While in Washington vacationing from his vacation Barack Obama proved once again he is a queen-sized boob. Consider: Barack Obama plotted to exploit the riots in Ferguson to distract the country from his many international blunders and failures back to a strategy he believes will help in November’s elections. Yup, Obama thought he could get back to race-baiting to gin up what little remains of his “base” to get them to the November polls. Score another failure for Obama.
Now the hapless Nobel Peace Prize winner is sending race-baiter commander Eric Holder to Ferguson for no reason at all other than to race-bait and elevate the racial animus. We doubt Holder will speak with “Josie”.
Geez, don’t you love all the racial peace and harmony we’re enjoying these days? Don’t you love all the peace and love in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Muslim world now that we elected Barack Hussein Obama? Thanks Andrew Sullivan and John Kerry for predicting so accurately this golden age of Obama’s black “face”.
Update: Keep digging until you find what you want? Corrupt Attorney General Eric Holder has ordered a third autopsy of Michael Brown. Big Media irresponsibility continued as Yahoo News published pictures of the police officer who shot Michael Brown. The cop who previously received a commendation for “extraordinary effort in the line of duty” is now an easy target for thugs who are in the hunt for him because CNN and other Big Media outlets broadcast the picture and address of the police officer’s house.
Some of the good citizens of Ferguson are beginning to assert themselves but thugs from outside the community more interested in looting and liquor still command the night. The police in last night’s rain had difficulty maintaining order. Arrests and tear gas helped maintain what passes for order. Good citizens came out in the morning to help clean up their lawless town.
Because of Barack Obama we now live in a lawless society. Now it is often “normal” to see celebration when the “law” is either ignored or abused for political purposes. The spirit of the law is violated.
Under his self-perceived dictatorial powers Barack Obama now chooses which laws he enforces via the Department of Justice and which laws he tramples. Lawless Barack Obama has brought Chicago to America. Now many communities operate under Obama Chicago law.
In Ferguson, Missouri, a young black man, was shot to death by a police officer. A friend of the dead man told TV reporters that he and the soon to be dead man were walking along peacefully and the cop for no reason shot and killed his friend. There were violent protests and looting of stores by those supposedly outraged by the death. The protestors/looters demanded “justice” which to them meant the police officer be identified and lynched either literally or figuratively.
It turns out the young black man, who was over six feet tall and weighed close to 200 pounds, robbed a store just before he was shot. The witness/friend now admits that was a fact he withheld from his televised “eye witness” account. The initial reaction by the community to release of photos and video of the robbery was to claim the evidence was fake, tampered with, and not evidence the dead man committed a crime.
During the Trayvon Martin craziness we noted that Trayvon Martin was a very troubled young man. We noted that he had been repeatedly suspended from school. Indeed Trayvon Martin was out of school due to suspension when he was shot.
We noted at the time that the mother of Trayvon Martin had turned Trayvon over to his dad because neither she nor her family could exercise control of Trayvon. Instead of stern discipline and dictatorial fatherly watchdogging the father was irresponsible. The night of the death of Trayvon, Trayvon’s father gave Trayvon money then left Trayvon to fend for himself. The father left Trayvon at the home of the father’s girlfriend so that the father could go have fun far away in Miami with his squeeze.
That was not responsible parenting. The father was carousing while his son was busy getting himself shot due to his belligerent attitude against the wrong man at the wrong time. That was not responsible parenting.
Once the father, after his night out on the town, discovered Trayvon was shot dead all we heard from him and the mother was that Trayvon was such a good boy. Many rallied around the irresponsible parents and demanded “justice”. Their son was such a good boy.
We heard the same thing about the man shot in Ferguson. He was such a good boy.
The looters robbed the store Michael Brown robbed before he was shot.
This does not mean that the police nor individual police officers are perfect. Far from it. But the idea of the rule of law must be upheld. When there is police abuse which is clear cut it is the right, it is the duty, of those who believe in the rule of law to protest and demand redress of grievances. When the police are lawless, citizens must cling to the law more than ever and demand the rule of law, not engage in further destruction of the rule of law.
Some in the community tried to stop the looting. Some in the community stood with the law. But they were outnumbered by the criminals.
Some of the looted tried to protect their property. The police stood by. ‘”I think the first message is to remind all law enforcement that they are hired to serve and protect and if they’re going to sit back and watch looting, they’re not serving us; they’re not protecting us,” Pastor Robert White told the station.” Sorry Pastor, you live in a lawless community in a lawless country with a lawless president.
Eventually we will get both sides of the story about what happened in Ferguson. The police officer will tell his side of the story. The witnesses will tell their side of the story. We will soon know more facts.
We know the lone police officer in a squad car stopped Michael Brown. Reports are that was due to Brown and friend walking in the street stopping traffic. Did the police officer discover Brown was possibly the robber police were searching for when the reports came over his radio while he was with Brown as is claimed? Or was the cop unjustified and acting criminally when he shot Brown? We’ll know soon enough.
Rick Perry for all his power and prestige might as well be living in Ferguson Missouri. Rick Perry is living today in a land of injustice. Rick Perry is living in a lawless land.
Rick Perry, the governor of Texas, has been indicted by a grand jury in a lawless country by a lawless political party subverting the rule of law. Before You Pass Judgment On Rick Perry… watch these two videos:
The first video is from the dashboard camera of a police car when the police stopped and arrested Travis County, Texas, District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg for drunk driving.
The second video is the nasty drunk Democrat District Attorney being “booked” for drunk driving and lamenting her political career is ruined by the police for doing their job.
Governor Rick Perry saw those videos and was disgusted by DA Rosemary Lehmberg. Governor Perry demanded her resignation as well he should have. When the nasty drunken pig of a DA who is supposed to be a paragon of law but instead violated the law and endangered the community with her drunk driving refused to resign Governor Rick Perry did what he should have done.
