Who, What, Why: The Most Staggering Argument Made This Week In The Supreme Court

Little noticed in all the golden jurisprudential nuggets of this past week is the purpose of a rather ballsy argument made on Day 3 of oral argument on the Obama health scam. The two main actors: Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy. The star: Anthony Kennedy. The argument: A Modest Proposal.

Here is the purpose of the most staggering argument made this week in the Supreme Court, in simplified form (documentation of our claim follows):

1. Obama health scam supporters are trying to intimidate the Justices at the Supreme Court. In particular they are targeting Chief Justice Roberts and threatening to politically assassinate him by utilizing Roberts’ promise to the Senate Judiciary committee to be a modest “umpire” if confirmed.

2. That wily bird, Justice Kennedy, provided the Chief Justice with a most cheeky and daring argument to claim that indeed he, the Chief Justice, is being most modest even as potentially he crafts and coordinates one of the most daring opinions in constitutional history since Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison.

* * * * * *

In anticipation of an historical defeat Robert Shrum is screaming that the Supreme Court is “the Tea Party Supreme Court” (Associate Justice Antonin Scalia is scorned as “Injustice Antonin Scalia”).

At the DailyKooks Hopium hole the kooks think repeating “the radical Roberts Court” is the intimidating trick that will work (the DailyKooks Supreme Court “expert” is the Left Talker who endorsed Obama over Hillary because Obama was the “media darling” and this educated fool also wrote Obama would be another FDR!.)

It’s not just the DailyKooks and the Obama protecting strategists. Surprise!, it is also Big Media doing everything possible to intimidate Chief Justice Roberts in particular. Attorney Jeffrey Rosen was tasked by Politico to declare that this week was a “Moment of truth for Justice Roberts”:

“Before this week’s historic Supreme Court argument, conventional wisdom held that the court would uphold “Obamacare” — as its opponents call it — by a lopsided bipartisan margin. [snip]

If the court does, in fact, strike down the mandate by a 5-4 vote, conventional wisdom most likely will crystallize around a new narrative: The Supreme Court is all about politics. [snip]

There’s no question that the conservative justices on the Roberts court have political leeway to strike down Obamacare because of its current unpopularity. [snip]

When Chief Justice John Roberts began his tenure, he said he wanted to be remembered for presiding over a court that reached narrow unanimous opinions — transcending the partisan divisions that have polarized Washington in Congress and the executive branch.

So far, Roberts has had mixed success.

That’s what makes the health care cases a moment of truth for the chief justice. If Roberts presides over a court that strikes down health care reform by a 5-4 vote, his ambition of transcending politics on the Supreme Court will have to be judged a failure.

If, by contrast, Roberts can find a way of helping his conservative colleagues to overcome their political convictions and uphold health care reform on narrow grounds, even his critics will have to admit that he has achieved a real success.

Uniter or divider — the choice is his.”

So it’s vote the way I say or else you are a divider. It does not enter Rosen’s mind that perhaps Obama appointed Elena Kagen should have either recused herself or that she should vote to get rid of the Obama health scam and thereby prove she is not a political hack. And really, “uniter or divider”? Wasn’t it Obama who promised transparency on any health care reform? Wasn’t it Obama who promised eighty percent majorities in passing health care reform? Rosen ignores Obama’s lies and scribes intimidating hackery in support of Obama. But at Politico, Rosen is not alone.

Glenn Thrush has inherited the “Ben Smith JournoLister” chair at Politico. His article intimidating Chief Justice Roberts (and anyone who might vote to get rid of the Obama health scam) is called “Roberts Court On Trial”:

“John Roberts is having his Bush v. Gore moment.

If the wily chief justice felt squeamish about leading the Supreme Court into an election-year political maelstrom, that was nowhere on display Tuesday, when the Roberts-led conservative majority signaled its collective skepticism, even hostility, for President Barack Obama’s health care law.

If the Affordable Care Act goes down — especially if it suffers the same schismatic 5-to-4 blow sustained by the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law in the Citizens United case — critics will accuse the Roberts Court of rigging the game and covering their power play with constitutional doublespeak.

The critics aren’t even waiting for the third and final day of arguments before drawing their conclusions. Roberts’s grilling of administration officials Tuesday — and his willingness to take up polarizing immigration and affirmative action cases in an election year — has already invited comparisons to the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist, whose court decided the 2000 presidential election in favor of George W. Bush.

If the court again splits along a traditional conservative-liberal fault line, the health care debate will further erode the ideal of the court as an impartial arbiter and cast doubt on Roberts’s own idyllic description of his role as judicial “umpire” laid out during his 2005 confirmation hearings.”

Glenn Thrush is supposed to be a news guy not an opinion guy. The above excerpts from Thrush however indicate that he is in line to get a job at the Carney White House Press Circus.

Thrush searched his Rolodex in search of anyone and everyone to trash and intimidate Chief Justice Roberts. He starts with another Jeffrey, Toobin:

“Roberts isn’t a hypocrite. … His judicial worldview is so close to his political worldview, I think he honestly believes he’s an umpire — but this is an incredibly activist court, especially when — sorry, I mean if — it overturns health care.”

Norm Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute, a frequent court critic, expressed the view of many liberals who think Roberts is, at his core, a partisan who works from a conclusion backwards: “If he’s the umpire, how come he always has a bat in his hand?

The outcome of the health care case, Democrats and Republicans agree, will go a long way in defining a Roberts Court already ranked among the most conservative in recent history.

In a larger sense, the case is also a critical test of Roberts’s evolving role as the leader of his own court: In decades past, chief justices have labored mightily to secure something approaching consensus on major decisions. [snip]

But Harvard law professor Michael Klarman, who has written two histories of the high court, said the fact that the fight over the health care law is playing out according to the standard Republican vs. Democrat script — the same script as the 2000 election fight — has eroded the idea that the GOP-appointed court is rooted in restraint and precedent-based impartiality.

“The idea they are operating from precedent can’t pass the laugh test, especially after Bush v. Gore. The country is dividing along the same ideological and political lines this time, and so is the court,” Klarman said.”

So if all the Justices appointed by Democratic (or Dimocratic as in the case of Obama) presidents vote to uphold the law they are “rooted in restraint and precedent-based impartiality” but if the Republican appointed Justices disagree they are political animals desecrating the high court – according to Thrush’s attack piece.

Why is Politico doing a full court press attack on the Supreme Court and Chief Justice Roberts in particular? The only answer is shock. Obama supporters for years thought two things about the legal challenges to Obama’s health scam: (1) the suits opposing Obamacare were entirely without merit (“frivolous”); (2) at the final stop, the Supreme Court, Anthony Kennedy would join the majority and force John Roberts to possibly go along and uphold the scam. Then Tuesday came and the shocks followed as they listened.

Thrush’s lament:

“But he seemed less critical of the law than Kennedy, whom liberals predicted would be more open to the argument that the law is rooted in the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

“Assume for the moment that [the health care law] is unprecedented. This is a step beyond what our cases have allowed, the affirmative duty to act to go into commerce,” Kennedy began, adding: “I understand that we must presume laws are constitutional, but, even so, when you are changing the relation of the individual to the government in this, what we can stipulate is, I think, a unique way, do you not have a heavy burden of justification to show authorization under the Constitution?”

Obama supporters thought that Justice Anthony Kennedy would be the one they would woo and win. Kennedy, they presumed, would be the blushing little girl they would get drunk then bed. Kennedy was that sweet old woman juror they would smile at and lightly flirt with to get their way. Kennedy was the ugly girl at the bar that with a few drinks, some time, some sweet words of praise, would surrender her belle chose to the rakes. But that shy sweet plain girl turned out to be the Wife of Bath.

Kennedy’s performance was shocking to those that thought the legal claims in opposition to Obama’s health scam were “frivolous”. These dolts watch MSNBC and thought it was impossible to stop the “big f*cking deal”. Many were like Chris Matthews: I’m pretty suprised to learn that the mandate might be unconstitutional.



But as can be read at that last link to Allahpundit, some on the right cannot believe they are seeing what they are seeing so they come up with their own version of “brilliant Obama”. The right wing version of “brilliant Obama” is that somehow Obama is so brilliant that he had his Solicitor General “throw the fight” at the court because Obama wants the court to throw out the health scam law for some three dimensional brilliant Obama chess playing. Rubbish.

Obama is a boob who thought the court would uphold his scam law, his badly written law. That’s why Obama wanted the court to rule in June of this year. Obama thought he could run on a popular law that the court would rule as constitutional this June. [For the record, Verrilli was not the worst performance by an Obama boob at the high court. That dubious distinction belongs to Elena Kagan who screwed up when arguing Citizens United and for banning books.]

Instead the law remains unpopular and the Supreme Court might, just might throw the whole crooked thing into the garbage bin. The right wing is often as bedazzled as the dumbest on the left with Obama. We think we are correct. Obama is a treacherous boob, who is capable of mucking up even the simplest of matters. If it wasn’t for Big Media protection Obama would be a house husband at the Rezko House while Michelle continued to engage in patient dumping schemes in Chicago.

In today’s article (Pelosi on ObamaCare: “We wrote our bill in a way that was constitutional”) the important Republican/conservative Allahpundit wittingly or unwittingly falls into the trap of Roberts intimidation:

“I think ultimately, rather than torpedo legislation this momentous on a 5-4 vote, he’ll err on the side of letting it stand if the opinion can be written narrowly enough to limit the decision to health insurance and nothing else. And once he makes that move, I think Roberts will join him for two reasons. One: I’m sure he’s sensitive to the grumbling about how divided and partisan the Court often seems, especially after he was confirmed promising to be a neutral “umpire.”

If anyone is throwing the fight it is Allahpundit by buying into the DailyKooks/Thrush intimidation of Roberts. While Roberts might join the majority to uphold the scam – that would only be a ploy to get to write the majority opinion and that would only be if Anthony Kennedy votes to uphold. But will Kennedy vote to uphold?

Allahpundit’s comrade, Ed Morrisey posts via Video: Why the White House should be afraid, very afraid, over the ObamaCare arguments this week:



Will Justice Kennedy vote to uphold (will Ted Kennedy attend the next Michelle Obama diet lecture?) the Obama health scam? The L.A. Times doesn’t think so because of the number, the targets, and types of questions Kennedy asked. Daniel Foster thinks it’s a goner too. The New York Times is busy whistling – through the graveyard – fingers crossed that what they heard this week is not what dear ol’ grandma Anthony Kennedy will really vote.

The Obama loving’ JournoListers believed their own phony nonsense. It was Rectal Myopia. What we urge the Allahpundits of the world to consider is that Justice Kennedy was not only asking questions this week, Justice Kennedy was engaged in something very usual and acknowledged by Supreme Court watchers: asking questions and making comments to influence his fellow Justices as to how they will vote.

Thus, Kennedy by positing that the most modest course for the high court if it strikes down the individual mandate provisions of the badly written law is to strike down the entire law rather than judicially legislate, – was verbalizing a legal brief for the Chief Justice to argue that a ruling striking down the entire Obama health scam law was the modest “umpire” thing to do. It’s a ballsy argument. You must have iron cojones to make this assertion but indeed that assertion was made. It was made by no longer “grandma” Kennedy:

“When you say judicial restraint, you are echoing the earlier premise that it increases the judicial power if the judiciary strikes down other provisions of the Act. I suggest to you it might be quite the opposite. We would be exercising the judicial power if one Act was — one provision was stricken and the others remained to impose a risk on insurance companies that Congress had never intended. By reason of this Court, we would have a new regime that Congress did not provide for, did not consider. That, it seems to me can be argued at least to be a more extreme exercise of judicial power than to strike -than striking the whole.

We don’t want anyone to forget that as tough as Justice Kennedy was on Tuesday while discussing the mandate provisions, Justice Kennedy was even more brutal on the third day when Medicaid was on the menu, according to SCOTUSblog:

“Perhaps the most threatening point for the Solicitor General’s argument, and for the Medicaid expansion itself, was a comment by Justice Kennedy — whose vote, as is so often true with a divided Court, might be crucial. Kennedy picked up on one of the points in Clement’s brief, that onerous conditions imposed in a federal grant program raised the threat that the people of a state would not know whom they could hold accountable if a state disobeyed a condition and lost its federal funding for an important public program.

That gave Kennedy an opportunity to talk about one of his favorite subjects: how the citizenry can know whom to blame when something goes awry in government, when the lines get blurred. “Does federalism require,” Kennedy asked, “that there be a relatively clear line of accountability for political acts? Is that subsumed in the coercion test, or is that an independent one” Verrilli conceded that the coercion test was related to concerns about threats to federalism. Kennedy responded that it was “necessary for the idea of federalism that there be a clear line of accountability so the citizen knows it’s the federal or the state government should be held responsible for the program.”

The seeming significance of that exchange was that, if Kennedy were persuaded that the coercion theory was, indeed, a part of the accountability equation, then he might well embrace it. It was not a promising moment for Verrilli.

One final point, and this one on Verrilli. It is agreed by most if not all that Verrilli stunk up the court this week. We don’t think that is particularly significant. It is Obama supporters trying to rationalize this week’s shocks at the high court by shooting the messenger. Again, here is SCOTUSblog (which supports the Obama health scam), on why not Verrilli but rather Kennedy will provide the rationale for whatever happens:

“If Justice Anthony M. Kennedy can locate a limiting principle in the federal government’s defense of the new individual health insurance mandate, or can think of one on his own, the mandate may well survive. If he does, he may take Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., and a majority along with him. But if he does not, the mandate is gone. That is where Tuesday’s argument wound up — with Kennedy, after first displaying a very deep skepticism, leaving the impression that he might yet be the mandate’s savior.”

Those that in 2008 thought Obama was the savior, the Mess-iah, are not exactly reassured by the mess Obama has made of their hope for change. This week Obama and his Hopium pickled kooks faced a death panel in black robes. As Charles Hurt wrote, it was a “Brutal week for Obama, the worst of his presidency”.

Hurt cites the hurts on Obama as his Trayvon Louis Gates moment, the hot microphone in South Korea displaying his treachery to come on missile defense, and “uniter” Obama getting a unanimous “NO” vote in the House of Representatives on his budget. Sneers Hurt: “Not that you will see any trace of embarrassment in the face of Mr. Obama. He has mastered the high political art of shamelessness, wearing it smugly and cockily. Kind of like a hoodie.”

Hurt does not mention that this week Big Pink stopped being a concern for a well known Republican writer as the realization dawns on Peggy Noonan: This Obama character seems increasingly dishonest and devious to me

It was a bad week for Obama because he and his scams are finally getting vetted. The ones doing the vetting on Obama scams are wearing black robes – or are those hoodies?

Share

277 thoughts on “Who, What, Why: The Most Staggering Argument Made This Week In The Supreme Court

  1. What will get the most comments here and on TV broadcasts – Trayvon Louis Gates, Keith Zimmerman, er, Olbermann, or the Supreme Court case?

  2. Wow, great post. I can’t help but hope that the S C will ride in on their white horses to rescue our republic.

  3. To accuse the Republican appointed judges of politics while Brennan, Ginsberg, Sotomayer and the wretched Kagan argued the case for the WH because they were too stupid to come up with a bill that would pass constitutional muster is rank hypocrisy. I honestly do not think most of the people making these desperate excuses listened to all of the arguments and are just pulling PR spin out of their ass. They can’t legislate, they can’t govern and they can’t argue, and they cannot face loosing like adults.

  4. They conducted the initial votes today and will assign opinion(s). It’s very hard to read too much into the actual decision based on oral argument.

  5. Great piece, admin. If Kennedy and Roberts are truly thinking anything like they are talking, then I believe they will strike the law. But it’s always possible their words are just laying the groundwork to show that they duly and judiciously considered the thing before they uphold.

    One thing that keeps coming to mind for me, about the attempts at public intimidation of SCOTUS (and I agree with you that that’s what it is), is the big mistake Obama made in publicly taking the court to task at that SOTU. That, and the current raging at SCOTUS, is playing with fire. It’s possible that one could intimidate the court – that could happen. But it’s also possible that one could push them to flex their power to remind the nation that they ARE the Supreme Court of the United States, and will rule as they see fit, not according to the whims of the press or the scoldings of the man-child in office.

  6. It is true that oral argument does not mean a particular result should be expected. What oral argument this week did accomplish was turn what was once thought the province of crazies into a plausible and legitimate argument. Even if the court were to uphold the entirety of the law this June the opponents have been provided fodder for further battle at the ballot box.

  7. About that hot mic situation, I am thinking it was planned and he did that to intimidate Israel. It was his way of saying don’t count on me.

  8. Admin, your commentary on this issue has been excellent, with the article tonight being the jewel in the crown, imo. Big Pink has been an extremely valuable resource, providing facts, insight, and a relevant look at the players and dynamics in and around this situation. Of course, the most entertaining aspect has been your descriptions of the rationalizations taking place by the Obamanuts, including MSM. They are swimming against the current in the river of Denial, destined, if not now, then soon, to plunge down the waterfall known as Reality Sucks.

    The ability of the Obama diehards, including the media, to explain away every failure and every shady, sleazy thing he does and says defies explanation. These people are pathetic and borderline unstable. But, at the same time, their zeal to protect him and to advance his agenda – whatever it is at any given time, depending upon who he’s talking to, is frightening.

  9. This is a very accurate analysis admin. Kennedy did alot of heavy lifting. This is a Marbury vs Madison moment for the court. It now becomes clear why the court did not force Kagen to recuse. I think the whole law has got to go for the reasons previously discussed. As far as being an honest empire, that does not mean calling a ball a strke to be fair to the black batter and claiming that is justice. Being an honest empire means calling a ball a ball, a fraud a fraud, and a violation of the constitution unconstitutional–which does not mean an end to the health care policy debate, but a new, constructive, constitutional beginning which draws it essence from Jefferson–not Marx (or Tauzin). Rosen is known to his peers as a piece of shit–and Kirkland Ellis is a Chicago firm–with a Washington dc office so in the Obama lexicon they are not the lobbyists he swore to drive from the temple (and into the basement of the White House so he could carve up the welfare of the American People and his campaign contributor can feed like pigs at the public trough. His critique is bare as a goats ass and long as a whores dream.

  10. Re: admin
    March 30th, 2012 at 6:27 pm
    ShortTermer we won’t delete your “accidental post”. We want to get you in trouble with Vladamir.

    That was funny. I would have a problem with Vladamir if I lived in his country, but I am in the same country as ObaMAO. I have a knack for riling people up just enough to at first make them mad at me, and then at night before they go to sleep, they ‘wonder’ all the what ifs of things I related to them, so it should be ObaMAO that I might get in trouble with as I have a big bone to pick with him. A case in point is the CrossRoads ad; I did post it on my FB commuity page. I saw a reaction that someone married to one of my cousins wrote on someone else’s post…and she said that she was not kin to that ‘part’ of the state. If she is going to let ObaMAO piss on my little ones, then I care less if she is pissed off, actually I love it.

    “…I transmit this information to Vladamir”

  11. I think oral arguments have multiple purposes. I do think they are used to shell the beach head for what may become the opinion of the court. They are also designed to persuade colleagues. They are also used to signal the sub issues that give the court concern. Sometimes, as in the case of Kagen, they are intended to blunt the legal argument being advanced by Clement–except it backfired in a major way. The Supreme Court is well aware of the fact that the bill is very unpopular with the American People, that it was passed strictly on party lines, nobody read it before they voted and it will cost twice as much as they told us. And while they will not look specifically to those issues, they are part of the res gestae.

  12. If the Court were to uphold the individual mandate as Constitutional, that would not preclude opponents from raising constitutional questions about the remaining provisions—like for example the contraceptive issue. That is yet another reason to strike down this toxic piece of legislation, and start afresh, with a bi partisan bill the congress reads and debates prior to passage.

  13. Wbboei, Rosen has an article out in which he says if Verilli had followed his brother in law’s (Rosen’s brother in law) advice it would have been a slam dunk for Obamacare. We won’t invoke the 8th Amendment and will present the Rosen story here for you to suffer through:

    http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/102203/supreme-court-obamacare-verrilli

    ” Instead, Verrilli’s error was substantive: He failed squarely to answer Roberts and Kennedy’s repeated questions about what limits he envisioned to Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce. Verrilli’s evasions weren’t only unhelpful—they were also unnecessary.

    There is, in fact, a persuasive limiting principle that would allow the Court to uphold health care without endorsing the unbounded federal power that concerns Kennedy and Roberts. It appeared in a Supreme Court brief filed by the government during the lower court proceedings in the eleventh circuit health care challenge that is now being reviewed by the Supreme Court. (Disclosure: the brief was filed by my brother in law, Neal Katyal, then the Acting Solicitor General.) The answer also appears in Supreme Court briefs filed by states including Maryland and California and by law professors including Barry Friedman and Matthew Adler. But it doesn’t appear in the briefs for the United States that Verrilli filed before the Supreme Court—perhaps because he viewed it as too conservative in its attempt to persuade the conservative justices that the framers of the Constitution would have allowed the regulation of health care.

    The limiting principle goes something like this: In previous cases denying Congress the power to regulate local activities such as guns in schools or violence against women, the Court has drawn a distinction between activity that is truly local and activity that is truly national, in the sense that the states aren’t able effectively to regulate the activity on their own. When it comes to violence against women or guns in schools, states arguably have the will and the resources to respond to these problems.

    But when it comes to providing insurance guarantees for the uninsured, any state would be worse off if it tried to solve the problem on its own, because it would end up attracting uninsured people from other states seeking to take advantage of its benefits. Because states know this in advance, most don’t even try to solve the fundamental problems of health care coverage. Indeed, Representative McGovern of Massachusetts—the only state to pass a universal mandate—made a similar argument during the congressional debate over the Affordable Care Act when he said that a national mandate would free Massachusettes from being “forced to subsidize through higher premiums and higher Medicare and Medicaid costs the uncompensated care of people in other states who do not have health insurance.” [snip]

    In addition to having been endorsed by the Supreme Court in 1937, this principle is also deeply rooted in the original understanding of the Constitution. As Neil S. Siegel of Duke University argues in a forthcoming article about the health care mandate and original understanding, “the Commerce Clause is best understood in light of the collective action problems that the nation faced under the Articles of Confederation, when Congress lacked the power to regulate interstate commerce.” Siegel argues that “to over-come failures to participate in collective action whose effects spill across state borders, the clauses of Article I, Section 8 authorize Congress to require various kinds of private action.”

    Conservative justices, who care about the text, history, and original understanding of the Constitution, might have been persuaded by this argument about how the framers wanted Congress to be able to regulate economic free riders. And it would have provided a convincing answer to their hypothetical questions about why the government can’t regulate broccoli, or burials, or cell phones. Unlike affordable health care, the problems of providing healthy food, or burials, or emergency response are ones that a state can solve on its own without becoming a magnet to people from other states.

    Is it possible that Rosen does not know that Social Security was not a Commerce Clause case???????

  14. Social Security was a Spending Clause case:

    http://www.ssa.gov/history/court.html

    Preparing a report and transforming that report into a law, while heroic in scope in many ways, is not always the end of the story. Even though the Social Security Act was enacted into law on August 14, 1935, the country still had to hear from the Supreme Court. This was a new untested area of federal authority and it was inevitable that it would be challenged in the courts, and until the Supreme Court ruled, no one could be sure that the nascent Social Security Act would survive its infancy.

    The constitutional basis of the Social Security Act was uncertain. The basic problem is that under the “reserve clause” of the Constitution (the 10th Amendment) powers not specifically granted to the federal government are reserved for the States or the people. When the federal government seeks to expand its influence in new areas it must find some basis in the Constitution to justify its action. Obviously, the Constitution did not specifically mention the operation of a social insurance system as a power granted to the federal government! The Committee on Economic Security (CES) struggled with this and was unsure whether to claim the commerce clause or the broad power to levy taxes and expend funds to “provide for the general welfare,” as the basis for the programs in the Act. Ultimately, the CES opted for the taxing power as the basis for the new program, and the Congress agreed, but how the courts would see this choice was very much an open question.

  15. Holy smokes admin, I have so many links to read to understand the scope of your great post.

    Watching Fringe so I will be caught up tomorrow.

    I am one of the only ones that enjoy that WI smacked their lame ass governor in the back of the head and said his taking union rights away is unconstitutional! Yeehaw.

  16. Mrs. Smith you mentioned in the previous post about the stolen MasterCard and Visa information.

    YOU ALL NEED TO BE CAREFUL and check with your credit card companies. I was at work yesterday morning (Friday) and my husband called me and said that the WalMart billing department had just called and wanted to make sure I was the one who had charged $455 on my MasterCard (online) and wanted to pick up the purchase in person at a WalMart store in Florida. My husband told the WalMart person he didn’t think it was me (we live in Washington State) but he would check. The purchase had been made at 9:00 a.m. that morning (6:00 a.m. Washington state time) and it was a laptop purchase. I, of course, called WalMart billing and told them it wasn’t me so they cancelled the purchase and the pickup immediately and asked me to call my credit card company which was my bank. They said they had deliberately pushed the pickup time back so that they could call to make sure it was a legitimate purchase.

    I think the purchase was made so early in the morning my time so that they could pick up the item and leave with it before it was a reasonable time to call someone on the opposite coast. This was very strange for me because I very rarely use the card because it is a debit/MasterCard. I’ll use it once every couple of months for something like a grocery store purchase. The thing is they had ALL of my information, including the three digit number on the back of the card and then this morning I read about all the information that was stolen. Then later today, I received new Visa cards from our Bank of America Visa-Alaska Airline with a letter stating that information had been compromised.

    I would have had $455 taken directly out of my checking account by WalMart if they hadn’t called to double check. They said it would have been ten days to two weeks to put that money back in my checking account if that purchase had gone through. Good thing I could of afforded it but there are a lot of people out there that wouldn’t have been able to. So be careful everyone and double check your credit card statements. I live out in the middle of NoWhere’s Ville and my credit card information was compromised and it can happen to you.

  17. Wasn’t the great Barry the King of Frauds supposed to be a Constitutional scholar?

    What a freakin’ joke…just like being the winner of the Peace Prize before he had time to even earn it.

