Is This An April Fools Day Joke?

We still have not gotten over our Easter weekend Doubting Thomas ‘tude. So, as we are too doubting to believe without verification, we leave it to you to decide – are the following news items from today April Fools Day jokes?:

First up, remember our article “Clinton, Bush, Clinton Bush, Clinton, Bush…”? Well can this be true?:

Jeb Bush scheduled to speak in Dallas on the same day as Hiliary [sic] Clinton“.

That’s supposed to be on April 24. Then “Clinton and Bush are also set to appear at the dedication of the George W. Bush Presidential Center at Southern Methodist University on April 25.” This is not Ripley’s Believe It Or Not.

How’s this news feel on your nose?: “The buzz is beginning about first lady Michelle Obama and the political ambitions she might hold.” [snip] “She’s a supporting actress. I don’t know if she can play the lead,” says Green. He points out that unlike Hillary, she has never taken a position on anything that is controversial. Can she stand up in debates when someone really comes after her?”‘ Believe it or not, does it pass the smell test?

Believe it or not? Wasn’t it in 2007/2008 that Obama Hopium Guzzlers attacked Hillary running for president because they were so opposed to “dynasties”? Now in 2013 for Obama Dimocrats it’s all dynasties, all the time: Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Senator Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Senator Mark Begich of Alaska, Mark Udall of Colorado, Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M, Senator Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, wannabee senator Brendan Johnson (“appointed by Obama as state U.S. attorney having never held elective office).

While we are recalling 2007/2008, is that really the great Harriet Christian who “friended” us on Facebook today? We believe it!



Ah, memories. Thank you Harriet.

And during this Passover season, let’s go to the past and get an update from something we wrote repeatedly about. Remember our 2011 article Hanukkah In July?:

“This past March during real Hanukkah we discussed a story that we labeled a real life Hanukkah story. Oddly, not many noticed this important story. Yesterday Mrs. Smith opened the re-gift via IsraPundit:

Check out the links in that quote from 2011 for the full and wonderful Hanukkah story which got a great update from the Professor at Legal Insurrection this past weekend in the article Yesterday the Middle East changed forever, and you didn’t know it. The Professor cites The Times of Israel for this Passover gift:

“Netanyahu hails ‘historic day’ as Israel starts pumping gas from major offshore find Four years after discovery, flow from Tamar field marks start of Israel’s transformation to ‘energy independence’ and eventual natural gas exporter [snip]

Natural gas from the offshore Tamar field was pumped to Israeli shores for the first time Saturday, four years after its discovery, in preparation for its first use in the Israeli energy market — a move that could transform the Israeli economy.

The Tamar deposit, discovered in 2009 some 90 kilometers west of Haifa, holds an estimated 8.5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. [snip]

The gas from Tamar is expected to help meet Israel’s energy needs for the next 20 years, Channel 2 said, and will save the economy some NIS 13 billion (some $3.5 billion) per year. Its ahead-of-schedule use will also save Israeli citizens some cash — lowering a planned rise in electricity costs to 6 percent, less than originally planned.

“This is an ‘energy independence day’ for Israel,” said Energy and Water Minister Silvan Shalom. “This breakthrough is the harbinger of the foray of additional private companies” into the Israeli energy market, he added.

The Tamar deposit, and especially the heftier Leviathan, which was discovered in 2010, are expected to provide Israel with enough natural gas for decades and transform the country, famously empty of natural resources, into an energy exporter.

Leviathan, which boasts an estimated 16 to 18 trillion cubic feet of gas, is expected to go online in 2016, the approximate time when exports are expected to begin.”

Energy independence – what a concept. Great news for Israel and in past years for the U.S. Not so much now and Barack Obama is probably steamed at Bibi’s drilling. We wrote about this great news years ago so we believe it. What about you? Gee, we wish we had smart leaders running the country.