A special prosecutor spent months calling witnesses and presenting evidence that Perry broke the law when he promised publicly to nix $7.5 million over two years for the public integrity unit run by the office of Travis County Democratic District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg. Lehmberg was convicted of drunken driving, but refused Perry’s calls to resign.
Perry’s general counsel, Marry Anne Wiley, defended the governor’s action.
“The veto in question was made in accordance with the veto authority afforded to every governor under the Texas Constitution,” she said. “We will continue to aggressively defend the governor’s lawful and constitutional action, and believe we will ultimately prevail.” [snip]
Perry was indicted on charges of abuse of official capacity, a first-degree felony with potential punishments of five to 99 years in prison, and coercion of a public servant, a third-degree felony that carries a punishment of two to 10 years.
No one disputes that Perry is allowed to veto measures approved by the Legislature, including part or all of the state budget. But the left-leaning Texans for Public Justice government watchdog group filed an ethics complaint accusing the governor of coercion because he threatened to use his veto before actually doing so in an attempt to pressure Lehmberg to quit.
“We’re pleased that the grand jury determined that the governor’s bullying crossed the line into illegal behavior,” said Craig McDonald, executive director of Texans for Public Justice. “The complaint had merit, serious laws were potentially broken.”
Michael McCrum, the San Antonio-based special prosecutor said he “took into account the fact that we’re talking about a governor of a state — and a governor of the state of Texas, which we all love.”
“Obviously that carries a lot of importance,” McCrum said. “But when it gets down to it, the law is the law.”
This indictment of Governor Rick Perry is lawlessness by a corrupt Democratic Party subverting the law, twisting the law, violating the spirit of the law.
“I intend to fight against those who would erode our state’s constitution and laws purely for political purposes and I intend to win,” a defiant Perry said during a news conference Saturday. [snip]
News of the indictment has elicited glee among many Democrats who are eager to take down Perry, a potential GOP presidential candidate in 2016.
But Perry, who has been trying to burnish his national image in the wake of his disastrous 2012 White House run, has also been receiving support from many in the GOP who claim the allegations against him are politically motivated.
Those issuing statements of support since Friday’s indictments have included Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush. All three are potential rivals to Perry for the 2016 GOP presidential nomination.
Rick Perry must fight for the rule of law. A governor with the plenary powers of the office is well within his rights to call for removal of a drunk driving district attorney. Indeed, not doing what he did would have been a crime against the law he is sworn to uphold.
These people are not interested in Hillary Clinton nor what is good for America. They are “pimping” Hillary Clinton for self-interests (yes Donna, we are also talking about you). So what should Hillary Clinton do?
What Hillary Clinton should do is decide on who her friends are and who has the best interests of America in heart and mind. Those Obama apparatchiks now jumping on the Hillary Clinton 2016 team should be squeezed dry of whatever benefits can be extracted from them. But at some point (the clock started ticking the moment ObamaCare registration for January 1 coverage ended) Hillary Clinton has to choose between the Obama coalition and the Hillary Clinton coalition.
Hillary Clinton can win by bringing back senior voters and the white working class voters that have dumped the Democratic Party they once gave allegiance to. This will enrage the DailyKooks and Obama apparatchiks. But it is the only way for Hillary Clinton to win.
Barack Obama apparatchiks that have infiltrated Hillary Clinton 2016 are terrified that Hillary Clinton will succumb to logic and reality and become the candidate of change from Barack Obama. These Obama loving parasites in Hillary Clinton 2016 know if Hillary tells the truth about Barack Obama their lame duck will be a dead duck.
These past few days we have seen the corrupt Obama pimps who PRETENDED to support Hillary Clinton 2016 attack Hillary Clinton for telling the truth about the failure that is Barack Obama. Axelrod tweeted a stupid attack and Obama said it was all “horseshit”. The DailyKooks and Move-On are enraged and threatening Hillary. The lawless Talkleftivists are infuriated and no longer willing to support Hillary Clinton in 2016 because the one thing they love about Obama is his hatred of Israel.
In 1992 Bill Clinton fought the Kook Left which repeatedly managed to nominate candidates hostile to the white working class. Those candidates always managed to lose and it was Bill Clinton with his appeal to the white working class bedrock of the Democratic Party who became president. The party establishment was not happy with the Man From Hope but at least he brought them power and the prestige of office.
Bill Clinton took on the rabid Left, race-baiters, the party establishment, and won. But the party then had a large component of common sense liberals. They saw the madness of nominating presidential candidates so far to the Left and so hostile, by demeanor, culture, and economic wealth, to the white working class. The party back then was not beyond saving. Hillary Clinton faces a party that is so far gone, so corrupt, so insanely to the Left that the party establishment would rather lose elections than surrender institutional control and ideological stranglehold of the party.
The Left, as we predicted, is waiting for Elizabeth Warren or some other nut to collect chits and endorsements behind the scenes, issue declarations not to run for president, then once party leaders and Obama’s corrupt machine are in place behind her – emerge to challenge Hillary Clinton in 2016. At the very least the Left wants a candidate of the Left to run against Hillary Clinton in 2016 in order to “move” and cement Hillary to the Left.
But two can play that game. Hillary can threaten not to run unless the party does as she demands and move to the center. She has the clout and the credibility. She also has an alternate successful route to the presidency that no other candidate this election cycle has. If the Left wants to deny her the nomination, and they do, Hillary should move soon to prepare for a third way.
Right now only Hillary Clinton has a clear shot to become president. Her only obstacle is getting the nomination from a party that is insane and whose leaders and power centers need her but don’t want her. Her support among the party rank and file is wide if not necessarily deep (although we do think it is deep) but as we saw in 2008 the party establishment is king and they can undermine her. The interests against Hillary don’t care that Hillary is still a powerhouse with the white working class. They know Hillary is still a powerhouse fundraiser. They fear that Hillary, in short, is a force of nature at this point but they think they can still stop her.