  18. BTW admin, loved the humor in tonights post…young girl vs the old woman in the jury…priceless.

  19. NewMexicoFan, in brief, auto insurance is not a mandate. Auto insurance is required if you drive a car. The issues involved in health care are not implicated because the states have a constitutional right to do this because the constitution enumerates the powers the federal government has – the rest belong to the states or the individual.

    Auto insurance is often used as a good examples to explain the way insurance works as a way to spread costs. The population that drives has to purchase and costs come down (risky drivers pay more). Auto insurance however is not an example as to the constitutional questions re the commerce clause etc. States can do all sorts of things the federal government is proscribed from doing.

  20. Wbboei, Rosen has an article out in which he says if Verilli had followed his brother in law’s (Rosen’s brother in law) advice it would have been a slam dunk for Obamacare. We won’t invoke the 8th Amendment and will present the Rosen story here for you to suffer through:
    ——————————
    Yes, its all about Rosen. I am not sure it is relevant that the man who defined the limiting principle which Rosen claims is the key to the kingdom is his brother-in-law. But to Rosen, evidently, it is. This confirms what I have heard about him. A legend in his mind. He makes a big to do that Verilli did not raise the point in oral argument or his briefs. Question: does that mean the Supreme Court cannot raise it sua sponte if it is as dispositive as he thinks it is? Of course not. The real motive from Rosen is to tell the world he is smart, to tell the world that it runs in his family, and to be in a position where he does not have to admit his judgment was wrong because he fully intends to blame Verilli.

    But let us take his argument on the merits. Rosen thinks he has found the Holy Grail of a limiting principle. It is a variation on Lenin’s argument for world revolution–if we only have it in Russia the bankers will flee to other countries. States cannot do it on their own because of the insurance problem of adverse selection. Therefore the federal government must act, and in doing so, its actions are ipso facto necessary and proper. Kudos to the brother in law.

    Now, tell me how this answers the other half of the problem, i.e. the individual mandate. Assume arguendo that he is right and congress has the power to regulate health care. Does that mean they can compel individuals who refuse to engage in commerce to do so? And if the answer to that question is yes, then there is no discernible limiting principle on the power of congress to force individuals to buy what they want them to buy.

    , so congress can regulate it? that does not mean, ipso facto, that congress can compel individuals who elect to not engage in commerce to suddenly do so, so Congress can regulate them.

  21. NewMexicoFan, in brief, auto insurance is not a mandate. Auto insurance is required if you drive a car. The issues involved in health care are not implicated because the states have a constitutional right to do this because the constitution enumerates the powers the federal government has – the rest belong to the states or the individual.
    —————————–
    Correct. Obama care is like saying even though you do not own a car, you must pay auto insurance, because at some point in your life you may drive one, you could get in an accident, and in the meantime you need to cross subsidize those who do own a car and drive so their premiums do not go up too quickly and the insurance companies get rich.

  22. admin: What will get the most comments here and on TV broadcasts – Trayvon Louis Gates, Keith Zimmerman, er, Olbermann, or the Supreme Court case?
    ———————–
    First let me say I’m so grateful for hillaryis44. With intellect, compassion, an open mind and humor, this place is a place to grow. It exemplifies Hillary, honors her.

    admin – I’ve got an entirely different topic. Heard it early last evening on NBC and one other. This morning, not so much, but googling “bales others” at this time returns back 4 entries similar to this:

    U.S. soldier accused of killing 17 Afghan villagers ‘had many accomplices’, survivors of massacre claim
    Pentagon insists Staff Sgt Robert Bales did not have any accomplices
    Mother-of-six who lost husband insists up to 20 U.S. soldiers involved
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2122587/U-S-soldier-accused-killing-17-Afghan-villagers-did-act-accomplices.html

  23. There are two versions of what happened the night of March 11, when 17 Afghan villagers were shot to death, msnbc.com reports.

    First, the Army version: Staff Sgt. Robert Bales, troubled by marriage woes, drunkenly left Camp Belambai, 12 miles from Kandahar, with a pistol and an automatic rifle and killed six people as they slept. Bales then returned to the base and left again for another village, this time killing 11. He acted alone and he admitted to the killings, according to the Army.

    Then there is the account that child witnesses provided Yalda Hakim, a journalist for SBS Dateline in Australia. Hakim, who was born in Afghanistan and immigrated to Australia as a child, is the first international journalist to interview the surviving witnesses. She said American investigators tried to prevent her from interviewing the children, saying her questions could traumatize them. She said she appealed to village leaders, who arranged for her to interview the witnesses.

    In the video, the children told Hakim that other Americans were present during the rampage, holding flashlights in the yard.
    snip
    http://www.king5.com/news/Child-witnesses-to-Afghan-massacre-say-Robert-Bales-was-not-alone-145029125.html

  24. Admin, I did suffer through Rosen’s explanation — I think the gist of it is that the states can’t handle it alone so the feds have to step in. I don’t think it answers one of the main considerations for Kennedy namely accountability between state and federal when the lines get blurred (disclaimer: I am not a lawyer but I picked this up reading Althouse and it made an impression on me about how well written the constitution is).

  25. This ought to tell us why Obama/Nancy cabal dropped the severability clause.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/03/wall-steet-thinks-it-knows-the-future-of-obamacare-why/255244/

    It’s not just Aetna. UnitedHealth Group, Humana, and Wellpoint are all up between 2 and 5 percent on the day too. What’s going on?

    One reasonable conclusion is that Wall Street’s betting that Obamacare will either be struck down in its entirety or upheld in its entirety. Both would be very, very good news for healthcare companies. The death of the individual mandate, alone, would be bad news for Big Insurance.

  26. That is yet another reason to strike down this toxic piece of legislation, and start afresh, with a bi partisan bill the congress reads and debates prior to passage.

    =======================

    Obviously with the current congress nothing would get done. Hard cases make bad law … stand?

    Or are the Republicans in congress all in cahoots such that they’d pass some bill more to their own liking, after more or less saying for the last coupld of years that we don’t need no stinking UHC at all?

  27. oUR REAL potus hillary IS OUT IN THE WORLD WORKING AND MENDING FENCES.Mean time the messiah is organizing a civil unrest and protest fundraisers for his stash parties with their hand held out.Barnum was right and BO is in for a big surprise when real patriots led by HILLARY take Public Schedule: Public Schedule for March 31, 2012
    03/31/2012 08:41 AM EDT

    Public Schedule for March 31, 2012

    Public Schedule
    Washington, DC

    March 31, 2012

    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
    PUBLIC SCHEDULE
    SATURDAY, MARCH 31, 2012

    SECRETARY HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON

    Secretary Clinton is on foreign travel to Riyadh, Saudi Arabia and Istanbul, Turkey through April 1. The Secretary is accompanied by Assistant Secretary Feltman, Assistant Secretary Shapiro, Director Sullivan, VADM Harry B. Harris, Jr., CJCS, Puneet Talwar, Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director, NSS. Please click here for more information.

    9:20 a.m. LOCAL Secretary Clinton meets with Embassy Riyadh staff and their families, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
    (CLOSED PRESS COVERAGE)

    10:00 a.m. LOCAL Secretary Clinton meets with Qatari Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jabor Al Thani, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
    (POOLED CAMERA SPRAY PRECEDING MEETING)

    12:30 p.m. LOCAL Secretary Clinton attends the Gulf Cooperation Council-U.S. Strategic Cooperation Forum Ministerial, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
    (OPEN PRESS COVERAGE FOR REMARKS)

    2:40 p.m. LOCAL Secretary Clinton attends the Gulf Cooperation Council-U.S. Strategic Cooperation Forum Luncheon, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
    (CLOSED PRESS COVERAGE)

    3:50 p.m. LOCAL Secretary Clinton holds a joint press availability with GCC Chairman and Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
    (OPEN PRESS COVERAGEback our great but wounded Democracy.

  28. Obama care is like saying even though you do not own a car, you must pay auto insurance, because at some point in your life you may drive one, you could get in an accident [….]

    ========================

    I’m afraid not. We all already drive a body, all the time, and eventually every body breaks down. And having a lot of unhealthy, untreated people dragging around isn’t good for us healthy ones, either.

    (Not defending Obamacare specifically: Hillarycare had a mandate too. I’d like to see the whole Ocare thrown out and pieces of HIllarycare established one at a time, after discussion and fair voting. Or some Single Payer system, though that’s unlikely.)

  29. admin, wbboei

    Thanks for the explaination. I learn more on this blog than I ever did in my Civics class so long ago. But then I was young and innocent.

  30. I not going to even try to guess what the final out come from the SC will be, but I am enjoying the bots with their pantie’s in a wade, smug bastards payback can be a bitch.

  31. Bravo admin-

    Well written and well done- your examples alluding to the journolisto’s crystal ball predictions from both sides of the political divide augmented by the specter of failure by Obama’s dream team provided a notable overview for us laying out exactly where we stand for anyone keeping score.
    ________________

    “The idea they are operating from precedent can’t pass the laugh test, especially after Bush v. Gore. The country is dividing along the same ideological and political lines this time, and so is the court,” Klarman said.”
    ___________

    Noting Justice Roberts when making his grand entrance into the court preferred a minimum of costume flourishes if any at all. The simplicity of Vera Wang rather than Rehnquist’s Lord Chancellor’s costume, Racing Stripes.

    That in itself was an encouraging sign. The People may stand a chance, logic may trump partisan affiliation even though Chief Justice Rehnquist also led the Court toward a more limited view of Congressional power under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

    For example, he wrote for a 5-to-4 majority in United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995), striking down a federal law as exceeding congressional power under the Clause.

    admin- how much weight would Rehnquist’s decision have on the current debate?

  32. yheitman
    March 31st, 2012 at 1:03 am

    Mrs. Smith you mentioned in the previous post about the stolen MasterCard and Visa information.
    _____________________

    The troubling thing to me is… why is this still happening. It’s been a number of years since the first break was reported into a particular merchant’s *safe and secure* website or a brick and mortar store-front’s payment hardware with your credit card. I just don’t get it how this continues to happen when according to the article I posted, the theft had gone on undetected for almost a month?

  33. Another piece of evidence (via the Crawdads) for the claim of anti-Roberts/Kennedy intimidation thuggery in our article:

    http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/102204/supreme-court-roberts-kennedy-health-mandate-legitimacy

    Before this week, the well-being of tens of millions of Americans was at stake in the lawsuits challenging the Affordable Care Act.

    Now something else is at stake, too: The legitimacy of the Supreme Court. [snip]

    With the result apparently in doubt—smart money still says the chances of the full law surviving are about 50-50—Kennedy should think long and hard about how he wants the Court to rule. So should Chief Justice John Roberts, who appeared more skeptical of the government’s case during oral arguments but nevertheless indicated that he, like Kennedy, understood the government’s premise—that health care was a special market, perhaps requiring special intervention.

    If that concern is not enough to sway the chief justice, than perhaps his frequently professed concern for the court’s respectability will.

    Even now, I have trouble wrapping my mind around what I saw in the courtroom this week and what a majority of the justices may be contemplating. Kennedy’s second question, the one that so unnerved supports of the law, was whether the government had “a heavy burden of justification to show authorization under the Constitution.” But the heavy burden in this case is on the justices threatening to strike down health care reform. They have not met it.

  34. Great week of posts, admin!
    The thuggery & intimidation the Dems are trying to pull over SCOTUS is scary.

  35. Something for all of us to remember when making an argument is addressed in this article asking “Why Did Legal Elites Underestimate the Case Against the Mandate?”:

    http://volokh.com/2012/03/30/why-did-legal-elites-underestimate-the-case-against-the-mandate/

    Another factor that contributes to this problem is the relative lack of ideological diversity within legal academia. The current Supreme Court has a right-leaning majority, but legal academia leans decidedly to the left. On many faculties their are few, if any, professors with any particular appreciation or understanding (let alone sympathy) for the jurisprudential views of a majority of the current justices. This means that when ideas are floated in the faculty lounge, they may get a far more sympathetic hearing than they would ever receive in court. So, for instance, it’s easy for Jack Balkin to dismiss an argument premised on Bailey v. Drexel Furniture because it’s a Lochner-era decision, even though Bailey remains good law. A practicing lawyer would have been less likely to make this mistake. Indeed, the SG actually cited Bailey approvingly this week in his argument before the Court.

    In teaching our students to be effective lawyers it is important that we teach them how to understand opposing legal arguments on their own terms. Effective appellate attorneys are conscious of this problem and devote substantial energy trying to get inside the minds of their opponents. As I’ve heard Paul Clement (among others) explain, you can’t effectively advocate your own position until you truly understand the other side. This can be difficult to do, particularly when we have strong feelings about a subject. Someone who believes the PPACA is a long-overdue step toward remedying the profound injustices of the American health care system is not predisposed to embrace arguments that the PPACA is unconstitutional. And if those same academics both lack colleagues with opposing points of view and have no particular professional interest in making sure they fairly consider the other side, it is easy for them to overlook the strength of opposing arguments and reduce them to caricatures. Ridiculing the need for a limiting principle or other anti-mandate arguments may get approving nods in the faculty lounge, but, as we saw this week, it won’t receive an equally warm welcome in court.

    The comments are pretty darn good too and worth considering.

  36. Admin, that piece by Cohn that you linked at crawdad’s is pissing me off. Cohn is claiming that SCOTUS has to meet, in addition to a majority, an additional bar of moral authority. I had this to say over there:

    he very reasoning Cohn uses as to why a narrow court decision of 5-4 would be bad applies also to Obamacare itself! Never in the history of this country has a huge, sweeping piece of legislation that permanently alters the daily lives of every single American in intimate ways been passed on an ENTIRELY PARTISAN basis over the furious objections of the majority of the country.

    So let me rewrite the end of his piece for him, with a few word substitutions:

    The Congress’ authority in these cases derived, in part, from their moral authority. A closely divided Congress made that impossible.
    Virtually everybody agrees that the vote to pass the Affordable Care Act was a bare majority, achieved by bypassing reconciliation, shutting out the Senate and normal debate . And it was a bare partisan majority, with the Democrats overruling the Republican Congresspersons by arm-twisting and intimidation of its own members. The decision would appear nakedly partisan and utterly devoid of principle. Appearances would not be deceiving.

    Cohn wishes to have his cake and eat it too. He wants to rely on “technically within their power” for the manner in which the law was passed by Congress – no moral authority needed. We tortured the system til we had a bare majority, and we passed it, so too feckin’ bad. But he wants to say that SCOTUS cannot strike it down without having, in addition to a bare majority, also a nebulous “moral authority”.

    The more I think about that, the more Cohn’s hypocrisy burns me up. It’s ok to take over 1/6 of the economy with a sweeping piece of legislation almost everyone hates, and millions protested, because Congress had the technical authority to do so, so we should all shut up and accept it.

    But SCOTUS operating within their technical authority to strike it down would be a huge moral failing, and while legal, would be egregiously outside the spirit of their charter and responsibility to the people.

    Screw you, Cohn, and your moving goalposts with you. You weren’t concerned about “moral authority” when we were Cornhusker kickbacking and Louisiana purchasing and bypassing the Senate and passing things in the dead of night on fecking Christmas Eve, now were you? A bare majority was just fine and dandy, then – no moral authority needed.

  37. I really hope this PO$ legislation is thrown out. It should have been been done piecemeal and with input from both sides. Not rammed down America’s throats.

    Even if the Supreme Ct upholds this garbage of a law, the law itself will be overturned as more and more people lose choices, lose medicare via more rationing, people will not be able to “keep their plan/doctor if they like it”. And, really how can they even enforce this law, especially in terms of fines for not buying a private product, there will not be enough IRS agents to fine those people, or jailcells to confine these people in.

    There are legitimate concerns that need to be fixed, what was done didn’t fix anything, it made it worse!

    As for the intimidation, I wonder if the justices are intimidated, then again they did vote on Bush v Gore (and Gore, what an idiot he’s turned out to be), Kennedy sounded very sharp in some of those soundbites.

    Either way, this law will not stand under its own weight. Either reform it now or we all will have to suffer under it before its overturned and reformed.

  38. tim
    March 31st, 2012 at 11:23 am
    —————————–
    It is amazing that it takes someone who is this close minded to sound off on his show to get PM to finally wake up. My problem with this is this Torre (or Robspierre for short) is merely saying what people like Tim Kaine are thinking when they are doing their own race baiting of Tea Parties without any substantiating evidence. This is where leftists like PM and BMW are lost at sea. Once you head down their path, and revel in the issue of race–and that by the way is the official policy of both CNN and NBC–which is easily proven if you examine the record as a whole, there is no limiting principle here either. It is the old slippery slope they talk about and shame on them for taking this little bullshit artist to task. They created him, they gave him an audience, and now they set him up as a straw man so they can argue that they are different, when the hard point of the matter is they are not. He simply carries the latent racism of Brian Williams to a more demonstrable level.

  39. Where’s the outrage….

    http://www.katu.com/news/national/7-California-boys-arrested-in-attack-on-teen-145286335.html

    PALMDALE, Calif. (AP) – Seven black teens have been arrested on suspicion that they committed a hate crime when they attacked a 15-year-old Hispanic boy while he was walking home from school in Southern California, according to the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Office.

    The March 14 beating in Palmdale was captured on video and posted on YouTube, but has since been removed from the site. The seven boys, ages 13 to 16, were arrested Wednesday for investigation of assault and committing a hate crime, Lt. Don Ford said.

    The attack happened near Cactus Middle School, but Ford didn’t know if any of the teens involved were students there.

    The video shows as many as 10 boys surrounding the victim and challenging him to a fight. The suspects then began hitting the teen while others watched.

    During the beating, the teens made racially derogatory statements that were captured on the video, Ford said.

    After the victim fell to the ground, the assailants kicked him multiple times in the head, knocked out several teeth and left shoe impressions on his skin, Ford said.

    The victim was able to get to his feet and escape the onslaught, and will need to undergo dental surgery.

    The teens who were arrested were identified from the video, which was discovered by a Palmdale sheriff’s deputy and has been retained for evidence. Authorities are not releasing the video.

    Police are seeking three more suspects.

    An arraignment date has not been set yet.

  40. …one of the big ironies of this Obamahealthcare is it isn’t really about health care at all…frankly it puts our health care in the crossroads of politics…

    …if this was a real honest discussion about healthcare we would be discussing the actual condition of healthcare…excessive drugs and surgeries prescribed to mask and divert from a better, holistic approach to one’s health…often what is considered ‘traditional/corporate’ medicine in fact makes the patient worse…

    btw…I have many friends that are doctors and would never follow or agree to some of the traditional advice and procedures considered normal by corporate medicine…sure it is part of the “system,”, but they know better when it comes to their own health…(this discussion could go on and on…just the psychotropic drugs they foist upon children and teens these days should be criminal)

    …we instead how have our ‘health’ being debated as the ‘Commerce Clause vs the limitation of the Federal govt’ this is really where Ocare has taken us…that alone should tell you alot…this is about money and control…not healthcare…not to mention having the IRS supervising the whole thing and intruding more into our personal lives…

    …as for O and all his shocked…shocked I tell you…supporters who cannot believe that the Supreme Court would have the audacity to question their wisdom…well, again, chaulk it up to O’s arrogant overconfidence…

    ***********************************

    Wbboei @12:24 said:

    The Supreme Court is well aware of the fact that the bill is very unpopular with the American People, that it was passed strictly on party lines, nobody read it before they voted and it will cost twice as much as they told us. And while they will not look specifically to those issues, they are part of the res gestae.

    Bingo…well said…

    …well said: “He has mastered the high political art of shamelessness, wearing it smugly and cockily. Kind of like a hoodie.”
    *************

  41. Before this week, the well-being of tens of millions of Americans was at stake in the lawsuits challenging the Affordable Care Act.

    Now something else is at stake, too: The legitimacy of the Supreme Court. [snip]

    With the result apparently in doubt—smart money still says the chances of the full law surviving are about 50-50—Kennedy should think long and hard about how he wants the Court to rule. So should Chief Justice John Roberts, who appeared more skeptical of the government’s case during oral arguments but nevertheless indicated that he, like Kennedy, understood the government’s premise—that health care was a special market, perhaps requiring special intervention.

    If that concern is not enough to sway the chief justice, than perhaps his frequently professed concern for the court’s respectability will.

    Even now, I have trouble wrapping my mind around what I saw in the courtroom this week and what a majority of the justices may be contemplating. Kennedy’s second question, the one that so unnerved supports of the law, was whether the government had “a heavy burden of justification to show authorization under the Constitution.” But the heavy burden in this case is on the justices threatening to strike down health care reform. They have not met it.
    —————————–
    After reading this horse shit, I have a question or two:

    1. who is this fucking cohen and who the hell does he think he is

    2. he claims to have trouble wrapping his brain around what happened at the supreme court. I take him at is word. But the problem is not the judicial proceeding it is his brain. He has none. Assumes facts not in evidence.

    3. I marvel at a mind that sees Obama care as the ONLY alternative to the status quo. There are a myriad of other options, and everyone who has a brain understands that. And those other options do not involve sweetheart deals with insurance companies, death panels, violation of religious freedom, doubling projected costs, and a dismissal of liberty.

    4. Nor do they require a corruption of the legislative process to get them passed, strictly on partisan lines. If they have merit, then they can be read by the Members of Congress prior to voting, debateds, and amendments attacked. That may take longer, but the resulting legislation will then have stability, whereas this one does not. If you think that holding the mandate constitutional will end future litigation on its substantive terms then you have not thought this through.

    5. Ergo, the real issue at stake here is not the legitimacy of the Supreme Court, but the sanity of Cohen–and it does not require a competency hearing to make that determination. All we need to do is take the man at his world–if he really believes what he has written.

    6. Given the myriad of alternatives, we all know what the real issue is here–and it is NOT health care. It is power–government power over the states and individuals. It is the path to serfdom. Cohen fancies that when the smoke clears he will be one of the commissars who survives. Don’t count on it.

  42. still experiementing with bold above

    ******************

    Mrs. Smith
    March 31st, 2012 at 10:25 am
    yheitman
    March 31st, 2012 at 1:03 am

    Mrs. Smith you mentioned in the previous post about the stolen MasterCard and Visa information.
    _____________________

    The troubling thing to me is… why is this still happening. It’s been a number of years since the first break was reported into a particular merchant’s *safe and secure* website or a brick and mortar store-front’s payment hardware with your credit card. I just don’t get it how this continues to happen when according to the article I posted, the theft had gone on undetected for almost a month?

    *************************

    true, not to mention that identity theft is on the increase…AND not only is identity theft spreading, now we have the IRS giving out refunds to the thieves and frankly the IRS has no real answers on how to stop it…one of the culprits being refunds given via debit cards directly to the thieves and then the person who it belongs to has to go through hoops to get their own refund money back…(and Ocare wants to put the IRS as the big brother of our healthcare

    Florida I believe was noted as being # 1 for identity theft…(you can always count on there being a ‘Florida’ connection to all these scandalous stories…every time)

  43. Wbboei, what I love the most is how this jackass imposes an additional standard of “moral legitimacy and bi-partisanship” on the court, but applies no such standard to the Congress that passed this entirely partisan piece of crap in the dead of night.

  44. HillaryforTexas
    March 31st, 2012 at 12:41 pm

    Yep, it was passed December 24th, 1 day before christmas, 6 hours before the actual bill was printed out. Who the hell can read a 2700+ page bill in 6 hours?

  45. HillaryforTexas: agreed.

    Have you noticed that the entire attack upon the court, and on specific justices, after this case was first filed has come solely and exclusively from the left. (Note: Charles Freid is no exception, for the reason previously noted). Part of the reason for this is because the right and center are the ones appealing this case. But it began with New York Times attacks on Justice Kennedy after the case was first filed, and now it has shifted to the Chief Justice. I doubt it will have much impact, because the court knows these are hyper partisan elites who live in a cloistered existence, and are not in touch with the public at large–who by a 2-1 majority hates this bill. And, in the course of its deliberations, Nano’s point about not wanting the court to have to go through the entire 2700 page miasma to assess its legitimacy, and to anticipate all the future constitutional questions which its ambiguous, and unconstitutional provisions will raise. I am quite sure that Kagen will siddle up to the justices and make some impassioned plea that we cannot let this legislation go down because it would embarrass Obama, it being the only “achievement” he can point to in his re-election campaign. Would she say something that blunt. I think she might. And assuming she did, there is but one proper response. We (the Court) are not in the business of defeating or re-electing presidents, but if he and his fellow travelers and campaign contributors wrote and passed a bill which is unconstitutional, then it is not the role of the Supreme Court to save them, regardless of what Rosen Cohen and Tribe would have you believe.

  46. And assuming she did, there is but one proper response. We (the Court) are not in the business of defeating or re-electing presidents, but if he and his fellow travelers and campaign contributors wrote and passed a bill which is unconstitutional, then it is not the role of the Supreme Court to save them, regardless of what Rosen Cohen and Tribe would have you believe.

    What? Sanity? Go on!

  47. ROTFL! Might be a little problem with that VP pick….

    I love Bob McDonnell, but we’re going to have a problem if he’s the VP nominee… Romney-McDonnell? #PassTheMcNuggets
    Brent Teichman (@BrentTeichman) March 31, 2012

  48. tim
    March 31st, 2012 at 12:52 pm
    HillaryforTexas
    March 31st, 2012 at 12:41 pm

    Yep, it was passed December 24th, 1 day before christmas, 6 hours before the actual bill was printed out. Who the hell can read a 2700+ page bill in 6 hours?
    ***********************

    Tim…that’s the crux of this whole mess…here we are arguing if it is “constitutional” and not even the people that passed it have read it…insanity is too kind…

    Is this anyway to run a country that is on the brink of bankruptcy?

    and only to find “Trillions…that is Trillions $$$ of more “surprises” are suddenly being found tucked into this mishmosh…

    …they need to get rid of the whole thing and start from the beginning without all those convenient secret deals that O orchestrated that do nothing for us, the American people…

  49. S, a smart thing to do would be to counter the idea pushed by the Obots that anyone opposed to Obamacare wants NOTHING done for healthcare, and wants people dying in the streets.

    I can suggest a slogan for signs, teeshirts, etc:

    Healthcare: START OVER.

  50. Apart from its unconstitutionality, its destruction of liberty, we now find that Obamacare will cost us exponentially more that what Obama told us–it will break the bank due to unfunded liabities that amount to 17 trillion dollars.

