Unravel #5: Health Care Destroyed by Frankenstein ObamaCare

Update: This from Grover Norquist: Tea Party II will dwarf Tea Party if Obama pushes us over the cliff. Legal Insurrection made the same point a few days ago and has an example of a productive resistance action to emulate:

“Opposition to Obamacare fueled the Tea Party wave of 2009-2010.  The next wave will include continued opposition to Obamacare, along with other fiscal issues, The Tea Party tsunami at the gates. [snip]

Only 13 states have taken steps to set up the exchanges, and 17 state governors have declared an intention not to set up exchanges.

One state where there is a disconnect between the population and the governor is Tennessee, where Governor Bill Haslam is wavering.  The Lt. Governor has come out against implementation.

In response, a variety of groups led by local Tea Party organizations are organizing rallies for December 5, as reflected in this announcement being circulated by e-mail and on the web (h/t Linda in Tennessee):

Please Join us at the JUST SAY NO RALLY Wed Dec 5, 12 Noon at the Capitol

Your help is needed to stop an Obamacare State Exchange in TN. Governor Haslam must make a decision by December 14 and reports indicate he is still undecided. Please join us as we raise our voices together and petition the Governor to JUST SAY NO to an Obamacare State Exchange. We will have a petition for you to sign at the Rally.

As to the latest dicktat from the Obama admin: By the way, we’re going to need insurers to pay to use our exchanges – we’re not the only ones talking about the killer Frankenstein monster:

“Just getting these supposedly fabulous online insurance marketplaces set up is already turning into an unmitigated disaster — what on earth is going to happen when we finally get down to the business of actually insuring and caring for people? Rolling this thing out, the Obama administration is looking like a bunch of chickens running around with their heads cut off, and their unpreparedness in dealing with their own Frankenstein’s monster is showcasing all of the new costs and consequences coming with it.”

Dracula analogies will work too.

—————————————————————

Good riddance to November. It’s December and we continue to take stock of the damage done. There’s a lot of damage and more to come.

The damage done thus far is extensive but Americans can only see the faint darkening of roiled waters as a faraway storm approaches. Perhaps a little drizzle or fast moving birds can be witnessed as the storm approaches and the wise will stock up on emergency supplies when the twilight sky turns red.

* * * * * *

Some Obama voting imbeciles chose him because they believe, or have been led to believe by Big Media, that with ObamaCare in full force they will be able to take their little ObamaCare card to a quality health care provider and be given white glove treatment as if they were Warren Buffet. These uninformed voters are going to have a rude awakening from their Hopium fueled reveries.

In 2010 we wrote:

“Any dunce can see that the Obama sales mantra of “bend the cost curve” was a flim-flam con and that indeed health care costs will continue to rise and rise rapidly. To lump Obama health scam opponents into a right wing bag and not acknowledge the all too real Big Pharma and Big Insurance bailout which is the Obama health scam is at best a Hopium based delusion. At worse a willful attempt to scam and flim-flam.”

The Obama health scam, even if it was a perfect plan – which this crammed through monstrosity certainly is not in any way, will be a Frankenstein horror to galvanize.

The Washington Post earlier this month described the various appendages and organs that must be scavenged from graveyards in order to give this monster life:

“These are systems that typically take two or three years to build,” says Kevin Walsh, managing director of insurance exchange services at Xerox. “The last time I looked at the calendar, that’s not what we’re working with.” [snip]

“The reality is, states and the federal government are building something new,” says Pat Howard, who runs state health issues for consulting firm Deloitte. “There’s a rough blueprint in terms of federal regulations, but there’s still a number of decisions that need to happen to operationalize this.” [snip]

“There needs to be a technology system that can support that activity, and look at multiple programs for multiple people.”

A state can’t figure out how much an individual earns on its own. For that, it needs to ping a federal data hub that does not yet exist.

Not much exists at the moment and the totalitarian bureaucracy needed is just a dream in the Hopium addicts eye:

“Buying health insurance is a lot more difficult than purchasing a plane ticket on Expedia. That likely means setting up large scale customer-support operations, especially when the first open enrollment period starts in October 2013. [snip]

The Obama administration has known for awhile that there’s a decent chance it could end up doing a lot of this. Now though, they’re finding out how big their workload will actually become.”

It’s a big job to bring life to a monster. WSJ: Yep, the feds are totally unprepared to launch ObamaCare exchanges. From the Wall Street Journal report:

“Sixteen states have already said they won’t participate. Another 11 are undecided, while only 17 have committed to doing the work on their own. Six have opted for a “hybrid” federal-state model. That means HHS will probably be responsible for fallback federal exchanges in full or in part in as many as 25 or 30 states.

The opposition isn’t so much political as practical. Or rather, the vast logistical and technical undertaking to build an exchange helps explain why so many Governors resisted ObamaCare in the first place.

States have regulated the small business and individual insurance markets for decades (some well, others less so). Now they’re supposed to toss everything out for a complex Washington rewrite, which is still being rewritten. The exchanges will also help enforce the individual mandate and premium increases. They’ll also have to spend a ton of money. Ohio estimates it will cost $63 million to set up an exchange and $43 million to run annually, based on a KPMG study. [snip]

Private businesses spend years developing and refining such consumer software. States need to fund call centers to field queries and even hire “navigators” to actively encourage people to enroll.

The main problem is that states are being conscripted as federal contractors. HHS has declined to reveal basic operational details except to make clear that state-based exchanges won’t really be run by the states. “No matter which option is chosen,” as Scott Walker put it, “Wisconsin taxpayers will not have meaningful control over the health-care policies and services sold to Wisconsin residents.”

So if things don’t work voters will blame the Governors for decisions made in Washington. And when it turns out that ObamaCare’s costs are underestimated and its benefits exaggerated, they’ll have enabled an entitlement that many of their constituents oppose.”

Who wants this Obama health scam and is attempting to force governors that don’t want ObamaCare to join the scam plan? Take a guess and understand why we call it a scam to bailout Big Pharma and Big Insurance:

“Partly that may be due to the insurance and provider lobbies, especially the hospitals. They’re furious that states might spoil the deals they cut with the White House and frantic for new revenue, which will only flow with the subsidies. (Note that health industry stocks rallied on President Obama’s re-election.) They’re also generally more powerful at the local level and favor state-run exchanges as easier to manipulate. But Governors who give in are setting themselves up as political fall guys, just as the insurers will be when premiums inevitably spike. [snip]

But the main reason HHS and ObamaCare partisans are trashing the state hold-outs is that the federal government isn’t any better equipped to make the plan a success. HHS’s reputation as one of the most dysfunctional agencies is notorious. To take one example, an ObamaCare-mandated update to a major computer network called the System for Electronic Rate and Form Filing, which governs insurance approvals, has been delayed by months.

HHS’s bandwidth is likely to be fried and its personnel overloaded by the workload of 25 exchanges or even 16. And the effort will be complicated by the serious legal questions and eventual lawsuits about the statutory authority of a federal exchange to dispense subsidies at all.”

It wasn’t easy to force-feed Suffragettes and it is not easy to force-feed the population of entire states:

“Who could have anticipated that in a diverse country where more than 50 percent still oppose the massive federal overhaul of health care passed against the will of the people through a special legislative process with absolutely no bipartisan support, with its costs and requirements systematically hidden or avoided for 32 months, that some states wouldn’t jump in with both feet? This also sets up a constitutional fight over whether the federal government can even offer subsidies through its own exchange (the law only establishes subsidies through state-based exchanges, not the federal one). Luckily, in the world of an ObamaCare supporter, all of the mistakes made in drafting the law or overestimating the ability of the federal government to implement it can be laid at the feet of Republican governors, not you know, the people who drafted the law.”

Is it any wonder that we get this result from Gallup: Majority opposes federal health-care guarantee for first time:

“Perhaps Gallup’s result shouldn’t surprise, given the chronic unpopularity of ObamaCare. However, the trend lines began moving in this direction after support peaked for the a federal guarantee of health care in 2006, as Democrats took control of Congress for the first time in 12 years. As Barack Obama pushed his health-care overhaul, the legs had already been cut out from underneath the concept: [snip]

Actually, Gallup started polling on this question in 2000, and the result then was 64/31 in support of the federal guarantee. This poll surveyed general-population adults, too, not registered or likely voters, a sample type that generally favors more liberal points of view. [snip]

One might be tempted to believe that the process that delivered ObamaCare might have been enough to make the federal-guarantee position a minority. Unfortunately, now that ObamaCare looks like it will get entrenched absent a reversal at the Supreme Court, that realization probably came too late.”

As the monstrous scam which is ObamaCare begins to maraud through the countryside and cities to kill, the legal torches and pitchforks will continue to chase it down:

“Could Obamacare Go the Way of McCain-Feingold?

If this seems Pollyannaish, consider the fate of McCain-Feingold.

In December of 2003, many were just as shocked and dismayed when the Supreme Court upheld the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) as they were by the bizarre Obamacare decision. BCRA was an outrageous assault on the First Amendment, and yet the Court allowed most of its provisions to stand. Yet, anyone who had predicted that McCain-Feingold, as this abomination was more commonly known, would be moribund a mere six years and one month after the Court had ruled it constitutional would have been disregarded as hopelessly naïve.

Nonetheless, the opponents of McCain-Feingold launched a series of legal attacks that met with little success until 2007, when the Court ruled in FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life. In that decision, the justices ruled unconstitutional the law’s proscription against campaign ads mentioning candidates by name within a certain period prior to an election. Then, in 2008, the Court voided another crucial provision in Davis v. FEC. Finally, in early 2010, the Court delivered the coup de gras with its landmark ruling in Citizens United v. FEC.

Are the legal foes of Obamacare as numerous and determined as those of McCain-Feingold? The answer to that question is an unequivocal YES. Their numbers are greater, they are far better financed and they are demonstrably more dedicated to the cause. In fact, the dragon’s teeth sown by the Court’s misguided June ruling produced a spate of fresh troops to reinforce those already on the legal battlefield. There are now at least forty legal challenges to the law pending in federal courts involving its various provisions as well as its implementation.

Moreover, the Court just
resurrected
one of the original challenges to Obamacare by ordering the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider arguments on which it didn’t deign to rule in Liberty University v. Geithner last year.”

The Citizens United decision was the topic of a most interesting letter to the editor in the New York Times recently. The Times‘ lawyer, Floyd Abrams, gave the Times editorial board a public slap in the face as he defended political speech and the Citizens United decision by the high court. Citizens United gutted McCain-Feingold and the same might happen to ObamaCare.

The Independent Payment Advisory Board is a target which might take down ObamaCare or whittle it down to a non-entity:

“When PPACA was signed into law, Congress transferred much of its power to this committee, which will decide what services will be approved by Medicare and how much the providers of those services will be paid. The Goldwater Institute has
filed
a lawsuit, Coons v. Geithner, which challenges the constitutionality of IPAB under the separation of powers doctrine.”

The religious exemption cases will likely be successful in their limited aims as even Justice Ginsberg warned the government this was a line it could not cross during the arguments at the court over ObamaCare. But in the same way that taxes was the justification used by Justice Roberts, it might be taxes that push the stake into the monster:

“And, no list of Obamacare lawsuits would be complete without mentioning the Oklahoma lawsuit challenging the illegal IRS rule by which the Obama administration will attempt to funnel tax credits and subsidies through federally-created exchanges, despite the law’s stipulation that such premium-assistance can only be offered via state-run exchanges. This litigation is, in many ways, the most important of all the lawsuits. Without its insurance exchanges, and the accompanying subsidies, Obamacare will crash and burn.”

Even without continued resistance to the monster which is ObamaCare, it will crash and burn. The only question is whether the monster can be killed before it kills.

As the country and world continue to unravel we hope the Republican Hamlets and other opponents of the Chicago flim-flam man cast off their inky cloaks and continue to resist.

Share

187 thoughts on “Unravel #5: Health Care Destroyed by Frankenstein ObamaCare

  1. Great post admin.

    When does Obama start getting money for the HellCareScam…one year before anyone can try to get any care?? Do people start paying in Oct of 2013?

    Seems as though Barry will start spending that money before it’s even collected, and never return it if it’s overturned…

    My guess is it will never happen unless they dump it all on Medicare and that will destroy what we already have.

  2. I became temporarily hopeful when I heard that the courts were looking at obamacare again, then I remembered all the hope I have had in the last 5 years and decided, hope was not going to be enough…

  3. There have been so many mistakes made by the Obama Administration in the middle east that it begins to resemble a three stooges movie. One of the most serious, however, is their unqualified support for the Muslim Brotherhood. From what I can determine, this is based on our alliance with the Saudi Royal family who is Sunni like the Muslim Brotherhood, and our opposition to Iran, which is Shia and their backers Russia and China. When Bismark was asked where the great war would start, he said some damned thing in the Balkens where the great powers of his day were similarly engaged. And when we throw our support behind the Muslim Brotherhood, we become willing participants in their plans to suppress democracy and institute a theocratic state. From the beginning, all this Arab Spring nonsense has been a classic bait and switch. Policy-wise, it hearkens back to Barbara Tuckman’s book The Guns of August.
    ———————————
    Here is the take by the Council of Foreign Relations. They have their share of light weight buffoons like Joe Klein of Time Magazine, but they also have some intellectual heavyweights like Kissinger. In the balance they are worth listening to:

    The Muslim Brotherhood’s stance on many of these issues makes U.S. concerns regarding the group legitimate, say most analysts. “It does not share America’s view on the security architecture in the region, says Hamid, adding “It is strongly anti-Israel . . . and does not support the peace processes.” The movement has also said it would hold a referendum on the 1979 Camp David peace accords with Israel if it comes to power.

    “Leslie Gelb, Council of Foreign Relations president emeritus who has served as a senior official in the U.S. State and Defense Departments, says if the Brotherhood rose to power in Egypt, it “would be calamitous for U.S. security (DailyBeast).” He adds: “It would be delusory to take the MB’s democratic protestations at face value.” Former CIA Officer Bruce Riedel, an expert of Middle East and South Asia, adds: “living with it won’t be easy, but it should not be seen as inevitably our enemy.” He recommends: “We need not demonize it nor endorse it.”

    http://www.cfr.org/africa/egypts-muslim-brotherhood/p2399

  4. Lu4PUMA
    December 2nd, 2012 at 10:52 am
    ————————
    I agree 100%. More than any politician I can think of, Palin spoke for the American People. And fortunately she still does. The Romney loss, the defrocking of Karl Rove, and other establishment republicans who despise the grass roots, and who conspired with big media to set her up, may give her a second life. As long as we have FOX News, she will have a voice, and will be listened to. The leadership of the Republican Party is in Washington, but the center of gravity is in the middle of the country. The elites will favor a candidate like the Pillsbury dough boy, Jebediah Bush. The name alone is a non starter.

  5. Thanks admin for this analysis. A local TV station held a seminar on the status/impact of OCare months and months ago. There was a doctor, chamber of commerce, hospital, and another group represented. Moderated by locally well known George Roberts. Cannot find my notes or a way to link to something google lists. It was likely held in April, and all who spoke said they were waiting on DC for guidance in order to be able to meet DC’s March 2013 deadline for them. Now the coming tsunami is well-defined, thanks to Big Pink.
    —————————————-
    And, it seems Michael Goodwin is always ready with some anti Obama print; here is the latest:
    Obama 2: Even more reckless By Michael Goodwin
    “People weren’t paying attention. Those are the people now surprised that President Obama is still stridently campaigning instead of doing the real work of governing….”
    http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/obama_even_more_reckless_CsWlB2ywB2zyfuS9d9JMsL

  6. Greetings. Just got back from a nightmarish 5 hour drive from LI to the Catskills 3 of which were spent on the Throggs Neck Bridge, the Cross Bronx Expressway (an oxymoron) and the GWB and I was desperately in need of a laugh.

    Anyone else wanting a bit of humor check out this phone call of a guy to his friend who witnesses an auto accident between a yuppie white guy and a carload of grannies.

    it is HILAROUS!

  7. I just realized this evening that Hillary is going to run again, I mean if something bizare like illness, death etc. She has positioned herself as the heir apparent to the Obummer policies, the democrats have no choice but to nominate her if she chooses. It didn’t hit me till I watched Dana on Huckabee tonight. She has actually made a brilliant political move, the dims who stabbed her in the back can’t really do that next time around cause she has set herself up as the same as Obummer. Now that leaves the questions of exactly HOW would she govern once elected. Perhaps this is the brilliance of she and Bill’s planning so far.

    Perhaps she doesn’t want the power as much as I thought, maybe she wants to be President and once she gets elected she can then do exactly like Obummer …. run the office exactly the way she chooses. Executive orders are the new norm.

    Given me some things to think about.

  8. dot48

    I think it would be very good to have a POTUS who does not want the power so much and I think we know exactly how she will govern. The way a POTUS should. It is not about the power. It is about the achievement.

  9. Dot—anymore, the whole political process is so goddamned rigged, that it is hard to be optimistic. If you look at the way our civil liberties are being eroded, the American People are being disenfranchised, our net worth is being stolen, etc. you must ask yourself whether this is simply crass causality, greed and gross negligence, or whether is there perhaps a plan and a set of dark movers behind the scenes who are bent on moving us in some new direction. I am convinced there is a plan, some of us who are not nuts can see the chess moves, but there is so much distance between where we are and where the public at large is in understanding the meaning of current events—including our support of the Muslim Brotherhood over the forces of democracy, and why we look the bereaved father of the slain SEAL who is trying to understand why his son died, and lie to him about getting the producers of the film, that I refuse to go there any more in a public setting. It is the classic Cassandra problem of seeing the future, but not being able to get people to believe it before it is too late. But even if by some miracle, we could bet people to understand, the next problem would be what in the hell can they do about it. The problem that we have today has been gaining momentum since the death of JFK and the forces behind it are powerful. After Benghazi and the outing of Patreaus, the people who were fighting these forces have had to regroup. There is more I have been told, but it hearkens back to the old saying if ignorance is bliss, tis folly to be wise.

  10. Lu4PUMA

    We do know how Hillary will govern. She will govern US out of our sovergnty, our prosperity, our civil liberties and our property rights because she, just like her husband Bill, who signed an E.O. 12852 pushing America toward a “sustainable future,” is in total compliance with the UN’s Agenda 21. Every US president since George W. Bush has been complicit with this evil plan that is very well documented and can easily be researched. The lie that Hillary tried to sell the American people about a video causing the slaughter in Benghazi was a lie used to try to manipulate people into sacrificing their freedom of speech in return for security. A UN ban on the criticism of Islam is what SOS Clinton was selling. I don’t believe there will be an election in 2016. I believe that Obama (the big banks boy) has set the stage for a word war by building up the Muslim Brotherhood in North Africa. He will have a third term just like FDR.
    The only thing standing between US and a Global Dictatorship is the Tea Party true Conservatives like Sarah Palin, who in fact makes Hillary Clinton look like a Stepford wife.