The Republicans have many candidates in 2016 with lots of possibilities. Against anyone but Hillary some of these candidates will easily win the White House. Some of these Republicans have strong points of view and even stronger convictions – such as Cruz. Some, like Scott Walker, have figured out how to destroy the institutional support structure of the Left. Some, like Rand Paul, have a new direction and new ideology for the Republican Party. And some like Rick Perry have a tried and true, stick to the fundamentals typical Republican campaign strategy. All can win if the opposition candidate is not Hillary Clinton.
Against Hillary, eh, not so much now that she sees the wisdom of attacking Barack Obama and only if she continues on this course, which of course the Left hates. If she does not stay on this course she will lose but if she stays on this course she will be endangered by the Left.
So what should Hillary Clinton do? She has to attack Barack Obama. But the Left is furious at those attacks and threaten to escalate attacks against her. The Left will run a scorched earth war against Hillary. The Left wants Hillary to move to the far Left and will run a campaign to force her to do so. Hillary’s campaign is infested with Obama termites (yeah Tommy, we’re thinking of you dude) and they can undermine her from within as they did in 2008 when 2×4 Chuck Schumer and Solis Doyle (and Rangel and Rahm Emanuel) not to mention Ted Kennedy done her in with treachery.
Screw them all Hillary and run third party.
A Hillary Clinton third party run would separate the loyal women from the rats. Yes she would lose the institutional power of an established party and all the funding that means. And we are not fools, that is no small matter because the power of our established political parties is greater than most understand. But Hell, you can’t lose what you don’t really own and anyway we live with the internet and that is a great power unto itself.
Now, we are not fools when it comes to third parties. We do not believe a third party is a magic fixer of our political woes. Third parties can be as corrupt and corruptible as Republicans or Democrats. But we are talking about something quite different.
Combine the organizing power of new technologies such as the internet with the brand power of the Clinton name. Spice it with the new fundraising landscape of Citizens United. Add the intellectual juice of the founders and you have what we are talking about.
Hillary Clinton in 2016 can say:
“My fellow Americans. You know me. You know what I stand for. You might not always agree with me but you know my love for this exceptional country and my belief that America is and must remain a beacon of light for all the world.
You know me and you know that I like every other political figure in this country have been part of the problem. I have been a supporter of the Democratic Party even when I disagreed with the direction and policy positions of the party. But now it is time for a change. It is time for a new politics. It is time to finally cross the bridge into the 21st century that Bill Clinton talked about in 1996.
Crossing that bridge has been a long time coming. At the beginning of the century a Republcan president led us astray. Eight years later a Democratic president has us wandering down the wrong track into oblivion.
The blame for the loss of our democracy is directly attributable to our political parties which care more about themselves than about the American people. The founders warned us. The founders did not want political parties. James Madison stated that, human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good.
As I said, I have been part of the problem but now I want to be part of the solution. Republicans hate Democrats. Democrats hate Republicans. Republican voters are angry with the Republican Party and Democrat voters are angry with the Democratic Party. Let’s end this. Let individuals stand for office on their own.
There once was a need for political parties. We needed them to organize for our political interests. But that is no longer true.
With our technology such as the internet and cell phones and text messages and emails and websites we can organize almost instantaneously.
A candidate for political office does not have to adhere to the narrow confines of a party ideology for the sake of party support. A candidate can now come to the American people and say I believe in this socially liberal policy and at the same time I believe in this fiscally sound policy and I ask for your support and financial contributions. It is then for the people to decide.
That’s why today I am asking for your support unencumbered by the chains of a political party and free to speak for the common good not narrow interests.
Whatever party you belonged to, whatever faction once had your allegiance, join me as we finally cross the bridge into the 21st century.”
Hillary Clinton can wait until the last minute to make her move. By then the party will be without a declared candidate or a candidate so weak and so far to the Left that Bernie Sanders will appear to be a giant.
The ideal Hard Choice would be for Hillary to be the destroyer of political factions and lead the country over the bridge to the 21st century to a new politics with the American people back in charge. But if Hillary decides not to bring about the Götterdämmerung, a third party run threat is her whip to beat into submission those that want her to embrace the Kook Left.
Make the Hard Choice Hillary. Give birth to something entirely new and yet entirely old and entirely American. A new birth of freedom.
Update:Thanks to Powerline for making us a “pick” of the day. Hillary Clinton’s bitch slap of Obama will now resound.
Barack Obama with his usual class (low) and style (crass, sleazy) responded to Hillary Clinton truth-telling by calling critiques of his failed Syria policy “horseshit”. Obama’s scatological obsessions are lately on full display. Obama was aware of the coming Hillary attack and he made his shitty remarks to a group of lawmakers at the White House.
I … did not expect to see big-name Democratic strategists needling the party’s next nominee over her biggest foreign policy liability in a public forum, but maybe Ax figures he has nothing to lose. [snip]
He’s better off protecting his and O’s legacy, he probably figures, by reminding a skeptical base that she voted for “Bush’s war” while Obama opposed it.
Just one really obvious problem with that logic, though. Jake Tapper, who normally stays out of political food fights on Twitter, couldn’t resist the obvious counterpoint:
O’s inner circle was and is a who’s who of believers in “stupid sh*t.” His first Secretary of State voted for war in Iraq, as did her successor (who was, by the way, the party’s nominee for president in 2004). So did his handpicked VP.
Hillary Clinton better realize, and she is as we document below in our main article, that Barack Obama will do anything for himself and that means making sure Hillary Clinton 2016 is not his legacy. Keep those bitch slaps of Obama coming Hillary.
Republicans and the Republican 2016 candidate? Republicans will reason with the electorate and say things are off track and it is “time for a change!”.
Hillary Clinton 2016? Is it “time for a change”? Or is it “stay the course”. Thus far, it is mush. In recent interview articles with Hillary we read of policy “disputes” with Barack Obama at the same time as support for Barack Obama. This is too cute by more than a half.