Speaking of smart leaders, remember when we wrote this gem back in 2009? : World Leaders And North Korea To Barack Obama: “Sucker”

“Obama is whining and wants the Security Council of the United Nations to do something about North Korea’s latest slap in the Obama face. Obama whines that North Korea violated international “rules”. This risible plea from Obama made us laugh because Obama, of all people, now wants words to “mean something”. Here is what Obama yelped: “This provocation underscores the need for action, not just this afternoon at the Security Council but in our determination to prevent the spread of these weapons,” Mr. Obama said. “Rules must be binding. Violations must be punished. Words must mean something.”
Any doubt that North Korea wanted to deliberately slap Obama in the face, throw a shoe at him, is dispelled by the timing (which the hapless New York Times labels an “irony”).”

Read our article from 2009 if you want to know what is going on in North Korea today. Bottom line: No Respect For The Boob.

World leaders don’t respect Barack Obama. North Korea’s losers know Barack Obama is a boob. He’ll get us all killed with his boobery.

Barack Obama is a boob. More comic proof of boobery came today on April Fools Day:

“Hanging out during the Easter Egg Roll festivities, President Obama decided to try taking some shots on the White House basketball court. Big mistake.

Miss. Miss. Off the rim. Miss. Miss. Off the rim. Airball.

He moved closer to the net.

But time and again, he missed. Of 22 shots POTUS took, he made two. (22 was general consensus of poolers)

At one point, POTUS handed a ball to a boy and asked for help. The boy made the layup.

He couldn’t make one. I had to help him out,” said Kahron Campbell, 10, of Landover, MD.”

A 10 year old had to help out the boob. The boob that constantly plays basketball with his male pals. The boob that everyone of his Hopium Buzzlers say is such a great B-ball player. Obama is a national embarrassment on and off the court.

Video: Tough day on the White House basketball court:


Believe it or not!

Can we agree that April Fools Day should be renamed Barack Obama Day?

Share

76 thoughts on “Is This An April Fools Day Joke?

  1. Shadowfax posted this “believe it or not” article a short while ago in the previous article comments:

    “When I saw the title of the latest trash magazine, the Globe, I had to buy it:

    Obama threatens Hillary over tell-all book. “Shut your mouth or you’ll never be President’”

    Although Globe comes out with some real trash, 97% of the time…there is enough in this article that rings true, here are a few snippets:

    The above threat was made by Obama in January after she stepped down, “I promise you’ll live to regret it.”

    …”Barack and Michelle exploded with rage when they learned Hillary was planning to accept a fortune to tell the shocking story of her four years in the Obama administration.

    …Hillary knows all the Obamas scandalous secrets, his drinking, their loveless marriage, and who is really in control of the White House…

    Bill and Hillary are refusing to be bullied, Bill blew a gasket when he learned about the threats and was so wound up Hillary was terrified he was going to have a heart attack.”

  2. admin: Just awesome that you’ve heard again from Harriet Christian! I’m glad HRC supporters currently have reason to look back and in doing so, recall adjuncts to the heinous acts of 2008 AWA the acts themselves.

  3. Democrats fear Obama group will siphon money from them [ 🙂 🙂 🙂 ]
    WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama’s decision to launch his own political organization has some Democrats wondering: Is he just in it for himself? Obama’s new group, Organizing for Action, will focus on his policy agenda – not on electing Democratic candidates – by raising unlimited amounts of cash and accessing the president’s secret list of 20 million supporters, volunteers and donors. The operation won’t share money, resources or the priceless Obama email list with the Democratic National Committee or campaign committees that help elect members of Congress, governors and legislators. And it has no plans to coordinate efforts, leading some Democrats to worry that it will take money and manpower away from the party as it heads into the 2014 elections for control of Congress. “There’s only so much money to go around in Democratic circles. There’s a limited pool of resources,” said Gilda Cobb Hunter, a South Carolina legislator and a member of the Democratic National Committee. “Why can’t we strengthen one entity?” Several DNC members said in interviews that they weren’t told about Organizing for Action’s formation until it was publicly announced in January. They said that when they’d complained, they were chastised and told by national and state party leaders not to speak publicly. Most spoke to McClatchy only on the condition of anonymity in order to talk candidly about the internal party dispute….
    http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/04/01/187421/democrats-fear-obama-group-will.html

  4. Right On Willie Shakespeare!

    William Shakespeare’s lesser known role as an illegal food hoarder 400 years ago helps us understand him as a more complex figure, says new research.