  11. Lu4PUMA

    We do know how Hillary will govern. She will govern US out of our sovergnty, our prosperity, our civil liberties and our property rights because she, just like her husband Bill, who signed an E.O. 12852 pushing America toward a “sustainable future,” is in total compliance with the UN’s Agenda 21. Every US president since George W. Bush has been complicit with this evil plan that is very well documented and can easily be researched. The lie that Hillary tried to sell the American people about a video causing the slaughter in Benghazi was a lie used to try to manipulate people into sacrificing their freedom of speech in return for security. A UN ban on the criticism of Islam is what SOS Clinton was selling. I don’t believe there will be an election in 2016. I believe that Obama (the big banks boy) has set the stage for a word war by building up the Muslim Brotherhood in North Africa. He will have a third term just like FDR.
    The only thing standing between US and a Global Dictatorship is the Tea Party true Conservatives like Sarah Palin, who in fact makes Hillary Clinton look like a Stepford wife.
    _____________________________________________________

    Wow, just wow. Lu, you just did a great job in changing my mixed feeling about Hillary after that post.

    I would vote for her again in heartbeat.

  12. Juliette, you have been trashing Hillary since 2008 on sites like Pumapac and here. I pray you find a blog that will appreciate your nasty opinion of Hillary.

    Youn really have gotten on my last nerve.

  13. The guy who is talking about this says the middle east is where the Merchants of Death will break their pick. Their assumption is that they can replace the old framework of dictators driven by money with a new framework of dictators who will control their people through religion, buy our arms and give us the oil. Coincidentally, we were not just giving away arms to terrorists in Bengazi ala fast and furious, we were selling them as well, in large quantities for petrodollars, in the new Cashabh where sooner or later, everyone does business with everyone. And even now, after all that has happened, you hear them say that new leaders like Morsi are people the west can do business with. That is their grand illusion. And when it flies back in their face, we can all have a good laugh as we wait for their next move. Leslie Gelb at CFR got that one right at least.

  14. The Egyptian Dialetic, Shock Doctrine, call it what you will, it amounts to just this:

    Thesis: Mubarak (dictator)
    Anti-thesis: Arab Spring (promoted by puppet Obama)
    Synthesis: Morsi (theocracy=control=someone we can do business with)

  15. Can you see the pattern? The end game of hope and change? Do you think this pattern is confined to Egypt? Do you?

    MORSI REACHES ISLAMIST DICTATOR DEAL WITH EGYPTIAN MILITARY

    by BEN SHAPIRO 2 Dec 2012, 11:31 AM PDT 138 POST A COMMENT

    Yesterday, Obama-approved Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood president Mohammed Morsi declared that he would have a referendum on December 15 to greenlight the newly rammed-through draft constitution that enshrines Shariah law in Egypt. Morsi has bought the support of the military via the new constitution, which prevents the military from having any civilian oversight, and allows the military to prosecute civilians.

    Now Muslim Brotherhood protesters have shut down the Egyptian Supreme Court, forcing them to postpone their ruling on the legitimacy of the constitutional assembly that originally ratified the new constitution.

    So much for the Arab Spring. The Muslim Brotherhood has now reached a compromise solution with the army that makes both of them unanswerable within the country. And the Obama administration remains silent.

  16. dot48: December 2nd, 2012 at 9:01 pm:
    “… Hillary … has positioned herself as the heir apparent to the Obummer policies…”

    Sounds fishy to me – not “heir apparent” but heir to his policies. Do you have a link to “Dana on Huckabee” so I could see what you mean? If there are no direct quotes from Hillary, I can only assume that it’s Dana’s or Huckabee’s opinion, and my reaction offhand is the same as Lu4PUMA at 10:12 pm:

    “I think it would be very good to have a POTUS who does not want the power so much and I think we know exactly how she will govern. The way a POTUS should. It is not about the power. It is about the achievement.”

    Further to this, it is not in Hillary’s DNA to follow faithfully in someone’s footsteps. She is her own woman and nobody’s puppet. Besides, she has already lambasted Obama’s spendthrift policies and accumulation of debt. There is no way she would follow in his footsteps in those matters, but would do precisely the reverse.

    As far as “Executive orders are the new norm” goes, you may be right – Hillary has always believed in executive power. However, I doubt she would use executive orders the way Obama has, i.e. to create laws not passed by Congress and bypass laws passed by Congress. I don’t think she would use the line veto introduced by Dubya either.

    Juliette at 11:35 pm:

    “…She will govern the US out of our sovereignty, our prosperity, our civil liberties and our property rights … ‘sustainable future’ … ‘Agenda 21’”

    Further to Shadowfax remarks:

    Agenda 21 is indeed “very well documented and can easily be researched” as you say. That is why I have looked into it myself, because Leanora has also expressed the same concerns as you about Agenda 21.

    All I can conclude from looking at Agenda 21 is that it was/is being generated by the UN, and some Americans are suspicious of it for that very reason – the UN is not a US puppet, is a supra-national entity, and therefore some people get the idea it has some power over the US.

    It doesn’t, and the fact that WJC and Dubya signed onto Agenda 21 has no binding effect on the US. It is just a charter of best practices, principles and recommendations for the 21st century, mainly concerning poor and developing nations, not the US.

    Because of our aversion to anything coming from the UN, the very word ‘sustainable’ has become a scare word. Because the UN promotes “sustainable development”, we don’t want to have anything to do with sustainable development. So what do we want? Untenable development? Dead-end expansion? A robber baron paradise? Is that the American Way Superman does battle for? Are such the roads to prosperity and civil liberty?

    European companies (ugh! – here we go again with Europe – yuk!) and Japanese companies too have sustainable development written into their annual reports. They realize that sustainable development is the very essence of future growth – not working for maximum profits this year and crossing next year’s bridge when we come to it.

    Sustainable development is the reason that neither Europe nor Japan were severely struck by the 2008-09 crisis, have continued to develop since then with small but sustainable growth, and will continue to weather the crisis that is sure to come over 2013 without going bankrupt.

    Agenda 21 also speaks of “equitable commerce”, and what do we favor? Inequitable commerce?

    No, I think if you are so certain that Hillary would govern under the aegis of Agenda 21, that would be very good for our own prosperity. Sustainable development would be an excellent alternative to the unendurable slump we are now facing.

  17. I’ve received a reply to a twitter I sent criticizing Obama’s process for dealing with his cliff. It is from a FB entity named “4 More Years Media” Thought you might enjoy checking it out. Have to wonder if it is not Mitt lol.

    WHAT OBAMA NEEDS IS A CRISIS MANAGEMENT PLAN AND THEN TO IMPLEMENT IT.
    I spent 17 years as a CEO and another 20 years as a working member of numerous projects (many in trouble). As CEO of DC, Obama needs to focus the attention of his troops on solving this Fiscal Cliff dilemma. Using standard project management techniques, this is what his action plan should be:
    1) Forget that 20 day vacation to Hawaii.
    2) Forget all campaign trips.
    3) Clear the decks of small stuff.
    4) Personally chair a two hour meeting every morning for all the key players.
    5) Personally chair a two hour meeting every late afternoon for all the key players.
    6) If he’s got the wrong players, weed them out.
    7) Force them to focus.
    8) Force himself to focus.
    9) Tell them to keep their mouths under control with the press.
    10) Do this day after day after day until they solve the problems and differences.

    Only President Obama can make this happen. He must do more than make a plan, he must implement it. He must execute as a great football coach does. He can make his mark in history as a great leader if he pulls this off. Otherwise, he is going to have a rough four years.
    https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=498091753545291&id=491228500898283

  18. Leanora: December 3rd, 2012 at 5:40 am:

    “I’m not saying anything bad about Hillary…”

    Perhaps not you, but the article refer to is a conservative spin article beginning with the preposterous statement, “Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has never been a friend to Israel.”

    The article then proceeds to lift a quote HRC out of context, which the author and you take to be damning evidence of HRC’s total sympathy with the evil Palestinian cause and total ignorance of Israel’s enduring status as the foremost victim of worldwide injustice. This is the damning quote:

    “So, look, I’m not making excuses for the missed opportunities of the Israelis, or the lack of generosity, the lack of empathy that I think goes hand-in-hand with the suspicion. So, yes, there is more that the Israelis need to do to really demonstrate that they do understand the pain of an oppressed people in their minds, and they want to figure out, within the bounds of security and a Jewish democratic state, what can be accomplished.”

    What is not mentioned in the article is the question that Hillary was answering, nor the first part of her answer in which she did indeed defend “the missed opportunities” of the Israelis.

    The “suspicion” she is referring to is the Israeli suspicion of everything Palestinian. Israelis (and this is a generalization to be sure, but what she means is the current Israeli government) systematically suspect the Palestinians of the worst possible intentions with regard to Israel, which blinds them to the pain of an oppressed people.

    Now, you may not view the Palestinians as an oppressed people, but that is your opinion versus mine and that of Hillary Clinton, plus that of very many people in the Mideast and around the world.

    Be that as it may, it is the expression, “oppressed people”, at which the author takes offense and upon which he launches into a tirade about how generous Israel has always been – by not taking all the land and not throwing out all the Arabs – and how much the Israelis have been victimized by rocket attacks, which of course justify the devastating reprisals by Israel.

    The “lack of generosity” and “lack of empathy” are the result, not the cause, of the suspicion. I think the logic of HRC’s statement, considering the issue she was addressing (which was hostile to Israel), is impeccable: Some generosity or at least empathy are due to an oppressed people, but are withheld because of their suspect motivations.

    The author wants Israel to win and the Palestinians to lose, so if HRC does not assume his one-sided self-serving arguments as her own, she must be an enemy of Israel.

    In the discussion reported in this silly article, Hillary was defending Israel.

    It’s just that not 100% of Israeli actions and intentions are justified, nor are 0% of Palestinian actions and intentions justified.

    If you don’t give Israel 100% AAA ratings all the time, people like this author take you for an enemy of Israel. Give me a break.

    The author goes on and on:
    “Clinton’s language… endorses the cycle of violence nonsense that endangers the very existence of the Jewish State, and the only democratic and free state anywhere in the region.”

    Beats me where he got that from.

    “What more is Israel supposed to “demonstrate that they do understand the pain of an oppressed people”? Commit suicide? Voluntarily jump into the Mediterranean?”

    See, understanding an oppressed people would be suicidal… WTF?

    “Why doesn’t Clinton – or anyone in the Obama administration – ever call for more sympathy from the Arabs who continue to cram Palestinians into detention camps in Syria and Jordan more than sixty years after the establishment of the State of Israel?”

    Whoa, there, those Palestinians were chased from their homes in what is now Israel, by the poor Jewish victims. There is a lot of reversal of historical fact going on here…

    Another damning quote from HRC:

    “And I think that, unfortunately, there are more and more Israelis and Palestinians who just reject that idea out of hand: Why bother? Why try? We’ll never be able to reach an agreement with the other. But in the last 20 years, I’ve seen Israeli leaders make an honest, good-faith effort and not be reciprocated in the way that was needed.”

    Here, HRC is again defending Israel but this doesn’t seem to be enough for your author because:

    “I really believe this with all my heart: I think that even if you cannot reach a complete agreement that resolves all these incredibly hard issues, it is in Israel’s interest to be trying. It gives Israel a moral high ground that I want Israel to occupy. That’s what I want Israel to occupy — the moral high ground.”

    Oh dear, she wants Israel on the ‘moral high ground’, and ‘trying’ to resolve the conflict. How evil of her!

    This statement comes from HRC’s tough dealings with Netanyahu, because HRC knows that he is not trying; there is no reasoning with Netanyahu; he is bellicose; he doesn’t even know how to apologize for killing 9 civilians of an allied country on the high seas; his suspicion of the Palestinians is so thick it must be part of his DNA, which prevents him from acquiring any notion of ‘generosity’ or ‘empathy’ with the ‘oppressed people.’

    Against this, the author states that there is no need for Israel to seek the moral high ground because it is already there – “they are the peaceful force in the region, the only bastion of human rights [i.e., as long as you’re of the right ethnic group], and a bulwark against Islamist darkness.” So, apparently, it’s best not to be either an Arab or a Muslim in Israel.

    The author drones on about a statement HRC made last year in which she “claimed that she really cannot understand what is going on in Israel…. examples of the exclusion or boycotting of women, including incidents where IDF religious soldiers have boycotted events in which women sang, and the segregation of women on some bus routes, in contravention of Supreme Court decisions.” The author has of course a self-serving explanation for these facts and upbraids HRC for not understanding.

    In short, anything critical of Israel, even fact-based, is evidence of enmity for the world’s greatest victims.

  19. Hey gang. Just thought I’d like to express thanks to those who pointed to Lame Cherry’s blog. Totally not lame!

    BTW, who is “Mockingbird”?

    It is curious in that there is a lot of good conspiracy theory stuff, so headsy stuff, and yet some mis-spellings. Okay, maybe they’re in a hurry, or doing it late at night in a stream of conciousness style. And then there’s the occasional religious flavors that come through.

    Altogether, compelling. Thanks.

  20. Leanora
    December 2nd, 2012 at 6:35 pm
    Obama Admin Refuses To Criticize Egypt’s New Islamist-Written Constitution That Allows Slavery, Criminalizes Blasphemy, Doesn’t Protect Christians

    Obama doesn’t care what it says, as long as the people are mostly behind it. By that logic, Nazi Germany would have been a-ok with Barry.
    &&&&&

    Neville Chamberlain Obama

  21. jeswezey
    December 1st, 2012 at 12:54 pm
    “You.Gotta.Be.Kidding.Me!!!”

    Glad to see you’re still with us, rickya…

    There are a couple of amalgams already in this first statement above.

    First of all, “the help that the Clintons provided Obama in getting re-elected” has nothing to do with Hillary, but only the “loose cannon”, WJC. I already addressed that question in a post about 2 weeks ago and am willing to address it again; but the subject of my post that you are referring to was Hillary, not WJC.

    Secondly, you expect to see “light between them [Obama and the Clintons] with regard to foreign or economic policy.” I will admit that, in foreign policy, not much light can be seen between Obama and Hillary because she is his main adviser in foreign policy and he is her boss. The real world has it that, in such a relationship, no differences can be revealed to the public. Everything is behind closed doors, as it should be.

    And yet, on economic policy (which is normally not a matter of concern to the Secy of State), Hillary made a clear statement in 2009 to the effect that the rising debt was hampering our ability to act in our own interest and was thus a matter of national security. The statement was widely reported in the press and was even noted in an article here at H44.

    This difference of vision with Obama has only increased since then, as the debt has continued to climb and her 2009 statement is now being repeated by acting Generals.

    You can’t use Bill’s statement that purportedly criticizes Obama and say that this is Hillary’s position and then insulate Hillary from the help that Bill has provided Obama during the elections.

    It is true that no disagreement can come to the public. But this only makes my point – No evidence of any disagreement. As to her statement that debt is a matter of national security, this is not a policy position. Has Obama ever stated that it is his policy to increase debt?

    You ask, “where is the evidence that Hillary disagrees with any of Obama’s policies?” and my answer is in the preceding three paragraphs, i.e. (1) it is not in her territory to exhibit disagreements with her boss, and (2) she has done so anyway.

    You have shown no policy disagreement in your post.

    You continue: “We always claim that Hillary Clinton would have governed differently and would have taken us in a different direction had she been president in 2008. Where is the evidence of that?”

    I’m sorry, but this is a rather pathetic question: How can you ever find evidence of a hypothesis? There is no evidence to support or overturn a hypothetical question like an HRC presidency starting in 2009.

    Of course we can find evidence for this. If HRC has any disagreement with Obama’s stated policy, then that would be evidence that she would have governed differently.

    Continuing with this hypothesis, you say, “There is no reason to believe that they would have governed differently.”

    Well, I think there is very good reason to believe such a thing because, by contrast to Obama,

    (1) HRC is incorruptible. She would be dealing with the same powers that be – Soros, Wall Street, for example – and she would be their friend but not their puppet. She’s nobody’s puppet and never has been.

    (2) She has a proven capacity to “work across the aisle” and is widely respected by Republicans. If she had undertaken health care reform, for example, the result would have been very different from the scam we now have to live with, and the Republicans could have got a word in edgewise to boot.

    (3) HRC would never have been taken for a sap in international meetings like the G20 where Obama was practically laughed out of the room. Obama now subcontracts those meetings to Hillary. People around the world would listen to her because she does her homework and has good ideas. In fact, if the people of the world had any say in the matter, she would be president already.

    (4) Experience does count. HRC now has 20 years of experience in national and world politics, and Obama’s experience still stands at the point it was on January 20, 2009: Nada. There is no way and HRC would have resembled the Obama presidency, and no way in the future either.

    (5) Everyone noticed, especially here at H44 but even in the lamestream media, when Obama handed over a crucial press conference to WJC and walked away so he could goof off at a party. In a minute, everyone realized who the president was, or wasn’t. There have been moments during the last four years when Hillary also stood out like the only adult in the room. The Clintons are people who take their responsibilities seriously.

    These might all be true but is pure conjecture. No one can know how Hillary might have acted. And if she agrees with Obama’s policy positions(as there is no evidence that she disagrees), there is good reason that she would have governed the same way.

    “It is pretty easy… to convince Clinton supporters who have started to criticize them along with Obama. All they would have to do is to present a policy position by Obama that Bill and Hillary disagrees with along with the evidence that they indeed disagree with Obama’s position.”

    Well, I’ve given you one example above, concerning Hillary anyway.

    Your example is inadequate.

    Another more twisted example was WJC’s interview with Jon Stewart in the run-up to the 2010 elections. I made a transcript of that interview and analyzed it here at H44, to everyone’s glee – because in fact WJC was tearing down Obama pretty badly, along with the Democrats, while couching it in terms that sounded like an apologia.

    It was at that time that he made his famous statement, “Give us two more years and if it isn’t working by then, you can throw us all out!” But that brings us back, of course, to WJC’s conduct in the 2012 cycle: Having lost 2010 big time, WJC came back and helped the Democrats maintain their position in the House and expand their majority in the Senate. He is now the leader of the party again.

    This is a perfect example of reading the tea leaves.

    However, this whole idea of demanding that the Clintons pass our little litmus test of virulent negativity toward Obama before we deign to look at their positive achievements, and Hillary’s qualifications for the presidency, just shows how small we can be.

    We’ve been Puma’s since June 08, and as private citizens with no public responsibilities, we’ve been expressing outrage against Obama ever since.

    At the time, Hillary astounded us by turning on a dime and beginning to campaign for Obama. Already then, many of us felt betrayed by our heroin.

    But that move, rickya, was to be expected from Hillary Clinton, because “Don’t stop thinking about tomorrow” – you can’t win ‘em all, so take the hit and move on.

    I expected that she will turn on a dime. But does that mean that she disagrees with Obama? Maybe the campaign differences were what was illusory. Maybe they exaggerated their differences during the campaign for campaign purposes.

  22. It is a goddamned puppet show. We need to know less about the puppets and more about the puppeteers. As it is, we are being marched in a direction that many, if not most of us, do not want to go. Those who do not object now, will be very unhappy when they finally realize where they ended up personally. They may never understand the cause and effect that got them there, or the role which they and the rest of the ignoranti played in the demise, or the grand scheme in which they are millions of other Americans were targeted to be the victims. All they will know is they are just not happy.

    As for the Republican Party, the strongest move they can make now is stop talking about tax increases, trash to proposal by Geithner, walk away from this financial cliff which was artificially created by the dimocrats and media, and start passing legislation in the House which breaks the cliff down into a series of foothills as Gingrich says, and if Reid and Bambi refuse to deal and let the economy go over the cliff then make the dimocrats own it. Better to do that than to negotiate from a position of weakness, and eliminate the only tie that binds the Republican Party together. At the end of that path lies darkness and eternal night, for them, and for the country.