We understand the challenges Hillary Clinton 2016 faces and we have written about the need for the “gull ‘em then cull ‘em” strategy. First sedate the Obama hordes now in possession of what was once the Democratic Party, then the kill, the cull. But the “gull” has turned into more of a “lull” as Hillary Clinton 2016 meanders about without a winning message for 2016.
On August 25, 2014 the smart Jay Cost advised his cohort on how to defeat Hillary Clinton. Jay Cost is very worried for his Republican/conservative party. He thinks if Hillary Clinton runs, Hillary Clinton wins. Jay Cost is providing the same advice to Republicans/conservatives that we gave to Hillary. First Jay Cost flatters Hillary with the truth Republicans/conservatives prefer to deny:
Hillary Clinton’s Reputation
Don’t laugh—it’s better than you think.
The rollout of Hillary Clinton’s new memoirs, Hard Choices, was not a resounding success for the former secretary of state. [snip]
Yet her poll numbers remain surprisingly solid. Surveys conducted by Quinnipiac University, Fox News, and Rasmussen Reports—all taken since the book’s release—show her with comfortable leads nationally over Rand Paul, Chris Christie, and Jeb Bush. A mid-July CNN poll shows her with generally strong favorable ratings, although not as positive as they were when she wrapped up her tenure at State. Even so, respondents said they thought her to be a “strong and decisive leader” who “generally agrees” with them on the issues, can “manage the government effectively,” and “cares about people” like them.
What lessons are there to draw from these numbers? The first, and probably most obvious, is the disconnect between the political class and the greater public. Clinton’s book rollout was a disaster among politicos and cable news obsessives, but people who do not dedicate inordinate time to politics and policy hardly seemed to notice. [snip]
The second lesson becomes apparent when we think of Clinton’s numbers in terms of Weekly Standard online editor Daniel Halper’s new book, Clinton, Inc. As Halper shows quite clearly, the Clintons are obsessed with brand management and have become exceedingly skilled at maintaining the improved reputation they have developed since the dark days of the Lewinsky scandal. This reputation is not going to fall apart simply because of a bad book rollout. The collapse of the Barack Obama foreign policy—of which Clinton was an integral part—apparently has done little to diminish it. Even Benghazi has hardly made a dent. [snip]
Republicans hope that a faltering Barack Obama will damage Hillary Clinton’s presidential chances. It’s true that unpopular presidents generally drag down their successor nominees.
Read the entire Jay Cost article not just our snipped excerpts. It is an intelligent, mostly historically accurate representation of Hillary’s herstory and reputation. Indeed, Jay Cost and Big Pink mostly agree on the landscape of the 2016 battlefield:
The early signs of the 2016 Clinton campaign suggest a subtle break with Obama that will reinforce her unique identity. Writing for the New Republic, Anne Applebaum took a careful read of Hard Choices as a piece of early campaign literature and concluded that Hillary Clinton is planning to run a campaign akin to Richard Nixon’s 1968 “man in the arena” strategy. She is battle-tested, experienced, ready to make the hard sacrifices for the country, and above all somebody who can be counted upon:
Clinton hopes to be . . . deeply non-ideological, a centrist. She intends to run as a hard-working, fact-oriented pragmatist—someone who finds ways to work with difficult opponents, and not only faces up to difficult problems but also makes the compromises needed to solve them. Again and again she portrays herself sitting across the table from Dai Bingguo or President Putin, working hard, searching for a way forward. Similar methods, presumably, can be applied to the Republican leadership.
The problem for Republicans here is stark: They have run a campaign like this for the last half-century. It has met with little success in the last 20 years, and it has never worked against the Clintons; Hillary Clinton’s numbers suggest she would be able to “sell” the public on this problem-solving image better than the GOP nominee could. Given a choice between a Republican and a Clinton offering basically the same thing, there is little reason to believe that the country will select the Republican. Nor, for that matter, can Republicans rest on their oars and assume that Obama’s sinking reputation will pull Hillary Clinton down as well. After all, it hasn’t yet.
What, then, is the best response for the GOP? It is simply this: The party must wrap itself unabashedly in the garb of reform. If Hillary Clinton offers herself as the wise and learned hand who will rely upon her decades of experience to guide the ship of state, Republicans have to argue that her experience is exactly what the country doesn’t need at this moment. They need to convince the public that, by being in Washington for the last quarter-century, she is too committed to a broken status quo that is in desperate need of change. The party then needs to lay out a credible and salable agenda for that change.
This should sound familiar, for it is how Barack Obama defeated Hillary Clinton in 2008. A message of reform resonated six years ago, and it could very well resonate again (so long as it is carried by somebody other than Obama!). Now as then, the country is tired and frustrated with the status quo. The people appear to want a change in course. [snip]
If Hillary Clinton offers a Return to Normalcy in 2016, it is a fair bet that the GOP will not be able to beat her by competing on the same terrain. Instead, Republicans should focus assiduously on maximizing their gains in this midterm election, take a few weeks to enjoy (hopefully) their victory, and then have a serious conversation about exactly what kind of change they want to offer the country in 2016. For that appears to be the best—perhaps the only—way to beat Hillary Clinton.
“That’s the only way to beat Hillary Clinton.” Exactly right. Exactly on point. Exactly what we have been hammering and will continue to scream and shout.
And don’t think it is just Jay Cost following the trail blazed by Big Pink. Hillary Clinton sees the same thing we all do and she is fortifying her position so that attacks against her will fail. That’s why Hillary has gunned up and shooting holes into Barack’s tiny grapes. It’s why Hillary is bitch-slapping the bitch-boy:
Hillary Clinton: ‘Failure’ to Help Syrian Rebels Led to the Rise of ISIS
The former secretary of state, and probable candidate for president, outlines her foreign-policy doctrine. She says this about President Obama’s: “Great nations need organizing principles, and ‘Don’t do stupid stuff’ is not an organizing principle.”