    As well as hoarding during food shortages, the Aberystwyth University study said the bard was also threatened with jail for tax evasion.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-mid-wales-21993857

  5. Will Globalists Use North Korea To Trigger Catastrophe?
    April 2, 2013 by Brandon Smith

    PHOTOS.COM
    Whenever discussion over North Korea arises in Western circles, it always seems to be accompanied by a strange mixture of sensationalism and indifference. The mainstream media consistently presents the communist nation as an immediate threat to U.S. national security, conjuring an endless number of hypothetical scenarios as to how they could join forces with al-Qaida and attack with a terroristic strategy. At the same time, the chest puffing of the late Kim Jong Il and the standard fare of hyper-militant rhetoric on the part of the North Korean government in general seem to have lulled the American public into a trance of non-concern.

    In the midst of the latest tensions with the North Koreans, I have found that most people are barely tracking developments and that, when confronted by the idea of war, they shrug it off as if it is a laughable concept. “Surely” they claim, “The North is just posturing as they always have.”

    The high-focus propaganda attacking North Korea on our side and the puffer fish methodology on their side have created a social and political atmosphere surrounding our relations with the Asian nation that I believe places both sides of the Pacific in great danger. North Korea has the potential to become a trigger point for multiple economic catastrophes, and there are people in this world who would be happy to use such crises to serve their own interests.

    The mainstream view being espoused by globalist-minded politicians and corporate oligarchs with an agenda is that North Korea is a nuclear armed monstrosity ready to use any subversive means necessary to strike the United States. The idea that the North is working closely with al-Qaida has been suggested in everything from White House briefings to cable news to movies and television. The concept of pan-global terrorist collusion and the cartoon-land “axis of evil” has been prominent in our culture since the Administration of George W. Bush. It has even been making a resurgence lately in the MSM, which presented countries like Iran, Syria And North Korea as the primary culprits behind the failure of the U.N. Small Arms Treaty.

    Of course, what remains less talked about in the mainstream is the fact that these nations refuse to adhere to the treaty because carefully placed loopholes still allow major powers like the United States to feed arms into engineered insurgencies. Why would Syria or any other targeted nation sign a treaty that restricts its own sovereign ability to trade while giving teeth to internal enemies trained and funded by foreign intelligence agencies?

    The establishment brushes aside such facts and consistently admonishes these countries as the last holdouts standing in the way of a new world order, a worldwide socioeconomic cooperative and pseudo-Utopia. The path to this wonderful global village is always presented as a battle against stubborn isolationists, non-progressives who lack vision and cling desperately to the archaic past. The values of personal and national sovereignty are painted as outdated, decrepit and even threatening to the newly born world structure. The image of North Korea is used by globalists as a kind of straw man argument against sovereignty. North Koreans’ vices and imbalances as a culture are many; but this is due in far larger part to their communist insanity, rather than any values of national independence. It is their domestic hive-mind collectivism we should disdain, not their wish to maintain a comfortable distance as a society from the global game.

    As far as being an imminent physical threat to the United States, it really depends on the scenario. The North Koreans have almost no logistical capability to support an invasion of any kind. The nation has been suffering from epidemic famine for well more than a decade.

    To initiate a war outright has never been in the best interests of the North Koreans, simply because their domestic infrastructure would not be able to handle the strain. However, there is indeed a scenario in which North Korea could be influenced to use military force despite apprehension.

    With the ever looming threat of famine comes the ever looming threat of citizen revolution. When any government is faced with the possibility of being supplanted, it will almost always lash out viciously in order to maintain power and control, no matter the cost. Sanctions like those being implemented by the West against North Korea today, at the very edge of national famine, could destabilize the country entirely. I believe the North would do anything to avoid an internal insurgency scenario, including attacking South Korea to acquire food stores and energy reserves, as well as other tangible modes of wealth.