    Three excellent reasons to kill the monster, now then its throat is on the chopping block. The proponents have no idea what they are doing to the country.

    http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/1539292778001/gop-discovers-17t-funding-gap-in-health-care-law/?playlist_id=933116663001

  51. agree Tim and HFT…and isn’t there that little thing about the healthcare legislation imposes a 3.8% transaction tax on profits over the capitol gains threshold

    http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/realestate.asp

    wbboei “The proponents have no idea what they are doing to the country.”

    wbboei…they not only do not know what they are doing, they do not care…it is all about winning and stealing more control and money for their side…

    this is one place where Shorttermer and I completely agree…what happens to the generations coming…how is any of this sustainable…and for me…just the very idea that the IRS is involved – in our healthcare – is enough for me to know this is wrong, wrong, wrong…it is like the stranglehold of an octupus put on us…

    …and all those millions and millions of $$$ they are planning on spending to INCREASE the IRS so they can oversee this mess … and spy on other aspects of our lives…

  52. We (the Court) are not in the business of defeating or re-electing presidents, but if he and his fellow travelers and campaign contributors wrote and passed a bill which is unconstitutional, then it is not the role of the Supreme Court to save them [….]

    =====================

    And, for that matter, the Court is not in the business of giving people healthcare. If they throw this version out and Congress cannot agree on replacing it, too bad.

    Send it back to the drawing board — and maybe we need a new drawing board too. (though that’s not the Court’s job either.)

  53. “But the problem is not the judicial proceeding it is his brain. He has none. Assumes facts not in evidence.”

    LOL! I’m so glad you’re back.

    “3. I marvel at a mind that sees Obama care as the ONLY alternative to the status quo. There are a myriad of other options, and everyone who has a brain understands that. And those other options do not involve sweetheart deals with insurance companies, death panels, violation of religious freedom, doubling projected costs, and a dismissal of liberty.”

    Right. Many nations comparable to the US have got UHC with better results, and less opposition. There are many different approaches that work (when honestly applied). And — there’s Hillarycare.

  54. tim
    March 31st, 2012 at 11:28 am
    Oh my. Even a lefty like Piers Morgan calls out an MSDNC race baiter.

    ***********************

    Tim, it is amazing with what Toure, Sharpton, Spike Lee, Barr,the New Black Panthers and others are able to say and get away with…I realize there is the First Amendment, that’s not what I am getting at…it is the blatant reverse racism…the hate they spew towards everyone besides their side…to listen to them you can hear such contempt for anyone white…

    they keep saying it is time for an honest discussion about race and yet they only attack with a onesided perspective…former NAACP leader, Bryant makes honest points…

    http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/26/former-naacp-leader-accuses-sharpton-and-jackson-of-exploiting-trayvon-martin/

    to hear Sharpton talk you would think there is no such thing…if they cannot be honest, they are doing more to hurt race relations…

    all this victim talk….what about all the (black and white) young girls and mothers that disappear or are found dead and raped…every day we hear about another one…regardless if a white or black person is responsible…

    where is the outcry for the young girls and women that killed?

  55. So, Barry and his minions say if the PO$ law is thrown out, its good for Barry.
    Barry and his minions also say if the law is not thrown out, its good for Barry.

    So, which is it DNC?

    So if Barry loses in November, is that good for Barry as well?

  56. tim
    March 31st, 2012 at 2:14 pm

    So if Barry loses in November, is that good for Barry as well?
    ***************************

    it’s good for us : )

  57. Bush v Gore (and Gore, what an idiot he’s turned out to be)

    ======================

    Really? After an upbringing and life career in politics, [Gore] left politics and started over backing his own environmentalist ideas in business and got richer than Trump (well, maybe not) and had so much effect in backing his ideas (against the hostile Bush/Cheney government) that he got an earned Nobel Prize.

    That’s turning out to be an idiot? — all the way to the bank. (Apparently his investments have done better than Obama’s have.)

  58. Texas lawyers offer $10,000 for George Zimmerman’s legal defense

    March 30, 2012|

    By Henry Pierson Curtis, Orlando Sentinel

    The National Association for Legal Gun Defense wants to contribute $10,000 toward George Zimmerman’s legal expenses, a member said today.

    The group represents gun owners involved in self-defense shooting cases, said attorney Blue Rannefeld of Fort Worth, Texas.

    Rannefeld said he has not been able to contact Zimmerman, 28, and is trying to reach Zimmerman’s attorney, Craig Sonner of Altamonte Springs to make the group’s offer of assistance.

    Zimmerman’s shooting death of Trayvon Martin, 17, on Feb. 26 in Sanford remains under investigation.

    http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-30/news/os-george-zimmerman-lawyers-offer-10000-20120330_1_shooting-death-legal-expenses-legal-defense
    __________

    Well, don’t give up! He’s going to need way more money than that just for security personel.!

  59. wbboie,

    I am a fan of your’s, so please don’t doubt that, but I like you best when you don’t use the “F” bomb. I guess it’s used for effect, but your writing doesn’t need it. Call me a prude, but I am really not much of one. I just dislike how the word has crept into every day usage to the point of hearing it all the time from teens to older adults. By the way, I almost always agree with what you have written, and I appreciate being able to read comments from someone who has the ability to elaborate on things in a way that I simply have not been able to do consistently.

  60. Sorry, but Al Gore is more fraud than anything else. I voted for that spoiled self-server, and I am glad he lost his presidential bid, arguably through a Supreme Court decision.

  61. His investments seem to be a conflict of interest especially when the “theory” of global warming is just that, a theory. He profits from what he promotes, and I sure don’t believe his promotions are done from the goodness of his heart, but more for the goodness of fattening his wallet.

  62. Al Gore is more fraud than anything else.

    ======================

    That would be a different libel, which I’ll try to get back to later, now that you’ve brought it up.

  63. nomobama
    March 31st, 2012 at 3:20 pm

    ====================

    No one was talking about him till Tim brought him up. How much bandwidth do you want to spend on those issues at this time?

  64. Why should or why would a Supreme Court justice even care about being attacked or pressured about a stand that he or she may take in an issue? They serve for life, so it’s not like they need to worry about being booted from the bench.

  65. I think that I have written all I want to write about Gore at this time. I equate Gore with bore. 😉

  66. Re: S
    March 31st, 2012 at 1:53 pm

    We are in complete agreement on that, and it is my estimation that stands alone as the absolute defining aspect of the whole ObaMAOCare debacle and administration. We do not won the country, it is merely ours to protect and defend and to keep safe for the generations below us. Evidently, the Founders thought so, too, and wrote it into the Preamble:

    Preamble

    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
    Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the
    common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of
    Liberty to ourselves and our POSTERITY, do ordain and
    establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    We have an absolute duty to preserve the country and all its protections and privileges for the current young and future generations, even those old enough but stupid enough to have voted for race in 2008. That has been the whole of my purpose since 2007 and I saw first hand just how corrupt and unjust the political process is and continues to be; most especially for our little girls. We ain’t come a long way, Baby, much to our chagrin.

    Btw, at the site where I found this text, they offer a pocket Constitution for $4.99 which includes shipping. It looks really nice, so I am thinking I will purchase some for stocking stuffers this year. http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

    “…I transmit this information to Vladamir.”

  67. Well, whoever didn’t like the f word won’t like this. I know I’ve been ranting a lot today, but it just fucking BURNS ME UP all the sanctimony I’m hearing from the Left about “playing politics”, and the bloody sanctity of our system of govt as regards….something. And gee, in addition to something being legal, shouldn’t it also have a sense of respect for the unquantifiable “moral authority” one ought to have in contemplating such a huge change/step? Really, one should consider not taking such a grand step as striking down this law without considering that such a move, unless hallowed by a clear majority-plus and bipartisan spirit, would be perhaps legal, but nevertheless a betrayal of the sense of consensus and civility with which such sweeping undertakings ought to be clothed in our Republic.

    Really?? After the display you assholes put on as you stomped all over every shred of civility and bipartisanship left in our creaky halls of legislature to pass this turd in the most breathtakingly partisan manner in history, you now want to go all pious about fucking consensus and appearances of moral authority???!!!! REALLY???

    It’s gobsmackingly arrogant.

  68. Hi nomobama-

    I felt something personal was amiss when Tipper left him. There must have been something evil in what he was doing to have ruined his forever marriage…

    Just speculating here.. Maybe in a moment of grief after losing the 2000 election he succumbed to the avaricious George S

  69. turndownobama
    March 31st, 2012 at 2:35 pm

    —————–
    “Earned a Nobel Prize???” Really? Honestly?”

    Now why am I not surprised that once again you are genuflecting towards your all-time hero?

    I have to agree with nomobama in that the words “fraud” and “bore” more accurately depict Gore, although I think nomobama is being too polite.

  70. Soros offer to make a movie about Global Warming and how, if we throw money at an invisible enemy, like terrorism, we can all live happily ever after in a newly created Utopia? We will all be broke because of the scheme, but we can be thankful everyday for the notion of Soros supplementing and funding the fantasy in Gore’s movie-

    Just a thought…

  71. Why should or why would a Supreme Court justice even care about being attacked or pressured about a stand that he or she may take in an issue? They serve for life, so it’s not like they need to worry about being booted from the bench.

    ===================

    Exactly!

  72. Oh, dear, more and more libels about Gore to answer. I thought we were supposed to stick to current issues.

  73. Uh- no… you must have missed the directive by admin:

    admin
    March 30th, 2012 at 6:32 pm

    What will get the most comments here and on TV broadcasts – Trayvon Louis Gates, Keith Zimmerman, er, Olbermann, or the Supreme Court case?

  74. Gore is fair game.. after all if we are discussing the Commerce Clause, a forced Global Warming Tax on People could be the next debate in the not too distant future.

  75. Re: holdthemaccountable
    March 31st, 2012 at 7:15 am

    I agree that the articles on this site does honor to Hillary and that Admin does a great job.

    “…I transmit this information to Vladamir.

  76. Those ARE the current issues: Trayvon Louis Gates, Keith Zimmerman, er, Olbermann, or the Supreme Court case?

    Working back toward them after y’all’s distractions, here is a case parallel to the Zimmerman case, but worse. And the police have been secretive since November. This one was caught on recordings and videos, which the police are mostly concealing, even from the victim’s family.

    Offhand, it appears that the police (not knowing it had been filmed) claimed the heart patient victim (at home in his underwear after his medical alert brought them) had a knife and/or hatchet. Which didn’t show in the video and wasn’t referred to in the sound tapes.

    http://www.democracynow.org/2012/3/29/killed_at_home_white_plains_ny

  77. I equate Gore with Whore…excuse my language but there is no other way to describe him. He was the Global Warming Guru and father of the front for such, at the same time he bought a home in California, iirc, that had as big a footprint as some towns; and his home in Tennessee was hotel sized. That is not to even mention that his transportation places a large environmental footprint at least.

    Was the people of this country not fortunate that that Little Napolean did not get the highest office in the land; as bad as W was, he would have been worse, imho.

  78. ShortTermer
    March 31st, 2012 at 4:18 pm

    and Mrs. Smith.

    =============

    Sigh. Okay, I’ll look up some facts about Gore and post them, if you really want to go there.

  79. Sorry, I was unclear here.

    TDO:
    Offhand, it appears that the police (not knowing it had been filmed) claimed the heart patient victim (at home in his underwear after his medical alert brought them) had a knife and/or hatchet. Which didn’t show in the video and wasn’t referred to in the sound tapes.

    I’ll try to make it more clear. Not knowing the incident had been recorded and filmed (two different machines), the police claimed the victim had a knife and/or a hatchet. But latr the recording and film surfaced and do not support their charge.

    Iirc the voice recording came from an instrument belonging to his medical alert company, which the police didn’t know exist3ed.

  80. Re: nomobama
    March 31st, 2012 at 3:30 pm

    But you forgot that there could be THREATS to the justices, maybe to them and maybe to their loved ones, or some illicit behavior in the past to be exposed. Alinsky and guerilla warfare and all that they employ; they do think ahead and keep their powder dry. They are intent and tenacious, those buggers. I full well believe that Hillary was exposed to threats, otherwise her strongwill would never have allowed her to promote ObaMAO.

    From what I see on my FB community, the Trayvon thing is talked about most, especially by the supporters of ObaMAO; hardly any mention of the Supreme Court if any. The only mention I have seen of Keith Ogremann were a number of links made to his programs by one rabid ObaMAO fan who says she was proud to vote for him in 2008 and will again in 2012. Poor stupid woman who seems to want to impress people with her politics that will likely cause her to get stoned in the future. It seems that everyone is too busy playing games and enjoying the pretty weather and placing photos of everyday events online. Some have said that politics is boring to them. I inwardedly laugh and wonder to myslef if their children that they are so proud of right now will feel the same way when they are the parents’ age.

    Btw, the 1940 census will become available on Monday; the training video indicates that like in the past that race will be White W and Black B. That is how the race is listed on the death records for several states that I have Indexed as well. I Indexed some Texas records that had Spanish names as they were called and did not enjoy that very much. Four states will be placed up first for Indexing among them Virginia and Ohio, iirc. The 1940 census also provides the information of where the person lived five years prior; sometimes it lists that they were in the same house five years ago and gives the street address.

  81. Not necessary to defend Gore on my account.. Tipper leaving him, is enough for me. Something smells rotten in Denmark. I imagine the true story will out in the end.. I used to think was an ok guy. Now, he just gives me the creeps. And if he’s sold his soul to Soros..I don’t want to bother my ‘beautiful’ mind with mental images of Gore.

  82. nomobama
    March 31st, 2012 at 3:10 pm
    —————————-
    I am writing for a different audience. It is the only word they understand. It is tactical. They do not read what I say unless the word is present.

  83. turndownobama
    March 31st, 2012 at 2:04 pm
    ———————-
    Correct about Hillarycare. It was not bankrolled by corporate money, and it did not have a $17 trillion price tag.

  84. Mrs. Smith, thanks for the info on the fake Downton Abbey. I located Bleak House on netflix and am in the process of watching those. I am loving me some Charles Dickens right now, even if I did not enjoy his books assigned in Literature classes during college. Ironic as it was, my husband said that he had Bleak House on his cue for reading. I told him I was like Ousier, that eventually they would be made into movies, so I will wait.

    Additionally to the information of my post above, I have the very near the maximum number of ‘Friends’ (5,000) on my FB Community, so my NewsFeed is quite interesting. Quite.

  85. “I am loving me some Charles Dickens right now, even if I did not enjoy his books assigned in Literature”
    _________

    Mentioning Charles Dickens. I knew if you liked DA you would love Bleak House. My favorite character besides Jillian Anderson, is the filthy, old coot bound to his chair who constantly laments:
    “SHAKE ME UP, JUDY!” Makes me laugh every time he says it…

  86. There is a concept in the law called constructive total loss. It holds that when a physical object is damaged by a tort feasor, he is of course liable. However, if the cost of repair exceeds the fair market value of the object prior to the time the damage was inflicted, then the tort feasor’s damages based on fair market value, rather than the cost of repair. That is certainly true in the law of admiralty where hull and machinery claims are involved, and it is also true in cases of automobile damage. And, I would argue, the same logic applies to Obamacare–the cost of saving it exceeds its value. Therefore, it should be consigned to the dust bin of history along with its namesake. When I say the cost of saving it, I mean the $17 trillion, plus the millions of hours of judicial time spent in trying to fathom the non-existent meaning and intent , plus the unintended consequences, plus the fact that it would drive states into bankruptcy, plus the fact that it will degrade the level of health care, plus the fact that it will suck costs out of other government programs. In the final analysis this is about destroying the country over slavery. If you asked enough questions to Jessee, or Reverend Al, or this new lad who sparred with Piers–and in my judgement took the very fixation that cnn has over racism and simply expanded it to the limits of its logic, only to get rebuffed. But Piers has no ground to object–he just was given a look in the mirror. There is only one solution here. Do not save this bill to help a black president get elected or to prove that Rosen Cohen and Tribe did not get it wrong. Stop focusing on the top line and concentrate instead on the bottom line, because that is where the truth lies.

  87. Jbstonesfan: as you can see I am getting to be a little like Richard Poser in my old age. Better that than critical legal thinking–like we see with Bambi, Boatload Kagen and DeSotomayour. I mean that in the nicest way.

  88. Re: wbboei
    March 31st, 2012 at 4:55 pm

    Question: Is there not an element here of the lawyers (as a group) not making future work for the lawyers (as a group)? That is something that I have heard advanced, that is not about the country at all but about making fortunes for lawyers. Is there any validity to that assertion?

    Mrs. Smith, I think she will get tired of the ‘shake up’ at least that is what I read on her face and will spill his butt, at least I hope so.

  89. Mrs. Smith, I think she will get tired of the ’shake up’ at least that is what I read on her face and will spill his butt, at least I hope so.
    __________________

    My only quibble with BH is the blue/black darkness of the settings. But, I suppose it’s a necessary nuance for projecting the required ambiance for the scenes.

  90. Mrs. Smith
    March 31st, 2012 at 3:58 pm
    Hi nomobama-
    —————–

    Hi. It’s funny that you would mention Tipper because as I was pondering the comment that Tim made about Gore and Turndownobama’s kneeslap pro-Gore response, Tipper popped into my mind. I wondered what the reasons were for her saying “I have had ENOUGH”. My guess is that her more conservative self was getting sickened by her husband’s liberal ‘tude.

    Whenever I think of Albert today, I think of the movie “Hairspray”, and how it wouldn’t take much to modify his current appearance into John Travolta’s characted “Edna Turnblad “, although the name “Turnbad” would be so much more fitting, imo. Al looks like an Edna to me.

  91. wbboei
    March 31st, 2012 at 4:38 pm
    ————–
    Although I understand, it’s just unfortunate that it has to be that way.

  92. ShortTermer
    March 31st, 2012 at 4:35 pm
    ————–
    Well, that’s defintely a consideration. I hope that karma comes back to bite those who make threats. Let them be on the receiving end.

  93. I think that you would be hardpressed to prove libel with regards to the negative comments made about Gore.

  94. Off topic, but those of you who like Starbucks Frappacino, I came across International Delight’s Iced Coffee in the half gallon container for under $4.00 being sold at some Walmarts, and it is delicious. Made from arabica coffee, it comes in 3 flavors: Orignal, Vanilla, and Mocha. I’ve tried the Mocha and Original flavors, and I am hooked. I am not even a coffee drinker, but I have always liked Starbucks’ Frappuccino and also cappuccino.

  95. When I say the cost of saving it, I mean the $17 trillion, plus the millions of hours of judicial time spent in trying to fathom the non-existent meaning and intent , plus the unintended consequences, plus the fact that it would drive states into bankruptcy, plus the fact that it will degrade the level of health care, plus the fact that it will suck costs out of other government programs.

    ======================

    Unfortunately there’s no single Blue Book entry for that.

  96. I haven’t read this blog in its entirety recently. Has there been a directive about what can be written about?

  97. http://www.democracynow.org/2012/3/29/killed_at_home_white_plains_ny?

    is this a credible source?

    =================

    Good question. That’s why I laced my post with qualifiers: “offhand”, “apparently”, etc.

    Still it appears there is SOME sort of there, there. Would you doubt the basics, that an elderly veteran heart patient was shot by police who were responding to his medical alert, and the police have not all been identified, and no charges have yet been made, etc?

  98. ShortTermer
    March 31st, 2012 at 4:18 pm [….]
    That is not to even mention that his transportation places a large environmental footprint at least.

    ===================

    First there is a philosophical issue here. If a politician says the government is spending too much money, should he himself be flying around at government expense, using expensive government office space, telecommunications, etc etc? Or is it okay to use a normal style of operation while promoting economy?

  99. nomobama
    March 31st, 2012 at 6:02 pm

    ===================

    See posts by Basil and others about ‘derailing’, ‘disgracting’, ‘disrupting’ etc.

  100. ‘qualifiers’.. you meant caveats, I think?

    one has a positive connotation, the other negative

  101. Mrs. Smith
    March 31st, 2012 at 4:10 pm
    Uh- no… you must have missed the directive by admin:

    admin
    March 30th, 2012 at 6:32 pm

    What will get the most comments here and on TV broadcasts – Trayvon Louis Gates, Keith Zimmerman, er, Olbermann, or the Supreme Court case?

    ———————
    Does that mean that anything “Clinton” is not relevant then?

    Just asking…lol… 🙂

  102. Does that mean that anything “Clinton” is not relevant then?

    Just asking…lol… 🙂
    ___________

    I guess, if you’re splitting hairs…Yes.

    If not… No.

    After that, I guess it’s a case of appropriate responses contingent on fair and foul weather predictions- 😉

  103. Gotta agree with Paul Ryan on OTurd.

    “Ryan said flatly that “President Obama cannot run on his record.” He said many Democrats have said he will run to the middle and triangulate the electorate the way Bill Clinton did:

    “Not this guy,” Ryan said about Obama. “This is not a Bill Clinton Democrat. He is committed to his ideology. He is committed to that transformation away from the America ideal – away from our first principles.””

    Bill believes in American exceptionalism, he grew up in America, he achieved the American dream, he didn’t believe in marxsim, redistribution, but that high tides lift all boats, I sure as hell don’t ever remember Bill Clinton apologizing to other countries about America or bowing to other countries.

  104. Yes wbboei. I agree completely with the way you have briefed the issues
    and the court should, and I emphasize should declare the law unconstitutional.
    However, my experience in front of juries and appellate courts makes me
    very cautious to ever expect the expected .
    ———-
    As for the polls, currently -0.2 on RCP .

  105. I did not know who Adrienne Rich was, but then again, I am not a fan of poetry for the most part. In reading the link that was provided, the one thing that stuck out, and in a negative way, was the following:

    In 1997, in a widely reported act, Ms. Rich declined the National Medal of Arts, the United States government’s highest award bestowed upon artists. In a letter to Jane Alexander, then chairwoman of the National Endowment for the Arts, which administers the award, she expressed her dismay, amid the “increasingly brutal impact of racial and economic injustice,” that the government had chosen to honor “a few token artists while the people at large are so dishonored.”
    ————-
    As soon as I hear or read the words “racial injustice” or “economic injustice” I immediately feel a sense of disgust with the person who uttered those words. If there is so much of these so-called “injustices” in the world, then please explain all of the coddling and outright favortism that certain groups obtain on a consistent basis over the past decades. I am tired of hearing about it, especially sine the injustice that I see or have seen, has been promoted by government against my own race as a whole. Uneven playing fields are created which only perpetuate that which they supposedly correct. True equality only happens when the vast majority are treated the same under the same circumstances. Injustice my foot. Witness the deluge of money spent on social engineering for results that do not seem to justify the expense. Promoting equality is fine, but stop doing it at the expense of others because that’s not equality, and it dors not promote justice for anyone. “Justice” is code for far left dogma.

  106. nomobama
    March 31st, 2012 at 10:15 pm

    Yes, much of what you stated is true. The only thing I will say in her defense of her words that you cited is that at that time, there was actualy blatant sexism and racism, so it was actual blatant injustice and she was pointing it out.
    However now, its basically exploited by all sorts of hustlers for their own gain, so like you, when I hear “social injustice” etc, I feel the same disgust/suspicion that you expressed.

  107. http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/03/saturday-night-card-game-this-is-cold-fusion-on-the-race-card/

    Thanks to Bill Maher, of all people, we finally have a simple, effective, and self-perpetuating theory of racial grievance used for political purposes, in which not only racism is racist, the denial of racism is racist, so the charge of racism cannot ever be defeated because to deny it is to confirm it.

    Unless of course the charge of racism is made by a Republican or conservative or Tea Partier, in which case the new racism rules do not apply.

  108. The more you dig the bigger the pile of dirt gets Barack Obama is Revealed as a Corrupt Chicago Politician and a …

    ► 7:47► 7:47 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKYBZCAZK1k
    You +1’d this publicly. Undo
    Jul 1, 2010 – 8 min – Uploaded by IranContraScumDid911
    And perhaps the person involved in this trial with the closest of ties to both Blagojevich and Obama is real …

    Webster Tarpley covers Obamas Chicago Mob connections to Tony …

    ► 10:01► 10:01 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPCMoYHXnU8
    You +1’d this publicly. Undo
    Mar 13, 2009 – 10 min – Uploaded by WebsterTarpleyVideos
    Webster Tarpley covers Obamas Chicago Mob connections to Tony Rezko …. Obama – The Antoin Rezko …

    More videos for Rezko and Obama connections trial in Chicago »
    #VetThePrez : Is history repeating itself? Obama, Rezko and Semir …rbo2.com/…/vettheprez-is-history-repeating-itself-obama-rezko-and-s…Cached
    You +1’d this publicly. Undo
    Mar 19, 2012 – Today we learn from Jeff Coen at the Chicago Tribune, and others, that … about convicted political fixer Antoin “Tony” Rezko’s ties to Sen. Obama. … The “ references to Obama were not only kept out of the trial during his run …
    Timeline: Barack Obama’s Ties to Tony Rezko | Talking Points Memotalkingpointsmemo.com/rezkotimeline.phpCached
    You +1’d this publicly. Undo
    1995 Rezko contributes to Obama’s campaign for the Illinois State Senate ( Obama … Obama spoke more at length about this tour in his interview with the Chicago … Illinois Finance Authority, who was charged in connection to the Rezko case …
    Archived-Articles: Obama’s Iraqi Oil for Food connectionwww.americanthinker.com/…/obamas_iraqi_oil_for_food_conn.htmlCached – Similar
    You +1’d this publicly. Undo
    Mar 6, 2008 – Mr. Obama says he never used Mrs. Rezko’s still-empty lot, which could only be …. And now his trial has begun in a Chicago federal court.
    Tony Rezko | Citizen Newscitizenwells.com/category/general/tony-rezko/Cached
    You +1’d this publicly. Undo
    Nov 20, 2011 – William Cellini trial coverage by Natasha Korecki of Chicago SunTimes, … Obama connections, 98 percent of wiretaps sealed protect Obama?
    Obama and Blagojevich ties to Rezko Chicago corruption, Why …citizenwells.wordpress.com/…/obama-and-blagojevich-ties-to-rezko-c…Cached
    You +1’d this publicly. Undo
    Feb 28, 2011 – Blagojevich trial corruption, Justice Dept protects Obama, Rezko ties to … Obama and Blagojevich ties to Rezko Chicago corruption, Why …
    Trial Begins for Former Obama Fundraiser Rezko : NPRwww.npr.org › News › US › LawSimilar
    You +1’d this publicly. Undo
    Mar 3, 2008 – The corruption trial for a former fundraiser with ties to Barack Obama has begun in Chicago. Businessman Tony Rezko is accused of trying to …
    Right Wing Nut House » Obama-Rezkorightwingnuthouse.com/archives/category/obama-rezko/Cached
    You +1’d this publicly. Undo
    For the record, my inclusion of the Chicago political primer was so that the Obama-Rezko-Giannoulis connection could be seen in context. Why would Obama …
    What the Obama-adoring press won’t report during the trial of Rodwww.obamaandblago.com/page/2/Cached
    You +1’d this publicly. Undo
    Aug 2, 2010 – Former Chicago Tribune top editor James Warren, now writing for the … Predictably, he’s not interested in Rezko’s connection to Obama.

    Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next

    for Obama.

  109. …we instead how have our ‘health’ being debated as the ‘Commerce Clause vs the limitation of the Federal govt’ this is really where Ocare has taken us…that alone should tell you alot…this is about money and control…not healthcare…

    ========================

    Yes, right! And we who stay healthy by spending our money on healthy food and supplements and chiropractic and such ‘preventatives’ — will have less money for that purpose. In a better version, our preventative expenses would be counted as part of our contribution to the pool.

  110. I came across the following article tonight as I was searching for something else. I enjoyed reading it, and since it is from 1/2 year ago, I honestly don’t know if it was discussed on this blog, but my guess is that it probably was. So, for those like me who did not already know of this, or who may have vague memories of this, here is Bill Clinton’s revenge, and oh so sweet it was.
    ————-
    Bill Clinton Takes Obama Gently to the Woodshed and Gives Him a Spanking

    By Matt Towery (Archive) · Thursday, September 22, 2011

    If anyone ever believed that the more conservative Bill Clinton really thought the more liberal Barack Obama was prepared to be president in 2008, let them wonder no longer.

    Clinton might seem to be in a tight spot, given that his wife works for Obama. But in an interview conducted by Newsmax’s CEO, Christopher Ruddy, the former president made it clear that now is neither the time to be increasing taxes nor to be imposing more regulations on businesses and consumers.

    Thinking like that from the man who once plummeted to low approval ratings after his first two years of being president is not surprising. Recall that Clinton then turned his political fortunes around in large part by pragmatically embracing some rightward-leaning proposals from a majority-Republican House.

    From the open class warfare he’s now engaged in, it’s plain that President Obama has no intention of following Clinton’s example. And after reading the recent interview of him, it’s just as plain that Clinton has more knowledge in his little finger than the inexperienced Obama does in his whole body.

    This Newsmax interview can be looked upon as a gentle settling of many scores by Clinton with his fellow Democrats, who have led his party into the land of left-wing loons. Clinton also took a strong, if indirect, swipe at his former vice president, Al Gore, when the subject of global warming came up. In short, Clinton said that he himself has decided to dodge the debate over the effort to curb global warming. Why? Because it matters little what the United States does when China still refuses to sign any future agreement on reducing greenhouse gasses.

    Now that’s obvious enough to most businesspeople, and for that matter to those who closely follow the climate debate. But when Bill Clinton delivers that news in a smack-down, it’s the equivalent of him looking at his old “pal” Al and pointing out that he travels in private jets and SUVs — two items with large “carbon footprints” of their own. (Recall that Gore “dissed” Clinton when Gore ran for president in 2000.)

    Let’s face it. Bill Clinton thinks that Hillary got a raw deal from both the media and the Democratic National Committee when she ran for president against Obama in ’08. And a recent PollPosition survey shows that more Americans say they now would prefer Ms. Clinton to Obama as president. (That is, if they had to have a Democrat in office.)

    The Democratic establishment did everything it could to keep Hillary Clinton from winning. For starters, it punished her for the decision by Florida’s Republican legislature to move up the date of the ’08 Florida presidential primary. Had the DNC allowed the results of the Florida Democratic primary to stand, Ms. Clinton would have surged to a lead in total delegates and Obama likely would have lost momentum.

    Also in the Newsmax interview, Bill Clinton gently unloaded on the newest round of Obamanomics. He said Obama’s approach to the deficit “is a little bit confusing.” Translation: The president has no clue what he is doing.

    As for tax increases — even on millionaires — Clinton took a swipe at Obama’s rather blatant play to stir up class envy. Said Clinton: “We don’t have (in the United States) a lot of resentment against people who are successful. We kind of like it, Americans do. It’s one of our best characteristics. If we think someone earned their money, we do not resent their success. That’s why there’s been very little class conflict in American history.” In other words, pitting the rest of America against the so called “wealthy” is a dumb idea that could lead to damaging class conflict.

    More evidence for my interpretation of Clinton’s remarks: He blew off Obama’s obsession with tax increases by saying, “I personally don’t believe we ought to be raising taxes or cutting spending until we get this economy off the ground.” Translation: I don’t favor his tax increases, but I’ll oppose cuts also, just to appear even-handed.

    This amazing interview just kept yielding goodies. There was Clinton suggesting that Obama should pull back from the implementation of new government regulations. “A business can’t do five things at once.”

    And there was his suggestion that the president and Congress should ask corporate America and the banks what it would take to free up the trillions of dollars they are sitting on.

    To Clinton critics, yes, he was a Democrat, and a flawed one at that. And yes, he likely will have to water down his remarks or kiss Obama’s tail in the next few days because of what he was quoted as saying about the president. But make no mistake. Bill Clinton got his revenge in this interview.

  111. Actually, I should have posted the actual interview instead of the above. This is why I like Bill Clinton for the most part. Sane reasoning…
    ————–

    Former President Bill Clinton tells Newsmax that Washington should not raise taxes until the slumping economy is turned around — and says President Obama’s plan to increase taxes on the wealthy won’t solve the debt problem.

    Clinton sat down for an exclusive interview with Newsmax Founder and CEO Christopher Ruddy in New York, where Clinton is holding the 10th annual gathering of the widely praised Clinton Global Initiative (CGI), an event that brings together heads of state, business leaders, humanitarians and celebrities to devise and implement innovative and successful solutions to some of the worlds most pressing challenges.

    In the wide-ranging interview, Clinton discussed his foundation, climate change, the economy, taxes, government regulations, fellow Democrat Obama, and the possibility of civil unrest in America.

    He also spoke about his wife Hillary’s chances of running for president in 2016, calling her “the ablest person in my generation” — and offered his surprising take on the 2012 GOP presidential race.

    Asked about the impact the CGI experience has had on him since leaving the White House, Clinton says: “First of all it’s been exceedingly good to know that you can still make a difference, that everything I always believed turned out to be true — that private citizens can also do public good.

    “It’s enabled me to work with Bob Dole, for example, who was my opponent in 1996. We raised enough money to give college aid to the spouses and children of everybody killed on 9/11, or disabled.

    “[I worked] with the first president Bush on the tsunami in South Asia and Katrina, with the second president Bush on the aftermath of the Haiti earthquake.

    “All this has been really rewarding, to think that you can just focus on what works and how to do it faster, cheaper, better. It’s been a joy — and a bit of a surprise. If you told me 10 years ago that half the people staying alive on AIDS drugs would have them on our contracts, that we could document 300 million lives in 170 countries we’ve affected, I wouldn’t have believed that.

    “It shows what people can do if they just think about how to do something instead of how to talk about it and fight about it.”

    Turning to climate change, Clinton observes: “Next year the Kyoto agreement, which was adopted in 1997 and early 1998, expires. They’ve had a meeting last year and they’re about to have one in Durban, South Africa, to figure out what to do next.
     
    “I have been saying for 10 years, and a lot of people thought I was crazy at the time, but the fundamental problem with climate change is not that it has become a political football in America, that there’s a difference of opinion about it. It’s that — take a country that fervently believes in global warming and that human activity is causing it but will not support an agreement, China.

    “China’s the number one investor in clean energy technology. They still won’t support an agreement. Why? Because they don’t know for sure that a country can get rich, stay rich, and get richer without putting more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

    “So what I decided to do was to dodge the debate, not because I won’t welcome the debate but because nothing’s going to happen in this space until people see that market economies can make profits and generate jobs out of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.”

    Clinton acknowledges that the worldwide economic downturn has made it more difficult to raise money for his foundation. “But we’re doing well,” he is quick to add. “We’re going to have $6 billion worth of commitments here over a 5-to-10-year period, and they’ll affect another 100 million people above the people we’re already helping. That’s pretty good.”

    President Obama this week unveiled his plan to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans in an effort to reduce the deficit, even though he could be sure that Republicans would reject the plan.
    Clinton says Obama’s whole approach to the deficit is “a little confusing.”

    He explains: “In the speech that the president gave to Congress, he didn’t propose any new taxes. The speech was $250 billion in tax cuts, $250 billion in spending over a period of two to three years. It focused mostly on a rather innovative set of payroll tax cuts and incentives to hire people.

    “I personally don’t believe we ought to be raising taxes or cutting spending until we get this economy off the ground. If we cut government spending, which I normally would be very inclined to do when the deficit’s this big, with interest rates already near zero you can’t get the benefits out of it.

    “So what I’d like to see them do is come up with a bipartisan approach, starting with the payroll tax cuts because they have the biggest return.

    “Then what I’d like to see is an effort made at a bipartisan resolution of the banking home mortgage crisis.

    “One of the things that President Reagan did with the Democratic Congress in the early 1980s that never gets any discussion is the way they set up this system to purge the debt overhang from the savings and loan collapse. It was unpopular but it had to be done. And as soon as we flushed it out there was a big increase in investment.

    “So that’s what we need to do here with this home deal. I don’t think you can tax or cut taxes, I don’t think you can spend or not spend enough to get America back to a full employment economy until we flush that debt.

    “What I would like to say to the president and Speaker Boehner is, O.K., you both have your deal. Go work it out. Meanwhile focus on putting American back to work because it just confused Americans. Americans lost the fact that whatever you feel about this millionaire surcharge, it won’t solve the problem.”

    Talk coming out of Washington is that there is widespread disarray in Obama White House. If Clinton could meet privately with Obama, he was asked, what advice might he give the president to jumpstart the economy and work with the Republicans.

    “The first thing I’d say is we need to get a joint plan,” Clinton responds. “I would organize a meeting. There are two big chunks of money in this country, untouched corporate treasuries and banks. Companies have $2 trillion but they’re not investing it. Banks have $2 trillion but they’re not investing it. I’d like to see him have joint meeting with these people and say, tell us what it takes to get the money flowing again. We don’t have to borrow that from China. We don’t have to run the deficit up. The money’s there.”

    Another way to get that money flowing is to pull back on the imposition of new government regulations, Clinton opines.

    “What I find is a lot of business people can be supportive of new regulations and new standards, but particularly in a fragile time they don’t like to have too many things changing at once.

    “A business can’t do five things at once and decide whether to get back into the investment business after it’s slow. It may be that there is a way, for example, to stagger out a way things are going to be done under the Dodd-Frank bill.

    “The really important thing about Dodd-Frank, that we had to do to establish our financial bone fides again, was to have capital requirements on banks and investment banks so we have leverage limits.”

    New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg and political analyst James Carville have both recently suggested that the nation’s economic woes could lead to riots and civil unrest.

    Clinton comments: “There are two issues. One is the fact that the country has grown markedly more unequal over the last 30 years. This often happens when you change an economic paradigm.

    “The industrial economy tended to settle out in a way that was very powerful in Europe and the United States and Japan. We had a big middle class and opportunities for poor people to work their way into it, and a successful class of businessmen and financial leaders. Then we moved into what Tom Friedman calls a flatter world and it changed everything. It changed the job mix and requirements for doing well in it.

    “The bottom line is, things start growing more unequal again. In general that has not sparked riots in America. We don’t have a lot of resentment against people who are successful. We kind of like it, Americans do. It’s one of our best characteristics. If we think someone earned their money we do not resent their success. That’s why there’s been very little class conflict in American history.

    “The second problem is that it appears that the jobs engine is bad on the vine. A lot of voters get that companies have $2 trillion but they’re not investing it. They get that banks have more than $2 trillion and they’re not investing it. Unless we can find a way to start the jobs engine going again, it is conceivable that someday we could have trouble.

    “But I don’t think we should even think about that. I think we ought to think about how to get the jobs engine going because it’s the right thing to do. I wouldn’t worry about the other stuff. Let’s just put America back to work. That’s the right thing to do.”

    Casting his eye toward the heated race for the Republican presidential nomination, Clinton agrees that Mitt Romney and Rick Perry are the definite front-runners. But he adds: “If you ask who has the power to get back into the mix, assuming no new people enter — I think Mitch Daniels would have been very competitive, I think Haley Barbour would have appeal, I think the governor of New Jersey, Chris Christie, would have appeal — but if you assume nobody else gets in, then of those that are there the question is can Speaker [Newt] Gingrich pull what McCain did last time.

    “The one thing that makes it very hard to count him out is he’s always thinking. He’s always got a bunch of new ideas and some of them are pretty good. So a guy that can still use his brain cells and come up with good ideas, you’re never really sure what happens there.”

    Jon Huntsman is a viable candidate “because he was governor of Utah, which is a conservative state, speaks fluent Mandarin Chinese and has an exemplary public career, but there may just not be enough space for him in the ideological bandwidth of the Republican primary. But it’s hard to say right now that he would never get anything going.

    “If it stays between Romney and Perry, I think Perry will have the juice of being perceived as the more conservative one, Romney will have the power of being perceived as perhaps more electable because he’s more moderate.

    “I just have this uneasy feeling that politics is not so static that it will be these two guys fighting it out all the way to the end, with nothing unpredictable happening. We just live in a world that’s too unpredictable.”

    A recent poll found that Hillary Clinton is the most favored political figure on the scene today. The former president was asked under what circumstances Hillary might consider a run for the White House in 2016.

    “You’ll have to ask her,” Clinton responds with a smile. “But when we were kids and I met her and we started our now 40-year-plus conversation — I met her 41 years ago this last spring — pretty quick I decided that she was the ablest person in my generation. And nothing has happened in those 41 years to change my opinion.

    “I may have been a better politician, at least on the first go-round, but I never met anybody I thought had a better combination of mind and heart.

    “If she wants to come home, I’ll be happy. If she wants to serve, I’ll be happy. But she has to decide that. All I know is I’m glad that she’s serving now.”
    © 2012 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

  112. Let’s face it. Bill Clinton thinks that Hillary got a raw deal from both the media and the Democratic National Committee when she ran for president against Obama in ‘08. And a recent PollPosition survey shows that more Americans say they now would prefer Ms. Clinton to Obama as president. (That is, if they had to have a Democrat in office.)
    ———————————————–
    A raw deal? Was that all it was??

    Lets look at this thing the way an oncologist would. We have a cancerous tumor in the body politic, it is called big media, and it consists of NBC, CNN, ABC, NYT, AP—and EVERYONE WHO DRAWS A PAYCHECK FROM THOSE ORGANIZATIONS. If that tumor is not excised it will kill the body. The tragedy involving Tray and no less Zimmerman is merely a symptom.

    I stand by what I said today. It was wrong to Piers Morgan to confront that young black ideologue who is ready to lynch Zimmerman. CNN has had an obsession with the race issue ever since the time Paula Zahn was doing stories about it, and it goes right up the latter through the corporate veil to AOL Time Warner. Therefore, the youngster was merely echoing what has been common fare in the media echo chamber.

    It reminds me of Oscar Wilde. He was a brilliant poet who led a life of debauchery in Victorian England which landed him first in Old Bailey where he was destroyed on cross examination by Sir Edward Carson and from there two years of hard labor at Newgate prison, i.e the foulest deeds like prison weeds grow well in prison air; its only what is good in man that does not flourish there.

    Prior to all this, and even before he cast amorous eyes on the son of the Marquis of Queensbury, he he was warned by a wealth female patron–do what you like Oscar, but whatever you do, for Godsake don’t scare the horses.

    Forget about all the crap from Piers about being a professional journalist. He is as guilty as the rest of them at CNN and given the opportunity he would be right in their with them pitching the racist line. The only reason he confronted the fine young man who believes in vigilante justice is because it just might scare the horses.

  113. I have been saying this for three years. As long as you have people like Phil Griffin at MSNBC running news organizations–or Bill Keller at NYT, there is no hope for redemption. Bill is out now, so we shall see what happens. Griffin remains, and he was the one who gave Sharpton the 6:00 slot as Kurtz points out. Griffin was a but boy for Imelt, so that is how he got there. And Imelt was a but boy for Welch, so that is how he got there.

  114. What do I mean by excise them from the body politic? I mean find every possible opportunity to impeach their credibility–to talk about their double standard, their reverse racism, their sexism, their lies, their evasions–like Breitbart and FOX are doing to them now. And whenever abuse their power, as they did with Hillary, Joe the Plummmer, Sarah, McCains wife, the duke lacrosse team, and Zimerman you talk about the Oxbow Incident. You treat them like dirt, because that is what they are. And when someone quotes them as a credible source you tell then that those networks are a joke. If enough people do that often enough and they do not give them their eyeballs then they will be excised from the body politic. I have friends in the media who claimed they would repent when Obama became unpopular, but instead they have continued to prop him up, even as he destroys the county. Therefore, we cannot rely on market sources to correct the problem. The only way to deal with them is to treat them like a pariah. Sowell said it best: we should not listen to them.

  115. In 1996, when Washington author Sally Quinn was telling people that Hillary had not written her book, It Takes a Village, Branch suggested to the First Lady that she invite Quinn and her husband Ben Bradlee to the White House. “You know,” Hillary shot back, “she has been hostile since the moment we got here. Why would we invite somebody like that into our home. How could she expect us to.” Branch writes, Hillary “said Quinn and her friends simply invented gossip for their dinner circuit. They had launched one juicy affair between Hillary and a female veterinarian attending Socks, the Clinton family cat, with tales about how somebody discovered them in flagrante on a bedroom floor in the White House.
    ————————-
    Mayflower Sally, aka the Great Horizontal II. Too bad her ancestors made it across the Atlantic when more deserving passengers perished on at sea. People who, unlike her, could have contributed to this nation. Saw her on tv the other day, and she looked mummified–just like her hubby.

  116. AL Gunga Din Sharpton(Obama waterboy}should be up for charges of inciting riots and civil unrest.He is a threat to his own people and this country.He is now the posterboy for those that believe that the good things in life are free and they now have white Americans on their knees and a civil war is in the making.President OREO must be held responsible and Impeachment must be acted on NOW.
    Hillary is ready and waiting and the world waits with her.Hillary Bill and Chelsea Americans should be proud of this patriotic family.I am certain Rudyard Kipling could have had a lot to say about the in the title of “The Charge Of The White Brigade”

  117. Whuf! Thanks for posting side by side what Bill Clinton REALLY said about climate change — and what Towery said he said.

    Basically, Bill said we need to show people that market economies can make profits and generate jobs out of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.”

    Which is exactly what Gore IS showing — and that going cleaner DOESN’T have to mean giving up luxuries. For example, iirc instead of preaching against jet skis, he had some developed that are less polluting.

    What Bill really said (at least it’s closer to the source, filtered once, through Newsmax):

    BILL CLINTON:
    “I have been saying for 10 years, and a lot of people thought I was crazy at the time, but the fundamental problem with climate change is not that it has become a political football in America, that there’s a difference of opinion about it. It’s that — take a country that fervently believes in global warming and that human activity is causing it but will not support an agreement, China.

    “China’s the number one investor in clean energy technology. They still won’t support an agreement. Why? Because they don’t know for sure that a country can get rich, stay rich, and get richer without putting more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

    “So what I decided to do was to dodge the debate, not because I won’t welcome the debate but because nothing’s going to happen in this space until people see that market economies can make profits and generate jobs out of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.”

    What Towery said Bill said:
    By Matt Towery (Archive) · Thursday, September 22, 2011 [….]
    Clinton also took a strong, if indirect, swipe at his former vice president, Al Gore, when the subject of global warming came up. In short, Clinton said that he himself has decided to dodge the debate over the effort to curb global warming. Why? Because it matters little what the United States does when China still refuses to sign any future agreement on reducing greenhouse gasses.
    Now that’s obvious enough to most businesspeople, and for that matter to those who closely follow the climate debate. But when Bill Clinton delivers that news in a smack-down, it’s the equivalent of him looking at his old “pal” Al and pointing out that he travels in private jets and SUVs — two items with large “carbon footprints” of their own.

  118. nomobama
    April 1st, 2012 at 1:28 am

    Yes, I remember reading the article. At the time, I felt it was a bold and truthful statement daring to criticize the president who would find it immensely offensive. BC might have suffered repercussions from it but if he did, it must have been at the spitball level because I cannot remember anything sticking to him in the news..

    For that matter, how could the statement been refuted by Team Obama?… a refutation would have caused a comment considered a ‘scratch’ leveled at the president into a red blanket trip to the ER. And if Clinton fought back clarifying his position making comparisons to Obama’s policies.. for Obama, the whole issue could have wound up on the operating room table under surgical repair.

  119. Hamas Urges Women to Blow Themselves Up

    A Hamas legislator gave a fiery speech, urging women to blow themselves up for the sake of Jerusalem and the Al-Aqsa mosque.

    4/1/2012

    A Hamas legislator gave a fiery speech, urging women to blow themselves up for the sake of Jerusalem and the Al-Aqsa mosque.

    Speaking before the Global March on Jerusalem, Mushri al-Masri addressed a score of Palestinian women in Gaza in a speech broadcast on Hamas Al Aqsa television and translated by the IDF on its website.

    His constant theme was to sacrifice Arab blood “for the Al Aqsa mosque,” which is on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.

    “The Hamas woman in Gaza, the Palestinian woman, says that our blood is a sacrifice for Al Aqsa mosque and that we will give Al Aqsa mosque blood and pave the road with body parts,” the Hamas legislator declared.

    He called on Gaza women to march towards Israel as part of “one message – that the Hamas’ compass and direction are clear; they are not vague or obscure. “

    “Palestine, all of Palestine and Jerusalem, all of Jerusalem – its west before its east, Palestine with every grain of its earth with every particle is the property of the Palestinian people and the rifle of Al Kassam Brigades and the willingness of the Jihad warrior to fight for the sake of Allah and sacrifice her sons,” Al Masri continued.

    He called for “a struggle and a revolution that will say to this enemy, ‘You have no place on our land.’”

    The Global March took place on Friday with less than 50,000 demonstrators in Jordan, Syria, Egypt and Lebanon, far less than two million promised.

    http://www.worldjewishdaily.com/toolbar.html?4t=extlink&4u=http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/154361

  120. Bravo!

    Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi elected to Myanmar’s parliament, party says

    April 01, 2012

    Aye Aye Win and Todd Pitman

    Myanmar opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi is surrounded by supporters and journalists as she visits a polling station in the constituency where she stands as a candidate in Kawhmu on Sunday.

    CHRISTOPHE ARCHAMBAULT/AFP/GETTY IMAGES

    YANGON, MYANMAR—Supporters of Myanmar’s opposition icon Aung San Suu Kyi erupted in euphoric cheers Sunday after her party said she won a parliamentary seat in a landmark election, setting the stage for her to take public office for the first time.

    The victory, if confirmed, would mark a major milestone in the Southeast Asian nation, where the military has ruled almost exclusively for a half-century and where a new reform-minded government is seeking legitimacy and a lifting of Western sanctions.

    It would also mark the biggest prize of Suu Kyi’s political career, and a spectacular reversal of fortune for the 66-year-old Nobel Peace Prize laureate who the former junta had kept imprisoned in her lakeside home for the better part of two decades.

    The victory claim was displayed on a digital signboard above the opposition National League for Democracy’s headquarters in Myanmar’s main city, Yangon, where more than 1,000 supporters began wildly shouting upon learning the news.

    “We won! We won!” her supporters chanted while clapping, dancing, waving red party flags and gesturing with thumbs-up and V-for-victory signs.

    “It is the people’s victory! We have taught them a lesson,” said a shopkeeper who goes by the single name Thien who wore a t-shirt with Suu Kyi’s picture on the front and her party’s fighting peacock on the back.

    Earlier, the party had claimed that Suu Kyi was ahead with 65 per cent of the vote in 82 of her constituency’s 129 polling stations. The party had staff and volunteers spread throughout the vast rice-farming district, who were calling in preliminary results by phone to their headquarters in Yangon.

    The results must be confirmed by the official electoral commission, however, which has yet to release any outcome and may not make an official declaration for days.

    The victory claim came despite allegations by her National League for Democracy party that “rampant irregularities” had taken place on voting day.

    Party spokesman Nyan Win said that by midday alone the party had filed more than 50 complaints to the Election Commission. He said most alleged violations concerned waxed ballot papers that made it difficult to mark votes. There were also ballot cards that lacked the Election Commission’s seal, which would render them invalid.

    Sunday’s byelection was called to fill just 45 vacant seats in Myanmar’s 664-seat national Parliament and will not change the balance of power in a new government that is nominally civilian but still heavily controlled by retired generals. Suu Kyi and other opposition candidates would have almost no say even if they win all the seats they are contesting.

    But her candidacy has resurrected hope among Myanmar’s downtrodden masses, who have grown up for generations under strict military rule. If Suu Kyi takes office as expected, it would symbolize a giant leap toward national reconciliation.

    “She may not be able to do anything at this stage,” said one voter, Go Khehtay, who cast his ballot for Suu Kyi at Wah Thin Kha, one of the dirt-poor villages in the rural constituency south of Yangon that she is vying to represent. “But one day, I believe she’ll be able to bring real change.”

    Earlier, crowds of supporters mobbed Suu Kyi as she visited a polling station in the village after spending the night there. The tiny community of 3,000 farmers has no electricity or running water, and its near-total underdevelopment illustrates the profound challenges facing the country as it slowly emerges from 49 years of army rule.

    Despite the reports of widespread irregularities, a confirmed victory by Suu Kyi could cheer Western powers and nudge them closer to easing economic sanctions they have imposed on the country for years.