Before we continue we’ll clear up three points. First, the actual Barack Obama quote about his (ha, ha) foreign policy is “Don’t do stupid shit.” That was the actual phrase the White House worked so hard, in so many interviews, to inject into the national consciousness. That phrase fits Obama perfectly because he is… well, you know… a stinking piece of….
Second, “bitch-slap”. What is that? Is it an insult we direct at Hillary? No, the contrary. The definition of bitch-slap:To open handedley slap someone. Denote disrespect for the person being bitch slapped as they are not worthy of a man sized punch. Suggests the slap was met with little resistance and much whining. As to “bitch boy,” it is not just a Swedish punk band.
President Obama has long ridiculed the idea that the U.S., early in the Syrian civil war, could have shaped the forces fighting the Assad regime, thereby stopping al Qaeda-inspired groups—like the one rampaging across Syria and Iraq today—from seizing control of the rebellion. In an interview in February, the president told me that “when you have a professional army … fighting against a farmer, a carpenter, an engineer who started out as protesters and suddenly now see themselves in the midst of a civil conflict—the notion that we could have, in a clean way that didn’t commit U.S. military forces, changed the equation on the ground there was never true.”
Well, his former secretary of state, Hillary Rodham Clinton, isn’t buying it. In an interview with me earlier this week, she used her sharpest language yet to describe the “failure” that resulted from the decision to keep the U.S. on the sidelines during the first phase of the Syrian uprising.
“The failure to help build up a credible fighting force of the people who were the originators of the protests against Assad—there were Islamists, there were secularists, there was everything in the middle—the failure to do that left a big vacuum, which the jihadists have now filled,” Clinton said.
As she writes in her memoir of her State Department years, Hard Choices, she was an inside-the-administration advocate of doing more to help the Syrian rebellion. Now, her supporters argue, her position has been vindicated by recent events.
Professional Clinton-watchers (and there are battalions of them) have told me that it is only a matter of time before she makes a more forceful attempt to highlight her differences with the (unpopular) president she ran against, and then went on to serve. On a number of occasions during my interview with her, I got the sense that this effort is already underway. (And for what it’s worth, I also think she may have told me that she’s running for president—see below for her not-entirely-ambiguous nod in that direction.)
Of course, Clinton had many kind words for the “incredibly intelligent” and “thoughtful” Obama, and she expressed sympathy and understanding for the devilishly complicated challenges he faces. But she also suggested that she finds his approach to foreign policy overly cautious, and she made the case that America needs a leader who believes that the country, despite its various missteps, is an indispensable force for good. At one point, I mentioned the slogan President Obama recently coined to describe his foreign-policy doctrine: “Don’t do stupid shit” (an expression often rendered as “Don’t do stupid stuff” in less-than-private encounters).
This is what Clinton said about Obama’s slogan: “Great nations need organizing principles, and ‘Don’t do stupid stuff’ is not an organizing principle.”
Oh no she didint. Oh she didn’t just bitch slap Obama did she. Oh no she diddnt. Oh yes she did. Oh yes she did.
For a while there our Twitter account and Facebook account were the only ways for us to communicate. We were like a morbidly obese fatboy stuck in the internet water-slide while eating a cheese/mayo sandwich and queuing up a slab of peach pie à la mode. It was a no-go. We could not send out emails. We could not post a comment nor an article. We couldn’t communicate at all. It was a world devoid of Pink!
Who dunnit to such sweet people as us??? It wasn’t the Russians with their well publicized recent big hack attack getting vengeance on us for standing up for Ukraine. It wasn’t them. So the good news is that those smart 20-something Russkies and Putin are not sufficiently angry with us to hack us to bits. That would scare us ’cause the hackers and Putin are smart and determined – unlike our usual, more domestic, target(s).
In either case we’re back. Our usual boob targets are still on our screen. “Beware evil-doers! Wherever you are!”.
Just because Big Pink was on the fritz does not mean that the world stopped. Stupid doesn’t sleep.
The Political Risks of an Obama Executive Action on Immigration
With hopes fading of passing an immigration reform bill, President Obama is reportedly contemplating bypassing Congress and making sweeping changes to immigration policy before the midterm elections. [snip]
But what isn’t clear is why Mr. Obama would engage in such a move before the election. Of course, Mr. Obama faces short-term pressures to address the surge in migrant children being detained at the border, but news media reports suggest that the policy changes under consideration would be far broader, potentially providing legal status to many of the nation’s undocumented immigrants.
Such a broad executive action could provoke a backlash in the midterm elections that might be avoided with a move just a few months later. Although the public is generally supportive of allowing immigrants to stay in the United States legally under certain conditions, opinion has grown less favorable toward this prospect over time.
A recent CNN poll showed, for instance, that 51 percent of Americans now prefer an emphasis on border security and deportation versus 45 percent who prefer creating a path to legal status for illegal immigrants — a reversal from the 41 percent to 54 percent margin observed earlier this year. Polling also suggests that opponents of creating a path to legal status feel more strongly about the issue than supporters.
The New York Times is not troubled that Barack Obama is violating his oath of office to faithfully execute the laws of this country. No, the New York Times is scratching it’s grey head over why Barack Obama is timing the illegality so stupidly. ‘Why oh why is Barack so stupid,’ laments the Times:
Mr. Obama might hope to mobilize the Democratic base or boost Hispanic turnout, but midterm electorates are skewed toward an older, whiter group of voters who are likely to view a legalization plan lessfavorably. By contrast, the Hispanic population votes at lower rates and is likely to make up a small share of the electorate in this year’s most competitive House and Senate races (though their role in 2016 could be more significant).
