense of the party.

That President Obama didn’t care about down-ballot Democrats is obvious.  Republicans, with the help of the Tea Party, slaughtered the Democrats at the state and local levels.  The party has all but disappeared from many areas, and Democrats will spend the better part of the next decade just getting back to where they were in 2008.

OFA proved adept at backing Obama’s agenda, putting pressure on Washington Democrats to pass the president’s program.  But they were a disaster for Democrats beyond the Beltway, as huge GOP gains at the state level show.

Shame on you Obama!

The Paris Climate Conference

THE PHOTOGRAPHER WHO SNAPPED THIS PHOTO, AT THE RECENT CLIMATE CHANGE CONFERENCE, IN PARIS, SHOULD BE GIVEN AN AWARD FOR THE FUNNIEST PHOTO OF THE YEAR…….

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I suspect Kerry is dreaming of how he is going to convince the conference that, in his words, “Air conditioning is the most serious problem facing the world today.”

Seventy-Two Years Ago

Iwo Jima: a volcanic island 660 miles south of Tokyo; 2 miles wide by 4 miles long. Today, seventy-two years ago U.S. Marines invaded Iwo Jima after months of naval and air bombardment. The Japanese defenders of the island were dug into bunkers deep within the volcanic rocks. Approximately 70,000 U.S. Marines and 18,000 Japanese soldiers took part in the battle. In thirty-six days of fighting on the island, nearly 7,000 U.S. Marines were killed. Another 20,000 were wounded. Marines captured 216 Japanese soldiers; the rest were killed in action. The island was finally declared secured on March 16, 1945. It was one of the bloodiest battles in Marine Corps history.

As I do every year, I received an email Commander Victor H. Krulak, USN, Chaplains Corps (Ret) who was our battalion chaplain in Second Battalion, Seventh Marines at San Mateo, MCB, Camp Pendleton, CA in the early 70’s. He said:

As is my wont again on this 72nd anniversary of the landing on Iwo Jima, I am sending the remarks of Rabbi Gittelsohn at the dedication of the 5th Division Cemetery at the end of the battle as a reminder of the great cost of this battle that is so much a part of the legacy of the Marine Corps.

S/F, Vic

Rabbi Roland B. Gittelsohn at the Dedication of the 5th Marine Division Cemetery on Iwo Jima.

This is perhaps the grimmest, and surely the holiest task we have faced since D-Day. Here, before us lie the bodies of comrades and friends. Men who until yesterday or last week laughed with us, joked with us, trained with us. Men who were on the same ships with us, and went over the sides with us as we prepared to hit the beaches of this island. Men who fought with us and feared with us. Somewhere in this plot of ground there may lie the man who could have discovered the cure for cancer. Under one of these Christian
crosses, or beneath a Jewish Star of David, there may rest now a man who was destined to be a great prophet — to find the way, perhaps, for all to live in plenty, with poverty and hardship for none. Now they lie here silently in this sacred soil, and we gather to
consecrate this earth in their memory.

It is not easy to do so. Some of us have buried our closest friends here. We saw these men killed before our very eyes. Any one of us might have died in their places. Indeed, some of us are alive and breathing at this very moment only because men who lie here
beneath us had the courage and strength to give their lives for ours. To speak in memory of such men as these is not easy. Of them too  an it be said with utter truth: “The world will little note nor long remember what we say here.” It can never forget what they did
here.”

No, our poor power of speech can add nothing to what these men and the other dead who are not here have already done. All that we even hope to do is follow their example. To show the same selfless courage in peace that they did in war. To swear that by the grace
of God and the stubborn strength and power of human will, their sons and ours shall never suffer these pains again. These men have done their job well. They have paid the ghastly price of freedom. If that freedom be once again lost, as it was after the last war, the unforgivable blame will be ours not theirs. So it is we the living who are here to be dedicated and consecrated.

Too much blood has gone into this soil for us to let it lie barren. Too much pain and heartache have fertilized the earth on which we stand. We here solemnly swear: This shall not be in vain! Out of this, and from the suffering and sorrow of those who mourn this, will come — we promise — the birth of a new freedom for the sons of men everywhere.

God Bless them all, each and every one of them. These events are all but forgotten to the youth of today’s America. Our new educational system rather teaches worldly events of no value or consequence to our own country. I pray that will change with the new leaders!

They Just Won’t give up

Another day, another “controversial” Trump nominee confirmed.

This time it’s Scott Pruitt, Trump’s pick to lead the EPA:

The Senate confirmed President Donald Trump’s nominee, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, to lead the Environmental Protection Agency on Friday in a mostly party line vote.

The confirmation vote came after contentious hearings during which Democratic lawmakers questioned Pruitt over his ties to fossil fuel companies, his multiple legal challenges to EPA regulations and his public statements questioning the science behind climate change.