    Suu Kyi herself told reporters Friday that the campaigning for Sunday’s vote been anything but free or fair, but that she was pressing for forward with her candidacy because it’s “what our people want.”

    Last year, Myanmar’s long-entrenched military junta handed power to a civilian government dominated by retired officers that skeptics decried as a proxy for continued military rule. But the new rulers — who came to power in a 2010 vote that critics say was neither free nor fair — have surprised the world with a wave of reform.

    The government of President Thein Sein, himself a retired lieutenant general, has freed political prisoners, signed truces with rebel groups and opened a direct dialogue with Suu Kyi, who wields enough moral authority to greatly influence the Myanmar policy of the U.S. and other powers.

    Suu Kyi’s decision to endorse Thein Sein’s reforms so far and run in Sunday’s election represents a political gamble.

    Once in parliament, she can seek to influence policy and challenge the government from within. But she also risks legitimizing a regime she has fought against for decades while gaining little true legislative power.

    Suu Kyi is in a “strategic symbiosis” with some of the country’s generals and ex-generals, said Maung Zarni, a Myanmar expert and a visiting fellow at the London School of Economics.

    “They need her and she needs them to break the 25 years of political stalemate,” Zarni said. “She holds the key for the regime’s need for its international acceptance and normalization.”

    Sunday’s poll marks the first foray into electoral politics by Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy party since winning a landslide election victory in 1990. The military annulled those results and kept Suu Kyi in detention for much of the next two decades. The party boycotted the last vote in 2010, but in January the government amended key electoral laws, paving the way for a run in this weekend’s ballot.

    A new reform was expected Monday when Myanmar’s currency will be largely unshackled from government controls that kept the kyat at an artificially high rate for decades. The International Monetary fund says the change could lift a major constraint on growth in one of Asia’s least developed countries.

    http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/1154905–aung-san-suu-kyi-elected-to-myanmar-s-parliament-party-says

  121. JanH
    April 1st, 2012 at 10:04 am

    Hamas Urges Women to Blow Themselves Up

    A Hamas legislator gave a fiery speech, urging women to blow themselves up for the sake of Jerusalem and the Al-Aqsa mosque.
    ______________

    Well, how stupid are these Hamas men who no doubt are ally’s of the Bill Ayers/Obama cult?

    Found an old article from years past relevant to the current ME situation. I felt it needed to be re-published on my site earlier this morning.. It states one of their objectives is eliminating 28 million Americans as part of the Obama/Ayers plan for the overthrow of the American government as revealed to an undercover FBI agent in 01/08-

    http://pumasunleashed.wordpress.com/2012/04/01/scared-yet/

    I hope all those ‘dumber than a box of rocks’ voters that voted for Obama can live with the guilt they foisted this monster on us and the country because they couldn’t vote for a Republican- Fear of losing your job is a cowards excuse… Jackwagons! You lost it anyway!

  122. JanH
    April 1st, 2012 at 10:10 am

    Bravo!

    Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi elected to Myanmar’s parliament, party says
    __________

    A beautiful woman, as delicate as a rosebud but fierce as a Tiger in her new role helping her country thrive and flourish. Bravo X 2

  123. Media Silent as Left Attacks Kids of WI Lt. Gov.
    157
    10
    2828

    Email Article
    Print Article Send a Tip
    by John Nolte 1 day ago 121 post a comment
    This is what we see time and again at the hands of the same Left that manufactured a month’s long non-troversy over a word Rush Limbaugh spoke. While, on one hand, the left and their media allies feign outrage over Limbaugh, on the other hand, they either willfully ignore or launch vile, sexist attacks against conservative women that go well beyond anything that can in any way be called satire or humor.

    Wisconsin Lt. Governor Rebecca Kleefisch is a wife, mother, and a cancer survivor. She’s currently being targeted for recall and by some of the ugliest personal attacks you’ll hear — at least until the left launches the next one.

    Listen here to John “Sly” Sylvester, a left-wing radio host who operates out of Madison, WI, at radio station WTDY. Sylvester accuses Kleefisch of performing sexual acts on numerous men, mocks her cancer, and attacks her children.

    Here are the lowlights:

    “I’m Rebecca Kleefisch. I perform fellatio on all the talk show hosts in Milwaukee. … I got colon cancer and I ran around the state [garbled] people.”

    “I had heard at one point that Rebecca Kleefisch pulled a train (having sex with several men one after another) but that must’ve been a different story I was reading about.”

    “Let me tell you something about these Barbies the Republicans trot out the Rebecca Kleefisch’s…”

    “I hope your husband is sleeping with your best friend.”

    Unbelievably, it gets worse. Here’s the mocking of the Lt. Governor’s children:

    “I love it that your kids have actually have to hear about what evil things you’re doing. I hope they have to hear it every day. And I hope they come home right to you. And just because you’re good looking — and she is — and just ‘cuz you’re cutes and I’m sure you got a precocious little daughter you put in little Jon Benet contests, and I’m sure you have a little jock son, and they come home and say ‘Mommy, they’re saying you’re a witch.’ You are a witch!”

    The attack on the Kleefisch’s children is quite intentional. We’ve seen the media do the same to Sarah Palin. The idea is to gut-punch the target, to attempt to make the price of staying in the public arena awful and toxic. The left’s hope, obviously, is that the target will shrivel up and go away. Well, this evil tactic didn’t work on Palin and I doubt it will on Kleefisch.

    But where is the media on this?

    AWOL, naturally, because Rebecca Kleefisch is an apostate — a self-made Republican woman who became the Lt. Governor of a swing state Barack Obama desperately needs to fall his way if he’s to have four more years to be more, uhm, flexible.

    The fact that this is a local matter is no excuse for the mainstream media covering it up, either. For over a year now, the state of Wisconsin has seen plenty of national media attention surrounding every twist and turn of these recall elections.

    But local media appears to be ignoring the story as well.
    You may wish to scroll past if you find obscenity to be highly objectionable. But it gives us yet another example of how big media is silent toward sexism and worse. This is from Breitbart. However, the indictment is too narrowly drawn. They have got to stop qualifying it by saying it is an attack on conservative women. It is a broader attack upon any and all women who oppose their elitist, globalist, pro public union, al sharpton sexist racist agenda. Ultimately, it is an attack upon free speech and free thought. They ignore something as objectionable as this, and yet they turn around and spend a month on what another talk show host says on the other side of the fence. Have we reached the point where the public at large gets it? Perhaps not. But if not now then when? I am prepared to say that pinky fingered types like Tapper is in a state of stony silence on things like this because he agrees with what they are saying but dares not say it himself because it might frighten the horses. The only virtue I see in this little episode is that in a purple state like Wisconsin, it will scare the horses, on the eve of the June recall vote. People like Mahr and this guy have more in common with the Washington DC legal establishment, even thought they would dismiss the proposition as absurd. The reason I say that is because their thinking is so incestuous, and they see no virtue in any position than theirs that they no longer live in the real world. I don’t give a damned what they do, except they still have the microphone.

    A good faith search of Wisconsin’s largest news outlet, the Journal Sentinel, reveals no mention of Sylvester’s attacks. Laughably, the Journal Sentinel does mention Governor Sarah Palin’s recent Facebook post in support of Kleefisch and does accuse Kleefisch of engaging in “attacks” and “gender politics,” but even in the face of the recent controversy surrounding Rush Limbaugh, nothing about a left-wing radio host’s sexist taunts or attacks on her children.

    Regardless, even if I missed a mention in the Journal Sentinel, we all know this story would be a national one if Kleefisch “knew her place” and was Democrat, and it would most certainly be a hotter than hot local scandal being driven by the same Journal Sentinel.

    What’s going on here isn’t bias, it’s a full-blown cover up.

  124. Clinton on Gore: “I Thought He Was in Neverland”

    “At one point in the conversation, Gore told Clinton that he was still traumatized by having been caught up in the fundraising scandals of the 1996 Clinton reelection campaign, and he indicated that he blamed Clinton. Clinton could hardly believe this, and he told Branch that Gore was probably in shock from the election or unhinged, remarking, “I thought he was in Neverland.”

    (…)

    Gore became easy pickins for Soros easily turning him into a less than honorable man. Gore’s nose dripping with humiliation and regret and a supercilious wounded ego limped into a scheme all about restoring his prestige and filling his pockets with money…at the people’s expense.. after all, who would know or guess what motivated him, Al Gore was going to SAVE the World from itself with a movie entitled “An Inconvenient Truth” eschewing the solution was the responsibility of the people who caused it- Therefore, we need to privately fund this solution (Soros’idea of a Cap and Trade Tax)by Taxing the people, every living thing they own and every business in the World.

    God Bless the squirrels, the deer, the bunny rabbits, coyotes and every feral animal that has never know or heard of Al Gore.

  125. holdthemaccountable
    April 1st, 2012 at 11:02 am
    ——————-

    You know, sometimes I think that is what they both do, taunt, push the envelope, don’t play by the rules and when people comment and complain, they play victim and cry racism. That is easier than real hard work to make a difference.

    On a mundane stylistic note, that ensemble is too tight. She could still wear that same thing minor some modification in a nice elegant way.

  126. My apologies:

    This viewer warning should have preceded the last article:

    You may wish to scroll past if you find obscenity to be highly objectionable. But it gives us yet another example of how big media is silent toward sexism and worse. This is from Breitbart. However, the indictment is too narrowly drawn. They have got to stop qualifying it by saying it is an attack on conservative women. It is a broader attack upon any and all women who oppose their elitist, globalist, pro public union, al sharpton sexist racist agenda. Ultimately, it is an attack upon free speech and free thought. They ignore something as objectionable as this, and yet they turn around and spend a month on what another talk show host says on the other side of the fence. Have we reached the point where the public at large gets it? Perhaps not. But if not now then when? I am prepared to say that pinky fingered types like Tapper is in a state of stony silence on things like this because he agrees with what they are saying but dares not say it himself because it might frighten the horses. The only virtue I see in this little episode is that in a purple state like Wisconsin, it will scare the horses, on the eve of the June recall vote. People like Mahr and this guy have more in common with the Washington DC legal establishment, even thought they would dismiss the proposition as absurd. The reason I say that is because their thinking is so incestuous, and they see no virtue in any position than theirs that they no longer live in the real world. I don’t give a damned what they do, except they still have the microphone.

  127. Mrs. Smith
    April 1st, 2012 at 11:14 am

    Clinton on Gore:

    =======================

    Note the date. Or did you believe it?

  128. “Gore responded with his own anger, insisting that Clinton’s character had been at the root of his failure to win the White House. Clinton acknowledged that he had not confessed to those closest to him, but that he was glad he had not talked more about the affair, for that would have made the controversy even worse.”

    (…)

    Clinton as usual was diabolically correct. Gore was scheduled by the House Mgrs to be removed as VP and put under investigation because of soliciting donations fundraising scandals of the 1996 Clinton reelection campaign.

    Had Clinton confided his dilemma in Gore, Gore would have been a used as witness against him during the Impeachment hearings.. And from what we know now of Gore’s cowardice, he would have sold out his own mother to distance and exonerate himself from any hint of scandal.

  129. wbboei, thanks for bringing attention to that… I have some relatives in WI, who actually like the lt gov as well as gov, they are retired teachers and voted for Walker the first time around, I’m unsure what they will do for the recall election.
    I’m going to forward that bit to them, do you have link to the story, by any chance?

    Disgusting what the left is, what this dem party is now! “Party of women” what a joke, the same sexist vile people who went after Hillary when she was in their way, then went after Palin, when she was in her way, all the while crying “we’re the party of women”. BULL$HIT!

  130. ” In an interview with Branch shortly after he left office, Clinton passionately defended his last-minute pardon of Marc Rich, the fugitive financier. Summing up Clinton’s outrage over the dust-up caused by the pardon, Branch describes the now ex-president’s rant: “They said Clinton had a conflict because Rich’s ex-wife was a donor to his library. Lord have mercy, he cried, Papa Bush pardoned Caspar Weinberger and others before the Iran-contra prosecutions may have targeted Bush himself. Nobody fussed.” Clinton showed no remorse to Branch about this pardon.”

    (…)

    This is an example typical of the persecution Clinton endured from Republicans during his presidency. No illegal connection to Clinton’s presidency, no evidence of criminal activity, except for donations made to his campaign by Rich’s wife.

  131. Mrs. Smith
    April 1st, 2012 at 11:24 am

    ================

    If not April Fool, what is your source for this nonsense? Have you traced it to its alleged source, as you recommended with a Fox article? It claims to report private conversations between a President and Vice President. Who claimed to hear this?

    All rather unplausible. 😉

  132. “In 1996, Esquire magazine was looking for a writer to contribute a pro-Clinton article to its election issue. After Clinton hit snags with Texas columnist Molly Ivins, Harvard professor Thomas Patterson, and bestselling crime author John Grisham, Branch took on the assignment.”

    (…)

    I’m a little surprised at John Grisham’s name appearing in this line up. I thought he and BC were best of friends as they were both from Arkansas and held fundraisers together.

    nomobama- any way you can shed some light on this conundrum?

  133. turndownobama
    April 1st, 2012 at 11:30 am

    Mrs. Smith
    April 1st, 2012 at 11:24 am

    ================

    If not April Fool, what is your source for this nonsense? Have you traced it to its alleged source, as you recommended with a Fox article? It claims to report private conversations between a President and Vice President. Who claimed to hear this?

    All rather unplausible. 😉
    _____________________________

    You need to read more carefully, The article was posted earlier this am by nomobama @ 2:08 am.. from an interview with Bill Clinton reported by Taylor Branch @ Mother Jones..

    nomobama’s post below..

    (…)

    nomobama
    April 1st, 2012 at 2:08 am

    Some more tidbits that are from a good 3 years ago, but mostly things I did not hear about before.
    ———–
    http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2009/09/clinton-gore-i-thought-he-was-neverland

  134. ABM90
    April 1st, 2012 at 7:35 am

    AL Gunga Din Sharpton(Obama waterboy}should be up for charges of inciting riots and civil unrest.

    He is a threat to his own people and this country. He is now the posterboy for those that believe that the good things in life are free and they now have white Americans on their knees and a civil war is in the making.

    President OREO must be held responsible and Impeachment must be acted on NOW.
    _______________

    ABM90- Rest assured if I had a magic wand and could wave it proudly, cutting through all the investigations and red-tape; I would do so in a heartbeat.. I’m hoping after the Republicans nominate Romney, we can get back to business and Impeachment hearings can begin.. before we’re all relics with memories of what should have been done to save America.

  135. turndownobama
    April 1st, 2012 at 11:47 am

    So Motherjones is now an accepted source?
    ____________

    Are Bill Clinton’s direct quotes an accepted source?

    For me they are-

  136. It isn’t that Obama does not keep his word. If that were all there was to it, he would be no different than any other scumbag politician. What makes him worse, and I am hard pressed to find the right word to describe him, is he makes the promise, you rely on it, and then he turns around and does the opposite. I guess the word I am looking for is “fexible” This is from the weekend edition of WSJ–and will never be reported by big media. They cover it all up–to keep their audience clueless.
    ——————————–
    When the Archbishop Met the President
    Cardinal Dolan thought he heard Barack Obama pledge respect for the Catholic Church’s rights of conscience. Then came the contraception coverage mandate.

    Article
    Video
    Comments (477)

    more in Opinion »

    Email
    Print

    Save ↓ More

    smaller
    Larger

    By JAMES TARANTO

    New York

    The president of the U.S. Conference of Bishops is careful to show due respect for the president of the United States. “I was deeply honored that he would call me and discuss these things with me,” says the newly elevated Cardinal Timothy Dolan, archbishop of New York. But when Archbishop Dolan tells me his account of their discussions of the ObamaCare birth-control mandate, Barack Obama sounds imperious and deceitful to me.

    Mr. Obama knew that the mandate would pose difficulties for the Catholic Church, so he invited Archbishop Dolan to the Oval Office last November, shortly before the bishops’ General Assembly in Baltimore. At the end of their 45-minute discussion, the archbishop summed up what he understood as the president’s message:

    “I said, ‘I’ve heard you say, first of all, that you have immense regard for the work of the Catholic Church in the United States in health care, education and charity. . . . I have heard you say that you are not going to let the administration do anything to impede that work and . . . that you take the protection of the rights of conscience with the utmost seriousness. . . . Does that accurately sum up our conversation?’ [Mr. Obama] said, ‘You bet it does.'”

    The archbishop asked for permission to relay the message to the other bishops. “You don’t have my permission, you’ve got my request,” the president replied.

    “So you can imagine the chagrin,” Archbishop Dolan continues, “when he called me at the end of January to say that the mandates remain in place and that there would be no substantive change, and that the only thing that he could offer me was that we would have until August. . . . I said, ‘Mr. President, I appreciate the call. Are you saying now that we have until August to introduce to you continual concerns that might trigger a substantive mitigation in these mandates?’ He said, ‘No, the mandates remain. We’re more or less giving you this time to find out how you’re going to be able to comply.’ I said, ‘Well, sir, we don’t need the [extra time]. I can tell you now we’re unable to comply.'”

    The administration went ahead and announced the mandate. A public backlash ensued, and the archbishop got another call from the president on Feb. 10. “He said, ‘You will be happy to hear religious institutions do not have to pay for this, that the burden will be on insurers.'” Archbishop Dolan asked if the president was seeking his input and was told the modified policy was a fait accompli. The call came at 9:30 a.m. The president announced the purported accommodation at 12:15 p.m.
    Related Video

    Editorial board member Joe Rago predicts how the Supreme Court will rule on ObamaCare’s Medicaid expansion and the law’s severability.

    Sister Carol Keehan of the pro-ObamaCare Catholic Health Association immediately pronounced herself satisfied with the change, and the bishops felt pressure to say something. “We wanted to avoid two headlines. Headline 1 was ‘Bishops Celebrate . . . Accommodations.’ . . . The other headline we wanted to avoid is ‘Bishops Obstinate.'” They rushed out a “circumspect” statement, which Archbishop Dolan sums up as follows: “We welcome this initiative, we look forward to studying it, we hope that it’s a decent first step, but we still have very weighty questions.”

    Within hours, “it dawned on us that there’s not much here, and that’s when we put out the more substantive [statement] by the end of the day, saying, ‘Whoa, now we’ve had time to hear what was said at the announcement and to read the substance of it, and this just doesn’t do it.'”

    Having rushed to conciliate, they got the “Bishops Obstinate” headlines anyway.

    Enlarge Image
    wintertaranto
    wintertaranto
    Terry Shoffner

    Archbishop Dolan explains that the “accommodation” solves nothing, since most church-affiliated organizations either are self-insured or purchase coverage from Catholic insurance companies like Christian Brothers Investment Services and Catholic Mutual Group, which also see the mandate as “morally toxic.” He argues that the mandate also infringes on the religious liberty of nonministerial organizations like the Knights of Columbus and Catholic-oriented businesses such as publishing houses, not to mention individuals, Catholic or not, who conscientiously object.

    “We’ve grown hoarse saying this is not about contraception, this is about religious freedom,” he says. What rankles him the most is the government’s narrow definition of a religious institution. Your local Catholic parish, for instance, is exempt from the birth-control mandate. Not exempt are institutions such as hospitals, grade schools, universities and soup kitchens that employ or serve significant numbers of people from other faiths and whose main purpose is something other than proselytization.

    “We find it completely unswallowable, both as Catholics and mostly as Americans, that a bureau of the American government would take it upon itself to define ‘ministry,'” Archbishop Dolan says. “We would find that to be—we’ve used the words ‘radical,’ ‘unprecedented’ and ‘dramatically intrusive.'”

    It also amounts to penalizing the church for not discriminating in its good works: “We don’t ask people for their baptismal certificate, nor do we ask people for their U.S. passport, before we can serve them, OK? . . . We don’t serve people because they’re Catholic, we serve them because we are, and it’s a moral imperative for us to do so.”

    To be sure, not all Catholics see it that way. Archbishop Dolan makes an argument—which he prefaces with the admission that “I find this a little uncomfortable”—that federal intrusion bolsters those who are more selfishly inclined: “Some Catholics . . . are now saying, ‘Fine, we’ll get out of all that. It’s dragging us down anyway. Rather than be supporting 50 Catholic schools in the inner city where most of the kids are not Catholic, and using a big chunk of diocesan money to do that, we’ll just use it for the schools that have all Catholics, and it’ll serve us a lot better.’ . . .

    “I find that, by the way, to be rather un-Catholic,” he continues. “I don’t know what that would say to the gospel mandate to be ‘light to the world’ and ‘salt of the earth.’ It’s part of our religion to be right out there in the forefront, right there in the nitty-gritty.”

    An insular attitude, Archbishop Dolan suggests, plays into the hands of ideologues who favor an ever-more-powerful secular government: “I get this all the time: I would have some people say, ‘Cardinal Dolan, you need to go to Albany and say, “If we don’t get state aid by September, I’m going to close all my schools.”‘ I say to them, ‘You don’t think there’d be somersaults up and down the corridors?'”

    Another story comes from the nation’s capital: “The Archdiocese of Washington, in a very courteous way, went to the City Council and said, ‘We just want to be upfront with you. If this goes through that we have to place children up for adoption with same-sex couples, we’ll have to get out of the adoption enterprise, which everybody admits we probably do better than anybody else.’ And one of the City Council members said, ‘Good. We’ve been trying to get you out of it forever. And besides, we’re paying you to do it. So get out!'”

    What about the argument that vast numbers of Catholics ignore the church’s teachings about sexuality? Doesn’t the church have a problem conveying its moral principles to its own flock? “Do we ever!” the archbishop replies with a hearty laugh. “I’m not afraid to admit that we have an internal catechetical challenge—a towering one—in convincing our own people of the moral beauty and coherence of what we teach. That’s a biggie.”

    For this he faults the church leadership. “We have gotten gun-shy . . . in speaking with any amount of cogency on chastity and sexual morality.” He dates this diffidence to “the mid- and late ’60s, when the whole world seemed to be caving in, and where Catholics in general got the impression that what the Second Vatican Council taught, first and foremost, is that we should be chums with the world, and that the best thing the church can do is become more and more like everybody else.”

    The “flash point,” the archbishop says, was “Humanae Vitae,” Pope Paul VI’s 1968 encyclical reasserting the church’s teachings on sex, marriage and reproduction, including its opposition to artificial contraception. It “brought such a tsunami of dissent, departure, disapproval of the church, that I think most of us—and I’m using the first-person plural intentionally, including myself—kind of subconsciously said, ‘Whoa. We’d better never talk about that, because it’s just too hot to handle.’ We forfeited the chance to be a coherent moral voice when it comes to one of the more burning issues of the day.”

    Without my having raised the subject, he adds that the church’s sex-abuse scandal “intensified our laryngitis over speaking about issues of chastity and sexual morality, because we almost thought, ‘I’ll blush if I do. . . . After what some priests and some bishops, albeit a tiny minority, have done, how will I have any credibility in speaking on that?'”

    Yet the archbishop says he sees a hunger, especially among young adults, for a more authoritative church voice on sexuality. “They will be quick to say, ‘By the way, we want you to know that we might not be able to obey it. . . . But we want to hear it. And in justice, you as our pastors need to tell us, and you need to challenge us.'”

    As we talk about sex, Archbishop Dolan makes a point of reiterating that his central objection to the ObamaCare mandate is that it violates religious liberty. In their views on that subject, and their role in politics more generally, American Catholics have in fact become “more like everybody else.” When John F. Kennedy ran for president in 1960, he found it necessary to reassure Protestants that, in the archbishop’s paraphrase, “my Catholic faith will not inspire my decisions in the White House.”

    “That’s worrisome,” Archbishop Dolan says. “That’s a severe cleavage between one’s moral convictions and the judgments one is called upon to make. . . . It’s bothersome to us as Catholics, because that’s the kind of apologia that we expect of no other religion.” But times have changed. Today devout Catholic Rick Santorum is running on the promise that his faith will inform his decisions—and his greatest support comes from evangelical Protestants.

    The archbishop sees a parallel irony in his dispute with Mr. Obama: “This is a strange turn of the table, that here a Catholic cardinal is defending religious freedom, the great proposition of the American republic, and the president of the United States seems to be saying that this is a less-than-important issue.”

    Religious freedom has received a more sympathetic hearing at the U.S. Supreme Court—which, coincidentally, has had a Catholic majority since 2006. In January, in Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC, the court ruled unanimously in favor of an evangelical Lutheran church’s right to classify teachers as ministers and therefore not subject to federal employment law. Archbishop Dolan sums up the decision: “Nowhere, no how, no way can the federal government seek to intrude upon the internal identity of a religion in defining its ministers.”

    But whether the government has the authority to define a ministry—excluding, as the ObamaCare mandate does, church-affiliated institutions like hospitals and schools—is a separate legal question, one that may be resolved in litigation over the birth-control mandate.

    It’s possible that the Supreme Court or a new president will render the issue moot. After our interview, the archbishop has a question for me: If the high court rules against ObamaCare, will that be the end of the birth-control mandate? Probably not, I tell him—though such an outcome seems much likelier now than it did early in the week when we met. The justices could end up striking a blow for religious liberty without the question even having reached their docket.

  137. So Motherjones is now an accepted source?
    —————————————-
    Lord no. But if you want to do the research, read the book the article refers to. Knowing Quinn for the snake she is she is not above spreading lies. She wants to be Pamela Digsby Harriman–but she still comes across as a kitchen scully, whose ancestors came across the pond in steerage no doubt.

  138. Are Bill Clinton’s direct quotes an accepted source?

    =========

    Reported by whom? With video?

  139. wbboei
    April 1st, 2012 at 11:56 am

    OTurd’s promises all come with an expiration date, and that date is only known to him, and it all revolves around when its useful for him to go back on his word.
    He is for himself, always. If the man can lie straighface to a Cardinal, its no effort to lie to anyone else.

  140. JanH
    April 1st, 2012 at 12:07 pm

    Are Bill Clinton’s direct quotes an accepted source?

    For me they are-

    —————
    Yup.
    _____________

    People with critical thinking skills can accept and discuss direct quotes from former president Clinton giving his side or the story of the falling out between him and Gore. People who idolize Gore are unable to remove their shrines to the politician with clay feet who took more than he gave…
    _______________

    Here’s the full story- it’s a bit long, but solidifies my statements posted earlier. I invite any Clinton supporters here or reading here who would like to comment on my comments or President Clintons comments to do so here..