It’s easy to overstate the effects of policy on electoral outcomes, but there is a recent worst-case example: the passage of the Affordable Care Act. Research that I conducted with a group of political scientists found that the Republican landslide in 2010 was strengthened by health care reform. In total, Democrats lost 63 seats in the House of Representatives, a substantial increase over the expected outcome, which was seemingly attributable to the depressed support for reform supporters in competitive districts, who were seen as more liberal by voters.
Given these risks, the politics of pre-election legalization seem inexplicable, creating an opening for elaborate bank-shot theories about Obama’s intentions. The columnist Charles Krauthammer floated a conspiracy theory along these lines Wednesday, suggesting on Fox News that Obama might be trying to “bait Republicans into impeachment as a way to save his party in the midterm elections.”
Such an outcome seems unlikely, but the comment illustrates just how much uncertainty there is over what Mr. Obama is doing or how Republicans — and voters — will react.
You can’t explain stupid. All you can do is recognize it and squash it every time it appears. Clue for the New York Times: whenever Barack Obama opens his mouth, touches his pen, uses the phone, or gets behind a podium or microphone, EXPECT THE STUPID.
Lined up and executed, their severed heads put on display as a warning to others: Horrific new photographs of ISIS atrocities
WARNING: GRAPHIC CONTENT
Sunni tribesmen marched into desert, made to kneel and shot in the head
Tribe made deal with ISIS to be left alone but agreement collapsed
Shocking close-up photos of splattered brains and severed heads released
‘Punishment for those who fight Allah and his Messenger is to crucify or cut off hands and feet’
Oh, those lucky ISIS boys. They’re up against Barack Obama. Ever seen a dog get its head trapped inside a paper bag? That’s Barack.
Gen. Barry McCaffrey, like me, wonders what the plan is in Iraq and seems to recognize that, in fact, there is none.
And so, he wonders, following the food drops, what happens when the Iraqis trapped on the mountain by ISIS finish the food?
McCaffrey appeared with an equally skeptical Chuck Todd of MSNBC:
These are political gestures using military power . . . It looks to me like a lot of this is internal U.S. politics to show we’re doing something.
I mean, if you want to use military power, you have to write down your objective and then use decisive force to achieve your objectives. So I’m a little dismayed at what we’re up to here.
This is why we have always maintained that Barack Obama is not qualified to be president. The guy just doesn’t know what he is doing. When he does know what he is doing it is only because it is (a) about himself and his self-interest in self-advancement; or (b) an act that is harmful to this country. It really does come down to that.
Malevolent and stupid can coexist in one scrawny frame. Just look at Barack. Weep for the nation.
Our regular readers will not be surprised because we predicted so much of it. While the world burns, Obama golfs and vacations, and the American Southern border is as open and free as an Obama work schedule, let’s discuss Halbig and other Obama health scam related stories.
Our regular readers will recall our last Halbig article in which we made several predictions. We noted that ObamaCare “architect” Jonathan Gruber is a great help to ObamaCare opponents. We predicted that Gruber’s comments will be, either through judicial notice or part of the record, introduced by ObamaCare opponents into the judicial record.
We have been proven correct. Plaintiffs in an Oklahoma ObamaCare case have moved to supplement the record with Jonathan Gruber’s helpful comments and history. For our non-regular readers, here is a video hilarity of Gruber’s helpful comments for ObamaCare opponents:
Our Gruber prediction was not very daring. It was obvious. Less obvious at the time to all but us here at Big Pink was the good fortune of that Fourth Circuit pro-ObamaCare decision that came in two hours after the D.C. Circuit cut the guts out of ObamaCare. Our prediction? We predicted that the Fourth Circuit plaintiffs would race to the Supreme Court and skip the en banc stopover. Result? We are right again.
The Fourth Circuit plaintiffs could have asked the full panel of the Fourth Circuit to take up the case and therefore tie themselves down alongside the ObamaCare plaintiffs in the D.C. Circuit where the ObamaCare scam artists ask the full en banc court panel to take up the case. ObamaCare lawyers, it was widely presumed, would appeal their loss in D.C. to the full en banc panel which is packed with Obama appointed judges after Harry Reid destroyed the Senate and its filibuster rules. The likelihood was (although this was before Jonathan Gruber’s comments came to light) that the full D.C. panel would uphold ObamaCare and thereby end the “split” decisions in the circuits making it less likely that the Supreme Court would take up the ObamaCare HalBIG cases.
But we suspected and predicted that the Fourth Circuit plaintiffs would skip the full panel in the Fourth Circuit and instead go directly to the Supreme Court. This they did and we go to the head of the class.
The petition to the Supreme Court cites recently-uncovered videos of Obamacare’s chief architect Jonathan Gruber in which he appears to support the position that subsidies were intended for state-run exchanges only.
For his part, Gruber, who has signed onto an amicus brief which supports the Obama administration’s position, claims both incidents were simply a “speak-o, like a typo.” But supporters of the interpretation that subsidies are meant to go to state exchanges only have pointed out that not only did Gruber suggest that the text of the law states subsidies are only for state exchanges, but he also provided an argument for why Congress would have done so.
“That is really the ultimate threat,” Gruber said at a 2012 event, “will people understand that gee, if your governor doesn’t set up an exchange, you’re losing hundreds of millions of dollars in tax credits to be delivered to your citizens. So that’s the other threat, is will states do what they need to do to set it up.”
Gruber’s opinion is cited in the petition as all the more reason that the Supreme Court should take the case.
Under the court’s rules, lawyers who lose in an appeals court have 90 days to seek a review in the Supreme Court. And normally, lawyers take the full time. But in this instance, the opponents of the Affordable Care Act want the court’s conservative justices to have a chance to take up the new healthcare case in a few months so they can rule by next spring.
The Obama administration has the opposite strategy on timing. The Justice Department said it planned to ask the full appeals court in the District of Columbia to reconsider last week’s ruling by a three-judge panel. If so, that could delay a final ruling from the appeals court until next year and push off a Supreme Court decision to 2016.