  23. …at the risk of repeating myself…O’care will unravel and visibly fail when all the O supporters are forced to face reality and realize that they must PAY for O’care otherwised they will have to pay the IRS…and get nothing for paying the penalty to IRS…

    trust me…that is going to be a very rude awakening for those who work that think that now they have free O’healthcare

    Romney needed to drive this point home…you pay for your healthcare or the IRS is coming after you…and he didn’t even touch it…

    I can see the O supporters protesting and turning on him already…

  24. holdthemaccountable
    December 2nd, 2012 at 4:40 pm
    —————————————-
    And, it seems Michael Goodwin is always ready with some anti Obama print; here is the latest:
    &&&&&&
    Worth posting it here:

    Obama 2: Even more reckless
    ========================

    People weren’t paying attention. Those are the people now surprised that President Obama is still stridently campaigning instead of doing the real work of governing.

    Even some who voted for him last month are puzzled as he threatens to take the nation off the fiscal cliff if Republicans don’t give him the tax hikes he demands now and puts off entitlement reform until later. He even wants to increase spending.

    I’ve talked to people who supported him, and their surprise is surprising.

    “I thought he was going to move toward the center after the election,” one stunned Obama backer told me. Another said he believed the president’s positions were opening gambits and he would compromise. “It’s the first round,” he insisted.

    Both are smart, accomplished men, but I’m baffled that they didn’t see this coming. Where, exactly, is the evidence that Obama is willing or able to work with people who disagree with him? Tick, tock, time’s up — there isn’t any evidence, because he’s not.

    Again and again, the first term revealed Obama’s idea of bipartisanship: Dissenters are unpatriotic and must surrender. Compromise is a one-way street for him.

    As polarizing and ineffective as that approach was, he was rewarded with four more years. A different man might see that as a mulligan — a second chance to get it right.

    Not Obama. His behavior now is even more troubling.

    That he’s willing to risk sending the economy back into recession and killing even more jobs leads me to believe his second term will be far more radical than the first. A stranger to humility, he thinks re-election confers a blank check.

    His demand that spending cuts and entitlement reform be put off, while Republicans give him the tax hikes and the stimulus he wants, suggests he’s not serious about facing the mountain of debt. In that case, no progress is possible as the nation hurtles toward disaster.

    The fear is reinforced with his sudden bid to have sole and permanent authority to raise the debt limit. As it stands, Congress’ power to set the ceiling serves as a practical check and balance.

    His effort to eliminate it is something that happens in a banana republic. Is that where Obama wants to take America?

    Sadly, many Americans believe the answer is yes. A friend wrote to express that view forcefully:

    “Obama has deliberately destroyed the world’s best medical system. He is deliberately destroying the world’s strongest economy and currency. He has destroyed the world’s best political system by governing by executive order. He has started destroying the world’s best military.”

    I don’t accept the idea that the president is intentionally trying to destroy America, but I do believe his policies are weakening it.

    Still, it remains possible for Obama to rally a solid majority of the country and Congress. He would need only to govern as the most important leader, but not the only leader, in our representative democracy.

    He would need to do what only a president can: Guide the nation forward by shaping a broad, bipartisan consensus of public support for key policies.

    Instead, Obama is opting to overreach, recklessly and without purpose beyond imposing his own ideology. Lots of trouble, but no good, is the only possible outcome.

  25. Update: This from Grover Norquist: Tea Party II will dwarf Tea Party if Obama pushes us over the cliff. Legal Insurrection made the same point a few days ago and has an example of a productive resistance action to emulate:

    “Opposition to Obamacare fueled the Tea Party wave of 2009-2010.  The next wave will include continued opposition to Obamacare, along with other fiscal issues, The Tea Party tsunami at the gates. [snip]

    Only 13 states have taken steps to set up the exchanges, and 17 state governors have declared an intention not to set up exchanges.

    One state where there is a disconnect between the population and the governor is Tennessee, where Governor Bill Haslam is wavering.  The Lt. Governor has come out against implementation.

    In response, a variety of groups led by local Tea Party organizations are organizing rallies for December 5, as reflected in this announcement being circulated by e-mail and on the web (h/t Linda in Tennessee):

    Please Join us at the JUST SAY NO RALLY Wed Dec 5, 12 Noon at the Capitol

    Your help is needed to stop an Obamacare State Exchange in TN. Governor Haslam must make a decision by December 14 and reports indicate he is still undecided. Please join us as we raise our voices together and petition the Governor to JUST SAY NO to an Obamacare State Exchange. We will have a petition for you to sign at the Rally.

    As to the latest dicktat from the Obama admin: By the way, we’re going to need insurers to pay to use our exchanges – we’re not the only ones talking about the killer Frankenstein monster:

    “Just getting these supposedly fabulous online insurance marketplaces set up is already turning into an unmitigated disaster — what on earth is going to happen when we finally get down to the business of actually insuring and caring for people? Rolling this thing out, the Obama administration is looking like a bunch of chickens running around with their heads cut off, and their unpreparedness in dealing with their own Frankenstein’s monster is showcasing all of the new costs and consequences coming with it.”

    Dracula analogies will work too.

    —————————————————————

  26. Juliette
    December 2nd, 2012 at 11:35 pm
    Lu4PUMA

    We do know how Hillary will govern. She will govern US out of our sovergnty, our prosperity, our civil liberties and our property rights because she, just like her husband Bill, who signed an E.O. 12852 pushing America toward a “sustainable future,” is in total compliance with the UN’s Agenda 21. Every US president since George W. Bush has been complicit with this evil plan that is very well documented and can easily be researched.

    The lie that Hillary tried to sell the American people about a video causing the slaughter in Benghazi was a lie used to try to manipulate people into sacrificing their freedom of speech in return for security.
    &&&&&&&

    Maybe I missed it, but I thought Hillary was deliberate in NOT saying the anti-Muslim video was the root of the Benghazi killings, that she spoke cautiously, and when finally speaking about it, said it was most likely a coordinated terrorist attack.

    Various of the Obama inner circle were spreading the video lie angle, and shoved Susan Rice in front of the Sunday morning talking heads parade to parrot those talkinig points, for which she is now in the hot seat.

    Rice had to do it because Hillary wouldn’t.

    If someone can point to valid source clarifying or contradicting that, I’m all ears.

  27. jeswezey
    December 3rd, 2012 at 10:30 am
    Leanora: December 3rd, 2012 at 5:40 am:

    “I’m not saying anything bad about Hillary…”

    Perhaps not you, but the article refer to is a conservative spin article beginning with the preposterous statement, “Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has never been a friend to Israel.”
    &&&&&&&&&

    For real.

  28. S, as our article pointed out, many Obama supporters really do believe that ObamaCare will be free and that they will get “white glove” treatment, like Warren Buffet, when they need medical help. It’s hard to argue with them because any discussion of ObamaCare turns into unicorns and ponies hallucinations about how wonderful life will be once they have that ObamaCare card.

    As you write, wait until they realize ObamaCare is not free and that the overwhelmed providers will have waiting rooms for them that resemble the Chicago stock yards. When the Medicare cuts to providers hit the older imbeciles who voted for Obama the Chicago stock yards will look like a comfortable alternative to what ObamaCare will provide.

  29. yes,admin…i see chaos and obama supporters buyer’s remorse rage as this mess plays itself out in reality…and when the IRS comes knocking…

    they sold their private health care options out to IRS control of their hard earned money…and the own power along with it…all for O

  30. rgb44hrc,

    I love lamecherry. (S)he writes in several different styles and posts 3-5 times a day. There is so much brilliant insight hidden within the sometimes garbled prose that it is worth it to slog through the more esoteric passages.

    I make modest donations when I am able.

  31. Mockingbird is or was a CIA organization.

    Unfortuntely this is from wikipedia

    “Operation Mockingbird was a secret Central Intelligence Agency campaign to influence media beginning in the 1950s.

    The operation was first called Mockingbird in Deborah Davis’ 1979 book, Katharine the Great: Katharine Graham and her Washington Post Empire. More evidence of Mockingbird’s existence emerged in the 2007 memoir American Spy: My Secret History in the CIA, Watergate and Beyond, by convicted Watergate “plumber” E. Howard Hunt and The Mighty Wurlitzer: How the CIA Played America by Hugh Wilford (2008)”

    Here’s another description:

    Starting in the early days of the Cold War (late 40’s), the CIA began a secret project called Operation Mockingbird, with the intent of buying influence behind the scenes at major media outlets and putting reporters on the CIA payroll, which has proven to be a stunning ongoing success. The CIA effort to recruit American news organizations and journalists to become spies and disseminators of propaganda, was headed up by Frank Wisner, Allen Dulles, Richard Helms, and Philip Graham (publisher of The Washington Post). Wisner had taken Graham under his wing to direct the program code-named Operation Mockingbird and both have presumably committed suicide.

    Media assets will eventually include ABC, NBC, CBS, Time, Newsweek, Associated Press, United Press International (UPI), Reuters, Hearst Newspapers, Scripps-Howard, Copley News Service, etc. and 400 journalists, who have secretly carried out assignments according to documents on file at CIA headquarters, from intelligence-gathering to serving as go-betweens. The CIA had infiltrated the nation’s businesses, media, and universities with tens of thousands of on-call operatives by the 1950’s. CIA Director Dulles had staffed the CIA almost exclusively with Ivy League graduates, especially from Yale with figures like George Herbert Walker Bush from the “Skull and Crossbones” Society.

    Many Americans still insist or persist in believing that we have a free press, while getting most of their news from state-controlled television, under the misconception that reporters are meant to serve the public. Reporters are paid employees and serve the media owners, who usually cower when challenged by advertisers or major government figures.

  32. rgb44hrc,

    I have a problem with the ad for Pakistan she recorded with the pos apologizing for the video which was shown on Pakistani TV and cost the US taxpayer $70G.

    I will look for the clip.

  33. admin,

    Wait until the pos takes us over the fiscal cliff and there’s no money for the EBT (electronic benefit transfer) cards and those on public assistance can’t access food.

    It’s going to be he11. Wide-ranging rioting and civil unrest coming to a screen near you in the not too distant future.

  34. Mockingbird is or was a CIA organization.

    Unfortunately this is from wikipedia

    “Operation Mockingbird was a secret Central Intelligence Agency campaign to influence media beginning in the 1950s.

    The operation was first called Mockingbird in Deborah Davis’ 1979 book, Katharine the Great: Katharine Graham and her Washington Post Empire. More evidence of Mockingbird’s existence emerged in the 2007 memoir American Spy: My Secret History in the CIA, Watergate and Beyond, by convicted Watergate “plumber” E. Howard Hunt and The Mighty Wurlitzer: How the CIA Played America by Hugh Wilford (2008)”

    Here’s another description:

    Starting in the early days of the Cold War (late 40′s), the CIA began a secret project called Operation Mockingbird, with the intent of buying influence behind the scenes at major media outlets and putting reporters on the CIA payroll, which has proven to be a stunning ongoing success. The CIA effort to recruit American news organizations and journalists to become spies and disseminators of propaganda, was headed up by Frank Wisner, Allen Dulles, Richard Helms, and Philip Graham (publisher of The Washington Post). Wisner had taken Graham under his wing to direct the program code-named Operation Mockingbird and both have presumably committed suicide.

    Media assets will eventually include ABC, NBC, CBS, Time, Newsweek, Associated Press, United Press International (UPI), Reuters, Hearst Newspapers, Scripps-Howard, Copley News Service, etc. and 400 journalists, who have secretly carried out assignments according to documents on file at CIA headquarters, from intelligence-gathering to serving as go-betweens. The CIA had infiltrated the nation’s businesses, media, and universities with tens of thousands of on-call operatives by the 1950′s. CIA Director Dulles had staffed the CIA almost exclusively with Ivy League graduates, especially from Yale with figures like George Herbert Walker Bush from the “Skull and Crossbones” Society.

    Many Americans still insist or persist in believing that we have a free press, while getting most of their news from state-controlled television, under the misconception that reporters are meant to serve the public. Reporters are paid employees and serve the media owners, who usually cower when challenged by advertisers or major government figures.

  35. WHOA! Is Mocking bird a suspect phrase? I am trying to blog about the operation. Anyway, rgb44hrc, it is a CIA operation involving infiltration of the media which began during the cold war and is still in effect today.

  36. Congressional hearings in 1976 proved the CIA had been paying off editors and reporters in most mainstream media outlets.

  37. Basil and rgb…

    This is one of the first articles I read on Lame Cherry, back in 2008.

    This scared the crapola outta me back then, and I still think much of it could be true. (The link below is a different site, but it’s the same article.)

    The Donna Brazile – Karl Rove Connection

    In order to “save” the Democratic Party, Brazile resolved back in 2003 that she might have to destroy it first. And who better to help her in this lofty pursuit than her new best friend, the man neoconservatives call “The Architect”.

    BY ROSEMARY REGELLO

    http://obambi.wordpress.com/2008/08/30/the-donna-brazile-karl-rove-connection/

  38. lamecherry is freaking amazing. she is like a prophet that spews garbage is you look at it at the surface. nothing makes sense. but if you really read what she says and look between the lines there is a hell of a lot of truth hidden within. I think that the person writing it is brilliant and all the crazy stuff is to keep her from being thrown in jail or worse yet Breitbarted due to being to open about what is really going on. nothing worse than walking down the street and suddenly turning red and die from a supposed heart attack.

  39. New Yorker Editor: “Hillary Clinton Is Running For President”

    Influential U.S. journalist predicts 2016 bid for White House

    Paul Joseph Watson

    New Yorker Magazine editor David Remnick dropped a political bombshell after attending a three-day conference at which the Secretary of State was the keynote speaker, categorically stating, “Hillary Clinton is running for President.”

    Remnick made the observation after attending the annual Saban Forum in Washington, D.C. this past weekend, a meeting of highly influential members of the Israeli political class, including Avigdor Lieberman and Ehud Olmert. Former President Bill Clinton was also in attendance.

    “Hillary Clinton is running for President,” wrote Remnick, adding, “Everyone had a theory of which they were one hundred percent certain. There wasn’t much doubt about the ultimate direction. 2007-8 was but a memory and 2016 was within sight. She’s running.”

    Remnick highlighted a tribute film to Clinton that was played during the conference which included commendations from Benjamin Netanyahu, Ehud Barak, Tzipi Livni, John Kerry, Barack Obama and Tony Blair.

    “The film was like an international endorsement four years in advance of the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary,” writes Remnick, adding that the tone of the video was “reverential”.

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

    During her speech in the packed ballroom of the Willard Hotel, Clinton was sympathetic to Israel’s recent military action in Gaza and pointed out that the U.S. had underwritten the “Iron Dome” missile defense system. She also questioned the motives of Palestinian political leaders, remarking, “The Palestinians could have had a state as old as I am, in 1947.”

  40. Operation Mockingbird:

    – was a secret Central Intelligence Agency campaign to influence media beginning in the 1950s.

    The operation was first called Mockingbird in Deborah Davis’ 1979 book, Katharine the Great: Katharine Graham and her Washington Post Empire. More evidence of Mockingbird’s existence emerged in the 2007 memoir American Spy: My Secret History in the CIA, Watergate and Beyond, by convicted Watergate “plumber” E. Howard Hunt and The Mighty Wurlitzer: How the CIA Played America by Hugh Wilford (2008)”

  41. D@mn! This is strange. The phrase Op-er-a-tion Mock-ing-bird will not make it past the spam filters!

    It was a secret C I A campaign to influence media beginning in the 1950s.

    Evidence of it in Deborah Davis’ 1979 book, Katharine the Great: Katharine Graham and her Washington Post Empire.

    More evidence in the 2007 memoir American Spy: My Secret History in the CIA, Watergate and Beyond, by convicted Watergate “plumber” E. Howard Hunt

    The Mighty Wurlitzer: How the CIA Played America by Hugh Wilford (2008)”

  42. rgb44hrc,

    You really have to google that phrase. For some reason I can’t post about it. Just research the terms and you will be 😯

    A lot falls into place with that bit of info under your belt. IMHO.

    Especially the list of 400. Sound familiar?

  43. A little more detail on Basil’s post above::

    New Yorker Editor: “Hillary Clinton Is Running For President”

    [snip]

    Friday night, however, was on the record—and surprisingly revealing. Hillary Clinton was the main speaker. In a packed ballroom of the Willard Hotel, she was greeted with a standing ovation and then a short, adoring film, a video Festschrift testifying to her years as First Lady, senator, and, above all, secretary of state. The film, an expensive-looking production, went to the trouble of collecting interviews with Israeli politicians—Benjamin Netanyahu, Ehud Barak, Tzipi Livni—and American colleagues, like John Kerry. Tony Blair, striking the moony futuristic note that was general in the hall, said, “I just have an instinct that the best is yet to come.”

    The film was like an international endorsement four years in advance of the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary. The tone was so reverential that it resembled the sort of film that the Central Committee of the Communist Party might have produced for Leonid Brezhnev’s retirement party if Leonid Brezhnev would only have retired and the Soviets had been in possession of advanced video technology. After it was over there was a separate video from the President. Looking straight into the camera, Obama kvelled at length: “You’ve been at my side at some of the most important moments of my Administration.”

    When the videos were over (and as the evening moved on), there was much chatter about what Clinton would do after she steps down from the Cabinet next month—get a haircut; take a few weeks sleeping off jet lag at Canyon Ranch; read the polls and the political landscape; do good works; do good works for the good people of, say, Iowa—and so on. Everyone had a theory of which they were one hundred percent certain. There wasn’t much doubt about the ultimate direction. 2007-8 was but a memory and 2016 was within sight. She’s running.

    “I am somewhat overwhelmed, but I’m obviously thinking I should sit down,” Clinton said as the videos concluded. “I prepared some remarks for tonight, but then I thought maybe we could just watch that video a few more times. And then the next time, I could count the hairstyles, which is one of my favorite pastimes.” An old joke with Hillary, but the crowd, tickled to be there, rosy with wine, roared.

    All kinds of circumstances could intervene between now and 2016 to derail her—politics, health, family matters, a renewed Clinton fatigue—but Hillary’s numbers are enormous, her ambition equal to her capacities, and she was in high political gear. She proceeded to give a serious, sturdy speech of a certain kind; if not quite AIPAC-ready, it was a speech extremely careful not to ruffle anyone’s delicate feelings or becloud her last days as secretary of state. She asked of Israel only that it show more “generosity” to the Palestinians. She was quick to point out that, both in the recent Gaza crisis and then in the U.N. vote on Palestine’s non-member observer status, “we had Israel’s back.” She pointed out that the U.S. had “underwritten” Iron Dome, the missile-defense program that protected Israeli territory from rockets fired from Gaza.

    But as the coming days would prove, the Netanyahu government repaid American diplomatic allegiance by doing precisely what would embarrass and anger the Obama Administration most: first, by announcing new settlement activity in the West Bank and then by punishing the Palestinian Authority financially by withholding tax receipts. And yet the Israelis have been quick to rebuff any talk of a crisis in U.S.—Israel relations; all the talk is of “shared values” and “your only ally in the region.”