Senate Democrats boycotted a committee vote to move forward Pruitt’s nomination earlier this month and stretched debate before the full Senate into the early hours of Friday. On Thursday evening, some Democrats again called for Pruitt’s confirmation vote to be delayed after an Oklahoma judge ordered his office to turn over thousands of communications with fossil fuel companies to a watchdog group.

Make no mistake: This is a great pick, and the hysterical liberal campaign to discredit Pruitt was absolutely insane.

First, the notion that he shouldn’t be secretary because he sued the EPA. So what? Oftentimes Environmental Protection Agency policies have serious consequences for Americans. Pruitt’s efforts as Oklahoma Attorney General were aimed at restoring the state’s role in setting its own environmental policy.  Pruitt, and others recognize that regulations that apply to all states do not apply equally. States like West Virginia, Louisiana, and Oklahoma might be disproportionately harmed by sweeping environmental regulations favored by folks in California and New York. Indeed, even the most committed environmentalists acknowledge that centralized, Washington based regulation often fails to take into account the individual environmental challenges faced by the states. 

Second, the notion that he’s a “climate change” denier is absurd. More broadly, the term “climate change denier” needs to go. Acknowledging that global temperatures have shifted in one direction or another is something very few people can deny. What’s worth debating is what impact human activity has had on this, and what we might do to adapt or remedy it. But liberals aren’t interested in debate, they’re interested in shutting down the conversation and authorizing billions of dollars in programs for alternative energy and thousands of pages of business stifling regulations.

So what does Pruitt actually believe? As Daniel Payne at the Federalist notes, his beliefs are pretty tame:

Well, back in May, Pruitt co-wrote a column at National Review in which he noted, correctly, that “[the climate change debate] is far from settled. Scientists continue to disagree about the degree and extent of global warming and its connection to the actions of mankind. That debate should be encouraged — in classrooms, public forums, and the halls of Congress. It should not be silenced with threats of prosecution. Dissent is not a crime.” That’s it. That’s literally the only evidence they provide that Pruitt is a “climate change denialist.”

Pruitt’s failure to make common cause with global warming people who were telling us that a new ice age was upon us thirty years ago suggests he’s a critical thinker. A measured approach to problems isn’t dangerous, it’s rational. Rational is good. Right?

Well, not according to the mainstream media. Here’s how they’re framing it:

 

Thanks for the editorial on the Pruitt confirmation, @washingtonpost pic.twitter.com/SSgH8b1aXZ

— Jay Caruso (@JayCaruso) February 17, 2017

That’s not all. EPA employees, in a show of the rank politicization that infects the agency, have been calling senators and urging them to block Pruitt’s nomination.

We can see why. For years, the out of control agency’s priorities have been at odds with those of normal Americans. As every dire prediction about global warming has turned out to be totally false,

It’s safe to say that Pruitt will be quick to drain the swamp over there.
Read more at http://trumptrainnews.com/articles/great-again-trump-s-latest-victory-is-going-to-drive-tree-hugging-hippies-absolutely-crazy#HX68hSpzOJiRLoLd.99

Their Reply

Well, I received my reply, but not from Mr. Stuart,

Him:”He’s a busy man so he asked me to reply.”

Yeah right, I am sure he did.  Anyway, I got the reply I suspected I would get.

Him: “We did a survey to find out where we should advertise to inform the millions of veterans who do not know about USAA.”

Me: Okay, I buy that, and your survey told you to advertise on CNN? Who did the survey? How many of those millions of veterans do you personally believe watch CNN?

Him: “I don’t know the answer to that.”

Me: Sir, you do realize that when you advertise on a particular show/event/special broadcast, you are in effect endorsing it? You may think you are, but how often do Americans write or call the advertiser when they are disgusted with a particular show? You know the saying about: Money talks, and something walks?

He was very cordial, polite, and a listener; well-trained, which I would expect nothing less from his station in the organization. However, I refused to budge an inch. I continued to express my displeasure with their advertising on ANY news program considering the plethora of displeasure Americans are expressing against the MSM in general. Especially in these trying times since the election and their bashing the duly elected president, and the deep divide in our country.

He did say that they are rethinking CNN after the problems created by the leaking of questions in the debate. I don’t know if he was saying that to try to appease me or not. But he assured me, he would express my thoughts with the folks responsible for where they spend advertising dollars, which I jumped in to remind him those funds are “our” money. He agreed.

I recommended all the NCAA sports e.g. woman’s basketball, WNBA, NHL, soccer, etc. He agreed, and never thought of the NCAA women’s sports. Once again he promised to mention my thoughts and ideas to the responsible people. I hope he does, but…?

So, will I leave USAA? No, but they have stepped down a tad from the very high pedestal where I had them for 43 years. Several of the responses I recv’d from you stated how much you loved USAA, and I could not agree with you more; they are my only financial company and have been for eons. But even the greatest of champions misstep now and then. I am a patriot, probably the most patriotic person you have ever known, and I am not a member of the so-called “silent majority.” I don’t know if I am even part of the “majority,” but I do know I am far from being “silent”.