By then, millions of Americans will have relied for several years on having health insurance they could afford thanks to the subsidies. A single adult with an income up to $45,960 and a family of four with an income up $94,200 may obtain insurance on an exchange at a reduced cost.
The Writ Of Certiorari filed so quickly, not waiting 90 days, comports with the strategy we have espoused of avoiding as much as possible an election year fight which will fill Chief Justice Roberts with angst. A non-election year ruling right after the November 2014 elections but well before 2016 is just what Roberts needs to calm his nerves.
ObamaCare opponents quoting ObamaCare architect Jonathan Gruber in court documents and the speedy run to the Supreme Court is tasty enough. But there is icing for that already delicious cake.
The dollops of icing come from ObamaCare supporters in Big Media fighting a scorched earth, last ditch attempt to salvage ObamaCare. Greg Sargent provided the laughs in a defense of ObamaCare that was so hapless, so stupid, so inept, it must have been ghost written by Barack himself not the half-wit Greg. The title for that idiotic counter-productive article is “Senate documents and interviews undercut ‘bombshell’ lawsuit against Obamacare“.
Let’s pause for a moment and savor that headline on its own for the spectacular own-goal carnage that’s about to follow.
Sargent’s argument, summarized, is that of course Congress meant all along for the ACA to offer subsidies on both the state and Federal exchanges, and intent only got muddled when two separate versions of the ACA legislation (one coming out of the Senate Finance Committee and one coming out of the Health, Education, Labor & Commerce Committee) were awkwardly and imperfectly merged.
There is so much that is wrong with Sargent’s legal reasoning here that it’s hard to know where to start. We’ll go with the money shot, I guess.
1) The first Senate version of the health law to be passed in 2009 — by the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee — explicitly stated that subsides would go to people on the federally-established exchange. A committee memo describing the bill circulated at the time spelled this out with total clarity.
I could stop right here. In fact, I will. And so would the courts, if we were dealing with a less politicized piece of legislation.
Sargent just helpfully informed us that an earlier version of the ACA — not a draft, mind you, but one that was actually passed out of committee — included explicit language granting subsidies to people on federal exchanges, language that was later dropped from the final bill.
If Sargent had been an attorney rather than a layman, this is the point where he would have hit “delete” on his draft post and forgotten all about it.
One of most fundamental rules of statutory interpretation used by courts when they are asked to discern legislative intent from ambiguous statutory language is this: if explicit language was in an earlier version of a bill but dropped from the final version, the court will treat that as proof it was removed on purpose. [snip]
Similarly, the argument advanced by the Left (and Sargent) that “of course the ACA intended all along for subsidies to cover federal exchanges!” is runs squarely onto the rocks of this earlier language. Thanks to Sargent’s crack reporting we have now confirmed that earlier iterations of the ACA specifically granted subsidies to federal exchanges…but that, for whatever reason, this language was later stripped from the bill.
The subsequent blathering about “why” this language fell out of the bill (“drafting errors,” you see) is immaterial as far as the Court is concerned, and this is apparently what Sargent doesn’t seem to realize; in a case where the wording of the statute is otherwise clear, the Court’s inquiry will stop cold right here — or at least it should. [snip]
This is not a fringe theory. This is not a novel legal argument. There’s a reason that canons of construction are called “canons,” after all. And of all the canons of statutory construction, “few are more compelling than the proposition that Congress does not intend sub silentio to enact statutory language that has earlier discarded in favor of other language.”
And the fact that Greg Sargent could blithely drop, in the midst of an attempt to shore up the Left’s “legislative intent” argument, a bombshell that utterly devastates that very argument’s legal chances in court without even realizing it is a mighty example of the Dunning-Kruger effect in action.
I, for one, thank him for his efforts in assisting with the legal case against Obamacare.
Another day, another liberal wonkblogger contradicting the government’s position in the Halbig case. First we had Jonathan Gruber demonstrating that the plaintiff’s case in Halbig was quite plausible. Then we had Jonathan Gruber demonstrating that the plaintiff’s case in Halbig was quite plausible…again. Then we had Greg Sargent unwittingly demonstrating that the plaintiff’s case in Halbig wasn’t only plausible, but quite likely.
Today, thanks to Phil Kerpen of American Commitment, we have Jonathan Cohn, one of the Left’s foremost experts on Obamacare, contradicting himself and demonstrating that the plaintiff’s case in Halbig was plausible:
We’ll spare you from reading the destruction of “leading experts on health care policy” ObamaCare supporters like Brian Beutler, Ezra Klein, and Jonathan Cohn. Read the entire brutal story for yourself.
“The rollout was so bad, and I was appalled — I don’t understand how the president could have sat there and not been checking on that on a weekly basis,” Frank told HuffPost during a July interview. “But frankly, he should never have said as much as he did, that if you like your current health care plan, you can keep it. That wasn’t true. And you shouldn’t lie to people. And they just lied to people.”
“He should have said, ‘Look, in some cases the health care plans that you’ve got are really inadequate, and in your own interests, we’re going to change them,’” Frank said. “But that’s not what he said.”
Why tell a big lie when Barack Obama can tell a huge lie? Barack Obama rather tell a whopper than just a run of the mill big lie. And that ObamaCare website rollout? Yeah, that cost the taxpayer, thus far, $840 million. $840 MILLION! Now we know how much waste is necessary to appall Barney Frank.
Last week, Salwa Shabazz arrived at the office of a public health network here with a bag full of paperwork about her new health insurance — and an unhappy look on her face. She had chosen her plan by phone in March, speaking to a customer service representative at the federal insurance marketplace. Now she had problems and questions, so many questions.
“I’ve had one doctor appointment since I got this insurance, and I had to pay $60,” Ms. Shabazz told Daniel Flynn, a counselor with the health network, the Health Federation of Philadelphia. “I don’t have $60.”