    Clinton only prodded Israel gently, but was quicker to poke the Palestinians. “The Palestinians could have had a state as old as I am, in 1947,” she said, during a short question-and-answer session. And then she spoke, without any complicating details, about how Bill Clinton and Ehud Barak offered a comprehensive deal to Arafat in 2000 and how Ehud Olmert did the same to Mahmoud Abbas.

    http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/12/hillary-is-running-a-dispatch-from-the-saban-forum.html#ixzz2Dyz3W6Fo

  44. Rickya at 11:57 am:

    “As to her statement that debt is a matter of national security, this is not a policy position. Has Obama ever stated that it is his policy to increase debt?”

    Obama has never made a statement to the effect that increased debt is his policy; it is, however, his de facto policy: He is not unaware of it, could stop it if he wanted, but doesn’t. So, it is intentional and therefore a policy. Endless deficit spending, supposedly to support demand or whatever, necessarily increases the debt. This is why we had the debt ceiling crisis last year and again this year.

    Hillary’s 2009 statement that rising debt was hampering our national security is not a policy position, because Hillary is not in charge of economic policy at all.

    But already in 2009, when she made the statement, it was recognized as a sharp criticism of Obama because even at that time the debt had increased significantly due to the first “stimulus” borrow-spend cycle. The statement was in the news cycle for a week and was discussed here at H44 too.

    Of course, as you know, neither Obama’s increasing debt (whether or not you consider it a policy) nor Hillary’s assessment of its impact on international relations, has changed since 2009. Furthermore, the Defense Dept is now echoing her words almost to the letter as they see their own budgets slashed.

    This is definitely a point of disagreement between HRC and Obama, and the disagreement also applies for WJC, not only in the Jon Stewart interview I referred to but also by WJC’s record in office and also by the lack of reference to anything economic in WJC’s speech at the DNC or during the 2012 campaign. WJC found words of praise for Obama, but nothing but excuses for his economic policies.

    ===
    “You have shown no policy disagreement in your post.”

    I did show a policy disagreement in my post, and have done so once again above.

    ===
    (speaking of what an HRC presidency might have been like) “These might all be true but is pure conjecture. No one can know how Hillary might have acted.”

    Of course no one can know for sure, and that is why I said your hypothetical question was pathetic in the first place: How can anyone give hard evidence of what might have been? It’s all hypothetical.

    All you’re saying is that, since there is no hard evidence of what she might have done differently from Obama, you take that as hard evidence that she would have done the same thing.

    This is circular reasoning by someone who wants to nail Hillary at any cost and doesn’t want to do his homework and look at Hillary’s record. Hillary has a long record that stands up to scrutiny, and Obama now has a record that does not.

    =
    At the risk of repeating myself, your entire first post, and this second one as well, is predicated on an obsession with trashing Obama & Co. and bringing down everything around him, Hillary be damned.

    Then, you leave it up to me to find daylight between Hillary and Obama so that maybe you can take a kinder view of her. You don’t even try to look for yourself, you just leave it up to me.

    But even when I give you a difference between them that you’re asking for – knowing that “It is true that no disagreement can come to the public” even though such a difference has indeed come to the public – you tell me “Your example is inadequate.”

    So, I’m left in a quandary, really. I give you what you want and it’s not enough. I answer your pathetic hypothetical question as best I can, and you respond in essence that my answer is hypothetical, ergo pathetic.

    So there’s no use even trying to answer your questions.

    But one last thing: Could I tempt you with a suggestion to do a little research on your own, since my efforts are to no avail?

    I exhorted wbboei to go and read the QDDR, to know what Hillary has been up to these last four years. I assume you are aware of what she did before that, but apparently you haven’t the least friggin idea what’s been happening at Foggy Bottom or on Hillary’s million-mile trek.

    But beware when reading the QDDR: If you’re looking for a pugilistic disagreement between Hillary and Obama that will satisfy your taste for Obama’s blood, you won’t get it.

    What you will find is a brilliant discourse on 21st century statecraft and how it will be managed. It delineates exactly what Hillary wanted to do and has done with success. Hillary is leaving a precious tool in the hands of her successor.

  45. “It is a goddamned puppet show.”
    ********
    All of the puppet show crap that is called “politics” and gets the left, center, right in a tizzy, is just street theater. Follow the money, dig down a few layers and you find the “Uni-party”. Healthcare, energy, banking, securities, “social welfare”, education, etc.

  46. I used to caddie a lot when I was a kid, both for the income and for the opportunity to play a fine private golf course on Monday mornings.

    Too often, I drew a plutocratic golfer who everyone paid homage too even though his golf game was not quite up to snuff. Typically, his problems began on the first tee, and they ended on the eighteenth green. His forte must have been the nineteenth hole, where the liquor flowed freely–but not for caddies.

    On one particular occasion, this fine gentleman managed to hit his drive on the first hole one of the tee blocks which define the tee off area. The ball shot straight up into the air, and it landed behind where he was standing.

    Whereupon, his playing partners said go ahead, take a mulligan. And so he did. But this time, his time, he took a ferocious swipe at the golf ball and managed to shank it into the head of his playing partner, who was later taken to the hospital.

    Undaunted by any of this, and keen to show the world that this was not a fluke, he announced I will now take a Shapiro, and everyone took cover. He never got off the tee.

    In the case of Obama, the second term will be a mulligan, and it will end in the same manner–people will get hurt. The Shapiro will be his bid for a third term, which he will need to salvage his legacy. But it will never get off the tee.

  47. holdthemaccountable
    December 3rd, 2012 at 9:21 am
    I’ve received a reply to a twitter I sent criticizing Obama’s process for dealing with his cliff. It is from a FB entity named “4 More Years Media” Thought you might enjoy checking it out. Have to wonder if it is not Mitt lol.

    WHAT OBAMA NEEDS IS A CRISIS MANAGEMENT PLAN AND THEN TO IMPLEMENT IT.
    I spent 17 years as a CEO and another 20 years as a working member of numerous projects (many in trouble). As CEO of DC, Obama needs to focus the attention of his troops on solving this Fiscal Cliff dilemma. Using standard project management techniques, this is what his action plan should be:
    1) Forget that 20 day vacation to Hawaii.
    2) Forget all campaign trips.
    3) Clear the decks of small stuff.
    4) Personally chair a two hour meeting every morning for all the key players.
    5) Personally chair a two hour meeting every late afternoon for all the key players.
    6) If he’s got the wrong players, weed them out.
    7) Force them to focus.
    8) Force himself to focus.
    9) Tell them to keep their mouths under control with the press.
    10) Do this day after day after day until they solve the problems and differences.
    &&&&&&&&&&&&

    Of the ten things outlined, Obummer is not capable of doing a single one of them. This would entail something found in the dictionary, under the “W” section, called “work”. He will not lift a finger. He’ll continue to play the game of chicken, continue with the endless campaign, continue shirking to do a job he never did.

    But it’s nice that people have suggestions for him.

  48. Interesting…

    [snip]

    The caste is a simple one, in Shalom sir for big pharm was introduced by White House Insider being Deep Tutu a machination of Rahm Emanuel. Who as this blog early noted appeared to be arriving at scripted conclusions reading directly from this blog in stories either confirmed or the clever deception employed against the John Birch Society by Mockingbird……..meaning one sows in the crazies to taint the message.
    Yes this blog has been utilized by this group to mix the message to steer this as the toxicity found here has had a whispered warning label of “LEAVE ALL LAME CHERRY REVELATIONS ALONE” as the last thing the cartel wants is one Drudge headline pointing here or one regime investigation, which would generate a hundred million hits and expose all what is taking place. It is deemed better to crazy it up and ignore what takes place here in dealing with a vocal minority which can be governed by Ulsterman’s site and other sources like Rush Limbaugh to keep you from revolting.

    [snip]

    http://lamecherry.blogspot.com/2012/12/area-code-ulster-ireland.html

  49. jeswezey
    December 3rd, 2012 at 3:07 pm
    ——————-
    When you have been in battle, you have a right to say things to others, even superior officers, which you could not say otherwise. That is part of the military code. I have explained to you what I did, which was to devote over a year of my life full time to getting her elected. And now, I have raised legitimate questions, which go to the issue of whether I would be willing to do the same thing again. For example, during the campaign, Hillary spoke about exiting an airplane in eastern Europe under fire, and her critics came back and claimed that was not true. Turns out there were gunshots in the hills, and for me that was enough to dismiss her critics–that stupid ass Sinbad and is ilk. But now we have something which really does stick in my craw, and that is telling the father of a slain SEAL that they would get the video producer, when she knew that was not the cause of his son’s death. When someone dies in the service of their country, it is incumbent upon politicians to either level with them, or to say nothing, but not to perpetrate a false story. So rationalize that one. Tell me that is not a tell. And while you are at it, answer the question I put to you two days ago–what exactly did you do to support Hillary in 2008, and how have you changed, if at all. Action talks and bullshit walks.

  50. All of the puppet show crap that is called “politics” and gets the left, center, right in a tizzy, is just street theater. Follow the money, dig down a few layers and you find the “Uni-party”. Healthcare, energy, banking, securities, “social welfare”, education, etc.
    —————————
    No question about it. The question is what can we do to avoid being led to the slaughter. Any ideas on that would be greatly appreciated. The best answer we have been able to come up with is do what you can to protect yourself. Depending on how imminent you perceive the threat to be, will determine whether you elect to horde gold, or to horde seeds. A friend with a long history in the news business told me the other day, this is what happens when the monied interests succeed in corrupting the press. It cannot be otherwise.

  51. jeswezey
    December 3rd, 2012 at 3:07 pm

    Obama has never made a statement to the effect that increased debt is his policy; it is, however, his de facto policy: He is not unaware of it, could stop it if he wanted, but doesn’t. So, it is intentional and therefore a policy. Endless deficit spending, supposedly to support demand or whatever, necessarily increases the debt. This is why we had the debt ceiling crisis last year and again this year.

    Hillary’s 2009 statement that rising debt was hampering our national security is not a policy position, because Hillary is not in charge of economic policy at all.

    But already in 2009, when she made the statement, it was recognized as a sharp criticism of Obama because even at that time the debt had increased significantly due to the first “stimulus” borrow-spend cycle. The statement was in the news cycle for a week and was discussed here at H44 too.

    Of course, as you know, neither Obama’s increasing debt (whether or not you consider it a policy) nor Hillary’s assessment of its impact on international relations, has changed since 2009. Furthermore, the Defense Dept is now echoing her words almost to the letter as they see their own budgets slashed.

    This is definitely a point of disagreement between HRC and Obama, and the disagreement also applies for WJC, not only in the Jon Stewart interview I referred to but also by WJC’s record in office and also by the lack of reference to anything economic in WJC’s speech at the DNC or during the 2012 campaign. WJC found words of praise for Obama, but nothing but excuses for his economic policies.

    I did show a policy disagreement in my post, and have done so once again above.

    Policy is not what IS but what is OUGHT TO BE. There are steps that can be done to curb the deficit. How is Obama different from Hillary when it comes to these steps. Are entitlements off the table for Obama? How about Hillary? Will taxes be the primary means of curbing the deficit? What is Obama’s view? What is Hillary’s? Will Obama tax the rich? Will Hillary?

    BTW, who recognized it as a sharp criticism? Hillary Clinton supporters? Who else?

    (speaking of what an HRC presidency might have been like) “These might all be true but is pure conjecture. No one can know how Hillary might have acted.”

    Of course no one can know for sure, and that is why I said your hypothetical question was pathetic in the first place: How can anyone give hard evidence of what might have been? It’s all hypothetical.

    All you’re saying is that, since there is no hard evidence of what she might have done differently from Obama, you take that as hard evidence that she would have done the same thing.

    This is circular reasoning by someone who wants to nail Hillary at any cost and doesn’t want to do his homework and look at Hillary’s record. Hillary has a long record that stands up to scrutiny, and Obama now has a record that does not.

    This is NOT circular reasoning. Absent any evidence that she disagrees, it is quite reasonable to conclude that she agrees. After all they belong to the same party. Only evidence will convince me that she disagrees with his policies and NOT conjecture. Even her past positions is NO evidence that she disagrees with him. It is possible that Obama has convinced her.

    At the risk of repeating myself, your entire first post, and this second one as well, is predicated on an obsession with trashing Obama & Co. and bringing down everything around him, Hillary be damned.

    No obsession here….blinders are just off. If she is part of the administration and there is no evidence that she disagrees with his positions, then it is only fair and reasonable that she be criticized along with Obama.

    Then, you leave it up to me to find daylight between Hillary and Obama so that maybe you can take a kinder view of her. You don’t even try to look for yourself, you just leave it up to me.

    I have no intention of trying to look for clues as to what her intentions are. It is reasonable to assume that her positions are his positions absent any evidence to the contrary.

    But even when I give you a difference between them that you’re asking for – knowing that “It is true that no disagreement can come to the public” even though such a difference has indeed come to the public – you tell me “Your example is inadequate.”

    The evidence you cited IS inadequate. It is a general statement regarding the role deficits play in national security. It is NOT a criticism of ANY of Obama’s policies. It is NOT even a policy position in the first place.

    So, I’m left in a quandary, really. I give you what you want and it’s not enough. I answer your pathetic hypothetical question as best I can, and you respond in essence that my answer is hypothetical, ergo pathetic.

    So there’s no use even trying to answer your questions.

    I am open to be convinced. Just provide a CLEAR showing that she disagrees with his policies and I will believe you. Absent this, I will REASONABLY assume that she agrees with Obama.

    But one last thing: Could I tempt you with a suggestion to do a little research on your own, since my efforts are to no avail?

    I exhorted wbboei to go and read the QDDR, to know what Hillary has been up to these last four years. I assume you are aware of what she did before that, but apparently you haven’t the least friggin idea what’s been happening at Foggy Bottom or on Hillary’s million-mile trek.

    What about Benghazi? What is her role in that debacle?

    But beware when reading the QDDR: If you’re looking for a pugilistic disagreement between Hillary and Obama that will satisfy your taste for Obama’s blood, you won’t get it.

    No, nothing pugilistic. How about if Bill says it and NOT Hillary? How about their surrogates saying it? How about not saying anything in support of his policies? (which they have done a lot of times)

    What you will find is a brilliant discourse on 21st century statecraft and how it will be managed. It delineates exactly what Hillary wanted to do and has done with success. Hillary is leaving a precious tool in the hands of her successor.

    I don’t agree with their positions in the Middle East. I don’t think that this is a success for Hillary. Is Egypt a success? Is Syria successful? What about Iraq? Iran?

  52. But now we have something which really does stick in my craw, and that is telling the father of a slain SEAL that they would get the video producer, when she knew that was not the cause of his son’s death.

    ——–
    I have searched the internets trying to find Hillary’s actual words and all I can find is the story that the father told.

    If anyone has the video…I would like to see it.

  53. “The question is what can we do to avoid being led to the slaughter.”
    ******
    Not much to do. The US socio/economic landscape is very likely to get a lot worse and that outcome would not have been different if Romney had won. The question is what direction will the Country take when the economy is hit with the next tidal wave of economic “badness”?

  54. Clinton’s remarks on Benghazzi and references to the video as the impetus.

    Sept.11
    Clinton: Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.

    Sept. 12: Clinton delivers a speech at the State Department to condemn the attack in Benghazi and to praise the victims as “heroes.” She again makes reference to the anti-Muslim video in similar language.

    Clinton: Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior, along with the protest that took place at our Embassy in Cairo yesterday, as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet.

    Sept. 13: Clinton meets with Ali Suleiman Aujali — the Libyan ambassador to the U.S. — at a State Department event to mark the end of Ramadan. Ambassador Aujali apologizes to Clinton for what he called “this terrorist attack which took place against the American consulate in Libya.” Clinton, in her remarks, does not refer to it as a terrorist attack. She condemns the anti-Muslim video, but adds that there is “never any justification for violent acts of this kind.”

    Sept. 13: Clinton met with Moroccan Foreign Minister Saad-Eddine Al-Othmani. She condemned what she called the “disgusting and reprehensible” anti-Muslim video and the violence that it triggered.

    Sept. 13
    “Unfortunately, however, over the last 24 hours, we have also seen violence spread elsewhere. Some seek to justify this behavior as a response to inflammatory, despicable material posted on the Internet. As I said earlier today, the United States rejects both the content and the message of that video. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.”

    http://www.factcheck.org/2012/10/benghazi-timeline/

  55. rickya 4:06 pm

    “Policy is not what IS but what is OUGHT TO BE.”

    I’ve never heard “policy” defined like that. In fact, I don’t even know what it means.

    “There are steps that can be done to curb the deficit. How is Obama different from Hillary when it comes to these steps.”

    Yes, the deficit can be curbed. Obama could take those steps if he wanted, but doesn’t. The difference with Hillary is that she cannot take those steps and, in fact, she cannot even speak about them as that would be illegal. The fact that she made her 2009 remarks was borderline illegal.

    “Are entitlements off the table for Obama? How about Hillary?”

    For Obama, I have no idea; for Hillary, she has no say in the matter so I don’t know either.

    “Will taxes be the primary means of curbing the deficit? What is Obama’s view? What is Hillary’s?”

    Again, Hillary’s view can only be guessed because she can say nothing on the subject. As for Obama, it seems that he wants taxes to cover the deficit and take cuts

    “Will Obama tax the rich? Will Hillary?”

    I intuit that Obama would like to tax the rich more. The Secy of State has no say in the matter.

    “BTW, who recognized it as a sharp criticism? Hillary Clinton supporters? Who else?”

    As I said in my first and second posts, her 2009 statements made the news for a week. I’m talking about both the lamestream media, Fox, and the press. Also, as I said, they were reported here in an article followed by a gleeful blog – we thought Hillary was going to start drawing blood.

    “What about Benghazi?… the Middle East. I don’t think that this is a success for Hillary. Is Egypt a success? Is Syria successful? What about Iraq? Iran?”

    I have my own analyses of these individual events and policies that probably don’t match yours. Having had some experience with the Middle East myself, I can only say that success and failure there are never set out in black and white and signed on the deck of an aircraft carrier.

    The Mideast situation for the last two years has become far more fluid than I ever knew it, and I would hesitate to view anything as more than ripe for further change. To reach the best possible outcome, it is essential that we remain engaged and not try to manipulate these people anymore.

    And that is one of the essential points in the QDDR – partnership, not manipulation. It’s strange that you ask these questions in response to my call to read the QDDR. It’s as if you don’t want to learn anything; your suspicions and foregone conclusions are sufficient.

  56. Before I would toss Hillary out for her 20 years of public service I would definitely have to have a lot more proof of wrong doing and implied corruption that this.

    That’s just me, everyone else has there own opinion.

  57. Public locked out again…

    House lawmakers have been invited to a briefing on Benghazi this Wednesday, the Democratic Caucus announced.

    This will be the first opportunity for every member to hear from the intelligence community about the attack in Libya. Homeland security committees in the House and the Senate have already held closed-door briefings with top FBI and CIA officials, including former CIA director Gen. David Petraeus.

    Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, Director of the National Terrorism Center Matthew Olsen, State Department Undersecretary Patrick Kennedy and other officials from the FBI, and DOD will give a “multimedia presentation” on Libya to members during the briefing, which is not open to the press.

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-congress/2012/12/house-will-get-big-briefing-on-benghazi-150944.html?hp=l1

  58. shdowfax,

    Like I said a couple of days ago. I am done with any dim for the forseeable future. I posted the Benghazzi timeline from Factcheck coz someone was asking for clarification of what HRC had said.

