Presidential Seal

Get a Hillary Is 44 button! Here's How:

Please Send a Donation to us at Hillary Is 44 So We Can Continue Our Work. Donate $10.00 or more and we will send you a pink Hillary Is 44 button.

Get a Hillary Is 44 T-Shirt! Here's How:

Donate $100.00 or more and we will send you a pink Hillary Is 44 T-shirt as well as a button.

Donate To Hillary Is 44 below:

Suscribe To Our RSS Feed

The Funnies

See Our Funnies Archive.

February 17, 2009 - David Letterman - Top Ten Things Hillary Clinton Wants To Accomplish On Her Trip Overseas

10 Exchange U.S. dollars for currency that's worth something

9 Win respect defeating Japan's top-ranked sumo wrestler

8 Shift world's perception of America from "hated" to "extremely disliked"

7 Personally thank all of her illegal campaign donors

6 Three words: stylish Indonesian pantsuits

5 Visit burial site of revered Chinese military leader, General Tso

4 Get drunk with that Japanese finance minister guy

3 Convince China to switch from lead-tainted products to mercury-tainted products

2 Catch Chinese screening of Benjamin Button entitled "The Strange Adventures of Freaky Grandpa Baby"

1 Pick up carton of duty-free smokes for Obama

February 16, 2009 - David Letterman - Top Ten Things Abraham lincoln Would Say If He Were Alive Today

10 "Sup?"

9 "I see Madonna's still a slut"

8 "Who's that handsome sumbitch on the five?"

7 "Is that free Grand Slam deal still going on at Denny's?"

6 "I just changed my Facebook status update to, Tthe 'ol rail splitter is chillaxing'"

5 "How do I get on 'Dancing with the Stars'?"

4 "Okay, Obama, you're from Illinois, too. We get it!"

3 "Hey Phelps, don't Bogart the weed!"

2 "What's the deal with Joaquin Phoenix?"

1 "A Broadway play? Uhhh, no thanks. I'm good."

January 28, 2009 - David Letterman - Top Ten Things Overheard at the Meeting Between Barack Obama and the Republicans

10 "I miss the Clinton administration when we'd meet at Hooters"

9 "Can we wrap this up? I've got tickets to the 4:30 'Paul Blart: Mall Cop"

8 "Smoke break!"

7 "You fellas really need to take it easy on the Old Spice"

6 "Mr. President: don't misunderestimate the Republicans"

5 "Another smoke break!"

4 "What was the deal with Aretha Franklin's hat?"

3 "About that tax the rich stuff -- you were joking, right?"

2 "Sir, it's refreshing to have a Chief Executive who speaks in complete sentences"

1 "Senator Craig's offering his stimulus package in the men's room"

January 27, 2009 - David Letterman - Top Ten Ways Rod Blagojevich Can Improve His Image

10 Star in new television series, "America's Funniest Haircuts"

9 Quit politics and become a fat, lovable mall cop

8 Start pronouncing last name with Jerry Lewis-like "BLAGOOOYYYJEVICH"

7 Offer a senate seat with no money down, zero percent interest

6 Team up with John Malkovich and Erin Brockovich for hot Malkovich-Brockovich-Blagojevich sex tape

5 Change his name to Barod Obamavich

4 Safely land an Airbus on the Hudson River

3 I don't about showing up for his impeachment trial?

2 Wear sexy dresses, high heels and say, "You Betcha!"

1 Uhhh...resign?

January 16, 2000 - David Letterman - Top Ten Signs Obama's Getting Nervious

10 New slogan: "Yes we can... or maybe not, it's hard to say"

9 In moment of confusion, requested a $300 billion bailout from the bailout industry

8 He's up to not smoking three packs a day

7 Friends say he's looking frail, shaky, that's McCain

6 He's so stressed, doctors say he's developing a Sanjay in his Gupta

5 Been walking around muttering, "What the hell have I gotten myself into?"

4 Offered Governor of Illinois, Rod Blagojevich, $100,000 to buy his old Senate seat back

3 Standing on White House roof screaming, "Save us, Superman!"

2 Sweating like Bill Clinton when Hillary comes home early

1 He demanded a recount

January 8, 2000 - David Letterman - Top Ten Barack Obama Plans To Fix The Economy

10 Encourage tourists to throw spare change in the Grand Canyon

9 End our dependence on foreign owls

8 Sell New Mexico to Mexico

7 Put a little of that bailout money on the Ravens plus 3 at Tennessee. Come on! It's a mortal lock!

6 Rent out the moon for weddings and Bar Mitzvahs

5 Lotto our way out of this son-of-a-bitch

4 Appear on "Deal or No Deal" and hope to choose the right briefcase

3 Bail out the adult film industry -- not sure how it helps, but it can't hurt

2 Release O.J. from prison, have him steal America's money from China

1 Stop talkin' and start Obama-natin'!

January 7, 2000 - David Letterman - Top Ten Things Overheard At The Presidents' Lunch

10 "Sorry, you're not on the list, Mr. Gore"

9 "If Hillary calls, I've been here since Monday"

8 "Laura! More Mountain Dew!"

7 "You guys wanna see, 'Paul Blart: Mall Cop'?"

6 "Call the nurse -- George swallowed a napkin ring!"

5 "Hey Barack, wanna go with us to Cabo in March? Oh that's right, you have to work!"

4 "Kissey kissey"

3 "Obama? I think he's downstairs smoking a butt"

2 "Did you ever see a monkey sneezing?"

1 "I hope Clinton's unbuckling his belt because he's full"

Recent Articles Calendar

July 2014
« Jun    

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Networked Blogs

July 28th, 2014

Obama Border Treacheries In America And Israel

Want to know how utterly dead “comprehensive immigration reform” is? Back when everyone was so sure it was sure to pass, we declared “comprehensive immigration reform” dead and we have been proven right. The ultimate proof of the death and burial of “comprehensive immigration reform” is the arrival of the tombstone, courtesy of Scott Brown.

Scott Brown became the senator from Massachusetts when he took on the Kennedy arrogance of power and used as his tool the fight against ObamaCare. Scott won his race because of ObamaCare.

Despite the current polls, Scott Brown has a very good chance to become the next senator from New Hampshire not only due to the American revulsion with ObamaCare but because of a new tool in his tool belt. That new tool is the American revulsion with Obama lies and treachery regarding the southern border of America.

Scott Brown is a Northeast liberal Republican of the type that ordinarily would support the euphemism for amnesty, “comprehensive immigration reform”. That Brown is buying hundreds of thousands of dollars to air this type of ad tells you exactly how dead “comprehensive immigration reform” is.

Expect Scott Brown’s poll numbers to stiffen once he gets the nomination of his party. Expect also his attacks on Obama/Shaheen and their immigration treacheries to harden. It won’t be long until Scott Brown leads his party with attacks reminding the American voters that for many years Obama stated that he could not legally do what Obama treacherously intends to do after his next weeks long vacation this August. The polling on immigration has come back to bite the no-borders crowd led by treacherous Barack Obama. Today 81% of the public is alarmed by what is happening and 77% want the illegal aliens sent back.

* * * * * *

Obama treachery regarding Israel’s borders is still awaiting a champion to challenge Obama/Kerry during this election season.

Obama treachery on Israel and its borders is as clear as the ugly mole on his face:

A few hours before the press conference began, the Israeli security cabinet ministers unanimously rejected Kerry’s cease-fire plan draft. Kerry, as is his wont, seemed and sounded as if he came from a parallel universe. He claimed to have never presented Israel with a formal offer for a cease-fire, slammed the Israeli media’s “mischievous reports” and promised that Netanyahu’s office will issue a clarification.

As if that wasn’t enough, Kerry claimed he made significant progress in the cease-fire talks and said, deadpan, that the disagreements with Israel are purely on matters of terminology. Reality, of course, was completely different. If anything happened on Friday it was another deep crisis in trust between Israeli senior cabinet members and the American secretary of state.

The draft Kerry passed to Israel on Friday shocked the cabinet ministers not only because it was the opposite of what Kerry told them less than 24 hours earlier, but mostly because it might as well have been penned by Khaled Meshal. It was everything Hamas could have hoped for.

The document recognized Hamas’ position in the Gaza Strip, promised the organization billions in donation funds and demanded no dismantling of rockets, tunnels or other heavy weaponry at Hamas’ disposal. The document placed Israel and Hamas on the same level, as if the first is not a primary U.S. ally and as if the second isn’t a terror group which overtook part of the Palestinian Authority in a military coup and fired thousands of rockets at Israel.

On Saturday, the State Department distributed photos of Kerry’s meeting with Qatar and Turkey’s foreign ministers in Paris. The three appear jovial and happy-go-lucky. Other photographs show Kerry carousing romantically with the Turkish foreign minister in the pastoral grounds of the U.S. ambassador’s home in Paris, as if the Turkish official’s prime minister didn’t just say a few days ago that Israel is 10 times worse than Hitler.

Kerry is not a friend to Israel. Kerry is a friend and crony of Barack Obama and Barack Obama hates Israel and the values of the West.

Kerry cavorts with the Turkish ambassador as Turkey descends into Erodogan’s corruptions and madness. This as left of center Haaretz reports that Turkey will send another flotilla to Gaza along with Turkish military escorts.

Kerry is the Botoxed face of Barack Obama and his hatred of Israel:

It seemed inconceivable that the American secretary of state would have drafted an initiative that, as a priority, did not require the dismantling of Hamas’s rocket arsenal and network of tunnels dug under the Israeli border. Yet the reported text did not address these issues at all, nor call for the demilitarization of Gaza.

It seemed inconceivable that the secretary’s initiative would specify the need to address Hamas’s demands for a lifting of the siege of Gaza, as though Hamas were a legitimate injured party acting in the interests of the people of Gaza — rather than the terror group that violently seized control of the Strip in 2007, diverted Gaza’s resources to its war effort against Israel, and could be relied upon to exploit any lifting of the “siege” in order to import yet more devastating weaponry with which to kill Israelis.

Israel and the US are meant to be allies; the US is meant to be committed to the protection of Israel in this most ruthless of neighborhoods; together, the US and Israel are meant to be trying to marginalize the murderous Islamic extremism that threatens the free world. Yet here was the top US diplomat appearing to accommodate a vicious terrorist organization bent on Israel’s destruction, with a formula that would leave Hamas better equipped to achieve that goal.

John Kerry is the heavily Botoxed face of treacherous Barack Obama. Barack Obama is the inspiration for John Kerry’s many treacheries:

What emerges from Kerry’s self-initiated ceasefire mission — Israel had already accepted the Egyptian ceasefire proposal; and nobody asked him to come out on a trip he prefaced with sneering remarks about Israel’s attempted “pinpoint” strikes on Hamas terror targets — is that Jerusalem now regards him as duplicitous and dangerous.

Contrary to his public claim at his press conference in Cairo that his ceasefire proposal was “built on” the Egyptian initiative, it manifestly is nothing of the kind. As indicated by the unconfirmed text reported by Issacharoff, by other subsequent reports of its content, and by the cabinet’s outraged rejection, it is a proposal that, to quote an unnamed official cited by Channel 2, “tunneled under the Egyptian initiative,” a document, to quote from another of those leaked comments, that reads like it was drawn up for or even by Hamas’s Khaled Mashaal.

And Kerry didn’t let up after unleashing his dreadful proposal. Following Friday’s fiasco, he jetted off to Paris and, quite extraordinarily, convened further consultations dominated by countries that overtly wish to do Israel harm. He met with his counterparts from Turkey, whose Hamas-backing leadership has lately accused Israel of attempting genocide in Gaza and compared Netanyahu to Hitler, and with Qatar, Hamas’s funder in chief, directly accused by president Shimon Peres last week of financing Hamas’s rockets and tunnels. Staggeringly, he did not bring Israel, Egypt, or the PA to his Paris sessions.

It’s treachery pure and simple.

Hillary Clinton fought Barack Obama and his treacheries. John Kerry conspired to get Barack Obama the nomination in 2008 and now John Kerry enables the myriad treacheries of Barack Obama:

When Kerry’s predecessor, Hillary Clinton, got involved in the effort to broker terms for ending Operation Pillar of Defense in November 2012, it was self-evident, first, that a ceasefire was at hand, and, second, that the diplomatic work was being coordinated effectively with Jerusalem to ensure that Israel’s vital interests were being served. It is a testament to Kerry’s incompetence (or worse), and to the collapse of faith between him and Israel, that, when he headed ignominiously home on Saturday, neither of those assumptions held sway.

Whether through ineptitude, malice, or both, Kerry’s intervention was not a case of America’s top diplomat coming to our region to help ensure, through astute negotiation, the protection of a key ally. This was a betrayal.

According to the Associated Press, Barack Obama is now threatening Israel for telling the truth about the lies and treacheries of John Kerry and Barack Obama. The truth is always the enemy of scam artists and flim flam con men.

As we head into August this week, November can’t come soon enough.

July 25th, 2014

How Big??? ObamaCare Jonathan Gruber #HalBIG

The Fourth Circuit plaintiffs against ObamaCare have a new weapon if they decide to do what we think they will do and appeal directly to the Supreme Court. We’re talking HalBIG. The HalBIG we wrote thoroughly about in early July. The HalBIG we wrote about when the D.C. Circuit Court knocked ObamaCare into a death panel hospice waiting for a death certificate to be signed.

The weapon against the ObamaCare scam is none other than the “architect” of ObamaCare and what he himself said about ObamaCare.

Repeatedly and without shame pro-ObamaCare con artists repeat the lie that there was no intent to provide ObamaCare subsidies only to individuals on ObamaCare exchanges established by the states. These pro-ObamaCare liars defraud the courts and the public by insisting ObamaCare subsides were intended to go to the federal exchanges too. Now the “architect” of ObamaCare, via the magic of video, has exploded another torpedo below the waterline of the sinking S.S. ObamaCare.