    Clinton on Gore: “I Thought He Was in Neverland”

    In a soon-to-be-released book, Bill Clinton dishes on Al Gore, Maureen Dowd, and GOPers.

    September 21, 2009

    On Monday, USA Today ran a front-page article on the soon-to-be-released book chronicling a series of secret interviews Pulitzer Prize-winning author Taylor Branch held with President Bill Clinton throughout the Clinton presidency.

    The piece focused on a bizarre episode in which Russian President Boris Yeltsin during a visit to Washington in 1995 ended up in his underwear and drunk on Pennsylvania Avenue, trying to hail a cab.

    As for the Lewinsky affair, Clinton told Branch, he “just cracked” under political and personal pressures. USA Today also noted that Clinton and Al Gore had an explosive conversation following the 2000 election. But the newspaper provided only a few details on this meeting.

    I’ve obtained a copy of the book, and that encounter, as Clinton recalled it to Branch, was more than dramatic; it was also weird.

    During the discussion, Clinton told his vice president that he was disappointed that Gore had not used him in the last ten days of the 2000 campaign in strategically significant state—Arkansas, Tennessee, New Hampshire, and Missouri.

    But Clinton said he could understand that. What was more upsetting for him, Clinton remarked to Gore, was that Gore had not crafted a more winning message during the campaign, that he had not campaigned on any grand themes. Clinton insisted to Gore that he hadn’t cared about how Gore had referred to Clinton—and his personal scandal—during the campaign. Paraphasing this portion of the conversation, Branch writes that Clinton told Gore, “To gain votes, he would let Gore cut off his ear and mail it to reporter Michael Isikoff of Newsweek, the Monica Lewinsky expert.”

    At one point in the conversation, Gore told Clinton that he was still traumatized by having been caught up in the fundraising scandals of the 1996 Clinton reelection campaign, and he indicated that he blamed Clinton. Clinton could hardly believe this, and he told Branch that Gore was probably in shock from the election or unhinged, remarking, “I thought he was in Neverland.”

    In this same conversation, Gore pressed Clinton for an explanation of his affair with Lewinsky, noting that Gore had stood by him throughout the ordeal without Clinton ever confiding in him. There was little to say, Clinton replied. But Clinton did say that he was sorry. Gore responded that that this was the first time Clinton had apologized to him personally. This angered Clinton, who countered that he was only repeating what he had already said publicly.

    Moreover, Clinton noted, Hillary had more to resent that Gore did, and she had just campaigned successfully for Senate by unabashedly citing the Clinton-Gore record—not running away from it. Gore responded with his own anger, insisting that Clinton’s character had been at the root of his failure to win the White House. Clinton acknowledged that he had not confessed to those closest to him, but that he was glad he had not talked more about the affair, for that would have made the controversy even worse.

    The 707-page book, titled The Clinton Tapes:

    (I can remember Pinkers buying and reading this book. Confloyd comes to mind and a few others..)

    Wrestling History with the President, is a fascinating read, full of the most inside information on the policy fights, political tussles, and personal controversies of the Clinton years. I haven’t finished the book, but here are other intriguing portions that caught my attention:

    * In an interview with Branch shortly after he left office, Clinton passionately defended his last-minute pardon of Marc Rich, the fugitive financier. Summing up Clinton’s outrage over the dust-up caused by the pardon, Branch describes the now ex-president’s rant: “They said Clinton had a conflict because Rich’s ex-wife was a donor to his library. Lord have mercy, he cried, Papa Bush pardoned Caspar Weinberger and others before the Iran-contra prosecutions may have targeted Bush himself. Nobody fussed.” Clinton showed no remorse to Branch about this pardon.

    * In 1996, when Washington author Sally Quinn was telling people that Hillary had not written her book, It Takes a Village, Branch suggested to the First Lady that she invite Quinn and her husband Ben Bradlee to the White House. “You know,” Hillary shot back, “she has been hostile since the moment we got here. Why would we invite somebody like that into our home. How could she expect us to.” Branch writes, Hillary “said Quinn and her friends simply invented gossip for their dinner circuit. They had launched one juicy affair between Hillary and a female veterinarian attending Socks, the Clinton family cat, with tales about how somebody discovered them in flagrante on a bedroom floor in the White House.”

    * After the 1998 congressional elections, Clinton bemoaned the fact that GOP Rep. Jim Bunning had narrowly won a Senate seat in Kentucky. Branch writes, “He said Bunning, a former baseball player, was so mean-spirited that he repulsed even his fellow know-nothings. ‘I tried to work with him a couple times,’ said Clinton, ‘and he just sent shivers up my spine….I know you’re a baseball fan and everything, and you don’t like to hear it, but this guy is beyond the pale.'”

    * When Clinton prepared for military strikes against Iraq in 1998, he griped about former President Jimmy Carter. “[Republican Senator Bob] Dole will support me,” he told Branch. “Carter will probably criticize me. Carter always criticizes, but he doesn’t have much positive to say.”

    * In 1997, when Senate Republicans were opposing Clinton’s pick for CIA chief, Anthony Lake, Clinton told Branch he considered Senator Richard Shelby, an Alabama Republican (who had once been a Democrat) and a leading Lake detractor, to be a dogged and spiteful man. Clinton added that Shelby was supported by two GOP “know-nothings” on his Senate committee, Jon Kyl of Arizona and Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma.

    * In 1996, Esquire magazine was looking for a writer to contribute a pro-Clinton article to its election issue. After Clinton hit snags with Texas columnist Molly Ivins, Harvard professor Thomas Patterson, and bestselling crime author John Grisham, Branch took on the assignment.

    * In 1994, after Bob Woodward’s book on the budget battles of Clinton’s first year in office, The Agenda, came out, Clinton told Branch he suspected that the major sources for Woodward were George Stephanopoulos, Paul Begala, and Alan Greenspan.

    * In 1994, Hillary Clinton told Branch that a year earlier she had been at a dinner party where Henry Kissinger had whispered to her that if her health care plan became law he would never be allowed to see his personal physician again. Hillary had tried to explain to Kissinger why this was not true. But, Branch writes, “she said Kissinger merely scowled and growled behind his ‘game face’ of impregnable secret knowledge.” Hillary also disclosed to Branch that she had dreamed of being at a banquet with Kissinger and telling him that her health care reform effort was not dead and “there’s always light at the end of the tunnel.”

    * In 1995, Clinton predicted to his confidantes that Colin Powell would challenge him in 1996, while Hillary and Gore contended that the retired general would not. After Powell declared he would not run, Branch writes, the president did not call Powell, fearing this would “advertise his relief.” Clinton’s “mistaken prediction about Powell,” Branch adds, “seemed to gnaw at Clinton.”

    * Toward the end of 1995, when Japan was in the midst of political and economic crises, Gore urged Clinton to visit Japan. Clinton, though, nixed the dates Gore suggested, saying, “Al, I am not going to Japan and leave Chelsea by herself to take” her junior-year midterm exams. This caused a big fight between the two.

    * Following his 1996 reelection victory, Clinton was mad about revelations of Democratic Party campaign finance irregularities. He feared—after Whitewater—that this could be a legitimate scandal. He was annoyed that Democratic Party officials could not provide him answers about what had gone wrong. But, Branch writes, “he thought fund-raiser Terry McAuliffe vaguely knew.” Referring to antagonism toward him within the press at this time—especially at The Washington Post and The New York Times—Clinton declared, “I am bitter about it.”

    * In 1997, after New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd wrote an acerbic column about Clinton and golfer Tiger Woods—maintaining that the the two green-eyed hucksters deserved each other—Clinton told Branch, “She must live in mortal fear that there’s somebody in the world living a healthy and productive life.”

  141. “In 1996, when Washington author Sally Quinn was telling people that Hillary had not written her book, It Takes a Village, Branch suggested to the First Lady that she invite Quinn and her husband Ben Bradlee to the White House.

    “You know,” Hillary shot back, “she has been hostile since the moment we got here. Why would we invite somebody like that into our home. How could she expect us to.”

    Branch writes, Hillary “said Quinn and her friends simply invented gossip for their dinner circuit. They had launched one juicy affair between Hillary and a female veterinarian attending Socks, the Clinton family cat, with tales about how somebody discovered them in flagrante on a bedroom floor in the White House.”
    ______________

    Although due to Hillary’s relatively new apolitical position as Secretay of State where silence is her burden on most domestic issues.

    The above comment is the Hillary I know- unabashedly outspoken, speaking her mind, holding nothing back… firing arrows to their targeted recipients. The fighting Hillary, unchained, un-muted and unleashed!

  142. “when Washington author Sally Quinn ”

    a useless waste of a person, from everything I’ve read about Sally Quinn, she write some nonsensical column, that is all she does, just going on the DC party circuit, and when she can’t find anything, just make it up. No wonder DC is a bubble, they live in their nice cushioned life looking down on anyone who isn’t part of their click.

  143. another useless person.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/01/dean-individual-mandate-not-really-necessary/

    My wife (along with other supporters), when campaigning for Hillary, questioned Dean on the sexism against Hillary, Dean being the idiot that he is, said he would look into it, didn’t do a damn thing about it. In fact Dean at one point said something like, “Hillary as president scares him”. Stupid dumb man.
    The entire DNC is a disgusting organization, nothing “democratic” about it, radical,commies, chicago crooks, everywhere.

  144. yes, Tim.. and the Howard Dean supporters coincidentally analogous to the Gore supporters. Craven ideologues akin to the harpies you read about in Robert Lewis Stevenson novels who strike when threatened as the protectorates of their clay footed idols.

  145. pm317 11:16 am
    —————-
    It will amuse them either way. Should Rush or any other be foolish enough to mock Michelle openly, the criticism of that effort will amuse. If Rush or any other stifles, the humor will be nearly as tasty for the realization of he/they being eaten up with aggravation because he/they dare not speak. IOW, a win-win for the “victims”.

    I grew up in a rural county; there were few blacks anywhere. However, as a sign of common human respect, I was taught to pronounce the word “Negro” carefully. My father had occasion to learn of “Herbie B,” a Negro who had moved into our region; my father said he admired Herbie, so I admired Herbie too although I never met him. Time passed, lives crossed, and Herbie’s grandson David was a pupil in the same kindergarten class which my older daughter attended. The two children were never told there had been a past connection; they were just being kids. The teacher said they were good friends and most mornings danced a little dance. We chuckled about that. It was the early 1970’s, and clearly there was no need for diversity training at that time in that place.

    Less than a decade later my life changed drastically. I wound up working in Newark NJ; the riots there were just barely over, and the laws protecting “African Americans” were in place. Newark was 50% African American. Therefore, in my workplace of 3000+, 1500+ were African Americans. Some of them reminded me of what I knew about Herbie’s family, and I can count a number of them who became decent friends with me; some eventually came to trust me enough to confide things about their heritage. But there were others too. Ones who would block the hallway when they could see I was hurrying to mail something before the mailroom closed.

    Outside the office building, it was just as obvious: there were two group behaviors visible in the general AA population on the streets in downtown Newark.

    Office building after office building was built, and it continues even now, to force white people into the area presumably to improve it. Two decades since I’ve been there on a regular basis and it still is a bad place.

    It was not until 2008 when I learned of Obama’s church that I realized how the hate of the one segment may be sustained.

  146. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/post/nbc-to-do-internal-investigation-on-zimmerman-segment/2012/03/31/gIQAc4HhnS_blog.html?hpid=z6

    NBC told this blog today that it would investigate its handling of a piece on the “Today” show that ham-handedly abridged the conversation between George Zimmerman and a dispatcher in the moments before the death of Trayvon Martin. A statement from NBC:

    We have launched an internal investigation into the editorial process surrounding this particular story.”

    Great news right there. As exposed by Fox News and media watchdog site NewsBusters, the “Today” segment took this approach to a key part of the dispatcher call:

    Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.

    Here’s how the actual conversation went down:

    Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.

    Dispatcher: OK, and this guy — is he black, white or Hispanic?

    Zimmerman: He looks black.

    The difference between what “Today” put on its air and the actual tape? Complete: In the “Today” version, Zimmerman volunteered that this person “looks black,” a sequence of events that would more readily paint Zimmerman as a racial profiler. In reality’s version, Zimmerman simply answered a question about the race of the person whom he was reporting to the police. Nothing prejudicial at all in responding to such an inquiry.

  147. ““We have launched an internal investigation into the editorial process surrounding this particular story.””

    Yea, right. They’re just embarassed they got caught(considering people can listen to the entire 911 tape and then realize they were lied to by NBC). I’m sure they’re going to internally “investigate” how to make their bias less blatant.

  148. Mrs. Smith
    April 1st, 2012 at 12:31 pm

    Here’s the full story- it’s a bit long, but solidifies my statements posted earlier.

    NOT REALLY. THE CLOSER THIS GETS TO A FIRSTHAND SOURCE (MUCH LESS BILL HIMSELF) THE MILDER BILL’S ALLEGED STATEMENTS APPEAR.

    SO REALLY, THIS IS THE WORST THAT COULD BE FOUND?

    […..]
    I’ve obtained a copy of the book [BY TAYLOR BRANCH PUBLISHED 2009], and that encounter, as Clinton recalled it to Branch, was more than dramatic; it was also weird.

    SO THIS IS WHAT THE WRITER SAYS THAT BRANCH SAID THAT CLINTON SAID.

    During the discussion, Clinton told his vice president that he was disappointed that Gore had not used him in the last ten days of the 2000 campaign in strategically significant state—Arkansas, Tennessee, New Hampshire, and Missouri.

    But Clinton said he could understand that. What was more upsetting for him, Clinton remarked to Gore, was that Gore had not crafted a more winning message during the campaign, that he had not campaigned on any grand themes. Clinton insisted to Gore that he hadn’t cared about how Gore had referred to Clinton—and his personal scandal—during the campaign. Paraphasing this portion of the conversation, Branch writes that Clinton told Gore, “To gain votes, he would let Gore cut off his ear and mail it to reporter Michael Isikoff of Newsweek, the Monica Lewinsky expert.”

    At one point in the conversation, Gore told Clinton that he was still traumatized by having been caught up in the fundraising scandals of the 1996 Clinton reelection campaign, and he indicated that he blamed Clinton. Clinton could hardly believe this, and he told Branch that Gore was probably in shock from the election or unhinged, remarking, “I thought he was in Neverland.”

    ABOUT ONE SINGLE COMMENT ABOUT A FUNDRAISING SCANDAL. NOT ABOUT GORE IN GENERAL OR ANY POLICY OF GORE’S.

    In this same conversation, Gore pressed Clinton for an explanation of his affair with Lewinsky, noting that Gore had stood by him throughout the ordeal without Clinton ever confiding in him. There was little to say, Clinton replied. But Clinton did say that he was sorry. Gore responded that that this was the first time Clinton had apologized to him personally. This angered Clinton, who countered that he was only repeating what he had already said publicly.

    OH BIG DEAL. ABOUT A PERSONAL APOLOGY ON A PERSONAL MATTER. NOT ABOUT IMPORTANT ISSUES.

    Moreover, Clinton noted, Hillary had more to resent that Gore did, and she had just campaigned successfully for Senate by unabashedly citing the Clinton-Gore record—not running away from it. Gore responded with his own anger, insisting that Clinton’s character had been at the root of his failure to win the White House.

    AH, NOW IT’S WRITER SAID THAT BRANCH SAID THAT CLINTON SAID THAT GORE SAID.

    AND EVEN IF TRUE, IT WAS A SPAT ABOUT A CAMPAIGN, NOT ABOUT POLICY.

    [….]

    * In 1995, Clinton predicted to his confidantes that Colin Powell would challenge him in 1996, while Hillary and Gore contended that the retired general would not. After Powell declared he would not run, Branch writes, the president did not call Powell, fearing this would “advertise his relief.” Clinton’s “mistaken prediction about Powell,” Branch adds, “seemed to gnaw at Clinton.”

    TYPICAL OF BRANCH’S JUDGEMENT AND HIS OPINION OF BILL?

    * Toward the end of 1995, when Japan was in the midst of political and economic crises, Gore urged Clinton to visit Japan. Clinton, though, nixed the dates Gore suggested, saying, “Al, I am not going to Japan and leave Chelsea by herself to take” her junior-year midterm exams. This caused a big fight between the two.

    GORE WANTED BILL TO DO THE JOB OF POTUS? BAAAD GORE.

  149. NBC told this blog today that it would investigate its handling of a piece on the “Today” show that ham-handedly abridged the conversation between George Zimmerman and a dispatcher in the moments before the death of Trayvon Martin. A statement from NBC:

    “We have launched an internal investigation into the editorial process surrounding this particular story.”
    —————————–
    Why?
    Why??
    Why???

    They do not need to investigate.

    Give me a break.

    They, we know, and they know that we know how, and we know that they know how and why this happened.

    It is straight party line.

    Lie, cheat, steal, distort, slander, cover-up and incite riots?

    That is their repotiore.

    Oh, yes, I forgot the most important one: black mail

    So please, do not insult our intelligence and tell us you are going to investigate.

    The only reason for you to investigate is to cover your tracks, NBC.

    This is what happens when ideology replaces journalism.

    The public needs to walk away from these people.

  150. Palin to host The Today Show on NBC?

    Why?

    You would think she would have the judgment and common sense to steer clear of that leprosorium.

    Or perhaps someone is pulling my leg.

  151. Has this gotten coverage here?
    Juan Williams on Trayvon Killing: Liberal Media Wants to Replay What Happened 50 Years Ago – YouTube

  152. I posted news about a seasoned Sarah Palin rematch taking on Katie Couric today at:
    HILLARY UNLEASHED

    =======================

    A “rematch taking on” would mean that Couric would be interviewing Palin again (or possibly vice versa).

    Apparently what’s really happening is that Couric will host a show one day, and Palin will host it another day. They’re not really going to be talking to each other on the same day. 😉

    http://hillaryunleashed.wordpress.com/2012/04/01/palin-to-couric-game-on/
    When news broke that Katie Couric will be filling in for Robin Roberts next week on ABC’s “Good Morning America,” the country yawned. Or, at least we did, until we learned that NBC plans to pit “The Rogue Warrior” against “The Perky One”: Sarah Palin will be guest-hosting “Today” this Tuesday.

  153. ham-handedly–as in lying through their teeth, NBC. Must be a new word in the Lunz dictionary of political doublespeak–right before the word pivot–which is a euphemism for repudiating a promise you have just made. Its the wing tip alley in that organization that pushes this kind of thing–not the peons at ground level. They know management will do everything it can to re-elect Obama, and that is where they take their ques. But since FOX called them on it, it has started to fighten the horses, so they create this big pretense of investigating. If they want to investigate, they should hire the former USA Today Professor who was a White House Reporter for USA Today, who has called his former colleagues on the carpet for their failure to vet Obama. He would relish the role, and unlike their internal cover-up–they will have to cover it up because if you do a thorough investigation, I guarantee you that the scapegoats were just following orders.

  154. These things don’t just happen in a corporate environment. They happen because management sets the tone, and the top management of NBC has done just that. They censor and they misquote. Therefore, within their corporate culture, such tactics are permissible, until it frightens the horses.

  155. holdthemaccountable
    April 1st, 2012 at 2:23 pm

    Has this gotten coverage here?
    Juan Williams on Trayvon Killing: Liberal Media Wants to Replay What Happened 50 Years Ago – YouTube
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CS9bauG2WA8&feature=youtu.be
    ——————–
    It is a generational phenomenon and they cannot let go. In their youth people like Brokaw went to the south and marched their little hearts out in support of a revolution which would have happened with or without them if you read the works of Thomas Sowell. But to this day, they bask in the notion that they made a dent in the universe, and that is their egotism. But it is much like the old saying of having a solution looking for a problem. Realists define the problem before they fashion a solution–but not these clowns. And that is what Juan is getting at. All the societal energy focused through the lens of a different time and a different place, fails to address much less solve the current problem which is more complex and it requires a new definition of culprit and villain. But with whores like NBC and CNN and ABC fanning the flames and invoking the old narrative, they breed, suspicion, distrust and hatred, which is bound to escalate.

  156. It is a generational phenomenon and they cannot let go
    ———————
    How about this? Al Sharpton doing a 180 from the mission originally stated?
    17 March 2010
    Obama’s New Partner: Al Sharpton
    WASHINGTON—With his wavy bouffant and medallion necklaces, the Rev. Al Sharpton famously confronted government officials on behalf of black Americans. Now he has found a new role: telling black leaders to quiet their criticisms and give the government a chance. snip
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704588404575123404191464126.html

  157. Well, they’re just going to keep pushing this shit uphill.
    Trayvon Martin shooting: It’s not George Zimmerman crying for help on 911 recording, 2 experts say
    5:38 p.m. EST, March 31, 2012|
    By Jeff Weiner, Orlando Sentinel
    http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-31/news/os-trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-911-20120331_1_voice-identification-expert-reasonable-scientific-certainty
    FoxNews has video of NAACP rally. I don’t know if that is a euphemism for Al Sharpton.
    And parents are expected at Miami rally. They’re not sitting home grieving.
    And POTUS is …..
    Signing off for the day.

  158. * Toward the end of 1995, when Japan was in the midst of political and economic crises, Gore urged Clinton to visit Japan. Clinton, though, nixed the dates Gore suggested, saying, “Al, I am not going to Japan and leave Chelsea by herself to take” her junior-year midterm exams. This caused a big fight between the two.

    GORE WANTED BILL TO DO THE JOB OF POTUS? BAAAD GORE.
    ________________

    Now-now- no need to go into a meltdown.. screaming on the blog. Afterall, you are disrespecting admin’s hard work when you start acting childish derailing conversations…

    Geeze, I had no idea the President wasn’t the final decision maker and Gore as VP and understudy would acquiesce to his boss’s decisions rather then go into a temper tantrum thinking it should be the other way around.

    Customarily the president has the final say- on what his daily agenda includes.

    The buck stopped with Clinton.. NOT Gore.

  159. I am glad some black people are speaking out against the race hustlers, but last week I read a comment and it has stayed with me ever since. I don’t remember it exactly but it went something like this:

    “From the 60’s on we Americans have spent trillions of dollars trying to help black people to a better life and this is the result?”

  160. April 1st, 2012 at 1:48 pm

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/post/nbc-to-do-internal-investigation-on-zimmerman-segment/2012/03/31/gIQAc4HhnS_blog.html?hpid=z6
    NBC told this blog today that it would investigate its handling of a piece on the “Today” show that ham-handedly abridged the conversation between George Zimmerman and a dispatcher in the moments before the death of Trayvon Martin.

    =====================

    Such abridgement is evil, imo. It was also used on Palin (by Gibson iirc) and also on Gore in the famous “iced tea” thing. Iirc that was a set up by some GOP investigation. There was some alleged remark in a meeting that he said he had not heard (or maybe it didn’t happen). The investigator asked a lot of questions like “Were you in the room the whole time?” … “Didn’t you even go to the restroom?” … “What were the refreshments served?” etc. Then the report omitted all those leading questions and made it sound like Gore had volunteered ‘iced tea’ as an excuse. Also in the ‘no controlling authority’ press conference, the press cut off his full statement of “There is no controlling authority THAT SAYS WHAT I DID WAS WRONG.” Ie, no rule on record against using that particular phone.

    What’s really scary is, that even when evidence is found of what was really said — that evidence is ignored, and the misquote continues, seldom challenged.

  161. My take on Palin guest hosting the Todays’s show is that Immelt is sending a message to Obama. Recently we saw news that he had soured on Obama and looks like this is more of that.

  162. What would we expect….

    Top Obama campaign donor accused of fraud (Abake Assongba)

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2012/04/01/politics/p134345D74.DTL

    A major donor to President Barack Obama has been accused of defrauding a businessman and impersonating a bank official, creating new headaches for Obama’s re-election campaign as it deals with the questionable history of another top supporter.

    The New York donor, Abake Assongba, has contributed more than $50,000 to Obama’s re-election effort this year, federal records show. But Assongba is also fending off a civil court case in Florida, where she’s accused of thieving more than $650,000 to help build a multimillion-dollar home in the state — a charge her husband denies.

    Obama is the only presidential contender this year who released his list of “bundlers,” the financiers who raise campaign money by soliciting high-dollar contributions from friends and associates. But that disclosure has not come without snags; his campaign returned $200,000 last month to Carlos and Alberto Cardona, the brothers of a Mexican fugitive wanted on federal drug charges.

    Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt declined comment to The Associated Press. He instead referred the AP to previous statements he made to The Washington Post, which first reported the allegations against Assongba in its Sunday editions. LaBolt told the paper 1.3 million Americans have donated to the campaign, and that it addresses issues with contributions promptly.

    Assongba was listed on Obama’s campaign website as one of its volunteer fundraisers — a much smaller group of about 440 people.

    Assongba and her husband, Anthony J.W. DeRosa, run a charity called Abake’s Foundation that distributes school supplies and food in Benin, Africa.

    In one Florida case, which is still ongoing, Swiss businessman Klaus-Werner Pusch accused Assongba in 2009 of engaging him in an email scam — then using the money to buy a multimillion-dollar home, the Post reported. The suit alleges Assongba impersonated a bank official to do it. Pusch referred the AP’s questions to his attorney, who did not immediately return requests seeking comment Sunday.

    Meanwhile, Assongba has left a trail of debts, with a former landlord demanding in court more than $10,000 in back rent and damages for a previous apartment. She was also evicted in 2004 after owing $5,000 in rent, records show.

    In an interview with the AP on Sunday, DeRosa said the allegations against his wife were untrue, although he couldn’t discuss specifics because of pending litigation. He said he and Assongba were “very perturbed” by the charges, and said the couple’s charity does important work in Africa.

    Assongba has given more than $70,000 to Democratic candidates in recent years, an AP review of Federal Election Commission data shows. Her larger contributions include $35,000 to the Obama Victory Fund, a joint fundraising committee between Obama and the Democratic Party, and at least $15,000 to the Democratic National Committee. She also contributed to Hillary Rodham Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign.