    It sure seems like she’s blaming the massacre on the video in the above excerpts.

    I agree wholeheartedly with wbboei’s assessment:

    “But now we have something which really does stick in my craw, and that is telling the father of a slain SEAL that they would get the video producer, when she knew that was not the cause of his son’s death. When someone dies in the service of their country, it is incumbent upon politicians to either level with them, or to say nothing, but not to perpetrate a false story.”

  59. Obama on Monday afternoon issued a stern warning to Syrian President Bashar Assad and his officials.

    “I want to make it absolutely clear to Assad and those under his command: The world is watching,” the president said in a speech at the National Defense University, in Washington. “The use of chemical weapons is and would be totally unacceptable. And if you make the tragic mistake of using these weapons, there will be consequences and you will be held accountable.”

    His statement followed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and White House Press Secretary Jay Carney issuing warnings earlier in the day.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/03/syria-moves-chemical-weapons-white-house-warns-crossing-red-line/

  60. Basil

    I know how you and wbb feel, and some others, that’s why I posted the following:

    Before I would toss Hillary out for her 20 years of public service I would definitely have to have a lot more proof of wrong doing and implied corruption that this.

    That’s just me, everyone else has there own opinion.

  61. One big pile of puke…

    Samuel L. Jackson: ‘Michelle Is Superwoman … She Can Be the President’

    “Michelle is Superwoman. What can’t she do?” the Hollywood star and Democratic donor says in an interview with Newsweek. “That’s why people love her. She can be on the Supreme Court and anywhere else she wants. She can be the president. She’s history and she’ll stay history because she is so amazingly smart and together.”

    (Puke, puke, p.u.k.e.!!!)

  62. shadowfax,

    Honestly, for me it’s more about the identification with the dim brand than anything else. At this point I can’t bring myself to support or further enable anyone affiliated with the party.

    I know you are a huge HRC loyalist and I respect that. I also admire her but for the time being she is identified as a dim. Right now that’s a game changer for me.

  63. Just wait. They will try to run mooch. Then if the dims don’t get behind her they’ll all be racists.

    We are all racists forever now.

    What a horrid thought.

  64. wbboei 3:34 pm

    “When you have been in battle, you have a right to say things to others, even superior officers, which you could not say otherwise…. answer the question I put to you two days ago–what exactly did you do to support Hillary in 2008, and how have you changed, if at all.”

    ===

    First of all, I note once again that you are dwelling on the past – Hillary’s, yours and mine, and that is not the conduct of a responsible person.

    You did battle for Hillary in 2008 and, from what you’ve told us, it was a lot more than I did, at least physically, though my financial contribution was probably larger than yours – I have maxed out every quarter since the first of 2007 until now, except for 4 quarters of 2009-10 when my income was very slack.

    Second, thank you for asking how I have changed. It’s flattering to know that you take an interest in that, though I don’t see how it affects what you or I have said.

    Generally, I change when I make sense out of something I didn’t understand before. Such changes can be very rapid, lasting a few minutes or an hour, such that you may think me fickle-minded but in fact the reverse is true: understanding brings light, in the sense that “You shall seek the truth and it shall set you free”, and once you are free there is no going back. You have reached terra firma, the port in the storm.

    Not to stray from the subject: there were many such moments in 2007-2008.

    For example:

    Backstep to 2005, I had dinner with a mortgage broker who was flush with the cash from his first mortgage sale. He tried to explain what his business was but I was just too thick to understand. I wondered why anyone would want to “buy” a mortgage if he already owned his house. It didn’t make sense.

    Then, just by listening to Hillary talk of foreclosures in 2007, I suddenly realized that my broker friend was a predatory lender – what we used to call loan sharks in the days of the NY-NJ mafia. It was the bank that was paying the broker handsomely to pull the wool over some poor sucker’s eyes and put him in debt for the rest of his life, and out of a house.

    The whole subprime scandal fell into place in my mind and I realized, again from Hillary, that there was a housing bubble that was going to burst soon. I had just enough time to withdraw my money from a transatlantic investment fund that was making a fortune on AAA subprime derivatives. It took 6 months to withdraw the money and Lehman Bros. went bust 3 weeks later, and the investment fund a few weeks after that.

    That is an example of how I change, and once I change I don’t go back. The ratings agencies can go fuck themselves along with the banks.

    Now, the source of that truth that set me free was Hillary. Hillary is my terra firma. She makes mistakes? She owns up to them and moves on. But for me, she is a marvelous combination of intelligence, diligence and heart, and I will always be willing to listen to her and give her the benefit of a doubt.

    HillaryIs44 has also been a source of truth. It was here that I discovered that Obama was corrupt, I think in late 2007, and that set me free from him forevermore. Corruption is the antithesis of character and the handmaid of incompetence. The man definitely should not be president. Eventually, I voted McCain because there was no doubt about his character or that of his VP. “Country first” was a fine slogan.

    There was other prophetic truth that actually came from Obama’s mouth this time, though I’m sure he didn’t realize it.

    It was in a debate (January? Edwards was still there) where the moderator asked a smart question for once, which was how these three senators would change to a job in the executive branch….

    Obama said, “I don’t see myself as the CEO of the federal government….” He apparently didn’t realize that he had just disqualified himself for the presidency, because the President is indeed the Chief Executive, that is, the CEO of the federal government.

    And in office, Obama has shown that he meant what he said that night. His conception of the presidency is that the president presides, period. He sits in on cabinet meetings and listens to all his secretaries’ rubbish, leaves the decision-making to Jarrett and Axelgrease or at best checks off his wishes on a multiple-choice list, or expects his secretaries to make the decisions themselves. He doesn’t manage or direct. His occasional appearances before the press are scripted. He doesn’t discuss anything with Congress. He is a lackadaisical flunkie who would be fired by his stockholders the first chance they get.

    I don’t remember what Edwards’ answer was to that question; but Hillary’s answer was, “My approach would be very much hands-on…”

    Now, that is the answer of a born executive – a manager, someone who is on top of the pile, hand-picks her cohorts and keeps the machine running full blast.

    That is the kind of person we have had leading the State Dept for four years, and that is the kind of person I want to see in the White House.

    So, you ask how I have changed since 2008, and my answer is that I haven’t – not as concerns Obama and Hillary.

  65. …we are headed into chaos personified…

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/03/us-usa-tax-irs-idUSBRE8B21HA20121203

    IRS aims to clarify investment income tax under healthcare law

    WASHINGTON | Mon Dec 3, 2012 6:14pm EST

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Internal Revenue Service has released new rules for investment income taxes on capital gains and dividends earned by high-income individuals that passed Congress as part of the 2010 healthcare reform law.

    The 3.8 percent surtax on investment income, meant to help pay for healthcare, goes into effect in 2013. It is the first surtax to be applied to capital gains and dividend income.

    The tax affects only individuals with more than $200,000 in modified adjusted gross income (MAGI), and married couples filing jointly with more than $250,000 of MAGI.

    The tax applies to a broad range of investment securities ranging from stocks and bonds to commodity securities and specialized derivatives.

    The 159 pages of rules spell out when the tax applies to trusts and annuities, as well as to individual securities traders.

    Released late on Friday, the new regulations include a 0.9 percent healthcare tax on wages for high-income individuals.

    Both sets of rules will be published on Wednesday in the Federal Register.

    The proposed rules are effective starting January 1. Before making the rules final, the IRS will take public comments and hold hearings in April.

    Together, the two taxes are estimated to raise $317.7 billion over 10 years, according to a Joint Committee on Taxation analysis released in June.

    To illustrate when the tax applies, the IRS offered an example of a taxpayer filing as a single individual who makes $180,000 in wage income plus $90,000 from investment income. The individual’s modified adjusted gross income is $270,000.

    The 3.8 percent tax applies to the $70,000, and the individual would pay $2,660 in surtaxes, the IRS said.

    The IRS plans to release a new form for taxpayers to fill out for this tax when filing 2013 returns.

    The new rules leave some questions unanswered, tax experts said. It was unclear how rental income will be treated under the new rules, said Michael Grace, managing director at Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP law firm in Washington.

    “The proposed regulations surely will increase tax compliance burdens for individuals,” said Grace, a former IRS official. “There’s clearly some drafting left to be done.”

  66. Basil

    I know you are a huge HRC loyalist and I respect that. I also admire her but for the time being she is identified as a dim. Right now that’s a game changer for me.

    ——–
    I am very loyal to people I believe in that have proven themselves to me for a long time. I do not give that loyality blindly.

    The DNC and their stinking party have sold out to the DNA sample…the majority of them can go to Hell.

    99% of the R’s can go to Hell too, I support people now, not parties. I am a centrist, so I have liked and disliked parts of each party.

  67. BASIL99 December 3rd, 2012 at 6:31 pm

    “… I also admire her but for the time being she is identified as a dim.”

    ===

    I have to concede you that point, BASIL99: If Hillary runs in 2016, she may very well be in the same unenviable position as McCain in 2008.

    That is, Dubya’s favorability was at 30% in 2008. Nobody wanted a third Bush term and Hillary, among others, did all she could to tie the Dubya albatross around McCain’s neck, saying things like “four more years of the same last eight years, no thanks.”

    So, when McCain had to go through the obligatory photo op with Dubya, it did him no good because the conservatives still distrusted the maverick McCain and the moderates and independents bought into the idea that McCain was indeed another Bush, and abandoned him in droves.

    The same thing might happen to Hillary in 2016. As you fear, she may be identified as a dim – an Obama fan promising a 3rd Obama term.

    But Obama may not be at 30% favorability in 2016. If he is anywhere around 47%, the Republicans may think twice about trying to tie her to Obama.

    For another thing, Hillary can very well develop her own program as I’m sure she will, especially as regards reducing the debt, and put across her strong points like her working relationships with Republicans and with people around the world. She doesn’t have to come out swinging against Obama to sell herself.

    And most importantly for us here, identifying her as a “dim” is your own particular problem actually, that I think you should deal with. We have a grudge against the “dims” and amalgamate them with everything that has gone wrong under Obama. This is a viewpoint typical of H44, where the term “dimocrat” was termed, and is not necessarily that of the population at large.

    Furthermore, many in the Democratic party have turned away from Obama, who did not campaign for any of them in 2012 – and even in 2010 they didn’t want his “help” – because Obama is poison. What we need to realize is that many Democrats called on WJC for help in 2010 and 2012, he gave that help, and the people he helped won.

    My point is that the Democratic Party of FDR/HRC is back in style. There is a comeback, and WJC is the leader again. So, by 2016, I have hopes that we can count you among Hillary supporters once again.

    (Actually, I hope it doesn’t take that long.)

  68. rgb44hrc

    Hillary Clinton did indeed try to sell the American people the lie about a video being the cause for the terrorist attacks in Benghazi. You are defending her with falsehoods just like Candy Crowley defended Obama’s lie in the second prsidential debate against Mitt Romney. When the father of slain Navy Seal Tyrone Wood, an American hero was grreeted by Hillary Clinton at the reception of the falg drapped caskets from Benghazi, SOS Clinton said directly to Charles Woods, Tyrone’s father “we are going to get that guy who made that video and proceute him.” Mr. Woods was furious with both Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama and talked about his incident on several news shows. Why don’t you do your own research on this.
    In addition to this failure of the Dept. of State, a VISA was issued to the underware bomber after several pleas to Clinotn’s State Department were made by the terrorists own father warning them to beware of his son.
    I was a volunteer for Hillary Clinton’s 2008 campaign. I learned during that experience that the democrats are statists. Many of the republicans are as well. The only real hope for this country is the Tea Party Conservatives that know what made America the greatest most prosperous nation in modern history. That is why the corporate media payed off by the CIA lies and slanders them and assasinates their character. The democrat party is made up know of a bunch of warmed over hippies who like Jane Fonda, would cheer on any group that is intend on destroying American freeedom. If it were not for the Progressive Buch Cartel I would have become a republican several years ago.
    Watch were the Soros money goes in the next presidential election, that is if we even have one after Americans elevated this dictator naem Hussein Obama, or is it Bath House Barry?

  69. jeswezey,

    I will have to wait and see. And I do not think my characterization of her as a dim is “my” problem. It is her problem.

    Now if she announced as a third party candidate that would be a different story, for me.

    But that’s sheer speculation. There’s a lot of time between now and 2016 and a lot can happen. In this blog I post my current opinion. In 2008 I was an avid HRC supporter. Things have changed.

    At this point I can’t name a handful of current dims I respect and/or admire, politically speaking of course. ZERO.

    I do not trust or condone their tactics, their intentions or their alliances. It is a party taken over by disgruntled out-for-vengence BLT’s and white guilt lefties. Its priorities are lady-parts, redistribution and destroying the country’s heritage. I want nothing to do with them. And currently HRC is one of “them.”

    However I feel uncomfortable saying these things on her namesake blog. I suppose I should stop posting but 44 is a hard habit to break. I have no problem with people who are avidly devoted to her and I almost wish I could ignore the past four years myself and view her with those eyes.

    Just. Can’t Do. It. I would be lying to myself.

  70. BASIL99

    It is a party taken over by disgruntled out for vengance BLT’s and white guilt lefties. It’s priorities are lady parts, redistribution and destroying the country’s heritage. I want nothing to fo with them. And currently HRC is one of “them.”

    Amen to that and very well put! The democrat party is a anti-American, anti- Judeo- Christian, anti private sector mess. Any democrat running for office will have to pander to the new dumbocrat entitled voters even if they don’t like their attitudes. But sadley it is the DNC and leftist on whole that programmed young stupid socailists that think that life in Venezuela would be a cake walk. They want their socailist Uthopia. I was a classical liberal. Today the term liberal simply means free from responcibilty; let the govenment take care of me.

  71. jeswezey

    You research on Agenda 21 allowed you to believe that this is still a non binding soft treaty as it originally was when Geroge H. Bush, not “dubya” signed onto it at The Rio Earth Summitt. Well unfortunately for US this power grab by the worlds most elites and most corpupt power players was made public policy by Bill Clinotn’s Executive Order 12852 in 1993. And in 2011 Obama gbed comtrol of 16% of America’s land for his global plan. Governors and majors across the nation have been implimenting laws via ICLEI nd other urabn “sustainabiltiy” laws.
    This video is important or anyone who believes that the UN’s plan for sustainability is anything diffent than King John’s land grab caled the King’s garden, or Adolph Hitler’s laothing of the human race. These people who made the plans for Agenda 21 are sick and dimented people. They believe that children should be denied any real education because it will result in them becoming party of the upper middle class that is destroying the planet.

    http://teapartyorg.ning.com/video/video/show?id=4301673:Video:1147367

  72. “Today the term liberal simply means free from responsibiilty; let the government take care of me.”

    Thanks for the explanation. I’ve been wondering for decades what “liberal” meant. The old Republican definition of “tax and spend liberal” seems to fit Obama to a tee, so maybe he’s a liberal.

    How word meanings drift over time and space!

    “Liberal” originally meant free, but “freedom” implied responsibility for one’s words and actions. Now, “freedom” means no rules, thus no accountability, thus no responsibility. So once again it is our basic concept of freedom that is in question, not liberals.

    BTW, “Liberals” in Europe have nothing to do with the meaning you give above. They’re in constant warfare with the socialists.

  73. BASIL99, when I say Hillary’s association with the dims is your problem, it is because you are not representative of the general population – I’m not either, and don’t want to be.

    It is the general population, not you, who will decide if she is associated with the “dims” and my guess is that the population is unaware of this concept of “dimocrat” that we have invented here. If they are aware of it and reject the “dims” and Hillary along with them, then you are right – it’s Hillary’s problem. Otherwise, no, it’s your problem.

    And in the former case too, it is still your problem, because you will have to decide if Hillary has set herself off enough from the dims.

    Anyway, as you say, give it time.

  74. jeswezy,

    I get what you mean. But it will not be a problem for me because I will decide based on what feels true and right for me. I am never afraid of those decisions and therefor it won’t be problematic.

    For me.

    It may be so for others who disagree with my ultimate decision once I arrive at it. I am willing to accept that a reemergence of the real HRC, the one I admired, might take place. I have not yet closed all the doors. But sadly I am not at all optimistic. Past is prelude to the future and the past few years have not been terribly inspiring.

    In the meantime I am open to whoever else throws their hat into the ring with a message I can rally around.

    At this moment it is not HRC. But it’s possible that could change. At this point I don’t see how but I believe one should never say never unless the evidence is overwhelmingly incontrovertible.

  75. A bittersweet warning from LC.

    Indications are in my popularity waning that “something” is out there and they are no longer so much interested in this blog hindering B. Hussein, as he has served his purpose and birthed a darker force than he.

    It is strange though standing here, as if time froze and this wall is just held there. It must have been like when the Egyptians followed the Israelites into the Red Sea, just before it crashed back onto them.

    The Wink of an Angel, when time stood still.

  76. jeswezey
    December 3rd, 2012 at 6:40 pm
    ____________________

    The questions I have raised are simple and straigtforward.

    But you have chosen not to answer them.

    For the third time:

    1. What if anything did you do to help Hillary get elected in 2008–other than wish upon a star?

    2. How do you justify the false response given to the father of the slain SEAL?

    May we have an answer resonsive to those questions?

    Or is that asking too much?

  77. It sounds like Boehner has put a counterproposal on the table, which is reasonably close to the Simpson Bowles proposal–the mutually prominent alternative which I mentioned the other day. That means there has been major movement on the Republican side, and regressive bargaining by the Administration. If this were labor relations, Obama would be guilty of an unfair labor practice of refusal to bargain. Since that is not labor relations, all we can say is he is bargaining in bad faith. When I opined on the subject a couple days ago, I was sanguine that a deal would be reached to avert a catastrophe which is as much psycological as fiscal, because of the way the Administration and the White House have built it up into something it never needed to be. But after seeing Geithners response, and Obama’s statement that he is prepared to go over the cliff, the prospects for a deal seem more remote now. Clearly, Obama believes he has a mandate, and he is a sociopath, therefore, it is not unlikely that he would destroy the village to save it. But what he fails to realize is that Boehner has put what looks to me like a final offer on the table, so there is no further grounds for compromise. And that means Obama must make a similarly large move in Boehners direction, and for the reasons discussed that is probably not in his nature. Thus, he may never enter the bargaining zone where a deal can be made. Instead, he will attempt to force the Republicans to bargain against themseleves, because he believe he has the whip hand. But the truth is they cannot move much more than they have without splitting their own constituency, and the 48% of the country who voted for them would revolt. There are times when holding the whip hand can be a liablity, and he might learn to his suprise that this is one of them. There is no greater mistake a negotiater can make than overestimating himself and underestimating his opponent.

  78. wbboei Dec 3 @ 10:07 pm
    “1. What if anything did you do to help Hillary get elected in 2008–other than wish upon a star?
    2. How do you justify the false response given to the father of the slain SEAL?”
    ====

    For question 1, I don’t get it. I thought I understood the question and did make a reply, i.e., my help to Hillary in 2008 was financial, and a substantial contribution at that: from February 2007 to the second quarter of 2008 it was the maximum $13,800 and I have continued to max out at that rate up until today, with the exception, as I said, of four quarters in 2009-10 when my personal income would not support it.

    I was not among the boots on the ground in 2007-08 because I spent most of that time in Europe. All I did when in the States was to glue a couple of bumper stickers on my brother’s pickup, plant a yard sign in his yard and talk with a couple of his neighbors, who are all Republicans and couldn’t vote for Hillary in the NJ primary, but supported her anyway and would certainly have done so in the GE.