Here is “architect” of ObamaCare Jonathan Gruber:

This week, an unprecedented circuit split emerged in Halbig v. Burwell and King v. Burwell over whether health insurance premium assistance is available in states that didn’t set up health insurance exchanges. Many commentators have since claimed that there’s no way Congress intended to deny premium assistance to residents of the 36 so-called “refusenik” states that have not set up their own health insurance exchanges.

But in January 2012, Jonathan Gruber—an MIT economics professor whom the The New York Times has called “Mr. Mandate” for his pivotal role in helping the Obama administration and Congress draft the Affordable Care Act—told an audience at Noblis that:

What’s important to remember politically about this is if you’re a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits—but your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill. So you’re essentially saying [to] your citizens you’re going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country. I hope that that’s a blatant enough political reality that states will get their act together and realize there are billions of dollars at stake here in setting up these exchanges. But, you know, once again the politics can get ugly around this.

Start the video at 31:25. For more on Professor Gruber’s crucial role in designing the ACA, see this 2012 profile of him in The New York Times and this release from MIT’s press office, which describes Gruber as the architect of the “three-legged stool” concept discussed at length by the Fourth Circuit opinion in King v. Burwell.

The Fourth Circuit judges who issued their convolution mess of an opinion must be hiding behind their toilets muttering epithets against Jonathan Gruber, who, because of his video, exposes them as idiots. Likewise the D.C. Circuit judges must be basking in the blessed glow of justice:

Earlier this week, a three-judge panel in the D.C. Circuit Court ruled that, contrary to the Obama administration’s implementation and an Internal Revenue Service rule, Obamacare’s subsidies for private health insurance were limited to state-run health exchanges.

The reasoning for this ruling was simple: That’s what the law says. The section dealing with the creation of state exchanges and the provision of subsidies states, quite clearly, that subsidies are only available in exchanges “established by a State,” which the law expressly
as the 50 states plus the District of Columbia.

Obamacare’s defenders have responded by saying that this is obviously ridiculous. It doesn’t make any sense in the larger context of the law, and what’s more, no one who supported the law or voted for it ever talked about this. It’s a theory concocted entirely by the law’s opponents, the health law’s backers argue, and never once mentioned by people who crafted or backed the law.

It’s not. One of the law’s architects—at the same time that he was a paid consultant to states deciding whether or not to build their own exchanges—was espousing exactly this interpretation as far back in early 2012, and long before the Halbig suit—the one that was decided this week against the administration—was filed. (A related suit, Pruitt v. Sebelius, had been filed earlier, but did not challenge tax credits within the federal exchanges until an amended version which was filed in late 2012.) It was also several months before the first publication of the paper by Case Western Law Professor Jonathan Adler and Cato Institute Health Policy Director Michael Cannon which detailed the case against the IRS rule. 

ObamaCare con artists say one thing; ObamaCare scam opponents say the contrary. Who’s correct?:

And what he says is exactly what challengers to the administration’s implementation of the law have been arguing—that if a state chooses not to establish its own exchange, then residents of those states will not be able to access Obamacare’s health insurance tax credits. He says this in response to a question asking whether the federal government will step in if a state chooses not to build its own exchange. Gruber describes the possibility that states won’t enact their own exchanges as one of the potential “threats” to the law. He says this with confidence and certainty, and at no other point in the presentation does he contradict the statement in question.

One of the architects of the fight against ObamaCare exemplified by HalBIG is about to giggle himself to death as he laughs about his absolutely great good fortune:

The central issue is whether the PPACA allows the IRS to issue tax credits through health-insurance Exchanges established by the federal government. Said government argues it’s implausible that Congress intended to withhold tax credits in states that don’t establish Exchanges. On Tuesday, the D.C. Circuit set off a firestorm when it ruled in Halbig that the PPACA’s language authorizing tax credits “through an Exchange established by the State” cannot be reasonably construed to authorize them in the 36 states with federal Exchanges. On the same day, the Fourth Circuit reached the opposite conclusion in King. On Thursday, however, the plaintiffs’ interpretation got another boost from an architect of the PPACA named Jonathan Gruber.

The government argued in Halbig that the potential for adverse selection makes “it…untenable to suggest that Congress withheld premium tax credits from individuals who live in States with federally-run Exchanges. Congress sought to reform the non-group market, not to destroy it.” The government described as “baseless” the Halbig plaintiffs’ claim that Congress used the tax credits as an inducement to encourage states to establish and operate Exchanges.

These arguments did not fare well in court. The D.C. Circuit found that the PPACA “encourages” states to establish Exchanges. Moreover, in other parts of the statute—the “CLASS Act” and the law’s treatment of U.S. territories, to name two—Congress showed a rather high tolerance for adverse selection, so the fact that a provision created the potential for adverse selection in the Exchanges did not render it implausible. Finally, even as the Fourth Circuit found the plaintiffs’ reading of the statute “plausible,” implicitly rejecting both of the government’s implausibility claims, even as it ultimately ruled for the government.

The plaintiffs’ interpretation became even more plausible with the discovery of a January 2012 presentation by Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist Jonathan Gruber. I’ll get to why Gruber is significant in a moment. For now, note how he unequivocally agrees with the plaintiffs’ interpretation: the PPACA only allows tax credits in states that establish Exchanges.

It’s like O.J. Simpson walking into court with a knife soaked in Nicole Brown’s blood. Yeah, it’s that bad.

Let’s watch that video again along with the giggly Cannon and read a bit more of the transcript:

Questioner: You mentioned the health-information Exchanges for the states, and it is my understanding that if states don’t provide them, then the federal government will provide them for the states.

Gruber: Yeah, so these health-insurance Exchanges, you can go on and see ours in Massachusetts, will be these new shopping places and they’ll be the place that people go to get their subsidies for health insurance. In the law, it says if the states don’t provide them, the federal backstop will. The federal government has been sort of slow in putting out its backstop, I think partly because they want to sort of squeeze the states to do it. I think what’s important to remember politically about this, is if you’re a state and you don’t set up an Exchange, that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits. But your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill. So you’re essentially saying to your citizens, you’re going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country. I hope that’s a blatant enough political reality that states will get their act together and realize there are billions of dollars at stake here in setting up these Exchanges, and that they’ll do it. But you know, once again, the politics can get ugly around this.

Here’s the video (skip ahead to 31:25):

Gruber doesn’t just acknowledge the conditional feature of the PPACA’s tax credits. He also supplies a plausible purpose for that feature (there were people in Washington who either wanted to “squeeze the states to do it,” or saw the law as directing them to do so). He describes the mechanism by which this provision achieves that purpose (taxpayers will pressure their state officials to create Exchanges so they can receive tax credits). He acknowledges that the conditional nature of the tax credits sits perfectly well alongside the law’s requirement that the federal government establish an Exchange within states that do not (providing another refutation of the argument offered by Yale law professor Abbe Gluck that these provisions are somehow in tension). He even explains why the Obama administration might try to ignore this part of the law (the politics of the PPACA “can get ugly,” and the lure of tax credits might not be enough to induce states to cooperate).

I couldn’t have said it better myself.

Gruber is now pleading amnesia and disavowing what he said in the video. Gruber has no choice but to plead a form of insanity because in many televised appearances he has angrily denied saying what he said when he says he does not remember because he does not remember what he said or didn’t say or can’t remember he said and anyway STOP QUOTING ME because I can’t remember saying what I said and I could never have said what I said because I am on with O’Tingles calling the plaintiffs and their case “screwy” “nutty” and stupid” – and yes I joined an amicus on those two court cases and I have testified before state legislatures specifically saying things contrary to what I said in the video and LEAVE ME ALONE… I’m having a nervous breakdown and hope no one checks to see if I said anything under oath or wrote anything under oath knowing full well well I was lying, and perjury, and OMG… leave me alone… and anyway it was only one time I said it… leave me alone….

One time?:

“I was speaking off-the-cuff. It was just a mistake,” he claims. He added, “My subsequent statement was just a speak-o—you know, like a typo.” A typo is usually a simple slip of the finger on the keyboard, i.e. a misspelling or missed bit of punctuation. Gruber’s statement is nearly a minute long.

Also, it turns out it was not the only time he made such a statement. An audio clip from a public appearance Gruber made at the Jewish Community Center of San Francisco on January 10, 2012 reveals he made the same connection between subsidies and state-based exchanges on at least one other occasion (hat tip to MorgenR).

It wasn’t a bug. It was a feature.

The architect of ObamaCare built ObamaCare on sand, not on a solid foundation. Now ObamaCare architect Jonathan Gruber is one of the biggest threats to ObamaCare. Justice.

July 22nd, 2014

How Big??? #HalBig – Halbig Court Decision On ObamaCare

Update II: Well that was quick. Two hours after the Halbig decision the Fourth Circuit issued its decision on ObamaCare. As predicted below, the Fourth Circuit upheld ObamaCare’s subsidy scheme as twisted into existence by Obama. This means a split in appellate court decisions and Supreme Court review.

More importantly, the plaintiffs that lost in the Fourth Circuit now can immediately appeal to the Supreme Court and not bother with an appeal to the full panel of the Fourth Circuit.


Update: We already have a question in the comments about why Josh Earnest is saying that the subsidies will continue to flow.

Earnest is joshing. Presidents better obey the courts. If the ruling is stayed – by the courts – pending appeal then there is no problem. But what this is really about is Obama trying to thug the Supreme Court by warning them that he might disregard a ruling by them he does not like. This is Obama trying to intimidate the high court with the threat of a constitutional crisis.


We wrote about Halbig HERE. It’s a big, big, big, decision which almost surely forces an an Obama appeal to a full panel of the appellate court. Obama will win that fight because he packed the court when Harry Reid ended the Senate filibusters on judges to courts other than the Supreme Court. But then the case will go to the Supreme Court and we’re walking on the sunny side of the street and believe the Supreme Court will ratify today’s three judge panel decision.

It might be an update kind of day but we’ll start with the basic news on Halbig.

If you thought the worldwide path of destruction by Obama – a soft invasion on the American southern border, Russian adventurism and Russian allies destroying passenger aircraft as Obama whimpers, Obama and face-lift Kerry hatin’ on Israel, Midas-in-reverse Obama economics, Obama still voting “present” by ceaseless fundraisers-vacations-golf outings with the boys – made the scam called ObamaCare any less relevant — read it and weep tears of laughter:

President Obama’s healthcare law was dealt a new blow Tuesday as a U.S. appeals court ruled that due to a wording glitch in the Affordable Care Act, some low- and middle-income residents are not entitled to receive government assistance to subsidize their insurance.

In a 2-1 vote, a panel of judges on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia judges rejected the Obama administration’s argument that the problem was triggered by imprecise language in the complex law and that Congress had always intended to offer the subsidies nationwide to low-and middle-income people who bought insurance through one of the state or federal health exchanges created under the law.

But as written, the law states that subsidies should be paid to those who purchase insurance through an “exchange established by the state.”

That would seem to leave out the 36 states in which the exchanges are operated by the federal government.

The appeals court wrote in its decision:

“Section 36B plainly makes subsidies available in the Exchanges established by states,” wrote Senior Circuit Judge Raymond Randolph in his majority opinion, where he was joined by Judge Thomas Griffith “We reach this conclusion, frankly, with reluctance. At least until states that wish to can set up their own Exchanges, our ruling will likely have significant consequences both for millions of individuals receiving tax credits through federal Exchanges and for health insurance markets more broadly.” [snip]

If upheld, the ruling could lead many, if not most of those subsidized customers to abandon their health plans sold on because they no longer would find them affordable without the often-lucrative tax credits. And if that coverage then is not affordable for them as defined by the Obamacare law, those people will no longer be bound by the law’s mandate to have health insurance by this year or pay a fine next year.

If there were to be a large exodus of subsidized customers from the plans, it would in turn likely lead to much higher premium rates for non-subsidized people who would remain in those plans, who are apt as a group to be in worse health than all original enrollees.

The ruling also threatens, in the same 36 states, to gut the Obamacare rule starting next year that all employers with 50 or more full-time workers offer affordable insurance to them or face fines. That’s because the rule only kicks in if one of such an employers’ workers buy subsidized covered on

Here’s a complication: There is another case on the same issues in the Fourth Circuit. It is likely the Fourth Circuit appeals court will rule in favor of ObamaCare. The losers in that case will then be able to appeal directly to the Supreme Court if they so choose and force the issue faster than anyone expects but still after the November 2014 elections.

As we wrote in an update to our earlier Halbig article, Obama’s law professor thought the ObamaCare scam was likely to lose today:

“I don’t have a crystal ball,” Tribe told the Fiscal Times. “But I wouldn’t bet the family farm on this coming out in a way that preserves Obamacare.” [snip]

The problem for the IRS, though, is that the subsidies language is not ambiguous. Even Tribe acknowledged that the language is clear, according to the Fiscal Times.

“Yet in drafting the law, Tribe said the administration ‘assumed that state exchanges would be the norm and federal exchanges would be a marginal, fallback position’ — though it didn’t work out that way for a plethora of legal, administrative and political reasons,” the Fiscal Times writes.

The ObamaCare law was and is a mess. The ObamaCare law was not read by those that passed it. They voted for the ObamaCare scam more as Obama idolatry than good policy. Now, the illiterate chickens are coming home to roost. The law was badly written and Obama tried to write new law using agencies and departments of the federal government. But in our system of government only the legislature, the Congress, can write laws.

Because we are a nation of laws and the words in our laws matter this happened:

Federal appeals court panel deals major blow to health law

A federal appeals court panel in the District struck down a major part of the 2010 health-care law Tuesday, ruling that the tax subsidies that are central to the program may not be provided in at least half of the states.

As Barack Obama flits out to his latest fundraising tour week ObamaCare comes back and slaps him in the face.

The problem is the law as written and even as not implemented by Obama and even as will eventually have to be implemented. That’s why the appeals court acted with such courage. GARBAGE IN – GARBAGE OUT.