    Abake’s Foundation is listed by the IRS as a registered nonprofit organization; its financial reports were unavailable. A representative who picked up the phone at the foundation’s Benin office declined to answer questions, and instead referred the AP to Assongba.

    Obama’s campaign declined to comment on whether its vetting procedures were thorough enough, or whether Assongba’s contribution would be refunded. All told, Obama has raised more than $120 million this election, not counting millions more from the Democratic Party — giving him a financial advantage thus far over any of his Republican challengers.

    ……………………….

    hmmmmm. She sounds dodgy alright.

  163. Mrs. Smith
    April 1st, 2012 at 12:56 pm
    If anyone is interested…

    I posted news about a seasoned Sarah Palin rematch taking on Katie Couric today at:
    ___________________________________

    This looks like an April Fool’s joke. Why would they announce this on Sunday? Also nothing on her Facebook or Twitter pages about it.

  164. pm317
    April 1st, 2012 at 6:59 pm
    My take on Palin guest hosting the Todays’s show is that Immelt is sending a message to Obama. Recently we saw news that he had soured on Obama and looks like this is more of that.
    ***

    Immelt doesn’t run NBC anymore. Comcast bought NBC from GE a year or two ago. Comcast CEO Brian Roberts is a conservative type in general.

  165. Thanks, ecoast. There goes my take. LOL! You know I did google it before writing that comment and saw an article about NBC being bought out. Lazy Sunday. Conservative Comcast is bringing on Palin. So what will the Obot be left with? CNN?

  166. A major donor to President Barack Obama has been accused of defrauding a businessman and impersonating a bank official, creating new headaches for Obama’s re-election campaign as it deals with the questionable history of another top supporter.
    ————————
    Harmless error compared to Obama who has defrauded the country and impersonated a president.

  167. How about this? Al Sharpton doing a 180 from the mission originally stated?
    17 March 2010
    Obama’s New Partner: Al Sharpton
    WASHINGTON—With his wavy bouffant and medallion necklaces, the Rev. Al Sharpton famously confronted government officials on behalf of black Americans. Now he has found a new role: telling black leaders to quiet their criticisms and give the government a chance. snip
    —————————
    Sharpton has been in the forefront of racializing the tragedy in Florida, working with the NBP, and turning his television program into a high tech gallows. This statement is more in the vein of don’t frighten the horses PRIOR TO the election. It is simply designed to help Obama. It does not signal a transformation. There is too much power and money in race baiting for this jerk off to give up on it. I will guarantee you he will be right back at it when Romney wins. He is what he is.

  168. My take on Palin guest hosting the Todays’s show is that Immelt is sending a message to Obama. Recently we saw news that he had soured on Obama and looks like this is more of that.
    ***

    Immelt doesn’t run NBC anymore. Comcast bought NBC from GE a year or two ago. Comcast CEO Brian Roberts is a conservative type in general.
    ————————–
    If this is true, then it shows a complete lack of judgment on Sarah’s part. In this life, you dance with the date that brung you–not with the enemy who has played a leading role in tearing you down. It is the way big media divides and conquers. It is a trap she does not need to fall into. On a related note, the Congresswoman friend of mine told me one day that she had just received a call from 60 Minutes to appear on their program, and asked me for my opinion. I advised against it. She asked why. I told her that I could do no better than quote Nixon: they will splice what you say and leave the best part of the interview on the cutting room floor. It is insanity to give an organization like NBC or ABC a life ring when they are drowning. Let them drown and the world will be a better place for it. Don’t push them, but don’t lift a finger to save them either. They are not worth saving.

  169. hmmmmm. She sounds dodgy alright.
    ____________

    probably a relative.. like the Uncle w/dwi who should have been arrested and deported along with the Aunt who was also ordered deported. Yet they remain.. the Aunt in low income Sec 8 housing in MA.
    The Uncle with a slap on the wrist and a brief license suspension.

  170. If this is true, then I have a pretty good idea how it happens. You get on the celebrity high wire and its hard to get off. The phone rings, and it is hard to say no. And then one day, as Orsen Wells discovered, the phone does not ring anymore. If that is what happened to Sarah, then perhaps I can give you a counter example of how to do it right.

    I do not know whether you have seen an actor named Daniel Day Lewis. He is widely regarded as one of the greatest actors ever, by people whose opinions count for something. He brings an intensity to acting which is seldom seen outside the Old Vic, but it translates beautifully to the silver screen. I say that not as a critic, or a sophisticate, by as a fan who wants to understand the art behind the art which seems to flow so effortlessly. He has been around for a long time, but he is highly selective in the appearances he makes, and that is one part of the magic. Few films, but every one of them is a gem, i.e The Gangs of New York, There Will Be Blood, etc.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Day-Lewis

    When it comes to big media, Sarah should do like he does.

  171. He’s back to plus 1.2% today.
    ——————————-
    jbstonesfan: this is hardly surprising. It will not change until the Republicans nominate Romney, and then the entire parties trains its howitzers on what can only be described as an indefensible record. I think the numbers we see now bear little or no relationship to what will occur in November, and as you will undoubtedly recall, a year before the election Hillary appeared to have a commanding lead. Right now we have Santorum out there showing the worst side of the party and saying lots of stupid things. The vaudeville hook should come out after Wisconsin. The reason I feel this way is because I have two papers documenting all that is wrong with Obama, and what it convinces me of is that he and his gang of thieves will go down in the final act of this play.

  172. Palin will be guest hosting on the Today Show for one day on Tuesday. Couric is filling in for Robin Roberts for a week on ABC Morning Show.

    She’ll do fine- She survived the campaign meat grinder coming out on TOP- Hosted her own Show, Sarah Palin’s Alaska. Stood up next to McCain and raised millions of dollars for his War Chest. They showed up and donated because of her- NOT him..

    Her wiki is pretty extensive too-

    A Bachelors in Communication, majoring in Journalism.. So, this is Sarah’s element.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin

    I’m willing to bet… she’s going to blow Katie Couric away in the ratings war… and soon she will be a permanent fixture sitting next to Matt Lauer every morning on Today.

    The Tea-Party LOVES her…

  173. Someone who has access to the latest Gallup poll’s internals found this:

    At first brush, it appears Barry/Axelrod/Fluke’s manufactured controversy and alleged Republican War on Women are working. In the swing states, Romney’s support among women dropped by 14 points since Feb and Barry is leading 51 to 42% on the basis of the swing of the women’s votes.

    But if one looks closer: Gallup/USA today oversampled democratic women to republican women 41% to 24% (2 to 1). Party affiliation is about equal in males polled, and within that group , Romney is beating Barry. Talk about a fabricated push poll. Those people making up this poll has no shame.

    They gamed the sampling not only to put Romney behind overall, but very specifically to push the meme that women just luuuuuurv them some Obama. It’s a lie. There are not going to be twice as many female D voters as female R voters in swing states. In 2010, there were more R women voting than D women. The poll deliberately FAR under sampled R women.

  174. HillaryforTexas
    April 1st, 2012 at 9:47 pm

    I think these outfits should just poll all the people who’ll vote for OTurd, you know make it even easier for them to prop up their man.

  175. Hillaryfor Texas, do you have a link to that article? I’d like to share it with the peeps on FB.

  176. Jen, it was one of the regular HotAir guys in the comments, not an article. He’s always breaking down the polls – I think he has the paid subscription to all of them. But no link, because whatever he is looking at is behind a paid subscriber firewall.

  177. At first brush, it appears Barry/Axelrod/Fluke’s manufactured controversy and alleged Republican War on Women are working. In the swing states, Romney’s support among women dropped by 14 points since Feb and Barry is leading 51 to 42% on the basis of the swing of the women’s votes.

    But if one looks closer: Gallup/USA today oversampled democratic women to republican women 41% to 24% (2 to 1). Party affiliation is about equal in males polled, and within that group , Romney is beating Barry. Talk about a fabricated push poll. Those people making up this poll has no shame.
    —————————-
    Revelations like this do terrible damage to their brand. It is how they will be remembered. And if you cannot trust them on issues like this, how can you trust them on everything else they poll. If I were the head of that organization, heads would roll over this one. I do not believe this organization is in the tank, but it is rather obvious that some people down the food chain are. If it were CNN, you could expect it because that organization is in the tank, and their internal poster skews his sampling to deliver the results management want as opposed to the truth. His name is Keating Holland.

  178. “When it comes to big media, Sarah should do like he does.”

    Sarah is still under contract with Fox. I think your first guess was correct – April Fools!

    Other 4/1 pranks:
    Romney’s team had him appear at a speech, to an empty room.
    Burger King announced a left-handed Whopper for the 32 million southpaws in America, with the condiments and toppings rotated 180 degrees.

  179. Al Sharpton complained to MSNBC that April Fools Day is rooted in white supremacist exploitation of blacks.

  180. Al Sharpton complained to MSNBC that April Fools Day is rooted in white supremacist exploitation of blacks.
    ——————————————————-

    Valleyboy: now that is a keeper. It is like sinking a 60 foot putt with your eyes closed. A comment worthy of an “elder statesman” as fat bald headed pasty Phil Griffin head of MSnbc described him. The only thing I can say good about him is he eats at the same place I do when I am in New York–Sylvia’s at 128th and Lennox in Harlem. Fortunately, our paths have not crossed. But he and O’Reilly eat there. One more reason I am not terribly fond of Bill’O

  181. When it comes to big media, Sarah should do like he does.”

    Sarah is still under contract with Fox. I think your first guess was correct – April Fools!
    ——————–
    As I suspected. But it did have a Zero Mostel ring to it.

  182. en, it was one of the regular HotAir guys in the comments, not an article. He’s always breaking down the polls – I think he has the paid subscription to all of them. But no link, because whatever he is looking at is behind a paid subscriber firewall.
    ———————–
    Then he is most likely a Republican operative/pollster.

  183. “But he and O’Reilly eat there.”
    ________________

    Are you pranking me with Bill and Sharpton dining together? Eating with Sharpton sounds like a diet plan to chase away one’s appetite.

  184. Are you pranking me with Bill and Sharpton dining together? Eating with Sharpton sounds like a diet plan to chase away one’s appetite.
    ——————
    Yessiree. This is according to Bill’O.

  185. Larry Johnson’s blog. Notice he does not view Sharpton as a moderate. Larry is a foreign policy expert. During world war II they had an expression SNAFU–which meant situation normal all f’d up. Sort of like Obama’s foreign policy. Something to keep in mind when they start trying to credit his with killing Obama–something any president would have done, except with him it took 5 different requests, because he was worried about the political risk if it went wrong.
    ——————————-

    Celebrate Good Times, C’mon!! Oops!! I meant, “Curse it Allah.” We should have had those Muslim Brothers in Egypt pinky swear instead of just giving a vanilla promise. They swore they would stay out of the Egyptian Presidential election. Guess they had second thoughts or their prayer beads crossed:

    The Muslim Brotherhood nominated its chief strategist and financier Khairat el-Shater on Saturday as its candidate to become Egypt’s first president since Hosni Mubarak, breaking a pledge not to seek the top office and a monopoly on power. . . .

    He is being nominated at a moment of escalating tension between the Brotherhood and Egypt’s military rulers. The Brotherhood, an Islamist group outlawed under Mr. Mubarak, already dominates the Parliament and the assembly writing a new Constitution. It is now demanding to replace the military-led cabinet and is tussling with the military council over questions like the degree of civilian oversight of the military under the new charter.

    Chalk up another major foreign policy victory for Barky Obama. On second thought, this is a squishy turd in Obama’s re-election punch bowl. Describing Muslim Brothers as “relative moderates” in the Islamic world is akin to describing Al Sharpton as a political moderate or the Reverend Jeremiah Wright as a Christian moderate.

    Israel is really excited about this. Per the New York Times:

    An Israeli official, speaking on condition of anonymity, declined to comment specifically on Mr. Shater, but called the nomination worrisome. “Obviously this is not good news,” the official said. “The Muslim Brotherhood is no friend of Israel’s. They do not wish us well.” The official added: “The big question will be how pragmatic they will be once in power. It could go in either direction.”

    Come July and August things will be heating up in Egypt. The election of Shater will make Israel more nervous and less secure. The public mood in Egypt is increasingly anti-U.S.

    Obama and his team, along with Hillary, completely dropped the ball by not moving to prop up Mubarak and work out a transitional government that would have given us some reasonable assurance that Mubarak’s successor would stay on board with the peace agreement with Israel. Why? We don’t need a new flashpoint in the Middle East.

    But that was too tough for Obama to handle. He got all caught up with the emotion of Arab Spring and bought into the bullshit fantasy the radical muslims would remain hunkered down on their prayer mats while cosmopolitan, westernized Egyptians would take control of power and steer Egypt into the 21st century.

    Nope. 14th Century, here we come.

  186. But apparently this Sarah Palin is not an April fools prank–just a foolish move on her part.
    ____________________

    If true it is surprising alright, she may have something up her sleeve…

  187. Thanks Al Sharpton, Barack Obama, Spike Lee, Jesse Jackson. Your influence has divided our country and hurt innocent people. You all ought to be run out of town on a rail! You are perfect role models for barbarians and otherwise uncivilized society. Your behavior is un-American.
    _____________________

    7 California boys arrested in attack on teen

    PALMDALE, Calif. (AP) – Seven black teens have been arrested on suspicion that they committed a hate crime when they attacked a 15-year-old Hispanic boy while he was walking home from school in Southern California, according to the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Office.

    The March 14 beating in Palmdale was captured on video and posted on YouTube, but has since been removed from the site. The seven boys, ages 13 to 16, were arrested Wednesday for investigation of assault and committing a hate crime, Lt. Don Ford said.

    The attack happened near Cactus Middle School, but Ford didn’t know if any of the teens involved were students there.

    The video shows as many as 10 boys surrounding the victim and challenging him to a fight. The suspects then began hitting the teen while others watched.

    During the beating, the teens made racially derogatory statements that were captured on the video, Ford said.

    After the victim fell to the ground, the assailants kicked him multiple times in the head, knocked out several teeth and left shoe impressions on his skin, Ford said.

    The victim was able to get to his feet and escape the onslaught, and will need to undergo dental surgery.

    The teens who were arrested were identified from the video, which was discovered by a Palmdale sheriff’s deputy and has been retained for evidence. Authorities are not releasing the video.

    Police are seeking three more suspects.

    An arraignment date has not been set yet.

    http://www.katu.com/news/national/7-California-boys-arrested-in-attack-on-teen-145286335.html

  188. In a similar vein, Mrs. Smith, is the beginning of another piece. I’d intended to place the entire article here, but it deviates from what I expected … or would welcome … or care to think about. So here’s the intro:

    Trayvon Martin killing raises loaded racial terms –
    San Diego (CNN) — Over the years, Americans have become familiar with terms such as “white” and “Hispanic” and even — on government forms — the more specific “non-Hispanic white.” Now, courtesy of the mainstream media, there is a new phrase to add to our national lexicon: “white Hispanic.” I don’t like the sound of that. I’ve written about the thorny subjects of race and ethnicity for nearly a quarter century, and I rarely hear this term. We might have been able to see this coming given that there is no Hispanic race and Hispanics come in all colors. Still, mark my words. Wherever this road leads, it’s not good — not for Hispanics nor the rest of the country….

    http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/29/opinion/navarrette-white-hispanic/index.html?hpt=op_t1

  189. HTA-

    Sad, the media chooses to ca$h-in creating divisiveness within the country. If we are to assume the airwaves are in fact controlled by White House directives; then the issue for change lies at the feet of Obama. Until we hear him recant his personal opinion injecting his way into an unfortunate circumstance, by way of using an impossible comparison claiming “Trayvon could be his son”.

    Mr Obama is half white- Both Trayvon’s parents are black African Americans. Obama’s erroneous interjection for some sort of emotional attachment to the tragedy has no place in the public discussion. It never did. It appears Obama’s motivation for this lopsided drama is more for exploitation and heating up of racial issues rather than true concern for the loss of a child.

  190. Eyewitness account about Romney’s townhall in WI with Paul Ryan from Althouse:

    http://althouse.blogspot.com/2012/04/mitt-romney-and-his-running-mate-paul.html

    Anyway… the team of Romney and Ryan was excellent. They answered questions from people as equal partners — some deference to Romney, but basically equals. Ryan is a terrific speaker, and he got more applause than Romney a couple times. Hearing them answer the same question, one after the other, I kept thinking Ryan is the stronger of the 2. And that’s not to say Romney was unappealing, just less intense.

    Surely, Romney will pick Ryan as his VP. Right?

    I had the feeling there were 2 future Presidents in the room.

  191. Wisconsin Teachers’ Unions Trained Well-Funded Alinsky Group

    April 2, 2012

    Teachers in Wisconsin have been attending routine training workshops with the Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF), a radical organization founded by Saul Alinsky in 1940.

    In a video produced by the MacIver Institute, organizers are seen arriving at a March 17 training session with the Wisconsin Education Association Council, Wisconsin’s state teachers union.

    Teachers’ unions led last year’s protests in Wisconsin against collective bargaining reforms, and are now heavily involved in the effort to recall Republican Gov. Scott Walker. In addition to Alinskyite groups, the recall effort has attracted the support of radicals such as unrepentant domestic terrorist Bill Ayers.

    http://pumasunleashed.wordpress.com/2012/04/02/wisconsin-teachers-unions-trained-well-funded-alinsky-group/

  192. Excuse me, Mittens- You’re putting a crimp in Obama’s flexibility after his re-election.
    ___________________________

    Top Obama aides hit back at Romney over Russia

    (Reuters) – Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney on Sunday came under political fire from two of President Barack Obama’s top lieutenants, who dismissed Romney’s tough talk on Russia as being behind the times.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/01/us-usa-campaign-romney-russia-idUSBRE8300FK20120401

  193. Bill Clinton on Romney {offering him support, ;)}. He is a smart man.

    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/04/former-president-clinton-on-mitt-romney-etch-a-sketch-is-what-hes-got-to-do/

    “He started this campaign in the aftermath of that tea party victory in 2010,” Clinton said, “when all the people on the far right of the Republican party actually believed a majority of the voters had embraced the specific things they were saying. So it created a horrible dilemma for Romney. And the poor man who got in trouble for the Etch-a-Sketch remark. That’s like the saying, ‘There is nothing more damaging in politics than telling the truth.’ I mean, the truth is, that’s what he’s gotta do.”

    The former president was referring to a comment by Romney adviser Eric Fehrnstrom, who — when asked by CNN if Romney had run too far to the right to win the primaries — said, “I think you hit a reset button for the fall campaign. Everything changes. It’s almost like an Etch-A-Sketch. You can kind of shake it up and restart all of over again.”

    Clinton said Romney has to “convince the swing voters that he’ll be moderate enough and open enough and inclusive enough to be an effective president, and effective on the economy. And hope that the Republican base voters say, ‘Well, okay, so he maybe wasn’t as right-wing as he claimed to be in the primary. Still more conservative than President Obama. I guess I’ll vote for him anyway and I won’t stay home.’ That’s a much harder job. So I doubt if he can do it. But it’s going to be interesting to watch.”

  194. This Lady never stops working for our country.

    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
    PUBLIC SCHEDULE
    MONDAY, APRIL 2, 2012

    SECRETARY HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON

    11:15 a.m. Secretary Clinton attends the North American Leaders’ Summit, at the White House.
    (MEDIA DETERMINED BY WHITE HOUSE)

    12:00 p.m. Secretary Clinton hosts a foreign ministers’ luncheon in honor of the North American Leaders’ Summit, at the White House.
    (MEDIA DETERMINED BY WHITE HOUSE)

    2:25 p.m. Secretary Clinton meets with State Department and USAID Franklin Fellows, at the Department of State.
    (CLOSED PRESS COVERAGE)

    3:00 p.m. Secretary Clinton meets with President Obama, at the White House
    (MEDIA DETERMINED BY WHITE HOUSE

  195. ABM90
    April 2nd, 2012 at 9:56 am
    &&&&

    Thanks for your thorough coverage of Hillary’s schedule. She really does have a full day, then puts in another full day in the evening.

    Where you find her daily schedule?

    Obama…well, he doesn’t bother with details, or performing the duties of president. Obama delegates more stuff than even W. did, making his predecessor look hard-working in comparison. Obama has plenty of time for exercising and appearing on fluff tv shows, leaving precious little time for doing any real work. And when he does “get down to business”, it means sticking his face in front of a teleprompter, or sticking his hand out in front of wealthy donors.

  196. Obama’s recent open mic episode in South Korea should be a big deal, and it needs to be delved into. Here is Lame Cherry’s take on Obama bowing to the Kremlin. There are some things mentioned, much of it new information to me, that need to be considered. Difficult to understand, as is Lame Cherry’s writing style as usual, but there is enough written that should be within our mind’s grasp to understand, and evaluate. My conclusion: Obama has committed and continues to commit treasonous acts against our country.
    —————

    The 41-year old Obama, having won one of Illinois two Senatorial seats in 2005, is seen by many on Capitol Hill as heir-apparent to many of the non-proliferation concerns spearheaded by Lugar.

    End quote

    There once was a crippled up old journalist named Sherman Skolnick who uncovered more Chicago dirt than the universe could hold. One of the leads Skolnick unearthed in August 2005 was a strange event in Perm, Siberia, Russia, in which nuclear weapon’s inspection by a US Senate delegation was placed under detention by Vladamir Putin when it tried to leave a base in Perm.
    At stake was something on that US military airliner, and in detention the the US delegation was not allowed to leave their dismal holding area…….until their passports were turned over to the Russian authorities.

    One of those detained was Barack Hussein Obama, on his maiden trip as a Senator from Illinois, and there the intrigue begins as Skolnick’s reports on Obama being born in Kenya already in 2005, set in fast motion the Obama “need” to sanitize his passport files.
    If you recall in McCain, Clinton and Obama stories, “someone” was poking around in those files of “all three”, but the reality is the group was looking at Obama’s files, and one such person ended up murdered in their Church parking lot over the information they saw.

    What this goes back to is Putin’s FSB, already knew in 2005 that Barack Obama was a Kenyan national and Putin was engaged in his Polonium assassination nuclear war in pissing on the hydrant of Britain in the murder of Alexander Litvinenko.
    Of course, Lugar’s group was loaded with intelligence operatives, and they had things which they were not supposed to have and that is what the demand was for in searching the plane, but it was as it always is with Putin who was staged to be with President Reagan as “just another Russian citizen on the street”, more was going on than met the eye.

    No one has bothered to ask what price America has paid for Obama being British and illegal, in order to keep Vladamir Putin and Russia quiet?

    This blog has catalogued the price exclusively and repeats it here in expansion:

    1. Obama turned over the entire eastern bloc to Putin.

    2. Obama allowed the annexation of Ukraine.

    3. Obama has thwarted all reigning in of Iran as Putin protects the Persians.

    4. Obama shut down any FBI inquiry into the Russian mass murder of the entire Polish Government.

    5. Obama signed into law the absolute disarmament of these United States in the nuclear theater.

    No one has yet asked the questions in linking the rumors of Obama having “studied” in Russia for a year. This blog in inquiring of the university there, was not replied to. But the question is, “Did in 2005, Vladamir Putin, know to detain Obama as “British”, because Obama had records like in America, of being a student of foreign birth and was using a foreign aid package to gain financial assistance?”

    This all reaches back to the entire Obama menagerie of Bill Ayers in being an asset of the US Government to keep helter skelter from breaking out Charlie Manson style among US liberal children in colleges.
    This is why Ayers was never prosecuted for rape and murder. It was Ayers as this blog exclusively exposed assassinated his won Weathermen team who were about to mass murder US military people in New York.

    I never used the word, but this is Bill Ayers:

    Definition for cointelpro:
    Web definitions:
    COINTELPRO (an acronym for Counter Intelligence Program) was a series of covert, and often illegal, projects conducted by the United…
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO

    It is the like genesis of why Rahm Emanuel was not prosecuted for the Rod Blagovich bribery scheme, is because Rahm Emanuel is a double asset of Mosaad and US intel.
    Emanuel according to Skolnick was part of the money laundering trade in the Chicago commodities in paying for assassinations inside America and outside.

    One starts noticing patterns in this, as has been exclusively noted here, in Obama’s adoptive mum was working for intel at Ford Foundation setting up global economic rape of the poor in the 3rd world in ‘microfinance’.
    Zbigniew Brzezinski is in Obama’s closeted past in New York as a mentor.
    Bill Ayers is a US mole in the intelligence field.

    It is why Obama’s records were cleansed and why his records keep showing up with screwy smiley faces on them, it is because the Kremlin is f*cking with Obama, and it is Vladamir Putin who is gaining the blackmail laugh.

    This is why Obama and Clinton were messing around in Russian politics in trying to give Putin a problem at home to deal with, so he would not be a problem for Obama’s second term. Putin was too adept in this and has been doing as he pleases from feeding Iran intel, backing Pak intel which is backing Afghanistan against America and sending in troops and selling weapons to Syria.
    Yes Putin has been told, he can blow his wad, but then Putin will be exposed and be forced to give back all the goodies Obama has put out for the Kremlin.

    If one adds up the costs to Europe and America in what Obama has had to pay out to Putin in that 2005 adventure, the reality is, it has bred a world war in the making which no one is ever going to recover from.

    Barack Obama was never a British spy. Obama is a cartel boy of world order visions who answers as this blog exposed to the central European banking cartel of the Ashkenaz Rothschilds.

    There is not one group or government who does not know of the Obama crimes, and all have been paid off in nations or trillions of dollars.

    What no one has ever though put together in this, is the complete Russian connection in Stanley A. Dunham or Pop, was a communist, like Paul Robeson, like Uncle Frank Marshall Davis, like Stanley Ann, and the Kremlin has had an asset file on Obama, not as a Brit, but as “one of their own”.

    The polite word is blackmail in this. The word which gets Barack Hussein Obama before a Military Court is one which has him meted the same end the Rosenberg’s were sentenced to for espionage as Barack Obama has been a quasi Kremlin asset while working for the Berlin cartel, as his family has been involved with for a generation.

    You should have been paying attention children and should have asked yourself why screwy Wayne Madsen’s writings and Sherman Skolnick’s exclusives seemed just out of balance in too many fingers in the cherry pie.

    Now you know the thin veneer tying the real intel to the rumor and planted intel.