    Does that answer your question, once again? If not, please indulge me in my incompetence, I don’t understand the question.

    =
    For question 2, I do not justify the false response to the father of the slain SEAL.

    My conclusion on that incident is that Hillary at that point was participating in the cover-up ordered by her boss – with the proviso that she may indeed have believed that the Benghazi attack was prompted by a reaction to the video, since the video was faulted for all the other attacks on 20 or so embassies across the region that day, as far as Indonesia.

    In other words, I’m sure she was aware that the attack was by a fully armed band, but perhaps may not have ascertained yet that the cause of the attack had nothing to do with the video.

    But let’s have it your way: let’s say she was participating actively in a cover-up ordered by Obama, which probably had something to do with covering up a gun-running operation to Syrian rebels.

    In that case, I must say that I have known personally, from my CIA days, of civil servants who deliberately lied about matters of national security. The higher up they are, the bigger the lies. They all do it, in fact: It comes with the territory.

    Also in that case, I think it is difficult to pass judgment on the personal integrity of the liar if you have not been in that position yourself, i.e., of covering up a matter of national security.

    If you do so anyway, then the bottom line is indeed personal failure on the part of Hillary.

    So I will even be willing to grant you that: it was a personal failure. A black mark on Hillary’s record.

    In the 20 years of Hillary’s record in the public eye, such a black mark or two or three will do in my book. She can take the hit and move on. So do I, and I once again exhort you to clear your craw and go read the QDDR to catch up on what she has been doing at State for the last four years.

  79. “No other military trial in history has taken this long.”

    Munley blasts Appeals Court rulings in Hasan case
    Posted 12/3/2012 By Jon Evans
    Material from AP was used in this article.
    CAROLINA BEACH, NC (WECT/AP) – One victim of the Fort Hood shooting spree is upset over Monday’s court decisions in the case of Major Nidal Hasan, the suspect in the massacre.
    Kimberly Munley, the former civilian officer who was shot several times trying to stop the shooting, released a statement responding to rulings of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. The court on Monday ousted the judge from the case, ruling Col. Gregory Gross didn’t appear impartial while presiding over Maj. Hasan’s case. The court also threw out Col. Gross’ order that Hasan be forcibly shaved. Hasan says his beard is a requirement of his Muslim faith, but facial hair violates Army rules.
    The appeals court says the command, not the judge, is responsible for enforcing grooming standards.

    “In response to the most recent decision of the US Court of Appeals in reference to the Hasan trial, I am utterly appalled!” was Munley’s response in an email to WECT. “On Oct 18, 2012, the next lower Appellate Court (The US Army Court of Criminal Appeals) ruled in favor of Judge Gross to have the suspect forcibly shaved and to allow the Judge to continue overseeing the case. Today’s decision by the USCA, in my opinion, is a further ploy to delay this trial to avoid the truth from being revealed that Major Hasan’s bloody massacre could have been prevented if the Government would have done their job.”

    Hasan faces the death penalty if convicted in the Nov. 2009 shooting spree on the Army post in Texas. The shooting killed 13 people and wounded more than two dozen others. Munley was shot four times in the exchange of gunfire with the suspect. Munley has become a spokesperson for a group petitioning for the Department of Defense to consider the incident as “a terrorist attack” instead of “a workplace shooting”, so victims and their families can receive proper benefits.
    “It further supports the fact that there is an extensive effort to cover up “Political Correctness” that occurred in the facts leading up to this incident and that continues to occur to this day,” Munley continued in her statement. “Unfortunately, the accused will continue to receive pay and benefits until he is convicted and I do not believe this conviction will happen within the next year due to this circumstance. It’s already been over three years and the victims deserve justice! No other military trial in history has taken this long. Please visit http://WWW.TRUTHABOUTFORTHOOD.COM to see what you can do to help remedy this issue and to help get the victims the benefits they deserve.”
    http://www.wect.com/story/20251365/munley-blasts-appeals-court-rulings-in-hasan-case

    The twitter people supporting exposure of this whole affair could use help. They tried to get momentum as November 6 approached, but nothing huge ever happened with it. Now it is just a dribble here and there. The two wives who most frequently tweet have the usernames WWWife, Stalnaker60 and the most frequently used hashtag is #FtHood

  80. jesw

    For question 2, I do not justify the false response to the father of the slain SEAL.

    My conclusion on that incident is that Hillary at that point was participating in the cover-up ordered by her boss – with the proviso that she may indeed have believed that the Benghazi attack was prompted by a reaction to the video, since the video was faulted for all the other attacks on 20 or so embassies across the region that day, as far as Indonesia.

    In other words, I’m sure she was aware that the attack was by a fully armed band, but perhaps may not have ascertained yet that the cause of the attack had nothing to do with the video.
    *************

    Garbage

  81. gonzotx 7:17 am

    “Garbage”

    As usual, a reasoned response from you.

    Did you bother to read any farther in my post?

  82. jesw

    Of course I did!. Gargage in and garbage out.

    What a laugh, the Socialist that despises the first amendment and never let’s an opportunity to sing the praise of socialism vs our Republic, the new spokesman for Hillary!

  83. Leanora
    December 4th, 2012 at 7:47 am

    This will NOT sit well with the Tea party and Boehner will pay in the end, as will the Repubs!

  84. How did Animal Farm end? Something like: “And democrat looked at republican and republican at democrat and none of them could tell the difference anymore.”…comment

  85. gonzotx: none of them could tell the difference anymore.”…comment
    ———————————-
    Enter third party. Have several years to get act together.

  86. jeswezey
    December 3rd, 2012 at 4:57 pm

    I’ve never heard “policy” defined like that. In fact, I don’t even know what it means.

    This statement is only meant to convey that the results doesn’t tell you what the policy is. Meaning….even if increased deficits happen, it doesn’t mean that the policy of the government IS increased deficits. It is conceivable that the government’s policy is deficit reduction while failing to reduce the deficits.

    Yes, the deficit can be curbed. Obama could take those steps if he wanted, but doesn’t. The difference with Hillary is that she cannot take those steps and, in fact, she cannot even speak about them as that would be illegal. The fact that she made her 2009 remarks was borderline illegal.

    It was NOT illegal. It was not customary. So are you saying that because Hillary cannot take those steps, she disagrees with Obama?

    For Obama, I have no idea; for Hillary, she has no say in the matter so I don’t know either.

    So because we don’t know, are we to assume that they differ in this regard?

    Again, Hillary’s view can only be guessed because she can say nothing on the subject. As for Obama, it seems that he wants taxes to cover the deficit and take cuts

    So, because there is no evidence one way or the other, are we to assume that she disagrees with Obama?

    I intuit that Obama would like to tax the rich more. The Secy of State has no say in the matter.

    Does that mean that she disagrees?

    As I said in my first and second posts, her 2009 statements made the news for a week. I’m talking about both the lamestream media, Fox, and the press. Also, as I said, they were reported here in an article followed by a gleeful blog – we thought Hillary was going to start drawing blood.

    I remembered Fox…I don’t remember the rest of them seeing it that way.

    I have my own analyses of these individual events and policies that probably don’t match yours. Having had some experience with the Middle East myself, I can only say that success and failure there are never set out in black and white and signed on the deck of an aircraft carrier.

    The Mideast situation for the last two years has become far more fluid than I ever knew it, and I would hesitate to view anything as more than ripe for further change. To reach the best possible outcome, it is essential that we remain engaged and not try to manipulate these people anymore.

    And that is one of the essential points in the QDDR – partnership, not manipulation. It’s strange that you ask these questions in response to my call to read the QDDR. It’s as if you don’t want to learn anything; your suspicions and foregone conclusions are sufficient.

    Her success from our perspective have been colored by the fact that we gave her a pass on every negative and blame it on Obama. See Benghazi, Iran, Egypt. Who is to say that she differs from Obama on the way to go forward on these problems.

  87. jeswezey
    December 4th, 2012 at 5:05 am

    My conclusion on that incident is that Hillary at that point was participating in the cover-up ordered by her boss – with the proviso that she may indeed have believed that the Benghazi attack was prompted by a reaction to the video, since the video was faulted for all the other attacks on 20 or so embassies across the region that day, as far as Indonesia.

    How do we know that she was ordered to cover-up? This is another example of reading the tea leaves.

    In other words, I’m sure she was aware that the attack was by a fully armed band, but perhaps may not have ascertained yet that the cause of the attack had nothing to do with the video.

    How do you know this?

    But let’s have it your way: let’s say she was participating actively in a cover-up ordered by Obama, which probably had something to do with covering up a gun-running operation to Syrian rebels.

    In that case, I must say that I have known personally, from my CIA days, of civil servants who deliberately lied about matters of national security. The higher up they are, the bigger the lies. They all do it, in fact: It comes with the territory.

    Also in that case, I think it is difficult to pass judgment on the personal integrity of the liar if you have not been in that position yourself, i.e., of covering up a matter of national security.

    If you do so anyway, then the bottom line is indeed personal failure on the part of Hillary.

    So I will even be willing to grant you that: it was a personal failure. A black mark on Hillary’s record.

    In the 20 years of Hillary’s record in the public eye, such a black mark or two or three will do in my book. She can take the hit and move on. So do I, and I once again exhort you to clear your craw and go read the QDDR to catch up on what she has been doing at State for the last four years.

    The cover-up is not a very big issue for me. It is the incompetence that is – the failure to protect.

  88. gonzotx
    December 4th, 2012 at 7:47 am

    jesw

    Of course I did!. Gargage in and garbage out.

    What a laugh, the Socialist that despises the first amendment and never let’s an opportunity to sing the praise of socialism vs our Republic, the new spokesman for Hillary!

    ———
    Just got to jump in for a second, Gonzotx….you have gotten really nasty to anyone on this blog that defends or posts their positive feelings about Hillary.

    Can you tone it down a little and treat bloggers with a little respect or will you only come to the blog to cause more anger and heartache to Big Pinksters?

    I know you will probably attack me for saying this, take you best shot or please tone it down.

  89. Headline on Drudge: ‘FREEDOM OR WE DIE’

    Thousands ready to march on Egypt president palace

    CAIRO (AP) – Thousands of Egyptians massed in Cairo Tuesday for a march to the presidential palace to protest the assumption by the nation’s Islamist president of nearly unrestricted powers and a draft constitution hurriedly adopted by his allies.

    The march comes amid rising anger over the draft charter and decrees issued by Mohammed Morsi giving himself sweeping powers. Morsi called for a nationwide referendum on the draft constitution on Dec. 15.

    It is Egypt’s worst political crisis since the ouster nearly two years ago of authoritarian president Hosni Mubarak. The country has been divided into two camps: Morsi and his fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood, as well as ultraconservative Salafi Islamists versus youth groups, liberal parties and large sectors of the public.

    Hundreds of black-clad riot police deployed around the Itihadiya palace in Cairo’s district of Heliopolis. Barbed wire was also placed outside the complex, and side roads leading to it were blocked to traffic. Protesters gathered at Cairo’s Tahrir square and several other points not far from the palace to march to the presidential complex.

    “Freedom or we die,” chanted a crowd of several hundred outside a mosque in the Abbasiyah district. “Mohammed Morsi! Illegitimate! Brotherhood! Illegitimate!” they also yelled, alluding to the fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood from which Morsi hails.

    “This is the last warning before we lay siege on the presidential palace,” said Mahmoud Hashim, a 21-year-old student from the city of Suez on the Red Sea. “We want the presidential decrees cancelled.”

    http://apnews.myway.com/article/20121204/DA2V12302.html

  90. rickya 9:47

    “How do we know that she was ordered to cover-up? This is another example of reading the tea leaves.”

    That’s a good way of putting it – reading the tea leaves. I do say at the beginning of the sentence, though, “My conclusion is…” which tells you that this is what I surmise, not that it is something that could be established in a court of law. It’s just a hunch of mine based on what I’ve heard.

    “ordered by her boss” bothers you? Then drop it. Just read the sentence without those words in it – the result is the same. It’s a moot point.

    ===
    Me: “… but perhaps may not have ascertained yet that the cause of the attack had nothing to do with the video.”

    rickya “How do you know this?”

    I don’t know it. You missed the word ‘perhaps’, as gonzotx did.

    In that part of my post, I am mulling over the possibility that Hillary might have actually believed what she said to the dead SEAL’s father.

    In the remainder of the post, I address the idea that Hillary was lying.

    ===
    “The cover-up is not a very big issue for me. It is the incompetence that is – the failure to protect.”

    OK, but then your gripe is with Panetta or Obama, not HIllary. The State Dept is not in the security business, was operating on a budget cut by Congress, and threw everything it had into the fray. Any more help had to come from outside – the Libyans, which were of no use, or the Defense Dept.

  91. Here is a transcript of Hillary’s Tribute Video shown at the Saban forum:
    ===

    (Tony Blair) “What makes Hillary Hillary is strength, toughness, with a very strong streak of principle. What makes all of that kind of… bearable… for the rest of us (chuckle) is when you get to know her – her really incredible humor and humanity. And that’s what makes people not just like her but love her.”

    (Tzipi Livni, former opposition party leader of Israel) “I believe that what makes Hillary Hillary is something that just few leaders in the world have, and this is the inner compass and a deep understanding of right and wrong. This is what makes Hillary a leader.”

    (Shimon Peres) “Hillary always surprised me by understanding that peace calls for patience and that peace calls for understanding and not for impositions.”

    (Benjamin Netanyahu) “I’ve just had the opportunity to work with her to achieve a cease-fire between Israel and Hamas. Hillary Clinton is a strong and determined leader. She’s both principled and pragmatic, and she knows how to get the job done.”

    (John McCain) “In every place she goes, she reaches out to people, she has a smile, she’s friendly; and yet, beneath that friendship, is a person of very firm convictions.”

    (Salam Fayyad, PM of Palestinian Natl Assembly) “You know what Hillary can do. I mean she is highly personable. She’s the ‘people’s secretary’.

    (Nasser Judeh, Foreign Minister of Jordan) “I have indeed been exposed to the ‘Hillary laugh’.”

    (Madeleine Albright) “She has a laugh that is completely infectious.”

    (Ehud Barak) “Hillary has been flying so much and popping up in all corners of the world almost simultaneously we launched an investigation of our intelligence community, and they found that truly there are… TWO Hillaries.”

    (Henry Kissinger) inaudible

    (McCain) “When she arrives someplace, everybody pays attention…”

    (Barak) “… which makes her extremely effective in the world arena, extremely effective with foreign leaders and, I feel also, highly effective with the American public.”

    (HRC) “I feel so fortunate to have followed in the footsteps of so many amazing men – and women, thankfully….”

    (Albright) “I think what Hillary Clinton’s done really well is to put the human element into foreign policy.”

    (HRC) “I don’t think you can do it long distance, I don’t think you can do it over the Internet, I think you have to do it face-to-face, eye-to-eye, listen to each other, really try to understand the other’s point of view…”

    (Blair) “One of the things that I think she has done over the years is to learn how to deliver a message that can be tough and sometimes very uncomfortable for people, but in a way that makes them want to listen to it and agree to it.”

    (Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed al-Nahyan, UAE Foreign Minister) “I remember being in Paris just hours before the first strike on Mohamed Khaddafi’s army. Hillary would go around that table and make them understand how serious this was.”

    (HRC) “We are standing with the people of Libya. We will not waver in our efforts to protect them. We agree with the Arab League that Khaddafi has lost the legitimacy to lead.”

    (bin Zayed al-Nahyan) “She was so determined because she really saw the suffering of the Libyan people.”

    (Fayyad) “She brings leaders together… she is a coalition-maker.”

    (McCain) “She has taken a life experience in politics, as a mother, as a senator and put that all together in the pinnacle – up to now – of her public service which has endeared her to millions and millions of people all over the world.”

    (Kissinger) “She’s been a very good representative of the United States, so I give her very high marks.”

    (Judeh) “She’s leaving office with Hillary grace.”

    (Livni) “So in the end, it’s not about being a good politician, it’s about being a human being.”

    (HRC) “We have always pushed human promise and potential forward. And if you bet on the side of human rights, human dignity, more countries may have the same extraordinary good fortune that we’ve had.”

    (Netanyahu) “As someone who knows a thing or two about political comebacks, I can tell you, I don’t think we’ve heard the last about Hillary Clinton.”

    (Blair) “I just have an instinct that the best is yet to come.”

    Followed by Obama:

    “To Hyme and everyone gathered at the Saban Forum, thank you for everything you do to sustain the bonds of friendship between the US and Israel – bonds that are unbreakable – and thank you for this chance to honor one of our nation’s finest public servants.

    Hillary we’ll have more opportunities in the days ahead to celebrate your extraordinary service: how you’ve helped restore our standing in the world, and begin a new era of American leadership; how you’ve stood up for our values and the dignity of people around the world – especially women and girls – in short how, in all those foreign trips, despite all the jet lag, you’ve represented the very best of America.

    But tonight, I simply want to say thank you. You’ve been at my side for some of the most important moments of the past four years: in the Oval Office, as we navigated a fast-changing world; in the situation room, including the day we got Bin Laden; at more summits than you probably care to remember; and most recently arriving in Burma, for a historic visit we’ll never forget.

    Through it all, I’ve relied on the shining qualities that have defined your life: your conviction; your optimism; your belief that America can and must be a force for good in the world; your determination to reach out, not just to leaders but to ordinary people in the far corners of the world who, because of you, know they have a friend in the USA.

    I’ll say it again: You’ve been one of the best Secretaries of State in American history.

    And finally, Hillary, a lot’s been said about our relationship and here’s what I know: You haven’t just been one of my closest partners, you’ve become a great friend. I’m so grateful for your grace, your humor, your friendship. And what an incredible message that has sent to Americans and the world about the power of our democracy, about how people can come together and work together on behalf of the country they love.

    So, Hillary, there will be more tributes to come; and don’t worry, those stories you’d rather forget, I’m saving those for later…. Tonight, just know how much you mean to all of us, and how honored we all are, and I am, to call you a partner and a friend.”

  92. Shadowfax December 4th, 2012 at 11:50 am
    ‘FREEDOM OR WE DIE’

    Seems to me that this would be a good time to support the Egyptian people by calling on Morsi to rescind his decrees. But no more than that.

  93. A long chilling account of what is coming to the US.

    If a British MP’s spouse is treated like this what do you think will happen to the regular peeps once the pos’s monstrosity takes affect?

    Senior MP Ann Clwyd says her husband ‘died like a battery hen’ in hospital
    A senior MP has given a harrowing account of her dying husband’s poor treatment in hospital, saying: “He died like a battery hen.”

    By John-Paul Ford Rojas

    Ann Clwyd broke down as she spoke about the final moments of Owen Roberts, who contracted pneumonia after being admitted. They had been married nearly 50 years.

    She said her husband was squashed against the side of his bed, his lips dry, and cold from a fan that had been turned on for a patient in an adjacent bay.

    A light had been flicked on in the four-bed ward and someone shouted out “anybody for breakfast?” just moments before he died., Ms Clwyd said.

    She painted a picture of nurses who treated her husband with “coldness, resentment, indifference and even contempt” – echoing the words of the Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt last week.