The problem is Obama. GARBAGE IN – GARBAGE OUT.

July 16th, 2014

Why Won’t Republicans Use The Illegal Immigration Crisis As A Wedge Issue And Speak To Black Americans?

“Never let a crisis go to waste” is a concept Republicans have forgotten. There are a lot of legal options for Republicans in the current illegal immigration crisis – but that is an article for another day. Today we want to focus on what Republicans should do politically.

Consider, Barack Obama plotted to use illegal immigration as an issue to win the crucial November 2014 elections. Obama’s goal was to use illegal immigration (as well as race-baiting) to incite his base vote of young white liberals and black voters as well as Latinos to the ballot box and thereby forestall disaster. Instead, the illegal immigration crisis at the southern border has focused attention on the illegal immigration issue as never before and Barack Obama and his political henchmen are on defense on the illegal immigration issue.

But the damage to Obama politically could be even greater if Republicans took advantage of the crisis swarm at the southern border.

If Republicans took a refresher course in politics the damage to the Barack Obama coalition could be even greater than to Barack Obama himself.

Consider these two videos:

Republicans, if they were smart, would approach black Americans and remind them of the dangers illegal immigration poses to the black community in particular.

The goal of a Republican approach like we suggest would not be to win the votes of black voters. The goal is to inform black voters of the dangers to them of illegal immigration and thereby checkmate Barack Obama’s political aim of flooding the November elections with his base vote.

If Republicans do not fail to take advantage of a crisis they can split the pro-Obama vote on the issue of illegal immigration while at the same time flooding the polls with their own voter base.

Barack Obama’s counter-move to any Republican outreach to the black community would be race-baiting. Obama would race-bait any Republican who speaks to the black community. Obama will also use Republican opposition to illegal amnesty to attempt to bring out the Latino vote. But the Republican riposte would be graceful.

Republicans can quote Hillary Clinton and Paul Rodriguez to counter Barack Obama race-baiting on illegal immigration:

Republicans can use the illegal immigration crisis to drive a wedge that splits the Obama coalition at its most elemental root, black voters. Republicans at the same time will build on their coalition of white working class voters.

The white working class fears lower wages and that alone explains resistance to amnesty for illegal immigrants. The white working class knows that Orwellian tags like “comprehensive immigration reform” are code words for amnesty.

Black Americans are against amnesty for illegal immigrants too even as black “leadership” supports Barack Obama’s failed policies. Republicans should take advantage of the current illegal immigration crisis and use it as a wedge issue to inform black voters that Barack Obama has stabbed them in the back. A stab in the back. That is the Barack Obama way. Ask Alice Palmer.

Obama cannot be trusted… neither by friend nor foe….

As we predicted long ago “comprehensive immigration reform” is dead. For Republicans the benefits are clear:

Immigration reform fizzles as campaign issue for Democrats

Immigration reform has fizzled as an issue for Democrats, who are barely mentioning it on the campaign trail despite making the issue their top domestic priority in 2013 and 2014.

Latino voters, who are the most energized about overhauling the nation’s immigration laws, will have little impact on the battle for control of the Senate, with the possible exception of Sen. Mark Udall’s (D) race in Colorado.

White working-class voters will play a more important role in the midterm election compared to the 2012 presidential election. They are not energized by immigration reform. Instead, they are concerned about downward pressure on wages, which the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has linked to higher immigration levels.

Coincidently, President Obama’s support among white voters without college degrees has steadily eroded.

Democratic strategists admit their party’s record on immigration reform will do little to help candidates this year, although they predict it could be a potent weapon in the 2016 presidential election.

“In light of turnout models it’s probably not as strong an issue as it would be in presidential years,” said Steve Jarding, a Democratic strategist and former advisor to several senators from conservative leaning states such as former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.). [snip]

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) has led the effort in Congress to link high immigration flows to stagnant wages but many Republican lawmakers have not joined in because the business community wants more guest workers and visas for high-skilled employees.

Despite the lack of concerted effort by GOP leaders in Washington to used immigration reform as a weapon against Democrats, the issue could hurt them among white working-class voters who are slipping away from Obama.

Polling by Rasmussen, a GOP survey group, showed working and middle-class Americans oppose large expansions of immigration flows.

Republicans should tell the black community that this illegal immigration crisis will not abate until their communities are destroyed by joblessness. Republicans can cite Ruben Navarrette Jr.:

Recently, my sources in Texas who have been close to the border kids story since the start — and have batted 1.000 in terms of the accuracy of their reports — have been giving me a dire warning. It’s the equivalent of: “You ain’t seen nothing yet.”

Many Americans are angry and frustrated over the government’s handling of the border kids calamity. The Obama administration — which, according to Texas Gov. Rick Perry, was warned by state officials in the Lone Star State that this was happening as early as 2012 and obviously didn’t do enough to prepare — estimates that by the end of this year, as many as 90,000 young people will have crossed the border into the American Southwest.

Then there are the tag-alongs. Looking for jobs, and seizing on the opportunity presented by the fact that so many border patrol agents are preoccupied caring for the children, an unknown number of adults from Mexico are riding the kids’ coattails right into the United States.

It’s a total mess. But what if what we’re witnessing now is just the beginning? What if the real wave is yet to come?

My sources tell me that it is well-known that in the Rio Grande Valley, there are tens or even hundreds of thousands of people from Central America — mostly women and children — in northern Mexico right now, waiting for their chance to cross into the United States.

We should stop looking for an endpoint. This story has no end in sight.

The illegal immigration crisis caused by Barack Obama will not abate. The illegal immigration crisis created by Barack Obama’s policies and weakness will not end nor be restricted to border states and communities. Already Massachusetts is alarmed at the “spikes in detainees coming up from Texas“.

As Bristol County Sheriff Thomas M. Hodgson declared “We’re all becoming border sheriffs now with these people being carted all over the country.” “The blame goes all the way up. It’s a travesty and people ought to be upset.” “This is un-American and has raised the stakes to the public health and public safety threat.”

Barack Obama is to blame. Republicans would be wise to clue black voters about how and why Obama has stabbed them in the back.

Black Americans once were the elemental base of the new abomination called the Barack Obama coalition. We called it the “situation comedy” coalition because it so resembled what television programers want for their silly programs. But a “situation comedy” coalition is not a way to organize a political party nor govern a nation.

Barack Obama’s silly “situation comedy” coalition replaced the FDR coalition of seniors and the white working class as the Democratic party base vote. That upending led to disaster in 2010 even though the new travesty coalition helped Barack Obama personally get elected and reelected.

Republicans should tell black Americans that they are about to get the Obama stab in the back. Black voters are next in line to be dumped in favor of Latino voters from the latest incarnation of the Obama coalition.

In 2014 the failures and fissures of the new Obama “situation comedy” coalition will lead to new disaster in the November elections. If Republicans take advantage of the crisis Barack Obama created for his political benefit, Republicans can win in a rout never before seen in this countries electoral history – but first Republicans have to learn to not let a crisis go to waste.

July 12th, 2014

Rock Bottom Obama

Notice how more and more the truth we wrote long ago is conventional wisdom even on the left – when they are not drunk but sober? We wrote the truth. Then the attacks on us for being “batsh*t crazy” or not very bright, or Republicans, or disgruntled Japanese soldiers fighting a lost war on a deserted island, or racists, or dinosaurs, or whatever the Obama cult could dream up to excuse their own stupidity, began. We get the last laugh.

Here’s leftist loon and Barack Obama apologist Bill Maher forced to admit the truth we wrote about so long ago:

BILL MAHER: There was a study done that found out online conversations that were intercepted and stored by the NSA — nine out of ten were not from foreigners, they are from ordinary citizens, and I want to read this: Many files, it says, described as useless by the analysts had a startlingly intimate, even voyeuristic quality. Stories of love and heartbreak, illicit sexual liaisons, mental health crises and disappointed hopes. Move over, Taxicab Confessions, we have a new –

This is exactly what they said they weren’t going to do. Just, you know, be nosy and look into the lives of private people for their own shits and giggles. And I just want to say, if this were happening under Bush, liberals would be apoplectic. I’m sorry, but liberals are just sometimes useless Obama hacks without a shred of intellectual honesty. (HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher, July 11, 2014)

If Bush did it the Obama cult would explode in anger. But the Obama cult, of which liberals comprise a large segment, are hypocritical liars concerned not with issues but with enabling the cult leader. Maher says “liberals are just sometimes useless Obama hacks without a shred of intellectual honesty.” Condemned by his own words.

Instead of an endless article of other hypocritical liars beginning to regurgitate what we wrote years ago, here’s Republican pollster, Alex Castellanos, assessing Barack Obama with words and language we wrote for years but words even the Republicans/conservatives have until now been too scared to use:

Obama hasn’t hit rock bottom yet

(CNN) — Ordinarily, being ranked as the worst modern president of the United States would be considered unfortunate. For you Mr. President, that’s the good news.

As painful as it is to note, your presidency has not yet hit bottom. You’ve got a long way to go in your descent.

Everywhere you walk, Mr. President, the world unravels. Americans are whispering that each political missile you fire seems to hit not its target but our own house.

You have undone the core idea you’ve advanced, that a larger public sector can save us. You are becoming the one-man Keystone Cops of an experiment in weakness and incompetent government.

Your Veterans Administration is a dysfunctional mess. Some veterans who have lived through war have not survived contact with your VA.

Your immigration agents are changing diapers and crying for fresh underwear for detained immigrants awaiting deportation. Your IRS has been accused of targeting political opponents, and your best defense is their ineptitude: They lose their e-mails and files.

Your own signature initiative, the Affordable Care Act, has turned on you. You’ve repeatedly delayed and altered the law, gluing and taping together, on the fly, the health care of an anxious nation.

Your Supreme Court is telling you to read the manual that came with your office: You are not allowed to run a Nixonian presidency. In three years, you’ve suffered numerous humiliating and unanimous reversals of your executive authority.

You are protected by the thinly manned barricades of an attorney general who refuses to investigate misconduct in your executive offices. Four out of five Americans believe the government you would like to expand is corrupt, a view that is a 7-point increase from the last year of the Bush administration.

You are fortunate you cannot be impeached because of the cost to our exhausted, divided country. If you were a car manufactured by GM, not the president who bailed it out, you would be recalled for your defects.

Nicely done, even if it is years late and two presidential campaigns short. It does succinctly summarize some of the rock bottom Obama presidency. Rock bottom Obama has not hit rock bottom and blockhead Barack Obama supporters, like Google executives cavorting with heroin hooker killers, have not hit rock bottom either:

In foreign affairs, you have undone one of the great accomplishments of the 20th century: You have resuscitated the Soviet Union. A two-bit KGB thug named Putin has been kicking sand in the face of your country. In the absence of American leadership, the Middle East has devolved into chaos, and you are reduced to unpalatable choices: Either you negotiate with our Iranian enemies or abandon our allies, if we still have any, to jihadist wildfires that threaten Israel’s borders and set desert sands aflame.

Young people who voted for you to earn a better life than their parents are now living with their parents. Our nation has the lost the hope you promised us. We fear our freedom is in decline: A 48% plurality feel our best days are in the past.

Even the one thing you have been good at, Mr. President — politics — has abandoned you. You have now been reduced to pathetically small political “listening tours.” Even on such an inconsequential stage, you are tone-deaf, incapable of striking the right chords: You tell your audiences you are there to tell them that you are listening.

Alex Castellanos, like almost all other Republican consultants and pollsters, like Mitt Romney who stupidly praised Obama as nice instead of telling the truth about how “nasty” Obama is, adds a sentence about Obama’s “bright smile” but finally joins us in denouncing the narcissist as a narcissist.

But now, we are beginning to notice; you laugh too hard at your own jokes.

Behind the smile, we see an ego inflated beyond merit. Your intellectual detachment, we now find, was merely cluelessness. The distance between what you’ve promised and done has grown too large for us to blame anyone else.

Is this as bad as it can get? Actually, no, Mr. President. The road ahead is worse for you.

Even your supporters will soon say publicly what we are all thinking privately. In days to come, it will become increasingly cool to snicker and then laugh at your presidency.

Disagreement is not the cruelest cut in politics; it is ridicule.

Politicians who have survived everything else are done in ultimately by laughter. The gristliest moment for an incumbent is not when voters express their anger. There is respect, even in those dark days. What an incumbent never wants to hear from a voter is pity. Your worst day will be when a voter says, “Poor President Obama. He’s done the best he can.”

When that day comes, Mr. President, your favorable rating will crash another 10 points into the basement. Democratic candidates will not only ignore you, as they now do, they will turn on you.

Hillary Clinton will betray you. That will start a war within your party as candidates like Elizabeth Warren and Jerry Brown rush to defend you. If they depose the Clintons, mere anarchy will be loosed upon the Democratic world.

At this moment, our emperor is naked, but no one has yet said it publicly. That will change soon.

When it is too sad to cry about our presidents, America laughs. That’s what will really hurt.

In April 2009 we began to mock the “Obama is doing the best he can” defense. Contrary to what Castellanos writes there were voices from long ago saying and writing what Castellanos has only now had the courage to write. In February of 2010 we wrote:

The “he’s doing the best he can” ploy has not worked because of the inherent truthfulness of that statement. Obama is doing the best he can for his friends and himself, but for the American people Obama is doing nothing. Also, Americans understand that if this is the best Obama can do – boy oh boy are we all in trouble. The “he’s doing the best he can ploy” was abandoned.

The “he needs more time” ploy has collapsed under the weight of time. With every passing minute the ploy limps, weaker and weaker. The “he needs more time” ploy also demonstrates the truthfulness of what Hillary and Hillary supporters have said since early 2007 – Obama is not ready. Obama was not ready on Day 1, Obama was not ready on Day 2; Obama was not ready on Day 3; Obama was not ready on Day 365, ad infinitum. The “he needs more time” ploy was abandoned too.