    Lugar’s stooge…….same Lugar who was in bed early with Minnesota election thief Al Franken who Karl Rove turned a blind eye to, so Eric Holder would not prosecute the Bush clan.

    Oh and if you want to reach back, this goes back to Eric Holder as an intelligence asset handling Marc Rich, who get got the Clinton’s to sign a pardon for in all those billions Rich laundered for Iran and Iraq, and in this case it is Holder who is the glue as an asset in managing Obama’s crimes for the Berlin cartel who Holder works for.

    It is why Issa of the GOP is not collecting on Holder’s head, and leaving Obama steal the 2012 election, as these are the assets of the International Socialists as exposed here.
    Holder and Obama set up Gun Runner to protect the drug and contraband traffic in the American sphere and to graduate it to assassinate Americans when necessary.
    Is the same club Obama’s benefactors set up with al Qaeda in Africa to run dope into Europe.

    Same money chains, same precious metal’s dealers in Marc Rich and Warren Buffett, same narco communists and same Islamocommunits, all with Berlin money exchange and Kremlin intelligence…….and Chicom shipping.

    We now return you to the heir apparent, that colonial bastard Obama.

    Do you think Anthony Ulsterman will figure this out, or his insiders, or ……will another Chicago dead guy just not matter in Donald Young or….

  197. This SHOULD be the final word on the subject. Sanscrotum and Newt need to get out. As Ernest and Julio Gallow said we will make no wine until its time. Well, after Wisconsin . . . . its time.

    Steiff is one of the best writers at RedState. And although I cannot agree that a second Obama term was EVER an option, the rest of his comments mirror my slow decent into madness, to avoid a hell that is orders of magnitude worse. The thousand and one misfortunes that a second Obama term would bring.

    We are seeing a preview of it now: the racial strife we see now is but a shadow of things to come. The debt, the economic decay, the foreign misadventures, the decadence, the death spiral for this country and quite possibly World War III in the middle east.

    For those who do not see it I can do no better than commend to them the prophetic words of Tom Sowell: only one or two people in one hundred see the irreversible damage that Obama’s warped policies and ruthless tactics are doing to a constitutional system which have delivered unprecedented prosperity and freedom to generations of Americans.

    And, by the way, don’t expect McConnell or Boehner to stop him–I know both of them and they are duds.
    ——————————————–
    Posted by streiff (Diary)

    Monday, April 2nd at 4:00AM EDT
    59 Comments

    This has been an extraordinarily difficult primary season for many conservatives, me among them.

    Against what is probably the weakest incumbent president since Herbert Hoover, we have managed to field an array of candidates worse than those we had in 2008 and perhaps worse than those competing for the nomination at our low point of 1996.

    Our best candidate, Texas Governor Rick Perry, was torpedoed by a lack of preparation on his part. Sure the patent dishonesty of Michele Bachmann’s Tardasil nonsense had an impact as well as the demagoguing of a state educational issue as a soft-on-immigration stance but let’s not excuse the fact that these attacks should have been anticipated by anyone participating in a GOP primary.

    For some months I have held the view that conservatives could very well be better served by a President Obama opposed by a Republican Congress than a President Romney working in concert with a decidedly un-conservative Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

    The events of the past few weeks have convinced me I was wrong. We are one election away from entering the death spiral to status as a Third World kleptocracy and I believe Governor Mitt Romney, for all his manifest faults, is the best man left standing to prevent that from happening.

    To be clear, my endorsement and support of Romney is a function of the actions of President Obama rather than any eighty-leven point plan Romney’s campaign staff has devised to technocrat our way out of a philosophical and moral morass because our fiscal difficulties are merely the symptoms of the true problem.

    I developed misgivings about my original strategy in January when Obama made patently illegal recess appointments. These misgivings have increased day by day as the EPA has essentially declared the coal industry illegal, religious liberty has been tossed under the bus in favor of consequence-free sexual gratification, Egypt and Libya have been turned over to either al-Qaeda or its sympathizers, billions of dollars have disappeared into the wallets of Obama donors in the guise of “green energy”, and our European allies have heard Obama tell a fellow kleptocrat that their security is up for grabs in a second Obama term.

    None of these actions could have been prevented by a GOP Congress that could not override a presidential veto and there are no circumstances I foresee that gets us to that number of seats in the House and Senate. In the final analysis, the president controls the regulatory agencies and the policy making apparatus of the United States. A determined president can do pretty much what he will so long as he commands at least 35 votes in the United States Senate and the Congress is unwilling to impeach.

    I’d feel a lot more comfortable with Governor Romney if I actually had a sense that he believed in anything. I don’t have that feeling and there is nothing in the man’s record that indicates he values principle over expediency. I don’t think bailing out the Salt Lake City Games by digging deep into Uncle Sugar’s pockets demonstrates very much skill, I find his record at Bain nauseating, and the disarray he inflicted upon the Massachusetts GOP gives me pause for the fate of the GOP under a Romney presidency.

    On the other hand I have no doubt that the Romney’s will restore a dignity and grace to the White House and the Office of the President that has been trashed by the gauche, nouveau riche, and monumentally entitled Obamas, both the Mom-jeans, weenie-armed Barack and the hulking, hectoring Michelle.

    In that way the situation will be similar for Governor Romney as it was for George Bush when the Clampetts departed. I think the Justice Department will again to begin to resemble a place where “justice” is a concern rather than peddling guns to Mexican narcotraficantes, arresting various Walter-Mittyesque groups as terrorists, and engaging in race-baiting of the worst sort. I don’t think the nation’s GPS system will be hamstrung to make a campaign donor very wealthy. We won’t be “investing” in solar panels and other cutesy technologies that have little demonstrable value. The Department of Defense will not be used as some sort of social laboratory to test out the latest academic theories. I will no longer fear for any of our basic rights. In particular, Ann Romney would be a stellar first lady.

    This was a difficult choice as I find a lot to like in both Newt Gingrich, whom I have met, and Rick Santorum, whom I have not. Mr. Gingrich, in particular, embodies the enthusiasm for tomorrow that has long been a quintessentially American trademark. Mr. Santorum has demonstrated that morality matters to the electorate and it should not be shunted to the side in either the Fall campaign or in governance.

    Unfortunately, both men have flaws that have convinced me they cannot win in November and that if they did win they would be ineffectual. The purpose of this is to not enumerate those flaws beyond the point of saying I have concluded that they outweigh any advantage either man brings to the table.

    In closing I wish to acknowledge the surprise this endorsement is sure to cause some RedState readers.

    For the past four years I’ve been very critical of Governor Romney and I continue to stand by those criticisms (read above if you have any doubts). Significantly for blogging in his support, I continue to find his supporters, with the possible exception of those I’ve yet to encounter, to be among the most ignorant, dishonest advocates of any candidate, anywhere, anytime possessing a blindness to facts and a subservience that borders on cult-like. I intend to continue to ban them at the slightest opportunity.

    So after much soul searching I’ve decided to climb up on the roof, snuggle in beside Seamus, and enjoy the ride.

  198. On the other hand I have no doubt that the Romney’s will restore a dignity and grace to the White House and the Office of the President that has been trashed by the gauche, nouveau riche, and monumentally entitled Obamas, both the Mom-jeans, weenie-armed Barack and the hulking, hectoring Michelle.
    ————————
    Admin: did you feed him those lines? They are classic prose–and biting satire. The kind little scumbags like Mahr could only dream of–as he dreams of a new nose, because nothing about it fits the face. It is like the self portrait of Van Gogh hair on fire.

  199. nomobama
    April 2nd, 2012 at 10:49 am

    Big Question:

    Who is left to prosecute these Global destroyers?

  200. From wbboei’s article:

    “In that way the situation will be similar for Governor Romney as it was for George Bush when the Clampetts departed. “

    So the Clampetts are the Clintons here?! and Bush restored honor to the WH? I don’t really care what this guy thinks of either Romney or Obama. He discredits himself — sure he is opposed to Obama but I would never be on the same side as he is.

  201. I regularly check but dont read lame cherry. the one posted above seems plausible.

    worth reading but here is the meat of it…

    after breighthart passing this also seems possible… admin if it needs to be deleted please feel free… from http://www.wnd.com/2012/04/hollywood-producer-heard-bill-clinton-say-obama-ineligible/

    WND EXCLUSIVE
    HOLLYWOOD PRODUCER HEARD BILL CLINTON SAY OBAMA INELIGIBLE
    Insider in Hillary’s 2008 campaign points to ‘original birthers’

    Viviano said that it was understood that Bill Clinton would eventually go public with his contention that Obama was ineligible for the presidency.

    “He, I believe, was frothing at the mouth to tell the truth about Obama,” she said.

    In the meantime, she recalled, the former president would make ironic references in public in which he “teetered” on revealing he position.

    “He would go on camera,” Viviano said, “and jokingly make comments about, you know, ‘Is Obama qualified to be president? Well, if he’s 35 and a wink, wink, United States citizen, I guess he’s qualified.’”

    She claimed, however, that Bill Clinton’s intention to unequivocally state to the public that Obama was ineligible was stopped in its tracks by the murder of a close friend of the Clintons, Arkansas Democratic Party Chairman Bill Gwatney, just two weeks before the Democratic National Convention in Denver.

    Gwatney was killed Aug. 13, 2008, when a 50-year-old man entered Democratic Party headquarters in Little Rock and shot him three times. Police killed the murderer after a chase, and investigators found no motive.

    The Clintons said in a statement that they were “stunned and shaken” by the killing of their “cherished friend and confidante.”

    Viviano said a campaign staffer who was close to Hillary, whose name she requested be withheld for security reasons, told her Gwatney’s murder was a message to Bill Clinton.

    “I was told by this person that that was ‘Shut up, Bill, or you’re next,’” she said.

    The campaign adviser, according to Viviano, said that despite the intimidation and threats, Bill Clinton was prepared to speak out about Obama’s eligibility

    “And then,” Viviano said, paraphrasing the staffer, “they went in and said, ‘OK, it’s your daughter, now, we’ll go after.’

    “And then Bill never said anything.”

    ouch!

  202. Bill Clinton: ‘Happy’ if Hillary Clinton runs in 2016

    By MJ LEE | 4/2/12

    Bill Clinton weighed in on the prospects of his wife Hillary running for president in 2016, saying in an interview, “If she changes her mind and decides to run, I’ll be happy.”

    “It’s entirely up to her,” Clinton told “Good Morning America” of ABC News. “I believe that she’s being absolutely honest with you when she says she doesn’t think she’ll go back into politics. But if she comes home and we do this foundation stuff for the rest of our lives, I’ll be happy; if she changes her mind and decides to run, I’ll be happy.”

    The secretary of state has repeatedly said that she has no intentions of seeking elected office after she is finished with her tenure as Secretary of State, but questions of whether she will make a second White House run have continued to persist.

    Obama’s 2008 rival made clear in an interview last year that she has no interest in any other government job after she leaves her post at the State Department, and that she doesn’t want to serve a second term as secretary of state if the president wins reelection. On top of denying that she would run for president again, she also said that she has no desire to be vice president.

    In a later interview with MSNBC on Monday, the 42nd president described his wife’s stint as a politician as having been “relentless,” suggesting that a break from the political world would be well-deserved.

    “Hillary’s worked really hard for 20 years and it’s just been a constant relentless thing,” Clinton said. “I’ve been there. I know what happens when you go through this decompression after years of relentless high-pressure activity and I just think she needs to rest up, do some things she cares about and whatever she decides to do, I’ll support her.”

    In addition, Clinton weighed in on a the national dialogue surrounding the death of Trayvon Martin on ABC News. He called the shooting a “tragedy” and said he hopes the Florida teenager’s death will lead to a “reappraisal” of the “Stand Your Ground” laws that have come under renewed scrutiny since George Zimmerman — the neighborhood watch captain who shot and killed Martin — told police he had acted in self-defense.

    “The law is going to create real problems because anyone can — anyone who doesn’t have a criminal background, anyone not prohibited by the Brady Bill and caught by the checks — can basically be a part of a neighborhood watch where they have a concealed weapon whether they had proper law enforcement training or not,” Clinton said. “So I hope this will lead to a reappraisal of the Stand Your Ground laws and I hope that the truth will come out and that the tragedy of this young man’s loss will not be in vain – it’s just terrible.”

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/74729.html

  203. sorry I forgot the “snip” comments thats just a bit of it there is quite a bit more… its worth reading.

  204. Not believing the polling garbage, but am very greatful that Hillary won’t be campaigning for the idiot.

    _______________

    Hillary Clinton Won’t Join Barack Obama On Campaign Trail

    By Sam Stein
    04/ 2/2012

    Enjoying a robust and growing gender gap against likely general election opponent Mitt Romney, President Barack Obama will nevertheless be without one of his best assets when it comes to drawing female voters in the fall.

    Senior administration officials confirmed on Monday that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would not be joining the president on the campaign trail, given the explicit need to avoid making her position appear political.

    Though Clinton has said she will leave the State Department at the end of Obama’s first term, she will still be Secretary of State as he ratchets up his general election campaign against Romney. Clinton’s role, of course, requires more than just a deft diplomatic (and often apolitical) touch. It also requires her to travel extensively across the globe. (Clinton is not the first Secretary of State to sit an election season out; Colin Powell did not join President George W. Bush on the campaign trail.)

    Even without Clinton, the president is in solid shape with respect to women voters. A new Gallup/USA Today poll released Sunday showed the president buoyed by that demographic in five key swing states.

    In the fifth Swing States Poll taken since last fall, Obama leads Romney 51 percent to 42 percent among registered voters, just a month after the president trailed him by two percentage points.

    The biggest change came among women under 50. In mid-February, just under half of those voters supported Obama. Now more than six in 10 do, while Romney’s support among them has dropped by 14 points, to 30 percent. The president leads him 2-1 in this group.

    This gap hasn’t just developed organically. The administration has taken calculated steps to both emphasize the president’s accomplishments for women and to spotlight some of the more rigid elements of GOP policy on issues like abortion and contraception coverage. That will continue this week as well. The senior administration officials, who briefed reporters about scheduling on condition that they not be quoted, said that the president would be attending a conference on women and the economy this Friday at the White House.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/02/hillary-clinton-barack-obama-campaign_n_1396950.html

  205. sirmrks

    Gwatney was killed Aug. 13, 2008, when a 50-year-old man entered Democratic Party headquarters in Little Rock and shot him three times. Police killed the murderer after a chase, and investigators found no motive.

    The Clintons said in a statement that they were “stunned and shaken” by the killing of their “cherished friend and confidante.”

    Viviano said a campaign staffer who was close to Hillary, whose name she requested be withheld for security reasons, told her Gwatney’s murder was a message to Bill Clinton.

    “I was told by this person that that was ‘Shut up, Bill, or you’re next,’” she said.

    The campaign adviser, according to Viviano, said that despite the intimidation and threats, Bill Clinton was prepared to speak out about Obama’s eligibility

    “And then,” Viviano said, paraphrasing the staffer, “they went in and said, ‘OK, it’s your daughter, now, we’ll go after.’

    “And then Bill never said anything.”

    ouch!

    ——–
    and don’t forget this happened right about the same time…

    Hillary Clinton super delegate assassinated, gunman later killed by police. But that’s not all. Now super delegate Stephanie Tubbs Jones is found brain dead.

    http://sadbastards.wordpress.com/2008/08/14/hillary-clinton-super-delegate-assassinated-gunman-later-killed-by-police/

    These are the mob friends of Barry that will murder for him, I don’t blame the Clinton’s for stepping back.

  206. jbstonesfan
    April 2nd, 2012 at 12:26 pm

    I know your concern is sincere, but I can tell you these polls this far out are far from concrete. Romney is unfortunately tied to Santorum, when that idiot drops out, Romney will get many of these women back. I use my wife and SIL as examples, they are both independent minded pro-choice dems, they loathe, and I mean loath Santorum, and I’ve noticed it rubs off on Romney, who they actually do like.
    When Romney is front and center, without idiots like Santorum yapping about contraceptions, Romney will at the very least run even with OTurd.

  207. Senior administration officials confirmed on Monday that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would not be joining the president on the campaign trail, given the explicit need to avoid making her position appear political.

    Hallelujah!!!!!

  208. So the Clampetts are the Clintons here?! and Bush restored honor to the WH? I don’t really care what this guy thinks of either Romney or Obama. He discredits himself — sure he is opposed to Obama but I would never be on the same side as he is.
    ——————————
    If I had noticed that one line I would have snipped it in deference to those on this blog who take umbrage at that partisan, slanderous statement, with which I for one do not agree. I am sorry if it hurt your feelings. On the other hand, worse things have been said–by people like Sally Quinn on the elite left–as I have pointed out. The reason I posted this article is because it reflects an important transition in thinking with respect to the conservative wing of the other party, and the beginning of a closing of ranks.

  209. I know your concern is sincere, but I can tell you these polls this far out are far from concrete. Romney is unfortunately tied to Santorum, when that idiot drops out, Romney will get many of these women back. I use my wife and SIL as examples, they are both independent minded pro-choice dems, they loathe, and I mean loath Santorum, and I’ve noticed it rubs off on Romney, who they actually do like.
    When Romney is front and center, without idiots like Santorum yapping about contraceptions, Romney will at the very least run even with OTurd.
    —————————-
    That is exactly right. I do believe a second term of Obama would be apocalyptic for all americans. No one in their right mind wants to see an Apocalypse.

  210. New poll shows wide gap in support for woman in favor of Obama in swing states.
    ————————
    jbstonesfan: did you notice the comment above indicating that the poll in question which I assume is the gallup poll oversampled democrat to republican women by a ratio of 2-1? If so, then that is another reason not to get depressed over this stuff. I am relying on the people of this country to realize that we are headed for an Apocalypse–and need to change course.

  211. Mrs. Smith
    April 2nd, 2012 at 8:59 am
    Wisconsin Teachers’ Unions Trained Well-Funded Alinsky Group
    [….]
    http://pumasunleashed.wordpress.com/2012/04/02/wisconsin-teachers-unions-trained-well-funded-alinsky-group/

    ===============

    Speaking of verifying sources.

    That Pumasunleashed entry credits Breitbart for the claim but does not give a link to any Breitbart article:
    “Breitbart.com has learned that teachers in Wisconsin have been attending routine training workshops with the Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF), a radical organization founded by Saul Alinsky in 1940.”

    That’s pretty ambiguous. And does Breitbart or McIver have any evidence, other than some people getting out of cars?

  212. streiff (Diary) posted at RedState, quoted here:
    In that way the situation will be similar for Governor Romney as it was for George Bush when the Clampetts departed.

    pm317 said:
    So the Clampetts are the Clintons here?! and Bush restored honor to the WH? I don’t really care what this guy thinks of either Romney or Obama. He discredits himself

    Wbb said:
    If I had noticed that one line I would have snipped it in deference to those on this blog who take umbrage at that partisan, slanderous statement, with which I for one do not agree. I am sorry if it hurt your feelings.

    ======================

    I agree with pm. And it’s not a matter of “hurt your feelings.” That’s like saying the PUMAs only oppose Obama because they are “hurt” or “still angry” or “can’t get over” 2008.

    There are solid reasons for opposing Obama — and for considering that ‘steff’ has discredited himself by his view of the Clintons. And by his view that the Bush administration was better than the Clinton administration!

    Wbboei, I understand your point about it being an interesting article, and important to show how the conservatives may be shifting toward Romney — even the crazies who hold that view of the 90s vs the 2000s. I’m glad you left the ‘Clampetts’ line, though, to show us how little credibiity ‘steff’ deserves overall.

  213. wbboei
    April 2nd, 2012 at 12:48 pm
    ————-

    No worries and it is not about my hurt. You did fine posting the article showing that those extreme right wingers are coming around to Romney whatever their rationalization may be.

    But that one line shows how far they go wrt to the Clintons. That kind of sentiment belongs to an ignorant commenter on a conservative blog rather than a writer on the blog. Most republicans if they are intellectually honest give the Clintons their due and many to their credit even go as far as saying they wished they had voted for Hillary.

  214. April 2nd, 2012 at 2:23 pm

    ================

    I can’t get RCP’s video to play. But their summary looks biased, so pls check the source. (As we were reminded to when Fox summarized Hillary’s pro-contraception quote.)

  215. I loved what the Big Dawg said about if Hillary will run in 2016 or not…leaving the door open.

    Tim, I also think the Supreme’s were showing their political cards, on both sides. Each was appointed to defend the Constitution not support their party, but each one picked had a strong political view and some of their slips showed in the discussion. They are all human.

  216. President Barack Obama voiced confidence Monday that the Supreme Court will uphold his health care law in his first public remarks on the issue since the three days of oral arguments last week.

    In a rare instance of a president weighing in on a high court case in which the ruling has not yet been released, Obama suggested that the high court would be guilty of “judicial activism” if it overturned the law. He also argued that the justices should uphold the individual mandate, saying it’s a key — and constitutional — piece of the law.

    “We are confident that this will be upheld because it should be upheld,” Obama said at a joint news conference at the White House with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Mexican President Felipe Calderon.

    During three days of hearings last week, conservative justices signaled skepticism toward the individual mandate, which requires nearly all Americans to buy health insurance or pay a fine. Based on their questions, the conservative justices did not appear to support the idea of upholding the law if they were to strike down the mandate.

    Obama said the individual mandate must remain in the law for it to function.

    “I think it is important and I think the American people understand, and I think the justices should understand that in the absence of an individual mandate, you cannot have a mechanism to insure that people with preexisting conditions can actually get health care,” he said.

    Some liberal groups are preparing to attack the court for judicial activism should the mandate be overturned, and Obama laid the groundwork for that argument on Monday, as he reminded conservatives of their fears of overreaching courts.

    Overturning the law would be “an unprecedented, extraordinary step” since it was passed by a majority of members in the House and Senate,” he said. “I just remind conservative commentators that for years we’ve heard that the biggest problem is judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint. That a group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example. And I’m pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step.”

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/74743.html

  217. “I was told by this person that that was ‘Shut up, Bill, or you’re next,’” she said.

    The campaign adviser, according to Viviano, said that despite the intimidation and threats, Bill Clinton was prepared to speak out about Obama’s eligibility

    “And then,” Viviano said, paraphrasing the staffer, “they went in and said, ‘OK, it’s your daughter, now, we’ll go after.’

    “And then Bill never said anything.”
    ________________

    I had never seen anything of the kind in print. It sure looked like the pressure was on at the convention though- and I intuited something of the gravity mentioned in that article looked to be a accurate and true. After the shocking deaths of Tubbs and Gwatney, who planned to stage a delegation walkout on behalf of Hillary Clinton. That act of protest would have had a great impact on the outcome of the convention.

    Bill does not fear assassination. There are Rules that must be followed in this game. He has protection in perpetuity from the Order of Demolay, that came with his sponsorship from Pam Harrington. I think, that protective order would extend to Hillary as well. However, I don’t believe that protective order extends to family members leaving Chelsea unprotected.

    Seeing Hillary being led to the convention floor in a blue suit crushed like a sardine between security people was sickening… I knew something was up. She was crushed so tightly between security personnel, I was amazed she had enough breath to speak…. handing over her delegates to Barack Obama.. then Nancy Pelosi playing her part in the hustle, asking are there any “nays” slamming the hammer down faster than the blink of an eye-

    Yes, challenging an election would never be in the cards for BC putting Chelsea at risk where the deaths of their dear friends who were trying to help them happening just weeks before the Convention was a stinging reminder of ‘who’ exactly exactly were dealing with-

  218. Re: Clinton’s called Clampetts

    No worry. Those of us born and bred in the south are used to it. We have long known that THOSE people who work so hard at degrading us are very stupid and lowclass…all the things they mouth about us. It must be a gene thing; and a northern or liberal thing; they are born that way and can’t help it so there is a small grain that lets us feel sorry for them. Oh, how they miss the boat. When it gets down to the real nitty gritty would anyone rather actually BE, not be called, the ‘salt of the earth’ or the of ‘the Four Hundred’? Reckon how many of each group actually are descended into the better place or the bowels of hell? And, make no mistake about it, there are people who are ‘salt of the earth’ who have money…it is just that you would never know it by their demeanor.

    After a recent tornado almost wiped out one town back home and did an enormous amount of damage pretty much all over (it was devastating), one of my friends from up north made a very hurtful comment, showing that she does not come from a Jellico place. I was speaking of all the damage done by the tornadoes and she said, “…but don’t trailers almost always sustain more damage? Don’t the people know that?” That prejudice is equivalent to ‘racist’ that everyone rants about…and is centuries long as well and seems never ending. There are trailers in every state, I would presume. But, there are as many fine homes in the area of the state I come from as any I have ever seen. Homes every bit as good, or exceeding the value of homes of those silly people who like to put us down with a broad brush.

    I imagine that in his heart of hearts Bill would be proud to be considered a Clampett for their best attributes were unpretentiousness, brutal honesty, and the ability to survive alone without help. After the string of devastating tornado damage, unlike those in other states when disaster struck, the people went to work HELPING one another. They did not wait on FEMA or any other government handout. Picture after pictures, video after video, post after post showed just how us Clampett’s work in the face of disaster…we pull together. Help is given even before it is asked for…there were extraordinary numbers of helping hands and donations given. It is a southern thing. I am cornbread fed, and southern bred. No one will ever make me ashamed of that. I call my firstborn son Bubba and I greet the end of your visit with, “Ya’ll come back now.” I pity the fools who degrade us and wonder why they have that need.

  219. Re: Mrs. Smith
    April 2nd, 2012 at 3:49 pm

    This confirms what I have said all along, at least in my mind. The picture in my memory of Hillary being marched Gestapo style down the aisle at the convention is something I will not soon forget. To her left was Charlie Rangel, to her right was 2×4 Chuck Shumer, and there were others. They jostled her and sucked all the air…I felt short of breath just watching it on television. If she would let it be known…it is my estimation that would unite women like never before and that alone would create the atomosphere ripe for change…the ladies would stamp their little feet on whoever. I located a photo of her at the microphone at the convention, and there is Schumer with his Cheshire Cat grin and a couple of women I do not recognize. They were there to taste her blood, I believe. How they need to protect the country from future events of the same ilk by reporting who all who were involved….it is bigger than the Clinton family, it involves the welfare of all our families and the country is at stake.

Comments are closed.