    Ms Clwyd said she had had “nightmares” about what happened, adding: “I really do feel he died from people who didn’t care.”
    Related Articles

    Poor care ‘a betrayal of our values’ says Chief Nursing Officer
    04 Dec 2012

    Nurses to be rated for ‘compassion’
    03 Dec 2012

    Foreign doctors must be forced to take tests to improve English
    04 Dec 2012

    Ms Clwyd, the Labour MP for Cynon Valley since 1984 and Tony Blair’s former human rights envoy to Iraq, said she had chosen to speak out because such treatment had become “too commonplace”.

    “Nobody, nobody should have to die in conditions like I saw my husband die in,” she said during a radio interview.

    Her comments came amid calls from the head of nursing in England for compassion to be placed at the centre of the profession, following a series of reports of NHS staff treating patients poorly.

    Mr Roberts died in October, aged 73, following a long battle with multiple sclerosis. He had married Ann Clwyd in 1963.

    The former television producer had been admitted to the University Hospital of Wales in Cardiff, where he contracted pneumonia.

    Ms Clwyd, 75, was called in at 5am on the morning of the day he died.

    “He didn’t have any clothes over him. He was half-covered by two very thin, inadequate sheets, his feet were sticking out of the bed at an angle,” she told BBC Radio 4’s World at One.

    “It was extremely cold and I tried to cover him with a towel. He was very distressed, totally aware of his situation. Although unable to speak because of the oxygen mask he let us know he was cold and that he wanted to come home.”

    Ms Clwyd said she had seen a nurse’s round once between 2.30pm and 10.30pm on the previous day.

    “I stopped one nurse in the corridor and asked why he was not in intensive care, and she said ‘there are lots of people worse than him’ and she walked on.

    “I’d previously stopped another nurse, and asked when a doctor had last seen him, and I was just brushed aside and told a doctor had been to the floor but had not seen my husband but she said ‘we know what to do’.

    “Well, I feel we know what to do meant ‘do nothing’.

    “I’ve tried in the past to get bills on the welfare of battery hens. My husband died like a battery hen. He was six foot two, he was cramped, squashed up against the iron bars of the bed, an oxygen mask that didn’t fit his face, his eye was infected

    “Because the air from the oxygen was blowing into it, his lips were very dry. I used my own lypsyl to try and moisten them. There were no nurses around.

    “Just at eight o’clock, just before he died, all the lights of the ward went on, and somebody shouted ‘anybody for breakfast?’

    “Now, it was obviously totally inappropriate when they knew there was somebody dying in that four-bedded ward.

    “The man in the bed next to him had been feeling hot all along. He had a fan on and it was blowing the cold air towards my husband.

    “So I really do feel he died of cold and he died from people who didn’t care.”

    Breaking down in tears, she said: “It gives me nightmares. I really find it very difficult to sleep, and very difficult to talk about.”

    But Ms Clwyd said she had to speak out “because I think it’s just too commonplace”.

    Ruth Walker, executive nurse director at the hospital, invited Ms Clwyd to meet hospital officials so that a “full and formal investigation” could take place.

    She said: “We will not tolerate poor care, which is why it is so important that each incident is fully investigated, so that we can drive up standards and provide patients and their families with the quality of care they need and deserve.”

  94. jeswezey
    December 4th, 2012 at 12:35 pm

    That’s a good way of putting it – reading the tea leaves. I do say at the beginning of the sentence, though, “My conclusion is…” which tells you that this is what I surmise, not that it is something that could be established in a court of law. It’s just a hunch of mine based on what I’ve heard.

    “ordered by her boss” bothers you? Then drop it. Just read the sentence without those words in it – the result is the same. It’s a moot point.

    How do you know that she was ordered? How do you know that she believed that it was caused by the video? Can’t it be an attempt at a cover-up?

    I understand that these are your conclusions. My question is whether or not these conclusions have any basis.

    Me: “… but perhaps may not have ascertained yet that the cause of the attack had nothing to do with the video.”

    rickya “How do you know this?”

    I don’t know it. You missed the word ‘perhaps’, as gonzotx did.

    All evidence points to the fact that they knew within 24 hours. Where is this uncertainty coming from about what they knew? Why give them the benefit of the doubt?

    In that part of my post, I am mulling over the possibility that Hillary might have actually believed what she said to the dead SEAL’s father.

    In the remainder of the post, I address the idea that Hillary was lying.

    I believe she WAS lying.

    “The cover-up is not a very big issue for me. It is the incompetence that is – the failure to protect.”

    OK, but then your gripe is with Panetta or Obama, not HIllary. The State Dept is not in the security business, was operating on a budget cut by Congress, and threw everything it had into the fray. Any more help had to come from outside – the Libyans, which were of no use, or the Defense Dept.

    The budget was not a problem as testified to by her own people from the State Department. Why didn’t the help come? Wasn’t she able to convince others to intervene? If she wasn’t able to convince others to intervene, how can we expect her to work across the aisle when she wasn’t able to convince those within her own party to intervene and save her ambassador from a fatal attack? Did she ask other departments to intervene or did she think that the State Department can handle it without any help? If she asked for help and failed, then this is a failure of communication and persuasion. If she did not, then it was a failure of judgment.

  95. Leanora

    Morsi Flees Palace!

    Why can’t they do that in Washington?

    ———-
    Unfortunately we have a pResident that leaves DC all the time, to campaign, vacation and play around.

    I wish when we know our elections have been stolen, we can gather with pitchforks and run him out of the WH for good. We just have leaders on both sides that say, ho hum, he won, the people lost again.

  96. Shawdow I am well aware of your feelings but this is not your blog and you would be wise to remember that. Jesw has xxx many times voiced pro EUropean ,elitst , anti AMerican views and just because he decides to be an Advocate for HIllary my views on him remain the same. So if you don’t like it…move on or go back to PUmasunleased and badmouth the selected posters here again such as wbb. Classy move.

  97. Egyptians to march on Morsi palace, media goes on strike

    [snip]

    At the same time, a strike has spread from the judiciary to the media. Eleven newspapers have shut down today in protest of Morsi’s decrees. Tomorrow, Egypt’s private TV networks will follow suit, going dark for the entire day. The media — at least the non-state media — objects to the terms of the new constitution and its limitation on freedom of expression authored by the Muslim Brotherhood:

    “You are reading this message because Egypt Independent objects to continued restrictions on media liberties, especially after hundreds of Egyptians gave their lives for freedom and dignity,” declared a short statement set against a black background on the Web site of Egypt Independent, the English language sister publication of the largest independent daily, Al Masry Al Youm.

    The one day blackout is the sharpest strike yet in a new push by liberal and secular groups to defeat the draft charter, which was approved last Friday by an Islamist-dominated assembly despite the boycotts and objections of almost all non-Islamist delegates. …

    Among other criticisms, analysts and human rights groups say the draft contains loopholes that could eviscerate its provisions for freedom of expression. Although it ostensibly declares a right to free speech, the constitution also expressly prohibits “insults” to “religious prophets.”

    The charter declares that part of the purpose of the news media is to uphold public morality and the “true nature of the Egyptian family,” and it requires authorization to operate a television or a Web site.

    “The protection of freedom of expression is fatally undermined by all the provisions that limit it,” said Heba Morayef, a researcher with Human Rights Watch who has studied the text. “On paper, they have not protected freedom of expression. It is designed to let the government limit those rights on the basis of ‘morality’ or the vague concept of ‘insult.’”

    http://hotair.com/archives/2012/12/04/egyptians-to-march-on-morsi-palace/

  98. gonzotx, that’s your best shot, to try and trash my reputation too?

    Wbb can look on other blogs and see if I trash him or not…

  99. Shadow I read the blog, I know what was said. I am not trashing you just letting you know I read it. Think what you want. I have been here since the beginning, l am not going anywhere.

  100. rickya at 3:53 pm

    “… My question is whether or not these conclusions have any basis.”

    I’ve already said that my conclusion was what I surmised from all the facts that I heard, and which you and everyone else heard too, and that my conclusion is not something that would hold up in a court of law.

    Now, my conclusion was that Hillary knew, two days after the attack when she was addressing the father of the dead SEAL, that the attack was conducted by an armed band.

    If you disagree with that, or think I have no good reason to come to that conclusion, then you are exonerating Hillary completely from any blame when she spoke to the father.

    In that case, your answer to wbboei’s question would be “forget about the whole thing.”

    I took wbboei’s question more seriously, though.

    ===
    “All evidence points to the fact that they knew within 24 hours.”

    Well, now you’re repudiating the criticism you just made. My conclusion was that Hillary knew, and you disputed that above; but now you say that she knew before she talked to the SEAL’s father. Which is it?

    “Where is this uncertainty coming from about what they knew?”

    My conclusion was that Hillary knew that the attack was by an armed band. Apparently, we at least agree on that.

    The uncertainty – and it’s only a hypothetical anyway – is (1) whether or not she really thought that the armed band was motivated by the video, which is what she told the father, or (2) whether she knew at that time that the attack was pre-planned by Al Qaeda elements and that it had nothing to do with the video.

    If you believe (1), then Hillary’s statement to the father was sincere. She cannot be accused of lying and that is the end of the question wbboei asked.

    If you believe (2), then Hillary was lying to the father and you go on with the remainder of my post about lying to cover up a matter of national security.

    “I believe she WAS lying.”

    Fine, then re-read the rest of the post and can talk about that.

    “The budget was not a problem….”

    The budget has been a problem since 2009 because there hasn’t been a budget voted since then. You’re asking a lot of questions here that put too much responsibility on the Secy of State for security issues. You’re expecting the Secy of State to run the country’s diplomacy at the point of a gun, and to work marvels of communication with a recalcitrant Congress that wants to make as many cuts as it can, wherever it can.

    Anyway, you’re right insofar as the budget was not a problem on the night of 9/11/12. Nobody was asking for money to intervene. But the order to stand down simply could not come from Hillary. You have to go to Defense or the White House for answers to that question, and I don’t want to get involved in all the hypotheticals there. They’ve been investigated and discussed here and in the press and media and I have nothing to add.

  101. Shadowfax December 4th, 2012 at 11:40 am

    “gonzotx, you have gotten really nasty to anyone on this blog that defends or posts their positive feelings about Hillary.”

    Thank you very much for the effort, Shadowfax, but it is to no avail.

    gonzotx’ has a thing about me that has nothing to do with my defending Hillary. To wit:

    (gonzotx at 4:27):

    “Jesw has xxx many times voiced pro EUropean ,elitst , anti AMerican views and just because he decides to be an Advocate for HIllary my views on him remain the same.”

    ===
    This dates from the time when gonzotx took homage to something I said, to which she actually took umbrage but she uses free speech a lot. A back-and-forth followed between us in which several of gonzotx’ favorite myths were shattered by facts.

    I suppose this first encounter left her with the lasting impression that her groupthink mind was never going to get the better of me; so she holds a grudge and sticks the most horrifying labels on me – the ones you see above, plus the worst label of all: socialist.

    Oh, woe is me, poor little me. I am a victim of gonzotx’ wrath! I am so devastated by her incisive, lethal logic that I wonder, “Can I ever make it up to her, deserve her forgiveness?”

    Now, Shadowfax, you have taken the incautious step of defending me against gonzotx, albeit for the wrong reason, and you are already being made to pay for it:

    gonzotx: “So if you don’t like it…move on or go back to PUmasunleased and badmouth the selected posters here again such as wbb. Classy move.”

    See, you’re not classy like gonzotx. Now, if you don’t retract what you said real quick and start dealing me some classy, thoughtful comments like “Garbage”, watch out! You will be the subject of gonzotx’ wrath too. Oh, poor you…

  102. jeswezey

    No worries on me, I have much bigger problems in my own life and having peace here would really be nice. 😉

    It ain’t easy being a Hillary supporter, nothing new since 2008.

  103. Shadowfax: “…having peace here would really be nice.”

    Sure, but as long as gonzotx reads my posts and reacts, it’s not going to look very peaceful.

    Over the months, she took the trouble to say that she “ignored” my posts, just “scroll by”… those were peaceful times.

    Now, I don’t know what happened but she’s begun to read my posts again. No peace anymore.

    Anyway, thanks for defending me but watch out for your own hide!

  104. Anyway, thanks for defending me but watch out for your own hide!

    ——-
    The only person I worry about is admin, when he/she quits supporting Hillary and all the bloggers here turn on our girl…I am outta here.

    Until then, I will hope for peace. 😉

  105. Mr Morsi was forced to leave the palace through a back door as up to 100,000 people moved in to surround it on all sides. Some stones were thrown, one hitting the rear car in the president’s convoy.

    Ignoring volleys of tear gas, the protesters burst through first one then a second line of police set in the way to reach the palace, which was the site of the final act in the overthrow of former dictator Hosni Mubarak last year.

    Then, as on Tuesday, demonstrators chanted: “The people want the downfall of the regime”.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/egypt/9722461/Morsi-leaves-through-back-door-as-Egypt-protesters-surround-palace.html

  106. Shadowfax
    December 4th, 2012 at 4:21 pm
    rickya

    What’s the trick in creating PINK backgrounds?

    You need to start the quote with the (blockquote cite=””) and end the quote with a (/blockquote cite=””). Instead of ( use < and intstead of ) use <. You can also copy it from the HTML tags on the reply window. All you need to remember is to use the HTML tags as is when you start it and end it with a "/" at the end.

    For example, if I were to quote you, I will use

    (blockquote cite="")What’s the trick in creating PINK backgrounds?</blockquote cite=""). Again, I used () instead of or else the HTML tag will be activated.

  107. One more try…..

    Just remember that I am using () instead of so that the HTML tag won’t be activated.

    To start a quote use the following (blockquote=””)
    To end a quote use the following: (/blockquote=””)

  108. Last try…

    I am using “(” instead of “” on the HTML tags below so the HTML tags won’t be activated:

    To start a quote use the following (blockquote=””)
    To end a quote use the following: (/blockquote=””)

  109. Confirmation of what most here have long suspected.

    ‘Everyone in US under virtual surveillance’ – NSA whistleblower

    http://rt.com/usa/news/surveillance-spying-e-mail-citizens-178/

    Published: 04 December, 2012, 18:01

    The FBI has the e-mails of nearly all US citizens, including congressional members, according to NSA whistleblower William Binney. Speaking to RT he warned that the government can use information against anyone it wants.

    ¬One of the best mathematicians and code breakers in NSA history resigned in 2001 because he no longer wanted to be associated with alleged violations of the constitution.
    He asserts, that the FBI has access to this data due to a powerful device Naris.
    This year Binney received the Callaway award. The annual award was established to recognize those, who stand out for constitutional rights and American values at great risk to their personal or professional lives.

    RT: In light of the Petraeus/Allen scandal while the public is so focused on the details of their family drama one may argue that the real scandal in this whole story is the power, the reach of the surveillance state. I mean if we take General Allen – thousands of his personal e-mails have been sifted through private correspondence. It’s not like any of those men was planning an attack on America. Does the scandal prove the notion that there is no such thing as privacy in a surveillance state?

    William Binney: Yes, that’s what I’ve been basically saying for quite some time, is that the FBI has access to the data collected, which is basically the e-mails of virtually everybody in the country. And the FBI has access to it. All the congressional members are on the surveillance too, no one is excluded. They are all included. So, yes, this can happen to anyone. If they become a target for whatever reason – they are targeted by the government, the government can go in, or the FBI, or other agencies of the government, they can go into their database, pull all that data collected on them over the years, and we analyze it all. So, we have to actively analyze everything they’ve done for the last 10 years at least.

  110. So the pos meets with media lefties to discuss how they will carry his water for the next few years.

    Among the crew invited: Madcow, HuffingandPuffing, Sharpie and O’Donnell.

  111. a href=”” title=”” href title /a href=”” title=””

    abbr title=”” abbr title /abbr title=””

    acronym title=”” acronym title /acronym title=””

    blockquote cite=”” blockquote cite /blockquote cite=””

  112. dot48 December 4th, 2012 at 9:16 pm “Has anyone seen MoonOnPluto?”

    He said he was going to take a long rest after the election. I think H44 was taking a lot of his time up till then.

  113. OK thanks Shadowfax, now I’m an html demon. Just gotta memorize what all the codes mean. Might this be boldface?

    strong

  114. We can go back and forth about why Hillary Clinton told Tyrone Woods father that they we going to get that man who made the film and procecute him. If you are a Hillary loyalist you will defend her and say she has done a bang up job as Obummers SOS. But the facts remain that the embassy in Egypt was bombed back in the spring of 2012 leaving massive damage. The British and The Red Cross pulled out because of security concerns for their people. So why didn’t the Obama administration which includes Hillary Clinton do a dame thing to make sure Americans in Eygpt were safe. The Obama administrations policy has been to support and elevate the Muslim Brotherhood. From the earliest days of his administration he has helped establish credibility and then power for the Muslim Brothood in quite the same way Adolph Hitler did with Haj Amin Al Husseini. So why didn’t the grown ups in the democrat party (perhaps Hillary and Bill) give the amature president a good shake to wake him up to the reality of what his actions would do to North Africa and eventually the entire Muslim world? Why do leftist always let the young and imature set the agenda? Are they afraid of being old and having wisdom? Do they just want to be hip and cool like Obama? Or was their loyalty to Israel which seemed to be mighty strong during Bill Clinton’s two terms as president, have more to do with Marc Rich’s money via his wife to the Clintons. Saudi money is the most corruptive forse in global politics today. The left has always shared Europe’s default responce of blaming the Jews for every problem the world faces because of the desease called Islam. The fact is Europeans and leftist with no core principles or convictions want to do business with Arabs. Obama does have core convictions but unfortunately they were instilled in him by communists and Islamists. But Bill and Hillary are knee deep in this Spring Time for Hitler and the Muslim Brotherhood because of their opportunism. They supported and continue to support Obama. They are his most powerful advocates.
    Power corrupts and when power corrupts those who we have strongly supported and even volunteered for we have the right and the responsibility to speak out. If this were Sarah Palin’s foreign policy I would turn against her in a second. The democrat pary is now like the Europe they have always thought was supierior to US. The Europe that has been governed by dictators and kings. The Europe that has put it’s own sick, disabled and elderly in ovens. The Europe that is dying because young people expect the govenment to do everything for them apparently including having children for them. I spent much time in Italy and the elites in the north= (the Godless left) are an entitled bunch of brats who never had to work for anything. They love socialism because it is a cast system that kkeps the surfs in their place. Their only occupation is waiting for their parents to die so they can inherit their money. They have the nerve to feel superior to those in the south who pray to God, get married move out of their parents home and have children. Unfortunately the Godless have led Europens into terrible political messes. Now this is happening here in America. The anti-Judeo-Christain self loathing white, and entitled minority socialist are destroying the longest standing democracy the world has known. They are a disaster and as stupid and self destructive as they can be. And they own the democrap party.

  115. I have said that Obama, the Big Bank’s Boy has now set the stage for Worl War Three, with his elevation of the Muslim Brotherhood in North Africa. This article fortifies my greatest fear. Obama is setting uo the world for war. It is what the banks love because they are always the financiers of the destruction and then the rebuilding. Obama owes tha big banks because they bankroled his nearly billion dollar campaign in 2008. Canada Free Press reports pn what the Obama media in the US will not:

    http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/51515

  116. hillary will be runnimg for
    Hillary will be running for the POTUS in 2016 unless BO gets removed from office and Hillary is drafted for the office.This country cannot let this great country be destroyed at the hands of the worst nincompoop this country has everhad as POTUS.We simply cant allowthe muslims to do their dirty work and destroy us all.Hillary is the most qualified of all the gravey trainers that are hoping to crush Hillary.