Hillary betray Obama? No, as we have written Hillary Clinton will either tell the truth about Obama or Hillary Clinton 2016 will be as strong as Obama’s shriveled raisin-y testicles. We are and have been Hillary Clinton supporters and we have been and maybe still are some sort of liberals, but we will never be hacks for anybody and when Hillary says perfunctorily silly things such as on Hobby Lobby or that we should ever vote or support Barack Obama – uh, no.

“The emperor has no clothes” – we and a few brave others have written that so many times it is a cliche by now.

Castellanos is right that ridicule is a potent weapon against government officialdom. That is especially true against a pompous clod like boob Obama who is more a full time golfer/part time government perks official. We’ve been mocking treacherous boob Barack Obama for a long time. As treacherous boob Barack Obama hits rock bottom, we are not the only ones laughing at the clown.

Chicago Clown

July 9th, 2014

ObamaCare Halbig Court Decision

Update II: Well at least one person agrees with us – Obama’s law professor: There’s a “very high risk” that a federal court is going to gut ObamaCare. How big is Halbig? Big, big, big, says Lawrence Tribe from his feathery perch at Harvard:

Obamacare could take another spin in front of the Supreme Court – with vastly uncertain consequences.

Harvard legal scholar Laurence H. Tribe warned Tuesday of a “very high risk” that a crucial aspect of Obamacare – its government subsidies provision – could fall victim to a major legal challenge being mounted by conservatives. That is why, he also said, that the Supreme Court will almost certainly get “a second bite of the apple” in determining the fate of President Obama’s signature health law, with uncertain consequences.

Tribe, 72, a prominent proponent of the Affordable Care Act – who taught both Obama and Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts as constitutional law students at Harvard Law School years ago – warned of the ACA’s prospects for surviving intact during an exclusive, hour-long interview in New York with editors of The Fiscal Times. [snip]

“It looks like the panel is quite divided over what to do with what might [have been] an inadvertent error in the legislation or might have been quite deliberate,” Tribe said. “But it’s very specific that only people that go onto a state exchange are eligible for the subsidies. And if that becomes the ultimate holding of the U.S. Supreme Court, where this is likely to end up – that’s going to have massive practical implications for the administrability of Obamacare.”

“I don’t have a crystal ball,” Tribe said in discussing the law’s chances should it reach the Supreme Court for yet another critical review. “But I wouldn’t bet the family farm on this coming out in a way that preserves Obamacare.

Tribe, whose new book, Uncertain Justice, takes a deep dive into the Roberts court, said the plaintiffs make a strong argument. The legislative language is clear, he said, that the subsidies apply to exchanges established by states. Yet in drafting the law, Tribe said the administration “assumed that state exchanges would be the norm and federal exchanges would be a marginal, fallback position” – though it didn’t work out that way for a plethora of legal, administrative and political reasons.

Holy Kalamazoo Batman! Tribe guessed right in the earlier ObamaCare case about his former law student upholding ObamaCare but now Tribe is um, like Elizabeth Warren in other ways, off the reservation by saying the law is “very specific” and possibly trying to open a shut door for Roberts to walk through:

Tribe suggested that the case will, like the individual mandate challenge before it, hinge on Chief Justice John Roberts’s decision. “He would be asking himself the hard question: ‘Is it so clear under existing law that it has to be construed in this literal and somewhat bizarre way . . . that subsidies or tax credits cannot be provided on the federal exchanges, or is it sufficiently ambiguous that it gives me the necessary legal wiggle room’ [to side with the administration once again?]” Tribe said.

Forbes contributor Jeffrey Dorman notes that a recent ruling in a case involving the Environmental Protection Agency could make it harder for Roberts to conclude that he has that wiggle room.

“The power of executing the laws necessarily includes both authority and responsibility to resolve some questions left open by Congress that arise during the law’s administration. But it does not include a power to revise clear statutory terms that turn out not to work in practice,” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in an opinion that Roberts joined in full.

So Tribe thinks the law is “very specific” and also thinks the question for Roberts is “Is it so clear under existing law” – it’s almost as if Tribe is answering himself and making the case for Roberts – shutting, opening, then shutting the door again.

As Halbig goes big time, Judge Walton hit the IRS over the head today as he prepares to crush the IRS soon:

A federal judge Friday gave the IRS one week to hand over details on Lois Lerner’s crashed hard drive and how to track it, the second federal judge in as many days to seek more information about the elusive emails.

Judge Reggie Walton of the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia ordered the the tax agency to find out by July 18 what happened to the crashed hard drive responsible for erasing two years worth of the former IRS official’s emails, including whether it’s traceable through a serial number.

If such information is gone, the judge wants an affidavit written under penalty of perjury by an IRS IT professional with “firsthand knowledge” of the situation. [snip]

Walton did not rule on the request for expedited discovery or injunction relief — both of which the government argued were not necessary.

Instead he ordered more information due by next Friday, including a rundown of TIGTA’s qualifications for the probe, a date when it will be completed and the qualifications of individuals who “previously conducted forensic examinations or otherwise attempted to recover information” from Lerner’s computer.

I still would want to know the expertise of the individuals doing the investigation, and also why the hard drive can’t be identified,” Walton said.

It is unclear when Walton will rule on the potential of appointing an outside forensic specialist.”

“Now we’re cooking with peanut oil” as the Duck man says. For now, we’re staying on the sunny side of the street with galoshes on and an umbrella handy.


Update: Maybe our idea of a judicial branch/legislative branch coalition against the gangster executive branch will come to pass. Thus far there is no Halbig decision but there is much pertinent news. Consider – Public opinion of the Supreme Court has improved in the wake of the Hobby Lobby decision, particularly among independents. If the courts are afraid of a public backlash against taking on Obama gangster government they can feel a bit more at ease.

With an eye towards justice, not the polls, another court joins the fight. Federal judge to IRS: Explain these “lost” e-mails, please … under oath.

Later on Friday we will hear from yet another judge. Judge Reggie Walton will soon issue another decision/assault against the gangster government iron triangle – the Obama White House, the Holder Justice Department, and Obama congressional henchmen/hemchwoman (all aided by a corrupt Big Media).

Oh, and before any Obama race-baiters start spewing “lynch mob” or “raists!” against these potential John Sirica’s, both Judge Sullivan and Judge Walton are African-Americans.


So many Barack Obama caused disasters are raging through this land and the world it is quaint of us to focus on the Frankenstein monster still pillaging the nation – ObamaCare. Pardon us for not focusing today on the Obama gangster government disasters at the southern border of this country, Obama’s pals attacking Israel with rockets and commandos, VA illegalities and Va whistle-blower suppression, the Marine held in a Mexican prison, and the many other high crimes and misdemeanors, as well as the usual day-to-day treacheries and booberies of King Boob Obama I.

Today we take another walk on the sunny side of the street.

We are way overdue for a court decision on an ObamaCare case Halbig v. Sebelius that if successful would be equivalent to sawing through the axles of a covered wagon. The rickety contraption known as ObamaCare – thus far kept from collapse only by the gangster lawlessness of Barack Obama and his henchmen, might find itself without an axle to grind as early as this Thursday if and when the Federal District Appeals Court issues its decision.

Halbig v. Sebelius can be explained simply. In brief and in plain English, the printed letter of the ObamaCare law specified that subsides for individuals buying ObamaCare insurance must do so “through an Exchange established by the State under Section 1311”. Obama and his henchmen and henchwoman ignored that wording and declared that everyone, whether on the federal or state exchanges, would qualify for government subsidies.

If the Federal Appeals Court says that the letter of the law applies, that Obama cannot rewrite laws though rules and regulations, ObamaCare is deader than dead. Yes, Obama and his lawless henchmen will appeal that decision to a full panel of the appeals court and they will likely win in the full panel. But then the case would go to the Supreme Court with a victory notch in the belt.

Many will scoff that the Supreme Court will not rule against ObamaCare and their sturdy evidence is the contortions Chief Justice John Roberts underwent to pronounce the law “constitutional”. Without delving into whether it was Obama thuggery, or that ObamaCare really is not a mandate but a tax (a political argument Mitt Romney failed to exploit), or gay blackmail against Roberts, we/ve espoused a much more generous attitude towards the Chief Justice which many do not share but which leads us to believe that the Supreme Court will eventually send ObamaCare to a death panel.

Why do we think the above? A small part of our confidence is based on the post ObamaCare case decisions. Chief Justice Roberts has mustered unanimous decisions for more than half the decisions issued in the last term. Some of those unanimous decisions, such as the recess appointments opinion, have been disastrous for Obama’s lawless rule. When necessary, Roberts and the conservatives on the court have proven they will issue tough opinions. The Hobby Lobby ObamaCare decision is an example of the lessened temerity of the court’s conservative wing.

The main reason for our belief that the Supreme Court might cut the axles on the ObamaCare Conestoga is the strategic landscape on Halbig.

The strategic benefits of Halig v. Sebelius are that the ObamaCare collapse would be in slow motion not in one fell chop. In the big ObamaCare case which rescued ObamaCare by declaring it a tax Chief Justice Roberts was aware that a declaration by the Supreme Court that ObamaCare was unconstitutional would have meant the immediate sudden death of ObamaCare. The Supreme Court would have been the central issue in the 2012 presidential campaign and no doubt charges of racism and other lies would have been spat out by Obama and his thugs.

With Halig v. Sebelius the political trap is avoided. A slow death of ObamaCare after the November elections will deprive Obama of a new politically useful distraction from his myriad other catastrophes and prevent Obama from denouncing the Supreme Court for his nefarious political schemes.

There is also a matter of complexity. On the big ObamaCare case there were legal issues aplenty to consider such as the Anti-Injunction Act and Commerce Clause jurisprudence which to most American are difficult to understand. Not so with Halbig v. Sebelius:

Obamacare may have its problems, including more bugs than you can find in the cornfields of Nebraska, but its legal worries were meant to end after the Supreme Court upheld the individual mandate, the heart of the Affordable Care Act. [snip]

“This is literally the simplest case I’ve ever had in 30 years of practicing law,” Carvin said at a Cato event this summer. “No one but a lawyer could seriously stand up here and tell you that north means south, black means white and state means federal. And all you need to do is read the statute and know that that is what the law is.” [snip]

Defenders of the law argue that the phrase “established by the State under section 1311” does not exclude federally-run marketplaces. Their legal argument is simple: the law defines an “Exchange” as established by the state, then orders the federal government to establish the exact same exchange, denoted as “such Exchange,” if a state fails to act. In other words, it authorizes the government to act as the state and set up an exchange as it is defined in section 1311. Whether a particular section of the law references an “Exchange” or an “Exchange established by the state” is the same thing as referring to the law variously as the “Affordable Care Act” and “Obamacare,” two terms with identical meaning, because a federally-run exchange is, for the purposes of the law, the same as a state-run exchange.

While it is true that the Supreme Court provides great leeway for agencies to implement laws as they see fit the question remains as to whether the subsidies are meant only for state exchanges. The plaintiffs in Halbig should easily demonstrate that Congress meant to induce the states to establish ObamaCare exchanges with the sweetener of subsidies denied to the federal exchange. The implications are enormous:

In a nutshell, plaintiffs in the case Halbig v. Sebelius claim those often-valuable subsidies are illegal because the Affordable Care Act only authorized such tax credits for people who bought insurance through one of the exchanges originally set up by an individual state or the District of Columbia—not the federal exchange. Nearly 90 percent of the people who enrolled in plans via the federal exchange qualified for those subsides because they had low or moderate incomes.

Take away those subsidies and many, if not most, of the enrollees on might not buy insurance next year because they will find it unaffordable at the full premium price. That, in turn, could create a much-feared “death spiral,” where insurance pools have too many sick enrollees and not enough young healthy ones, and premium rates skyrocket. [snip]

And if those subsidies are not available to individuals in the states served by, it would also mean that businesses in those states could not be mandated starting next year to offer affordable health insurance to their workers or pay a fine. That’s because the so-called employer mandate is linked to the availability of those subsidies for workers who opt to buy individual insurance.

Thirty-four states have refused to foist the ObamaCare scam on their citizens so an adverse decision on Halbig will have massive impact. No matter how much ObamaCare supporters deride Halbig, it is a serious lawsuit which most Americans can understand:

So, the IRS rode to the rescue. It wrote a regulation that, despite the provisions in the ACA itself, provided a subsidy for all income-qualified purchasers, even those on federally-run exchanges. A result is that an employer could face a substantial new tax if just one employee receives a federal subsidy, even if the employer’s state has chosen not to set up an exchange. And the states would no longer have an incentive to run an exchange since residents would receive federal subsidy on federally-run exchanges.

This seems pretty straightforward: There are two types of exchanges under the ACA, one established by states, and another established by the federal government. The statute only authorizes subsidy on state-run exchanges.

The piano players in the ObamaCare whorehouse are worried about an adverse ruling:

If the legislation is just stupid, I don’t see that it’s up to the court to save it,” Judge A. Raymond Randolph said during oral arguments in March.

Randolph, a George H.W. Bush appointee, said the text of the statute “seems perfectly clear on its face” that the subsidies are confined to state-run exchanges. Carter-appointed Judge Harry T. Edwards slammed the challengers’ claims as “preposterous.” So the deciding vote appears to be with George W. Bush-appointed Judge Thomas B. Griffith, who wasn’t resolute but sounded unconvinced of the Obama administration’s defense, saying it had a “special burden” to show that the language “doesn’t mean what it appears to mean.”

Turley said, “If this case were decided on the basis of the statutory language, the advantage goes to the challengers. If the court is willing to broaden its interpretation then the administration may have an edge. It depends entirely on how the panel structures its analysis.”

If the three judge panel decides based on the language of the law and thereby guts ObamaCare, ObamaCare defenders will go to the full appeals panel (7 Democrats, 4 Republicans). Barack Obama has appointed four of the eleven judges on this panel during his second term – which demonstrates he is worried about this decision and that is why he instructed Harry Reid to destroy the Senate rules on the filibuster.