Mr. Flynn spent almost two hours going over her Independence Blue Cross plan, which he explained had a “very complicated” network that grouped doctors and hospitals into three tiers. Ms. Shabazz, who has epilepsy, had not understood when she chose the plan that her doctors were in the most expensive tier.
“None of that was explained when I signed up,” she said. “This is the first I’m hearing it.” [snip]
In one sign of widespread confusion, a recent Kaiser Family Foundation survey of programs that helped people apply for marketplace coverage found that 90 percent had already been re-contacted by consumers with post-enrollment questions. [snip]
Ms. Shabazz, 38, paid only about $32 a month in premiums, with federal subsidies of $218 covering the rest. But she could not afford the $60 co-payments to see her specialists on her annual income of $19,000.
Her financial situation worsened when she had to quit her job at the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board in June because of the epilepsy, she said. She had called the federal marketplace to report her change in income, and had received a letter that she handed to Mr. Flynn, hoping he could explain it. The news, he said, was not good: With no more paychecks, she had fallen into the so-called coverage gap, earning too little to keep qualifying for the subsidies that made her premiums affordable, but likely still not qualifying for Medicaid because Pennsylvania has not expanded that program, as 26 states have under the Affordable Care Act.
“You’ll probably have to cancel your plan,” he said.
Ms. Shabazz’s mother, Waheedah Shabazz-El, who had accompanied her to the appointment, shook her head as her daughter wiped away tears. “There are so many layers to this,” Ms. Shabazz-El said.
Ms. Shabazz said she was relieved to finally figure out her plan, even though she would not be keeping it. “I have a much clearer understanding now,” she said. “But I’m still kind of sad. I’m worried.”
Yup, we predicted this too. A lot of ObamaCare supporters thought they would get an ObamaCare card and then treated like the Shah of Iran or Warren Buffet (the example we cited in 2012). Instead they are now learning about the scam called ObamaCare and high deductibles and high premiums. And those are the lucky ones – the poor ones. The Middle Class suckers will be bled dry for nothing. Which is why:
After remaining steady for several months, the share of the public expressing an unfavorable view of the health care law rose to 53 percent in July, up eight percentage points since last month’s poll. This increase was offset by a decrease in the share who declined to offer an opinion on the law (11 percent, down from 16 percent in June), while the share who view the law favorably held fairly steady at 37 percent, similar to where it’s been since March.1 Republicans continue to be the group with the strongest opposition to the law, but the increase in the share with an unfavorable view between June and July was similar across the political spectrum and different demographic groups.
It’s gonna get worse unless the Supreme Court steps up and steps on this cockroach.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
defines 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.
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.
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 ma.healthconnector.org 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.
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….
“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.
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.
“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 HealthCare.gov 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 HealthCare.gov 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 HealthCare.gov.
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.
“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….
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.
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.
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.
Born into slavery as one of the youngest of thirteen children of James and Elizabeth in Ulster County, New York, in 1797, Sojourner Truth’s given name was Isabella Baumfree. As almost all of her brothers and sisters had been sold to other slave owners, some of her earliest memories were of her parents’ stories of the cruel loss of their other children. [snip]
In 1843, she changed her name to Sojourner Truth – her name for a traveling preacher, one who speaks the truth – and left New York. She traveled throughout New England, where she met and worked with abolitionists such as William Lloyd Garrison, and Frederick Douglass. Her life story, The Narrative of Sojourner Truth: A Northern Slave, written with the help of friend Olive Gilbert, was published in 1850.
While traveling and speaking in states across the country, Sojourner Truth met many women abolitionists and noticed that although women could be part of the leadership in the abolitionist movement, they could neither vote nor hold public office. It was this realization that led Sojourner to become an outspoken supporter of women’s rights.
In 1851, she addressed the Women’s Rights Convention in Akron, Ohio, delivering her famous speech “Ain’t I a Woman?” The applause she received that day has been described as “deafening.” From that time on, she became known as a leading advocate for the rights of women. She became one of the nineteenth century’s most eloquent voices for the cause of anti-slavery and women’s rights.
NoLimits.org will "keep you up to date with news about issues on which Hillary took a lead and we know you care so much about," group President Ann Lewis said in an e-mail to as many as 2 million people culled from the Clinton campaign database.
Because No Limits is a registered nonprofit, "it cannot do anything political. It has to be nonpartisan," said Lewis, a longtime senior adviser to Clinton.
In Clinton's job as secretary of state for President Obama, her political dealings are highly restricted.
For example, she shut down her political action committee.
Some, like Democratic consultant and former Bill Clinton aide Chris Lehane, dismiss talk that the group could be a springboard for Clinton to try again for the White House in, say, 2016.
"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar," Lehane said. "I think this is just [a] group of folks who developed relationships in an intense [electoral] environment and want to stay together."
But the University of Virginia's Larry Sabato countered: "Whenever a group like this says it's not a political organization, you just know it is."
"Maybe [this] is Hillary's answer to Obama's new 'change' group that controls his golden mailing list. Maybe it's a way for Secretary of State Clinton to mobilize backing for her objectives at the State Department," he said. "And maybe [it's] a standby committee of supporters in case Hillary decides to get back into elective politics."
Democratic consultant Hank Sheinkopf said NoLimits.org is "one way to make sure that she - and/or the former President - still have political leverage."
Hillary World-Wide January 26, 2009
Secretary of State Hillary R. Clinton Meets Afghan Women Lawyers. Secretary of State Hillary R. Clinton met today at the State Department with fourteen prominent Afghan women judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys. These jurists were in Washington to participate in a training program arranged by the Department’s Public-Private Partnership for Justice Reform in Afghanistan. Secretary Clinton told them: "Your American friends greatly admire your bravery and courage. It is your work in the tough environment of Afghanistan for women lawyers that will bring real reform and the rule of law to the Afghan people. As President Obama made clear yesterday in his first foreign policy announcement, we are committed to supporting your efforts to bring security and stability to your country."