    By ABM94

  117. jeswezey

    You are so incredibly Borderline. You have NEVER blown ANYTHING I have said out of the water, quite the opposite, I believe Admin took you to task for not having a grasp on the AMERICAN CONSTITUTION her/himself and our rights as citizens of the great and exceptional country.

    You go to great lengths, much like the fraud, on and on and on and just repeating yourself. See wbb @ 1007 asking you for the 3rd time to answer a question.

    Now you want to play victim, well that fits you well.

  118. Israel accuses US of backing European settlement backlash
    Israel has accused its closest ally, the United States, of endorsing a concerted European backlash against its plans to expand settlements in east Jerusalem and the West Bank.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/9722259/Israel-accuses-US-of-backing-European-settlement-backlash.html
    ********************

    This just is unbelievable, that America has fallen so far that Israel must call out the Spawn of Satan.

    I don’t know how she will survive 4 more years with the evil in DC. May all the people of Israel that voted for the Spawn suffer the same as they have brought upon this most holy of lands.

  119. gnzotx

    I have noticed among many who remain loyal to Hillary, that they share the same anti-American, anti-Judeo Christian, anti-free enterprise sentiment that the Obama supporters do. This is the democrat party. When Obama gained power all of the socialists and commies who identify as democrats had a big coming out party. Now we can finally see who they really are. If Hillary does get to run again which she won’t because Obama will find a way to run for a third term, I will not support her. Those of US who became disillusioned with the Clintons during their aliance with Obama won’t be her biggest problem, Obama will be.

  120. Juliette,

    I am furious at Hillary and BC, they have put personal gain over very existence. All this Hillary 2016…Jesus, what kind of country will we have left after 8 years of polices we have seen for 4?

    You can’t put humpty dumpty back together again. I have lost 45% of our personal wealth. I will not be able to gain it back, not in my lifetime. When I think of 20 trillion in debt, well I just can not wrap my brain around it, who can? This debt puts this country and the freedoms of the world at large in a very dangerous and perilous situation.Europe is hanging on a thread despite the trillions we have gifted her under the table. Who will support this socialist albatross when we can no longer, and no longer has arrived?

    I don’t think we will be able to recover. We will have lost the greatest Republic the world will have ever known.

  121. gonzotx

    I agree with most of what you wrote. But I will not lose hope. The Tea Party and people who are muscular with God will take back control of this nation. God’s ways remain a mistery to me, but eventually good is rewarded and evil is punished. Americans have become very confused as to which is evil and which is good. Through the popular culture and the union/ government controlled education system, they have been spun around until they cannot see straight anymore. But God reveals the truth when it is necessary. And I believe that Americans will begin to see Obama as evil just as we have. His actions in North Africa are now undefendable. He will take America over the fiscal cliff and most Americans who have enjoed a relatively good life in this country will finally see just how much socialism sucks and how much Obama does too. I am so sorry that you have been financially damaged. I have been as well but what hurts most of all is knowing so many people who I love and call friends and family, who just refused see the obvious evil in this despot Hussein Obama. I am furious at the Clintons as well because I truly believe that they were the only two people on earth who could have stopped Obama in his tracks back in 2008. They were perhaps too afraid of that race card and that is ashame and will always dog them as members of the democrap party. Any democrat will have to answer to the Al Sharptons and Debbie Wasserman Schultzs. They are the crazy ass faces of the democrat party. The Bushes are progressives as well and they started the (democracy building) in the middle east which deposed our long time allies and replaced them with Islamist regimes. Our hope is with the Tea Party. Michele Backmann, Sarah Palin, Rick Santorum and others will need our support not our depair. So hang in there gonzotx. America is not going down because of this son of a polygamist who the Clintons chose to support. The NAZIs lost before and they are going to lose again. We will recover America if we just don’t allow ourselves to dispare.

  122. Who ever believed he’d be deported? Look at all the favors the man has received over the years.
    DHS Confirms: Deportation of Obama’s Uncle on Hold as Immigration Board Re-Opens Case
    By Patrick Burke
    December 4, 2012
    CNSNews.com) — The U.S Board of Immigration Appeals has agreed to reopen the immigration case of Onyango Obama, delaying the deportation of the 68-year old Kenyan who violated an order to leave the United States in 1992.
    U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), a division of the Department of Homeland Security, confirmed to CNSNews.com on Tuesday that Obama, who is the president’s uncle, was granted a rehearing last week and his case is being re-opened.
    “The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) remanded the case back to Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) for reconsideration. It is inappropriate for ICE to offer any further comment on this case,” Brian P. Hale, ICE assistant director for public affairs, said in a statement to CNSNews.com.
    The Cleveland, Ohio-based immigration law firm of Margaret Wong and Associates, which is handling Obama’s case, said the delay may allow the Kenyan national to apply to stay in the U.S. permanently.
    “We are delighted that the Board of Immigration Appeals has decided to reopen the deportation case of President Obama’s uncle, Obama Onyango,” Wong said in a statement.
    “Mr. Onyango now has an opportunity to stay in the U.S. and apply for permanent residency,” the statement said. “Mr. Onyango is the brother of the U.S. president’s late father and came to the U.S. in the 1960s on one of the last boat lifts.”
    In 1989, an immigration judge ordered Obama, who has been in the U.S. since 1963, to be deported. He appealed and the appeal was dismissed in 1992.
    Crystal Williams, executive director of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, said any move to reconsider a case is unusual when there is already an order for removal.
    “It isn’t common for the Board to reopen a case when there is an outstanding order of removal, as there is here, particularly with a later DUI arrest. It happens, but not that often,” Williams said in a statement to CNSNews.com.
    CNSNews.com reported in July that an ICE internal e-mail obtained by the legal watchdog Judicial Watch had confirmed that ICE had granted Obama a stay of deportation “to seek reopening of his deportation proceedings.”
    The e-mail, sent by Hale to ICE Director John Morton on April 1, revealed that ICE had no immediate plans to deport Obama, in spite of a previous ICE order that granted Obama a stay of deportation until June 5, 2012.
    “Mr. Onyango is subject to a final order of deportation. ICE had granted him a stay of deportation effective until June 5, 2012,” the e-mail reads.
    “The stay was granted to allow him to attend pending criminal proceedings and to seek reopening of his deportation proceedings, which concluded before the Board of Immigration Appeals on January 29, 1992.”
    Obama was arrested in Framingham, Mass., for DUI in August 2011. In March of this year, his case was continued for one year and his driver’s license was suspended for 45 days.
    According to the Boston Globe, Obama subsequently received a “hardship” license so he could continue working at his job as the manager of a liquor store.
    http://cnsnews.com/news/article/dhs-confirms-deportation-obamas-uncle-hold-immigration-board-re-opens-case

  123. Hey, Lame Cherry fans, in the recent Asian Quadrant piece, refers to “popular” girl, and I’m not sure if it is Hillary, Palin, or someone else:

    The popular girl everyone wanted to date, and only the poor bought her the pumpkin and the glass slippers, but the rich kept their money as Obama served them up a nuclear banquet.
    If you rich A Holes like Foster Freiss, the Koch boys, those billionaire Jews need reminding in this, when these atomic warfare bombs start falling, it is your little enclaves which will glow and the mobs will first come to you and take all you have in your pretty mansions.

    Yes you rich boys and girls should have been currying favor with the popular girl in buying her presents when she could have saved all of you.

  124. Bob Woodward: ‘Who is Barack Obama?’

    Washington Post reporter and author Bob Woodward said Wednesday morning that the fiscal cliff talks are like the movie “Groundhog Day.”

    “It’s Groundhog Day: The question is, who’s playing Bill Murray?” he told POLITICO’s Mike Allen at Playbook Breakfast Wednesday morning. “It’s such a repetition: It’s the same players, at the same seats, at the same table.”

    http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/woodward-on-fiscal-cliff-no-way-to-govern-84617.html?hp=f1

  125. gonzotx: December 5th, 2012 at 12:43 am

    “I have lost 45% of our personal wealth.“

    This is an appalling state of affairs, and your idea that “I will not be able to gain it back” is even more appalling.

    Furthermore, I fully agree with you that “This debt puts this country and the freedoms of the world at large in a very dangerous situation”; but I’d like to point out what I’ve been saying to rickya over recent days about Hillary’s 2009 statements, which were exactly yours: The rising debt is a hindrance to our national security and ability to act in our own interest.

    Acting generals have echoed those words recently as they see their own budgets slashed.

    This is why your statement that “All this Hillary 2016…Jesus, what kind of country will we have left after 8 years of polices we have seen for 4?” is unjustified. Hillary’s attitude toward deficit spending and the resulting rising debt is antithetical to Obama’s, and her record shows it. There is indeed something to be hoped for in Hillary 2016.

    I don’t know why you refer to Europe, but your idea that “Europe is hanging on a thread…” is also wrong, because there is a difference between a thread and a tightrope though the material may be the same.

    The European situation is a balancing act, in more ways than one. One of the more important balances the Europeans are trying to achieve is to sell their sovereign debt to their own banks (as in Japan) or to more stable investors than Wall Street and The City (such as Middle East investors).

    Japan has a staggering debt of 225% of GDP but no one is attacking it because the debt is owned by their own banks. The difficulty Europe has is that their banks are short on capital, already depleted with the canceling of the Greek debt, and buying sovereign debt is less productive economically than buying corporate bonds or stock issues. But Qatar has recently injected €300 million in investments in small European companies, to balance the deficiencies of the banks.

    Another balancing act is called “sustainable development” in which companies forgo risky limited-term scorched-earth management of limited resources in favor of medium and long-term growth with stable resources, all under the slogan “Innovation, Quality, Productivity” that most German companies live by.

    Yet another balancing act is the balancing of limited growth with the high unemployment Europe has experienced for decades, and more so now with the globalizing economy. This is balanced mainly by integrating occupational training into unemployment benefits with web-based national and international job and talent scouting.

    The unemployment system is something you decry as “socialist”, which it is, but it is something that no one on the left, right or center of the political spectrum wants to eliminate in favor of… what? the American “you’re on your own” YOYO system?

    For the above and many other reasons, Europe is on a tightrope but it is the US that is hanging from a thread. Europe may decline in coming years, but the US is likely to collapse.

    Your loss of 45% of your personal wealth is evidence of this. No one I know in Europe – neighbors, family, friends, but also a multitude of professional acquaintances – and no one I have read about in the press, has ever mentioned any such incredible losses as 45%. The opposite: they complain that they’ve gained only a measly 0.5%.

    May I assume that your loss is mainly due to loss of home value? If not, the following still applies:

    In Europe, there was about a 25-30% drop in home values in early 2009 because for some reason there is an international real estate market: The collapse of the housing bubble in the US was accompanied by a drop in European values.

    I don’t understand how this works internationally, but I do understand that the housing bubble in the US was due to Wall Street speculation on over-rated subprime derivatives, which was an outright scandal. The banksters and their Wall Street cronies made money hand over fist taking money from the uneducated lower middle class and taking their houses too. They all should have been penalized to the full extent of their worth and beyond, and jailed.

    But they weren’t; so the scandal has in fact continued along with foreclosures. The housing market has thus continued to collapse in the US, leading to situations where the lucky people lose only 45% of their personal wealth – the unluckier lose it all.

    Aside from Spain, which had a development scandal of its own, housing in Europe was not scandal-ridden but still witnessed a 30% drop, as I said. But then, the result was that people stopped selling their homes so supply went down and values went back up. Home values are now about what they were in 2007.

    When you say, “…despite the trillions we have gifted her under the table”, I don’t know what you’re referring to. European banksters did get about 5% of the TARP money and never gave it back, but that would come to about $40 billion. Now, $40 billion is a lot of dough, but it’s not trillions.

    In the end, I come back to the beginning: “I am furious at Hillary and BC, they have put personal gain over very existence.”

    Am I wrong in guessing that the “personal gain” you see is a bid for the presidency? In that case, I certainly don’t see it that way, because the presidency is a great responsibility if you take it as such, a way of helping the country at the highest level and very much in Hillary’s portfolio.

    Or is the “personal gain” WJC’s support of Obama during the election cycle? I’ve already commented on that but am willing to do so again….

  126. This is why your statement that “All this Hillary 2016…Jesus, what kind of country will we have left after 8 years of polices we have seen for 4?” is unjustified. Hillary’s attitude toward deficit spending and the resulting rising debt is antithetical to Obama’s, and her record shows it. There is indeed something to be hoped for in Hillary 2016.

    I don’t know why you refer to Europe, but your idea that “Europe is hanging on a thread…” is also wrong, because there is a difference between a thread and a tightrope though the material may be the same.
    *************

    Just pass on by Jesw, you and I will NEVER see things the same way and yes, EUROPE is in MAJOR trouble, not a tightrope walk!

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/9424793/Debt-crisis-Europe-is-sleepwalking-towards-imminent-disaster-warn-top-economists.html

    http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/30b64ae0-300c-11e2-a040-00144feabdc0.html

    http://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/cb/articles/?id=2264

  127. HillaryIs45 already exists.

    admin notified us of it in 2008.

    (It may have been removed, of course)

    But admin also said that if Hillary is the next president, she would still be 44 because Grover Cleveland (I think) was elected to two non-consecutive terms which were counted as two presidencies although it was the same man.

    That would make Obama 43 and Hillary 44.

    So, we keep HillaryIs44.

  128. jeswezey
    December 4th, 2012 at 4:48 pm

    I’ve already said that my conclusion was what I surmised from all the facts that I heard, and which you and everyone else heard too, and that my conclusion is not something that would hold up in a court of law.

    Now, my conclusion was that Hillary knew, two days after the attack when she was addressing the father of the dead SEAL, that the attack was conducted by an armed band.

    If you disagree with that, or think I have no good reason to come to that conclusion, then you are exonerating Hillary completely from any blame when she spoke to the father.

    In that case, your answer to wbboei’s question would be “forget about the whole thing.”

    I took wbboei’s question more seriously, though.

    The important thing is that she was lying to the father when he said that the video had something to do with it. She knows that it did not have anything to do with the video. An armed band and a mob are two different things. So if she knew that it was an armed band she also knew that the video did not have anything to do with it.

    Well, now you’re repudiating the criticism you just made. My conclusion was that Hillary knew, and you disputed that above; but now you say that she knew before she talked to the SEAL’s father. Which is it?

    I did no such thing. She knew that it was not about the video when she talked to the SEAL’s father.

    My conclusion was that Hillary knew that the attack was by an armed band. Apparently, we at least agree on that.

    The uncertainty – and it’s only a hypothetical anyway – is (1) whether or not she really thought that the armed band was motivated by the video, which is what she told the father, or (2) whether she knew at that time that the attack was pre-planned by Al Qaeda elements and that it had nothing to do with the video.

    There is no uncertainty there. They knew that the video was not related to any of it.

    If you believe (1), then Hillary’s statement to the father was sincere. She cannot be accused of lying and that is the end of the question wbboei asked.

    It was NOT sincere.

    If you believe (2), then Hillary was lying to the father and you go on with the remainder of my post about lying to cover up a matter of national security.

    You don’t have to lie to do that. All you need to do is shut up.

    The budget has been a problem since 2009 because there hasn’t been a budget voted since then. You’re asking a lot of questions here that put too much responsibility on the Secy of State for security issues. You’re expecting the Secy of State to run the country’s diplomacy at the point of a gun, and to work marvels of communication with a recalcitrant Congress that wants to make as many cuts as it can, wherever it can.

    What are you talking about??? The budget was not a problem that hindered security. They admitted as much during the hearings. If she asked other departments to intervene and they didn’t, then her failure was a failure to convince the others to save her diplomat. I am not talking about dealing with Congress.

    Anyway, you’re right insofar as the budget was not a problem on the night of 9/11/12. Nobody was asking for money to intervene. But the order to stand down simply could not come from Hillary. You have to go to Defense or the White House for answers to that question, and I don’t want to get involved in all the hypotheticals there. They’ve been investigated and discussed here and in the press and media and I have nothing to add.

    How do you know that there was an order to stand down? Where is it? The death of her ambassador was HER failure. Her failure to communicate and convince or the failure of her judgment in not asking for help. It’s one of the two and it can’t be neither.

  129. Secretary Clinton: Travel to the Czech Republic, Belgium, Ireland, and Northern Ireland
    Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is traveling to Prague, the Czech Republic; Brussels, Belgium; Dublin, Ireland; and Belfast, Northern Ireland December 3-7.
    Secretary Clinton traveled to Prague, the Czech Republic, December 3 to meet with Czech officials on strengthening Czech energy independence, as well as advancing human rights and supporting democratic transitions around the world.
    Secretary Clinton is visiting Brussels, Belgium, December 4-5 to participate in a meeting of NATO foreign ministers. The Secretary and her counterparts will discuss current security challenges in the Western Balkans and NATO’s global partnerships. The Secretary will participate in a foreign ministers’ meeting of the NATO-Russia Council on December 4 and of the NATO-Georgia Commission on December 5. NATO foreign ministers will also meet with their non-NATO partners in the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and representatives of the Government of Afghanistan to review the status of the joint Afghan/ISAF transition plan, as well as discuss NATO’s post-2014 mission in Afghanistan. While in Brussels, the Secretary will also co-chair the fourth meeting of the U.S.-European Union (EU) Energy Council to deepen cooperation on energy security and conservation.
    The Secretary will travel December 6-7 to Dublin, Ireland, where she will participate in the ministerial meeting of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). During the ministerial, she and her counterparts will discuss proposals to strengthen the OSCE’s capacity to promote comprehensive security in Eurasia, as well as meet with civil society representatives from across the OSCE region The Secretary will also meet with Irish officials to discuss areas of cooperation in promoting peace, human rights, and economic growth and will deliver a major speech on U.S. achievements in support of human rights globally.
    Secretary Clinton will travel to Belfast, Northern Ireland, December 7, where she will meet with Northern Ireland officials and discuss the peace process, the trilateral U.S.-Ireland Research and Development Partnership and economic opportunities for Northern Ireland.  She will attend an event hosted by The Ireland Funds — a global fundraising network supporting programs of peace and reconciliation, arts and culture, education, and community development in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. 
    http://www.state.gov/secretary/trvl/2012/201354.htm

  130. Check out the new and impressive capability at Tea Party Patriots site. Caveat: I’ve not tried it out. Too busy mailing USPS re @SenBobCasey just introduced extension of payroll tax cut for the purpose [his words] “to help middle class families and boost hiring by expanding the payroll tax cut and provide credits to employers for hir…”
    Here’s TP site – Jenny Beth’s I’m almost sure:
    http://www.teapartypatriots.org/advocacy/?cid=53

  131. rgb44hrc

    12-5 10:22am

    Wow! This is part of what drove me away from the democrap party. NAZI like anti semetism is now popular among democrats who hate rich sucessful people. I wonder is George Soros, who is a Hungarian Jew whos father changed the family name to Soros from Schwartz is one of those “rich Jews” you so detest. I am guessing not, because he collaborated with the NAZIs against his own people during the Holocoust, redistributing their wealth to the NAZIs. Soros is an atheist, so I guess he is not the kind of Jew you hate.

Comments are closed.