For now the ball is with the three judges. Oral argument was a fearsome maw for ObamaCare defenders. But Halbig is not the only ObamaCare injury in the emergency room:

Most state health insurance rates for 2015 are scheduled to be approved by early fall, and most are likely to rise, timing that couldn’t be worse for Democrats already on defense in the midterms.

ObamaCare is in a death spiral already but Halbig might be the pillow over the face that finishes it off. And Halbig is about much more than just ObamaCare. Remember all that stuff in our first paragraph we said we weren’t writing about today? Halbig is about all of them in a way. Jonathan Turley sees it that way too:

In crafting the act, Congress created incentives for states to set up health insurance exchanges and disincentives for them to opt out. The law, for example, made the subsidies available only to those enrolled in insurance plans through exchanges “established by the state.” [snip]

The administration attempted to solve the problem by simply declaring that even residents of states without their own exchanges were eligible for subsidies, even though the law seemed to specifically say they were not. [snip]

But the D.C. Circuit Court may see things quite differently, especially in light of recent Supreme Court opinions holding that the Obama administration has exceeded its authority and violated separation of powers.

In Michigan vs. Bay Mills Indian Community, for example, Justice Elena Kagan noted that “this court does not revise legislation … just because the text as written creates an apparent anomaly as to some subject it does not address.” In Utility Air Regulatory Group vs. EPA, Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, stressed that “an agency has no power to tailor legislation to bureaucratic policy goals by rewriting unambiguous statutory terms.” And a third strike came last week in National Labor Relations Board vs. Canning, when the Supreme Court unanimously found that President Obama had violated the Constitution in circumventing Congress through his use of recess appointments.

The D.C. Circuit Court is expected to rule any day now on the Halbig case, and supporters of the Affordable Care Act are growing nervous. In January, an Obamacare advocate described the Halbig case to a reporter for the Hill as “probably the most significant existential threat to the Affordable Care Act. All the other lawsuits that have been filed really don’t go to the heart of the ACA, and this one would have.” And in a fraught oral argument before the D.C. Circuit Court, the administration seemed to struggle to defend its interpretation.

Halbig is an opportunity for the courts and the judicial branch to lock arms with Congress, the legislative branch in opposition to Barack Obama and the Chicago gangster lawlessness he represents and imported to the nation’s capital.

June 30th, 2014

Good Days For A Blood Feud – Hillary Clinton v. Barack Obama, Rangel v Espaillat, Tea Party McDaniels v GOP Establishment Thad Cochran, Part II

There are blood feuds which already disgorged the majority of their scarlet corpuscles. Then there are blood feuds just beginning to gush their essence. Yup, it’s time to discuss Edward Klein’s book “Blood Feud: The Clintons v. the Obamas.”

Jut Jaw

Edward Klein’s long history of imagined Hillary Clinton conversations with Bill, imagined conversations about Hillary and Bill, imagined conversations about imagined conversations, are so comic and badly rendered they more properly belong in a Nelson Eddy/Jeanette McDonald operetta or an early Joan Collins melodrama. Some of Edward Klein’s “facts” are equally comic.

Did you know Hillary has “a right transverse venous thrombosis“? Her thyroid is shot as is her heart. In short, Hillary Clinton is falling apart according to Edward Klein. If Hillary Clinton decides to run for president in 2016 her medical records will be revealed and Klein’s reportage on Hillary’s health will be confirmed or repudiated – so we won’t worry about Klein’s reports as to Hillary’s health.

Less likely to be settled, ever, are other Edward Klein “revelations” about Hillary. Did you know Hillary did not shave her legs during her university years which to Klein is indicative of lesbianism? Did you even know that Hillary is a lesbian having affairs with other lesbians – although we never can figure out how she made time for lesbianism what with all her wild sexual cavorting with the murdered Vince Foster? Did you also know that lesbian Hillary refused Bill Clinton access to her lesbian parts so Bill raped her and that is how Chelsea was produced?

For all that rubbish, Edward Klein is still more believable in his latest book than most of Big Media.

Edward Klein is possibly performing a public service with his latest book. Perhaps, because of Klein, some on the right will consider that they fail to beat Hillary and Bill Clinton because their basic premises about Hillary and Bill Clinton are wrong. Some on the right want to prevent a lucid analysis of Hillary and Bill Clinton and are afraid of Edward Klein’s new book:

However, the broader purpose of the book is to show that there is a heated battle going on — dating back to the brutal primary contest between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama during the 2008 presidential election cycle — that continues to manifest itself in various ways as we move towards the 2016 presidential election. [snip]

Word of caution to readers: “Blood Feud” according to Klein is based on dozens and dozens of interviews with those close to the Clinton and Obama camps, none of which of course are sourced. Further worth noting is that the book almost universally portrays the Obamas in a negative light, which by comparison makes the Clintons, despite their ruthlessness and apparent lust for political power, seem almost universally sympathetic.

The facts, as reported by Hillary Hater Edward Klein, portray Hillary and Bill Clinton as “almost universally sympathetic” so ‘ignore the facts’ advise the thought leaders on the right.

As deranged as the Sunni Right is, the Shiitty Left is even worse. Both extremes have been denying facts and distorting reality. Those on the Right have an imperative interest to tie Hillary to Barack Obama. Tie Hillary Clinton 2016 to the despised, distrusted, disgusting, Barack Obama and Republicans win in 2016,

Those on the Left likewise have a survival instinct to tie Hillary to Barack Obama. Indeed, The New Republic claims that Hillary Clinton 2016 is invincible because Hillary wooed and has won the crackpot left of the party. However what explains the loony left’s new found support of Hillary Clinton is that Hillary can save Barack Obama from becoming only an historical pimple on the body politic. If Barack Obama gets a third term called Hillary Clinton 2016 then the loony left won’t feel as defeated and stupid for their elevation of Obama.

Democratic Party Slogan 2008

On both sides of the political spectrum there is an interest to tie Hillary Clinton to that loser who currently occupies the White House. But for a long time we have been reporting what Edward Klein is reporting in his new book:

Any doubts about the accuracy of our many reports (list of links HERE) on the secret and sometimes not so secret war by Barack Obama against Hillary Clinton should have been completely dispelled this week.

We wrote that in 2011. We’ve been writing about the war Barack Obama has waged against Hillary Clinton well before Edward Klein. In article after article we’ve documented the secret war:

“Kerry’s moves are part of the long war Barack Obama is secretly waging against Hillary Clinton which we have outlined (See, Barack Obama At War With Hillary Clinton (And Thank You Andrew Breitbart), and Mark Halperin’s Book – Harry Reid’s Negro Macaca, Barack Obama’s War On Hillary Clinton, Part I, and Mark Halperin’s Book – Harry Reid’s Negro Macaca, Barack Obama’s War On Hillary Clinton, Part II, and Mark Halperin’s Book – Harry Reid’s Negro Macaca, Barack Obama’s War On Hillary Clinton, Part III, and Obama At War With Hillary Clinton And General McChrystal (The New Shinseki), and Going… Going… Gone).”

All the while Big Media and blowhard drunks kept assuring us that Hillary loves Barack and Barack loves Hillary. But we reported what we were told.

On Benghazi we repeatedly declared that not only were Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton at war but we also stated that Benghazi was an issue that deserves great scrutiny and a select committee. We also asserted repeatedly and without evidence we could discuss, that yes, indeed, Hillary Clinton would come out “smelling like a rose” from the entire Benghazi mess.

On September 30th of 2012 we wrote before anyone else “People Died, Obama Lied”. We stated we want a full and complete investigation of all these matters – NOW – before the election even as we declared Hillary Clinton would come out “smelling like a rose.”

In Where’s Benghazi Now? we noted that the main question on Benghazi is still why there was no special alarm around the world for any and all American facilities on the anniversary of 9/11? We explained why Susan Rice, not Hillary Clinton went on the Sunday talk shows and we again asserted that Hillary Clinton would come out “smelling like a rose.”

Indeed, Republicans have been in “clover” watching Hillary versus Barack on Benghazi. We still insisted that Hillary would come out of all this “smelling like a rose.”

Little did we know that a renown Hillary Hater par excellance would confirm much of our reporting even as he put a spin on the reasons for what Hillary and Bill did:

Bill and Hillary then apparently played out various scenarios, including Hillary potentially resigning over what had occurred. They ruled this out however in part because her State Department was providing cover for the CIA in terms of what operations were taking place in Benghazi, in addition to the fact that her resignation could hurt Obama’s chances for reelection which might destroy Hillary’s own political future.

Edward Klein who edited the New York Times Magazine for many years as well as the foreign affairs section of Newsweek is spraying rose scented perfume all over Hillary:

A new book claims President Obama instructed then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to blame the Benghazi terror attack on a protest over an anti-Islam film, over Clinton’s objections.

The anecdote is included in the book “Blood Feud: The Clintons vs. the Obamas,” by Edward Klein. An excerpt was published Sunday in The New York Post. Klein reported that, according to an unnamed Clinton legal adviser, Obama called the secretary of State late on the night of Sept. 11, 2012.

Hillary was stunned when she heard the president talk about the Benghazi attack,” the source reportedly said. “Obama wanted her to say that the attack had been a spontaneous demonstration triggered by an obscure video on the Internet that demeaned the Prophet Mohammed.”

According to Klein, Clinton advised Obama that the story “isn’t credible,” but Obama nevertheless told Clinton to put out a State Department release. According to Klein, Bill Clinton also told his wife “that story won’t hold up.”

The State Department did put out a statement the night of Sept. 11 that cited “inflammatory material posted on the Internet.”

Clinton herself never has publicly claimed she was pressured into citing the faulty video explanation.

Author Ken Timmerman, who reported on the same phone call in his book “Dark Forces: The Truth About What Happened in Benghazi,” on Monday cast doubt on the latest version of events — he called this account a “desperate ploy to defend her presidential aspirations.

Timmerman claimed the “story” about the video was not “created” on the Obama-Clinton phone call. Rather, he said, “I think that’s where they agreed on the story between the two of them.”

In an interview with Fox News last week, however, Clinton did indicate she had personal doubts about that narrative at the time. [snip]

My own assessment careened from the video had something to do with it, the video had nothing to do with it — it may have affected some people, it didn’t affect other people,” she said in the interview with Fox News’ Bret Baier and Greta Van Susteren.

Clinton added: “There’s no doubt terrorists were involved.”

Who to believe? Right wing Ken Timmerman or right wing Edward Klein? It’s an important question and one we have stated is key to understanding what happened post Benghazi. Our reports before Edward Klein’s book are congruent with what Edward Klein reports.

Bret Baier asked Hillary the question we think is so important and that so much depends on. Hillary seemingly implicated herself in the interview.

Unfortunately, the answer as to when the State Department release blaming the video went out, is not definitive and Bret Baier did not follow up with the necessary questions about who wrote the release and whether anyone from the Obama White House instructed as to what the release should say. Trey Gowdy will no doubt ask the right follow-up questions.

On September 11 2012 Hillary Clinton was on the phone to all the top military and intelligence officials. Then Obama late at night called Hillary. When was the call?

WH: Obama Called Hillary on Night of Benghazi Attack–More Than Six Hours After It Started

( – President Barack Obama called Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at approximately 10 p.m. on the night of the terrorist attacks on the U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Libya, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told

That was more than six hours after the attacks started, more than an hour before Tryone Woods and Glen Doherty were killed–and about the time that Clinton first released a statement linking the attacks to “inflammatory material posted on the Internet,” a reference to an anti-Muslim video on YouTube. [snip]

Outgoing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, told the Senate Armed Services Committee they first notified the president of the attack during a Sept. 11, 2012 meeting that began at 5 p.m. and ran for about 30 minutes. They also told the committee they did not talk to Obama or anyone else at the White House after that meeting.

But when was the call? Was the call before the State Department press statement? Or was the call after the State Department press release? Was the State Department forced by the White House to concoct an improbable story? Did Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama conjure a pack of lies together in order to protect the C.I.A. or to protect the Obama presidential campaign? Did Barack Obama call Hillary Clinton in order to force her to release a statement she did not want to release? Trey Gowdy may borrow our list of questions.

There have been many attempts by many to get these questions answered with precision. According to ace reporter Sharyl Attkisson the State Department immediately knew that Benghazi was a terrorist attack and not a Rotten Tomatoes critical film review:

Internal Emails: State Dept. Immediately Attributed Benghazi Attacks to Terrorist Group

A newly-released government email indicates that within hours of the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks on Americans in Benghazi, Libya; the State Department had already concluded with certainty that the Islamic militia terrorist group Ansar al Sharia was to blame. [snip]

The email is entitled “Libya update from Beth Jones. ” Jones was then-Assistant Secretary of State to Hillary Clinton. According to the email, Jones spoke to Libya’s Ambassador at
9:45am on Sept. 12, 2012 following the attacks.

“When [the Libyan Ambassador] said his government suspected that former Qaddafi regime elements carried out the attacks, I told him the group that conducted the attacks—Ansar Al Sharia—is affiliated with Islamic extremists,” Jones reports in the email.

There is no uncertainty assigned to the assessment, which does not mention a video or a protest. [snip]

Another State Department email sent at 5:55pm on Tues. Sept. 11, 2012, while the attacks were underway, includes a report that “the extremist group Ansar Al Sharia has taken credit for the attack in Benghazi” and that U.S. officials asked the offices of the [Libyan] President and [Prime Minister] to pursue Ansar al Sharia.”

So the State Deparmtnt knew immediately, as any sensible person informed of an attack on an American installation on any September 11 would, that Benghazi was a terrorist attack but then issued a statement blaming a video. Who does this benefit? Does it benefit Hillary Clinton in any way? Quite the contrary. Does it benefit Barack Obama two months before the election? You bet your sweet ass it does:

Clinton bristled at Benghazi deception [snip]

She had no doubt that a terrorist attack had been launched against America on the anniversary of 9/11. However, when Hillary picked up the phone and heard Obama’s voice, she learned the president had other ideas in mind. With less than two months before Election Day, he was still boasting that he had al Qaeda on the run.