    North Korea’s standing army, obtained through mandatory conscription, is estimated at about 1.1 million active personnel, very close to the numbers active in the U.S. armed forces. But North Korean reserves are estimated at more than 8 million, compared to only 800,000 in the United States. If made desperate by economic sanctions, the North Koreans could field a massive army that would wreak havoc in the South and be very difficult to root out on their home turf. Asian cultures have centuries of experience using asymmetric warfare (the kryptonite of the U.S. military), and I do not believe it is wise to take such a possible conflict lightly, as many Americans seem to do. It is easy to forget that the last Korean War did not work out so well for us. At best, we would be mired in on-ground operations for years (just like Iraq and Afghanistan) or perhaps even decades. Like North Korea, we also do not have the logistical economic means to enter into another such war.

    The skeptics argue that we will never get to this point, though, because North Korea has brandished and blustered many times before, all resulting in nothing. I see recent events being far different and more urgent than in the past, and here’s why:

    ■The West needs to realize that North Korea is under new leadership. The blowhard days of Kim Jung Il are over, and little is known about his son, Kim Jong Un. So far, the young dictator has followed through on everything he said he would do, including the multiple nuclear tests that the West is using as an excuse to exert sanctions. To assume that the son will be exactly like the father is folly.
    ■Many people claimed that North Korean threats to abandon the Armistice in place since 1953 were empty, yet they dropped it exactly as they said they would at the beginning of March.
    ■The North has begun cutting off direct communication channels to the South, including a cross-border hotline meant to help alleviate tensions through diplomatic means.
    ■The North has officially declared a state of war against the South. This has been called mere “tough talk” by the U.S. government, but the speed at which these multiple developments have occurred should be taken into consideration.
    ■At the beginning of this year, silver purchases by the North from China surged. For the entire year of 2012, the government purchased $77,000 worth of precious metals. In the first few months of 2013, North Korea has already purchased $600,000 in silver. The exact size of the North’s precious metals stockpile is unknown. Though seemingly small in comparison to many purported metal holdings by major powers, this sudden investment expansion would indicate a government move to protect internal finances from an exceedingly frail economic environment. Metals are also historically accumulated at a high rate by nations preparing for war or invasion in the near term.
    Again, all that is needed to instigate an event on the Korean Peninsula are tightened sanctions. The establishment knows this, though another Gulf of Tonkin incident (an openly admitted false flag event) may be on the menu as well.

    Given that the chances of a shooting war are high if sanctions continue, it might be wise to consider the consequences of conflagration in Korea.

    Dealing with a large army steeped in asymmetric and mountain warfare will be difficult enough. In fact, an invasion of North Korea would be far more deadly than Afghanistan, if only because of the sheer number of maneuver elements (guerilla-style units) on the ground. But let’s set aside North Korea for a moment and consider the greatest threat of all: the dollar collapse.

    As I have discussed in numerous articles, China, the largest foreign holder of U.S. debt, has positioned itself to decouple from the American consumer and the dollar. This is no longer a theoretical process as it was in 2008, but a very real and nearly completed one. Mainstream analysts often claim China would never break from the dollar because it would damage their export markets and their investment holdings. The problem is, China is already dumping the dollar using bilateral trade agreements with numerous developing nations. It isn’t just talking about it; it is doing it.

    The development of a decoupled China is part of a larger push by international banks to remove the dollar as the world reserve currency and replace it with a new global currency. This currency already exists. The International Monetary Fund’s Special Drawing Rights (SDR) is a mechanism backed by a basket of currencies as well as gold. The introduction of the SDR on a wide scale is dependent on only two things.

    First, China has been designated the replacement consumer engine in the wake of a U.S. collapse. They have already surpassed the United States as the No. 1 trading power in the world. However, they must spread their own currency, the Yuan, throughout global markets in order to aid the IMF in removing the dollar. China has recently announced a program to sell more than $6 trillion in Yuan denominated bonds to foreign investors, easily fulfilling this need.

    Second, China and the IMF need a scapegoat event, a rationale for dumping the dollar that the masses would accept as logical. A U.S. invasion of North Korea could easily offer that rationale.