If the truth about Benghazi became known, it would blow that argument out of the water.

“Hillary was stunned when she heard the president talk about the Benghazi attack,” one of her top legal advisers said in an interview. “Obama wanted her to say that the attack had been a spontaneous demonstration triggered by an obscure video on the Internet that demeaned the Prophet Mohammed.

This adviser continued: “Hillary told Obama, ‘Mr. President, that story isn’t credible. Among other things, it ignores the fact that the attack occurred on 9/11.’ But the president was adamant. He said, ‘Hillary, I need you to put out a State Department release as soon as possible.’”

After her conversation with the president, Hillary called Bill Clinton, who was at his penthouse apartment in the William J. Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock, and told him what Obama wanted her to do.

I’m sick about it,” she said, according to the legal adviser, who was filled in on the conversation.

That story won’t hold up,” Bill said. “I know,” Hillary said. “I told the president that.” “It’s an impossible story,” Bill said. “I can’t believe the president is claiming it wasn’t terrorism. Then again, maybe I can. It looks like Obama isn’t going to allow anyone to say that terrorism has occurred on his watch.”

Hillary’s legal adviser provided further detail: “During their phone call, Bill started playing with various doomsday scenarios, up to and including the idea that Hillary consider resigning as secretary of state over the issue. But both he and Hillary quickly agreed that resigning wasn’t a realistic option.

Mocking clowns will no doubt rage that Hillary Clinton did not resign in protest. But laughing clowns do not have to consider what it would mean to the country to have Obama unfettered without any responsible power centers challenging him at every turn. Belay that. We now know what is is like to have an Obama unfettered by Hillary Clinton and/or Leon Panetta. Have you noticed what has happened to the country now that those two are no longer restraints on Obama’s treacheries and booberies?

Now do you see why we wrote:

That’s it baby. That’s what Gowdy must focus on and filter out the noise. The Benghazi attack was a terrorist attack on September 11 for which Barack Obama was completely unprepared. Focus on why the White House did not anticipate and prepare for September 11 attacks. Focus on why there was no special phone number for at risk embassies or American installations to call if and when trouble arose on September 11.

Police detectives know that in any crime search for a motive. Who had the motive to lie? Whose election was two months away? Of course for those who ain’t buying the obvious, for those who chose to ignore all our reports well before the Edward Klein book published there’s this for them to explain away too:

The feud between the Obamas and ‘Hildebeest’

In his new book, “Blood Feud,” journalist Edward Klein gets inside the dysfunctional, jealous relationship between Bill and Hillary Clinton and Barack and Michelle Obama — and how it could explode in 2016.

Outwardly, they put on a show of unity — but privately, the Obamas and Clintons, the two power couples of the Democrat Party, loathe each other.

I hate that man Obama more than any man I’ve ever met, more than any man who ever lived,” Bill Clinton said to friends on one occasion, adding he would never forgive Obama for suggesting he was a racist during the 2008 campaign.

The feeling is mutual. Obama made ­excuses not to talk to Bill, while the first lady privately sniped about Hillary.

On most evenings, Michelle Obama and her trusted adviser, Valerie Jarrett, met in a quiet corner of the White House residence. [snip]

Their favorite bête noire was Hillary Clinton, whom they nicknamed “Hildebeest,” after the menacing and shaggy-maned gnu that roams the Serengeti.

The animosity came to a head in the run-up to the 2012 election, when Obama’s inner circle insisted he needed the former president’s support to win. Obama finally telephoned Bill Clinton in September 2011 and invited him out for a round of golf. [snip]

I really can’t stand the way Obama ­always seems to be hectoring when he talks to me,” Clinton added, according to someone who was present at the gathering and spoke on the condition of anonymity. [snip]

“Bill got into it right away,” said a Clinton family friend. “He told Obama, ‘Hillary and I are gearing up for a run in 2016.’ He said Hillary would be ‘the most qualified, most experienced candidate, perhaps in history.’ His reference to Hillary’s experience made Obama wince, since it was clearly a shot at his lack of experience when he ran for president.

“And so Bill continued to talk about Hillary’s qualifications . . . and the coming campaign in 2016. But Barack didn’t bite. He changed the subject several times. Then suddenly, Barack said something that took Bill by complete surprise. He said, ‘You know, Michelle would make a great presidential candidate, too.’

“Bill was speechless.” [snip]

Bill Clinton would go on to campaign for Obama in 2012, but he felt betrayed when the president seemed to waver when it came to a 2016 endorsement of Hillary. Obama attempted to smooth things over with a joint “60 Minutes” interview with Hillary, and later a private dinner for the two couples at the White House. [snip]

Lately, Bill Clinton has become convinced that Obama won’t endorse Hillary in 2016. During a gathering at Whitehaven, guests overheard Bill talking to his daughter Chelsea about whether the president would back Joe Biden.

“Recently, I’ve been hearing a different scenario from state committeemen,” Clinton said. “They say he’s looking for a candidate who’s just like him. Someone relatively unknown. Someone with a fresh face.

“He’s convinced himself he’s been a brilliant president, and wants to clone himself — to find his Mini-Me.

“He’s hunting for someone to succeed him, and he believes the American people don’t want to vote for someone who’s been around for a long time. He thinks that your mother and I are what he calls ‘so 20th century.’ He’s looking for ­another Barack Obama.”

For a long time Big Media has been selling the story that Bill and Michelle and Barack and Hillary are just great pals. Mostly alone we laughed and declared that alliance as believable as the Michael Jackson Lisa Marie Presley kiss.

You can believe Big Media narratives about Hillary Clinton and the Team of Rivals friendship palsy walsy nonsense. Or, you can believe there is a blood feud between the Clintons and the dastard Obamas. We’ll side with our reports and if that means for now we are on the side of Edward Klein, so be it.

June 24th, 2014

Good Days For A Blood Feud – Hillary Clinton v. Barack Obama, Rangel v Espaillat, Tea Party McDaniels v GOP Establishment Thad Cochran, Part I

Update II: AP calls the Mississippi race for Cochran. Questions now:

(1) Will McDaniels demand a recount? Mississippi primary runoff elections allow for any voter to vote in a party primary but the voter may not have voted in an earlier primary. The likelihood is that many of Cochran’s voters voted in the primary and therefore their votes are not legal. The vote is close so will McDaniel demand a recount?

(2) After reelection how soon will Cochran retire to make room for a Haley Barbour relative?

Big question: Why did Obama Dimocrats go all out to help reelect Cochran? According to them they had a small chance to win if McDaniel was the nominee but absolutely none if Cochran won. So is the hatred by the establishment of both parties so great for the Tea Party that the establishments of both parties got together to deny the Tea Party another victory?


Update: Polls are still open in New York for Harlem’s Charliedämmerung. Polls just closed (at 8:00) in Mississippi for Cochrandämmerung. There’s also that race for the Republican nomination in Oklahoma which our emails indicate people are angry at us for not discussing.

Put on your sports bra and take off that lacy thing because its gonna be a bumpy night.


Tonight in Harlem, New York, the oldest and bloodiest of the blood feuds will be settled. More ironies and rhythms than a Duke Ellington score in tonight’s Harlem Shuffle.

Clash down on the hi-hat cymbal ’cause Harlem ain’t the capital of black America no mo’. Swirling demographics that Obama minions promised would mean an Obama Dimocratic thousand year Reich have only led to Harlem now majority Latino. Whither minority majority districts when the minority is booted out by another minority? As a race-baiter would say ‘a majority Latino district must have a Latino representative.’ Ha! Those like Charlie Rangel that boasted about the power of majority minority districts are now on the firing line, literally. Charlie Rangel might lose his job – to a Latino:

Through immigration and redistricting, what is now New York’s 13th Congressional District — a seat Rangel has held since 1971 and viewed as the center of New York’s modern black political power structure — has experienced a seismic demographic shift from majority black to majority Hispanic.

Hoping to seize on those demographics as well as the perception of Rangel’s waning political power in the years since Congress formally censured him in 2010 for ethics violations, state Sen. Adriano Espaillat is mounting a spirited challenge to the 22-term incumbent — a rematch of the 2012 race in which Rangel topped Espaillat by just 1,000 votes. [snip]

In recent years, Rangel’s district has been recarved, turning what has for years been a majority-black district into one that is 52 percent Hispanic and adding new parts of the Bronx where Rangel is not as well-known or as well-regarded. [snip]

On Wednesday, the New York Times editorial board endorsed Espaillat:

“After a humiliating censure by Congress four years ago for failing to pay taxes and other ethical lapses, Representative Charles Rangel has steadily lost power in Washington. After nearly 44 years in office, it is now time for him to yield to the next generation.”

John Samuelsen, president of the Transit Workers Union Local 100, said: “Everybody is tired of Rangel. We need a champion that will stand up for us. That’s not Charlie Rangel.” The union has said Rangel has not done enough to bring federal money to the district to fund transit worker jobs.

It’s all about the money for some people. Somehow the unions have yet to wake up to the reality that the gravy train doesn’t stop for them anymore. It’s not that Rangel couldn’t deliver it’s that there’s not much left to deliver.

For Rangel the tax cheat it was always about the money as he now tries to outrun the History Train. The changing demographics he thought would transform America are transforming him out of a job and Harlem into Santo Domingo. There was a time that Charlie Rangel fought for his country with honor. There was a time when Charlie Rangel did the right thing. There was a time when Charlie Rangel could beat the odds:

When Rangel held a demographic revolution at bay

The parallels between what Charlie Rangel insists will be his final campaign for Congress and his first one are obvious: an entrenched, aging incumbent revered for his civil rights record but diminished by ethical misconduct scrambling to beat back a primary challenge from an ambitious state legislator who promises to bring new vitality to the position.

The twist, of course, is that Rangel’s present-day challenger, Adriano Espaillat, is now cast in the role that Rangel himself played when he stunned Adam Clayton Powell in a 1970 Democratic primary. But 44 years of incumbency, the loss of a powerful committee chairmanship to scandal, and a humiliating rebuke from his own House colleagues have created for the 84-year-old Rangel many of the same vulnerabilities that he exploited when he knocked off Powell all those decades ago.

As appealing as this narrative is, though, the bigger threat to Rangel may be simple demographics. When he wrested the seat from Powell in 1970, his Harlem-based district was arguably the center of black political power in America, but today that same district is barely one-quarter black, with a growing Latino population that now accounts for 55 percent of its residents.

Once again we see that often what we fought against in youth we become in dotage. The Charlie Rangel promise to fight corruption and privilege became the congressman tax cheat of established privilege.

The Charlie Rangel race is also a warning to those that talk about “demographic destiny” as if it is a religion that will smite only in one direction. The Robespierres who believe “demographic destiny” rings in doom only for Republicans/conservatives better prepare themselves for the unintended consequences that will lop off their heads too.

Charlie Rangel might survive tonight because he is the establishment candidate. But survive or not, Rangel won’t thrive. Rangel’s days are numbered.

In Mississippi tonight another blood feud will be settled. The McDaniel v Cochran primary runoff election is bathed in scarlet from the earlier GOP establishment loss in Virginia. The Tea Party outsiders scored a big win Eric Cantor was forced from the stage. Much of Cantor’s loss was due to the lawlessness on the southern border. And as with the Rangel race, the unintended consequences are only now looming for Obama supporters:

The Cantor defeat and the surge of Central American teens make it unlikely that House Republican leaders will advance much in the way of immigration legislation.

Two trends in polling also point in this direction. One is that Hispanic voters don’t seem hugely preoccupied with immigration. The Pew Research Center reports that many more focus on education, the economy and health than the one-third who say immigration is “extremely important” to them personally.

The other is that the president’s job approval among Hispanics has been falling sharply. He got 71 percent of their votes in 2012, but fewer than half approve his performance today.

It’s not hard to see why. The sluggish economy has hurt Hispanics more than most Americans. Obamacare and big government policies have not helped them as they apparently have hoped.

This suggests that non-passage of comprehensive legislation won’t hurt Republicans as much as predicted.

For Republicans/conservatives the problem is not the “demographic destiny” mirage adored by Obama “creative class” loons. The problem is more like that confronting Charlie Rangel in Harlem: exposed hypocrisy and ruling political class privilege and arrogance.

American governance is premised on “consent of the governed”. But now “democratic consent” is usurped by a political class – Republicans/Democrats/Liberals/Conservatives that believe themselves to be a ruling class with a mandate from Hell.

Enter the Tea Party. Enter Occupy Wall Street. Occupy Wall Street was an Obama election year scam. These liars and their dupes fooled enough people enough of the time to re-elect the flim-flam scam man from Chicago while at the same time genitally mutilating any hope for change from the left.

The moment the Tea Party emerged, on April 15, 2010, we immediately recognized it as the potent antidote to Obama’s Hopium narcotic. Most of the Republican establishment either secretly mocked the costumed Tea Party activists or openly sought to water the tea into piss water. Tonight we will once again witness the failure of the Republican establishment. The fire will spread and consume then something new will sprout through the ashes to blossom.

Todd Cochran might survive tonight’s blood feud reckoning. His tactic to entice Obama supporters to the polls to vote for the winsome Republican might work (“I used to be a Democrat.) We doubt it. But it might work.

Whatever tonight’s election results we already know who has won this Tea Party v. GOP establishment blood feud. McDaniel won more votes than Cochran in the primary. More importantly McDaniel destroyed the Big Media inspired myth that the Tea Party was over as a political force.

There is another blood feud with origins in 2007 and 2008. That blood feud won’t be resolved tonight. But a reckoning is coming in that one too. More on that one… soon.

June 20th, 2014

Stop The Scott Walker Scandal Talk, Stop The Hillary Clinton Rape Scandal Talk, Stop The IRS Scandal Talk, Stop The Immigration Scandal Talk – Just Stop!!!

Update: Amazing how Republicans/conservatives refuse to see the connection between the Hillary rape story lies and the Scott Walker smears by partisan left wing creeps. We see the connection. Greta Van Susteren sees the connection:


If they did original reporting, the would know that yes, the prosecutor in Wisconsin in a document accused Governor Scott Walker of a crime (that is common and routine for a prosecutor) BUT OBVIOUSLY THE PROSECUTOR DID NOT TAKE IT SERIOUSLY SINCE NEVER CHARGED HIM WITH A CRIME. That is a HUGE difference – accusing v. charging. If the prosecutor thought Walker committed a crime, he just had to fill out a paper and charge him. And if he thought Walker committed a crime, it was his job to charge him – but that did not happen. Second, a Federal Judge ruled later that the conduct the prosecutor objected to is not a crime, that the alleged conduct fits within a loophole of the campaign law. That ruling is now on appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit but if it is upheld, it means that the prosecutor accused Governor Walker of innocent conduct (conduct that is not illegal.) If it is reversed, then Walker may have trouble but that is not where the facts stand now.

If they did original reporting, they would have read the court file in the Arkansas case (I did) and seen that the affidavit filed by then 27 year old lawyer Hillary Rodham was a routine application for a court ordered psychiatric evaluation of the complainant. It was not Clinton going after the accuser – but rather filing a routine application in her constitutional job to represent a client. Clinton said she had reports about the complainant and wanted the Court to pursue it further with an examination. That’s routine. Second, if they did original reporting, they would have LISTENED to the tape and learned that Clinton’s laughter (sarcastic I thought) was about polygraphs and not the complainant or the charge. Like with Governor Scott Walker, this is a big difference. The polygraph occurred when no doubt the client was claiming he was innocent to his lawyer Clinton. Clients do that…insist insist and insist innocence. He took polygraph and passed. He then later pleaded guilty and admitted his guilt …to his lawyer Clinton and then in court at the plea…..hence the polygraph remark by Clinton.

Facts matter.

Lying hypocrites of the left have a great deal in common, more so than with us, with lying hypocrites of the right. The Sunni Right and the Shiitty Left should shut up.

Republicans/conservatives get extra points for stupidity (1) because they are so politically inept that with all the evidence against Barack Obama and his Chicago thugs they still fail to nail Obama and won’t appoint enough select committees or utilize the inherent power of the House because they prefer to talk, talk, talk; and (2) Republicans conservatives fail to see that as much as they hate Bill and Hillary Clinton the Shiitty Left hates them even more.

Latest proof of the Shiitty Left’s hatred of Bill and Hillary Clinton comes from Salon magazine and the guy who wrote that reprehensible Shiitty Left book “What’s the matter with Kansas?” That book is the guiding light for today’s Shiitty Left and its author hates Bill and Hillary Clinton. He hates the great economic record of Bill Clinton too because it was not Shiitty Left enough. The problem for the Shiitty Left and the Sunni Right when they claim that voters see Hillary as a return to the past is that that is the future voters want for America. The Sunni Right and the Shiitty Left should marry each other, have ugly children, and leave America.


A filthy race-bait attack on Scott Walker published by The New Republic. Disgusting. Scott Walker smeared in that filthy article of innuendo, character assassination, and ugly racial politics. Few in Big Media attacked this anti-Scott Walker filth. Some on the right in the name of justice defended Scott Walker against the feces shat by The New Republic/em>.

But that was not enough anti-Scott Walker hate for Big Media. Scott Walker is once again smeared by Big Media. Big Media quoting unscrupulous prosecutors charged Scott Walker with being at the “center of a criminal scheme”. But in all this Scott Walker is the victim of politically motivated prosecutors twisting the law for their nefarious ideological ends:

This is a true story: in 2012, Democratic district attorneys in Wisconsin launched a secret probe known as a John Doe investigation with the goal of proving that conservative groups illegally coordinated activities during Gov. Scott Walker’s recall election. They issued more than 100 subpoenas, demanded the private information of conservatives and conservative groups, and actually conducted secret raids. And under state law, individuals who were targeted or witness to the investigation were forbidden from making knowledge of it public.

Fortunately, judges saw right through this partisan abuse of power. Early this year, a state judge, ruling in a secret proceeding, quashed the subpoenas and all but ended the investigation. [snip]

In February, a conservative activist and group filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against the partisan district attorneys who had pursued the John Doe probe. In short order, a federal district court judge held that the plaintiffs “are likely to succeed on their claim that the defendants‘ investigation violates their rights under the First Amendment, such that the investigation was commenced and conducted ―without a reasonable expectation of obtaining a valid conviction.” [snip]

Most recently, that appeals court has ordered some of the previously secret probe documents disclosed to the public, including an unsuccessful defense that the John Doe investigators made to one of their secret subpoenas. In their attempt to get a subpoena, which was rejected by a judge for lacking probable cause, the partisan investigators claimed that Walker was involved in the so-called conservative conspiracy.

To summarize, a politically motivated and harmful investigation by partisan prosecutors victimized Governor Scott Walker and his supporters. Big Media reported these facts to mean that Scott Walker was guilty of criminal activity. Big Media published the failed lies of prosecutors and willfully ignored that Scott Walker and his supporters were the victims of the failed lies.

Like Scott Walker, Hillary Clinton is also fighting a smear. This idiocy is mostly confined to Sean Hannity and the Washington Free Beacon. The “scandal” is that Hillary, as a very young lawyer, defended a rapist, a child rapist at that. This is supposed to show that Hillary hates children or something or is insincere or something.

This Hillary Clinton rape scandal was examined in the past repeatedly and used against her politically repeatedly. Now the story is revived because the Washington Free Beacon, to its journalistic credit (now if they would only go talk to Rezko), found an audio tape of a young Hillary Clinton discussing the long-ago case.

A CNN panel denounced Hillary and some few Republican/conservative websites are trying to get some mileage from the audio tape. Now the Hillary Clinton rape scandal has a new angle due to the rape victim saying some very angry things against Hillary Clinton:

The victim, whose name has been withheld in the media, spoke with the Daily Beast. The interview appears to have occurred after the conservative website The Free Beacon on Sunday published audio tapes from the 1980s in which Clinton discussed the case with a reporter. In those tapes, Clinton seemed to suggest she thought her client, Thomas Alfred Taylor, was guilty of the crime that he was not convicted of committing. [snip]

“Hillary Clinton took me through hell,” the victim told the Daily Beast, adding that she would confront Clinton if she had the chance to speak with her.

“I would say [to Clinton], ‘You took a case of mine in ‘75, you lied on me… I realize the truth now, the heart of what you’ve done to me,” she said. “And you are supposed to be for women? You call that [being] for women, what you done to me? And I hear you on tape laughing.”

The above excerpt is by Maggie Haberman who is not to be trusted in anything. If Haberman says Hillary ate lunch on June 20, 2014, check to be sure Hillary lunched because Haberman makes things up about Hillary Clinton all the time. Here’s the audio of Hillary talking about 1975 when Hillary was 27 years old:

So what happened in 1975? Maggie Haberman could have asked her fellow Hillary hater at Politico, Glenn Thrush, but she must have been in too much of a rush to smear Hillary. Here is the hit piece then Newsday reporter Glenn Thrush wrote in 2008 about what the rape victim said and why Hillary defended an alleged rapist of a child:

In May 1975, Washington County prosecutor Mahlon Gibson called Rodham, who had taken over the law clinic months earlier, to tell her she’d been appointed to represent a hard-drinking factory worker named Thomas Alfred Taylor, who had requested a female attorney.

In her 2003 autobiography “Living History,” Clinton writes that she initially balked at the assignment, but eventually secured a lenient plea deal for Taylor after a New York-based forensics expert she hired “cast doubt on the evidentiary value of semen and blood samples collected by the sheriff’s office.” [snip]

Echoing legal experts, Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson says the senator would have been committing professional misconduct if she hadn’t given Taylor the best defense possible.

“As she wrote in her book, ‘Living History,’ Senator Clinton was appointed by the Circuit Court of Washington County, Arkansas to represent Mr. Taylor in this matter,” he said. “As an attorney and an officer of the court, she had an ethical and legal obligation to defend him to the fullest extent of the law. To act otherwise would have constituted a breach of her professional responsibilities.” [snip]

“She was vigorously advocating for her client. What she did was appropriate,” said Andrew Schepard, director of Hofstra Law School’s Center for Children, Families and the Law. [snip]

With all the anguish she’d felt over the case in the years since, there was one thing she never realized – that the lawyer for the man she reviles was none other than Hillary Rodham Clinton.

I have to understand that she was representing Taylor,” she said when interviewed in prison last fall. “I’m sure Hillary was just doing her job.

One would think a responsible reporter in 2014 would note for readers that in 2008 the alleged victim said “I’m sure Hillary was just doing her job.” Indeed Hillary was doing her job. Maybe Haberman or Thrush hire lawyers to represent them on the basis of doing the worse job possible but most people want the best legal representation, not the worse.

In 1975 Hillary was 27 years old and just appointed to run the University of Arkansas Law School legal aid clinic. Hillary fully expected to eventually return to work with Marian Wright Edelman on children issues. But first she was forced to represent an accused rapist:

Taylor, 41, figured a jury would be less hostile to a rape defendant represented by a woman, according to one of his friends. Cummings agreed to the request, scanned the list of available female attorneys (there were only a half dozen in the county at the time) and assigned Rodham, who had virtually no experience in criminal litigation.

Hillary told me she didn’t want to take that case, she made that very clear,” recalls prosecutor Gibson, who phoned her with the judge’s order.

I didn’t feel comfortable taking on such a client, but Mahlon gently reminded me that I couldn’t very well refuse the judge’s request,” the eventual first lady writes in “Living History.” [snip]

Gibson (who is not related to prosecutor Mahlon Gibson) had no illusions about how hard the case would be to prove, because the girl seemed to have a romantic interest in the 15-year-old. [snip]

“Taylor was alleged to have raped this girl in a car right near a very busy highway – I told her it seems sort of improbable and she immediately agreed,” said Baker, who remembered Rodham as “smart, capable and very focused.” [snip]

Prosecution case crumbles [snip]

By the fall of 1975, the prosecution’s case was crumbling under pressure from Rodham and other factors relating to the evidence and the witnesses. [snip]

In 2005, while working in a laundry, the victim stole several hundred dollars worth of checks from her boss to buy drugs. She is now living in a halfway house and looking for work.

Despite these problems, she bears Hillary Rodham Clinton no ill will and was eager to read “Living History” – at least pages 72 and 73, which contain her case.

We left out most of the details of this convoluted case loaded with witness lies and a difficult to prove crime because no one seemed to be sure if the alleged victim had consensual sex with a boy or raped by an older man. Add to all this the results of the lie detector test Hillary discusses in the audio tape and the smear of Hillary laughing at a rape falls apart.

What Haberman and other Hillary haters term ‘Hillary laughing because she got a rapist free’ appears more to us as a very young lawyer on her first criminal case beginning to realize that things are often not as they seem. Was Hillary’s laugh a decade later chagrin as she recalled herself as a young lawyer realizing that a lie detector cannot be trusted to detect lies from a man she believed to be guilty or was Hillary’s incredulous laugh a decade later a way to convey that what others saw as brilliant legal work on her part was actually very easy once you added an exculpatory polygraph test result to the other overwhelming evidence (and lost underwear/semen evidence by the prosecutor) in favor of her client? But to say Hillary Clinton laughed at the plight of a rape victim a decade later is not believable.

Some are alleging that Hillary supporters do not want “the Hillary tapes” heard by the American public and distorting the facts to claim that Hillary was not forced by appointment to defend the alleged criminal. Hells bells, we do. Here, listen again. Check out that last part with Hillary laughing because the prosecutor won’t discuss evidence in the rape trial with a lady present and listen as Hillary incredulously laughs that that really could have happened and how she stood her ground. Here listen again:

We love listening to Hillary with her southern accent. But we do think this rape scandal story is just stupid. Stop it. Stop smearing Scott Walker. Stop smearing Hillary Clinton.

We have other items on our “stop it” list. IRS scandal talk is all over our TV. We’re sick of it. Here’s “Wisconsin nice” Paul Ryan with his pretty blue eyes boring the Hell out of us about the IRS:

Gee willikers what rage! Quelle horreur! Weez shur nuff be
skered now. Not. This display is not as scary as a Girl Scout demanding money from a delinquent cookie customer. But from the coverage we’ve seen you would think this was a volcanic eruption. It wasn’t. It was just talk. Talk, talk, talk. To be followed by more talk, talk, talk.

The scumbag IRS commissioner tells Congress the agency owes no apologies and what do we get from Congress – talk.

Talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk….

Cut the crap Congress. Cut the crap Republicans. Stop it. Cut the crap. You know what to do. Special prosecutor. Select committee.

Hillary Clinton told you this is a scandal during her interview on Fox News. Appoint a G_d damn select committee and demand a special prosecturo or shut up. Do something about this outrage or shut up. Stop it. Stop the bu*lshit posturing and do what you have to do.

Same goes with this immigration crap. Stop it. Do something or shut up. And by “do something” we don’t mean “immigration reform”. We mean a select committee investigation. We mean a special prosecutor.

From now on any and all Obama scandals should automatically trigger a special select committee and demands for a special prosecutor. If you can’t do that just shut up. Shut up! Stop the posturing nonsense.

Republicans in Congress know they have to power to save the nation. Eric Holder at the corrupt Justice Department is doing everything to protect Barack Obama. Barack Obama will break all the laws he wants. Congress has the power to stop this. Congressional Republicans know they have the power but rather posture than do what they must do to save the nation.

The inherent power of Congress must be used by Republicans to save the nation or they should shut up.

Hillary Clinton has given Republicans the green light to go after Barack Obama on the IRS and on Immigration. The public is against Barack Obama too, even on what was supposed to be his strong suit of immigration.

Get up off your lazy bloomin’ arses and get the job done.

June 18th, 2014

Foxy Hillary Clinton Is Playing Politics!!!!!!

Update: We wrote about this in the early morning hours. It’s why Republicans/conservatives lose. The question? Is Hillary imploding? The short answer: NO.

An imploding Hillary is premised on a notion by Jonathan Last that Hillary will be destroyed by the horrid mess Barack Obama is responsible for. It’s an argument we made a long time ago.

Our advice to Hillary then was to attack Obama and separate herself from his mess. As we discuss in our article below, that appears to be exactly the path Hillary has finally begun to walk. Instead of imploding, as we ourselves suggested HERE, Hillary Clinton is beginning to correct course. And as to Terry Gross and DOMA, Hillary spoke the historical truth and that smack-down is the tough Hillary Americans like to love.

The imploding Hillary article is further undermined by the authors of the imploding Hillary article with their quote from JustKarl Does it matter whether Hillary is imploding when the GOP’s big idea is a man in a squirrel suit?

It’s a squirrel in more ways than one. Here’s how Hillary bakes squirrel pie:


Take politics out of politics! Take competition out of sports! Take sex out of pornography! Take money out of business! Take corruption out of Obama! Take conservatives out of panty-sniffing! Take deviousness out of the left! Take stupidity out of the right!

The hypocritical and devious idiots on the left along with the buffoons on the right love, just love, to criticize Bill and Hillary Clinton for playing politics. “Everything they do is so calculated… they’re so political.” Guess what – we admire a politician that plays politics. What we detest is a clod who plays politics badly.

Barack Obama is a clod who plays politics badly. Oh sure, Obama is a gussied up trollop genius at self-promotion and self-advancement. Like a transvestite hooker on a street corner Barack Obama can get the cash but once the clothes come off he can’t deliver what he promised to the customer.

Put aside the great problem for Barack Obama: Americans know his loyalties lie not with America nor the American people but with himself. That’s a great part of Obama’s problem, one that Americans sensed from the beginning, that manifested itself in demands for documentation and a birth certificate. It wasn’t, as clever Obama campaign creeps twisted it, a “racist” attack or a perception of Obama as “the other”.

The problem was that Obama advanced from nowhere having done nothing other than vote “present” on critical issues and that he expressed loathing for simple things such as buying Christmas gifts and wearing flag lapel pins. There was Obama’s Iraq speech but that was entirely “a fairy tale” told to idiots.

Having race-baited his way to the White House a smart politician would have banked his gains by releasing all the information about himself denied during the campaign and reached out to co-opt the minority in order to achieve great things. But ever the clod Barack Obama beat his chest with declarations of “I won” and publicly masturbated his ego. It was dumb politics.

Here are the wages for dumb politics by a clod politician:

“This poll is a disaster for the president,” Todd said. “You look at the presidency here: Lowest job rating, tied for the lowest; lowest on foreign policy. His administration is seen as less competent than the Bush administration, post-Katrina.”

“On the issue of do you believe he can still lead? A majority believe no. Essentially the public is saying your presidency is over,” Todd added.

A smart politician playing smart politics would not constantly be seen taking vacations and golfing especially not during international crisis explosions. A smart politician would not visit with his robot giraffe friend (we don’t mean Michelle) during an international crisis. There are those who mocked Bill and Hillary Clinton for commissioning polls on where they should vacation but who is playing smart politics and who is a boob ignoring the will of the people?

You wanna throw a good dinner party? You better poll your friends to see what they eat and drink these days. You don’t want to serve steaks and assorted meats if most of your friends have gone vegetarian. You don’t want to serve vegetarian dishes if what your friends crave is a thick steak with greasy sauce all over it. Get the point?

You want to throw a big steak barbeque you better not invite your veggie friends who will be disgusted by the slaughter. It’s smart politics on a micro level.

A smart politician playing smart politics must know what the constituents who elected her are thinking. That does not mean that a smart politician is driven entirely by polls. But a smart politician better know what the people are thinking and what the people want and don’t want. Consider FDR.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt can be considered one the biggest liars ever. FDR ran on a promise of keeping the United States out of war and as president regularly restated that the United States would not get involved in the conflagrations and horrors abroad.

But FDR privately knew that he had to prepare the United States for the real world about to literally explode in their back yard. “Brilliant politician” FDR played smart politics. FDR provoked the Japanese with embargoes that threatened to choke the empire. FDR’s “lend lease program” sold as a neighbor lending his garden hose to a neighbor with a burning house is correctly called by historian Robert Dallek “patent nonsense”.

“Brilliant politician” FDR played smart politics:

I think the lasting importance of the Atlantic conference between FDR and Churchill was that they got along, that they had a kind of mutual view of the world. They accepted the proposition that the greatest thing they had to do was to defeat Nazi Germany, that this was an absolutely crucial thing for democracy in the world. And that this blight upon western civilization had to be overcome. And that they were both committed to it and it was clear, crystal clear to both of them that this was their agenda. Whatever tactics, methods they might use, that this was their ultimate goal and they shared it and they wouldn’t lose sight of it.

Liar or leader or both? What we do know is that FDR acted in what he perceived to be America’s best interests. The same cannot be said of Barack Obama whose interest in what is good for the United States is at best incidental to his pleasures and delusions of world historical grandeur.

We rejoice every time we see a brilliant politician playing smart politics. Indeed a great deal of Bill Clinton’s charms which Republicans/conservatives refuse to see even as it stares them right in the face and bites them in the ass is that Bill Clinton is a brilliant politician constantly getting himself in trouble – and then somehow getting himself out of trouble. Millions cheer the man on the flying trapeze!

Republicans/conservatives and leftists don’t seem to recognize that this “perils of Pauline” drama exemplified by Bill Clinton is also one of Hillary Clinton’s great strengths. Why are so many Americans so supportive of Hillary Clinton even if they cannot name one single solitary Hillary Clinton “achievement”? A great part of this inchoate admiration is that Americans admire Bill and Hillary Clinton because they can take a licking and keep on ticking (pun mischievously intended).

We intended to write today about Hillary Clinton’s achievements in the State Department and beyond but Tuesday’s tour-de-force performances on CNN and Fox News deserve more discussion. You won’t find much written about Tuesday’s Hillary appearances. The DailyKooks left sulked in silence because they hate Hillary even going on Fox News let alone planting bombs in Obama’s ass. Republicans/conservatives glumly stayed mostly silent too.

Republican/conservative John Fund had some nice things to say and saw some of what we saw:

She did put some distance between herself and Obama on the IRS scandal, making it clear she agreed that any controversy involving that powerful agency should concern Americans. She implied she didn’t think it was the kind of “phony scandal” the president has dismissed it as. She called for a continued investigation into wrongdoing at the IRS but insisted it be depoliticized as much as possible. [snip]

All in all, her opponents were given no new ammunition but supporters of President Obama were put on notice that she will continue to distance herself from his policies in both subtle and not-so-subtle ways.

Obama-lovin’ Joe Trippi saw pretty much the same thing many of us did:

Trippi, like us, was surprised Hillary came off “as relaxed as she did.” Trippi also said he thought Hillary’s worst moment was on the IRS. Trippi then noted that the IRS scandal hurts Barack Obama and in no way hurts Hillary. Smart politics.

Paul Mirengoff at Powerline had nice things to say too and also noticed this:

First, it confirmed the Clinton is prepared to distance herself from President Obama.

For example, on the Bergdahl deal, she insisted that she wanted a different, broader deal, and declined to come right out and say she would have made the deal Obama ultimately agreed to. She also implied that the Obama State Department may not be doing enough to free the Marine being held by Mexican authorities.

Clinton even went so far as to lump Obama together with President Bush (and her husband). [snip]

Clinton also struggled to defend her claim that the five Taliban commanders released in exchange for Bowe Bergdahl pose no threat to the United States. She relied on the fact that the five are in Qatar and “are supposed to be constrained from what they can do, and certainly they are not supposed to be permitted to travel.”

Clinton’s resort to the word “supposed” gives the game away. And even if the supposed constraints are meaningful, they are good for only one year.

Clinton’s Obama problem came to the fore when she was asked whether she agreed with Obama that the IRS scandal is “phony.” She admitted that the scandal might be real, but defended Obama’s comment by interpreting it to mean that the scandal is being used by some for partisan purposes.

Obama is under the ReadyForHillary bus on the IRS scandal and when the Obama Terrorist Squad starts to conspire and kill – Hillary will be positioned to attack Obama on his failed Qatar Obama Terrorist Squad death deal.

On the NSA, the American Marine imprisoned by Mexico, the sexist/misogynist dudes that wanted Hillary to attack Sarah Palin, and the sexist/misognyist ageist dudes working at the behest of Barack Obama – Hillary took aim and fired:

Most heart broken Obama troll? It has to be the dude who wants Hillary to run as Obama’s third term.

We have repeatedly pointed out that Hillary should consider Obama to be radioactive Ebola. “she can’t offer more of the same, because no one wants that.”

Republican/conservative Moe Lane at his site and RedState is begging Hillary to run as the Obama third term. Moe is a scamp playing smart politics at Boob Obama’s expense:

Empirical evidence to the contrary, it wasn’t exactly my intent to unload on the poor guy who has to somehow turn five and a half years of Obama by-products into something that people might not retch at the mere sight of. I’ve been there, you see.  I know how it feels when your party has given you nothing to work with – and at least then I still had a President with a strong moral sense and a stubborn refusal to bend on the policies that he knew that he had to defend, if he wanted to avoid going to Hell when he died.  This guy doesn’t even have that, and while I will not judge anybody who callously shrugs at the author’s poor life choices I’m just a big softy sentimentalist at heart, especially since it doesn’t actually cost me anything.

But seriously: Hillary Clinton should totally run on a promise for four more years of Barack Obama.  She should yell that from every podium, soapbox, sound stage, and maybe yodel it from the top of the Grand Canyon.  No. Really.  I insist.

Moe is goofing on Hillary but more on Barack Obama’s record of ceaseless failure. Moe Lane like every intelligent Republican/conservative wants to tie Hillary Clinton to the leper. It’s smart politics.

It’s smart politics what Moe Lane tongue-in-cheek advises. After Tuesday’s romp by Hillary the Shiite left is sulking and the Sunni right is unhappy that Hillary is wiggling out of the ropes that tie her to the Ebola carcass:

During a town hall on CNN on Tuesday, Clinton was asked about a recent surge of unaccompanied minors rushing over the Mexican border. When asked what the United States should do about this predicament, Clinton endorsed deportation.

They should be sent back as soon as it can be determined who responsible adults in their families are, because there are concerns whether all of them should be sent back,” Clinton said. “But I think all of them who can be should be reunited with their families.”

We have so to send a clear message, just because your child gets across the border, that doesn’t mean the child gets to stay,” she continued. “So, we don’t want to send a message that is contrary to our laws or will encourage more children to make that dangerous journey.

Rub your eyes and read that again. Then there is this:

On foreign policy, Clinton did nothing to counter the prevailing notion on the left that she is far more hawkish than President Barack Obama. “I don’t think we should be retreating from the world,” Clinton said, in an implicit rebuke of the Obama administration’s unstated doctrine of global retrenchment.

She distanced herself from the present administration on Syria, noting that the White House should have armed the Syrian rebels “you know, two plus years ago.”

To the likely dismay of The New York Times editorial board, which praised the administration’s outreach to Iran on Tuesday, Clinton expressed doubts in the utility of a partnership with the Islamic Republic. “I am not prepared to say that we go in with Iran right now, until we have a better idea what we’re getting ourselves into,” Clinton said.

At the CNN “townhall” Hillary demonstrated she understands the cobra that is the Iranian theocracy:

“What they (Iran) want to do in Baghdad is basically to envelop (Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki) in the Iranian embrace, maybe even use their own troops in Iraq, as they did in Syria. That is a very difficult position to put the United States in.”

Bush made a mess, Obama made is worse. We opposed the war in Iraq because it would benefit the theocracy in Iran. Now Obama wants to make monster theocrats in Iran American allies.

Glum Republican/conservatives see Hillary happy and slipping away from the radioactive Ebola leper:

Finally, on the persistent issue of the Benghazi attacks, Clinton legitimized a congressional select committee investigation by conceding that there are several unanswered questions about that event. “There are answers, not all of them, not enough, frankly,” Clinton said. “I’m still looking for answers, because it was a confusing and difficult time.”

The former secretary of state added that “there’s a lot we don’t know” about the nature of the attack, who participated, and what their motivation was.

In a subsequent appearance on Fox News on Tuesday, Clinton answered a series of hard questions about the Benghazi attack, her role that night, and how members of Obama’s administration responded. Not once did she bristle over the nature of her interrogation, nor did she suggest, as she has in the past, that Fox hosts’ lines of questioning were motivated by partisanship.

Similarly, when asked if she agreed with the president that this and other scandals, like that involving the IRS’s alleged targeting of conservative groups with undue scrutiny, were “phony,” Clinton appeared to suggest that she did not.

“Anytime the IRS is involved, for many people, it’s a real scandal,” she conceded. [snip]

In a post-game analysis of Clinton’s appearance on CNN, former White House advisor and current Crossfire co-host Van Jones expressed concerns that Clinton may be alienating Obama Democrats with her center-left approach to a variety of pressing policy issues. These performances certainly did nothing to reassure progressives like MSNBC host Krystal Ball who Tuesday called Clinton the Democratic Party’s Mitt Romney; “tone-deaf” and “unrelatable” as she is.

Hillary Clinton is not afraid of investigations into Benghazi and the IRS. Republicans/conservatives hope at least one of those scandals will hurt her but Hillary is fearless on both.

What does smart politician playing smart politics Hillary Clinton fear? The evidence mounts that she is afraid of one thing only: being tied to Barack Obama or being seen as the Obama third term. Smart lady.