    While China has been playing the good Samaritan in relations with the United States in dealing with North Korea and has supported (at least on paper) certain measures including sanctions, China will never be in support of Western combat actions in the Pacific so close to their territory. The kind of U.S. or NATO presence a war with North Korea would generate would be entirely unacceptable to the Chinese, who do not need to respond using arms. Rather, all they have to do to get rid of us would be to fully dump the dollar and threaten to cut off trade relations with any other country that won’t do the same. The domino effect would be devastating, causing U.S. costs to skyrocket and forcing us to pull troops out of the region. At the same time, the dollar would be labeled a “casualty of war” rather than a casualty of conspiratorial global banking designs, and the financial elites would be removed from blame.

    Ultimately, we should take North Korea seriously not because of the wild-eyed propaganda of the mainstream media and not because they are “doing business with terrorists” or because they are a “violent and barbaric relic of nationalism,” but because a war in North Korea serves the more malicious interests of globalization. No matter what happens in the near future, it is important for Americans to always question the true motives behind any event and ask ourselves who, in the end, truly benefited.

    –Brandon Smith

  6. This just came in my email box:

    Support Hillary Clinton for President!

    Add your name and pledge to help put Hillary in the White House in 2016.

    The next Presidential election may be a long time away but our actions today will help ensure that the right person is on the ballot. Hillary Clinton is the leader we need to keep our country moving forward.

    Hillary has not had a formal political operation in four years. We are counting on your help to start building an extensive grassroots program that will help elect Hillary as our next President.

    Together, let’s send a resounding message that America is ready for Hillary. Use the form on the right to stand with us today!

    http://www.readyforhillary.com/petition/e20130402pledge

    I signed, although with or without the pledge Hillary will always get my support.

  7. One day late, but definitely an Obama Fool’s Day article.

    How dumb are Democrats? It’s been 5 years and they still hope they don’t have a rusted knife in their backs.

    —-

    Democrats fear Obama group will siphon money from them

    WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama’s decision to launch his own political organization has some Democrats wondering: Is he just in it for himself?

    Obama’s new group, Organizing for Action, will focus on his policy agenda – not on electing Democratic candidates – by raising unlimited amounts of cash and accessing the president’s secret list of 20 million supporters, volunteers and donors.

    The operation won’t share money, resources or the priceless Obama email list with the Democratic National Committee or campaign committees that help elect members of Congress, governors and legislators. And it has no plans to coordinate efforts, leading some Democrats to worry that it will take money and manpower away from the party as it heads into the 2014 elections for control of Congress.

    “There’s only so much money to go around in Democratic circles. There’s a limited pool of resources,” said Gilda Cobb Hunter, a South Carolina legislator and a member of the Democratic National Committee. “Why can’t we strengthen one entity?”

    Several DNC members said in interviews that they weren’t told about Organizing for Action’s formation until it was publicly announced in January. They said that when they’d complained, they were chastised and told by national and state party leaders not to speak publicly. Most spoke to McClatchy only on the condition of anonymity in order to talk candidly about the internal party dispute.

    Party Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a congresswoman from Florida, tried to alleviate concerns in a conference call with Democrats in March, stressing that the groups wouldn’t compete for money and resources in part because they had different missions.

    “What I took away was they heard the complaints of the body,” said one DNC member who was on the conference call.

    The DNC declined to comment last week. White House officials have praised the group for helping to promote the president’s agenda.

    Days before his second term began, Obama announced that his campaign would morph into a nonprofit, tax-exempt group to rally support across the country for his agenda. “Organizing for Action will be an unparalleled force in American politics,” he told supporters.

    Other presidents have created or championed organizations outside the major national parties. Bill Clinton, for example, embraced the Democratic Leadership Council, an organization that pushed a moderate agenda.

    But that functioned more as a think tank. And Obama is the first to form a group that will raise millions of dollars as it seeks to perpetuate a year-round campaign for him.

    The decision to create Organizing for Action separate from the DNC, where a similar group was housed after the 2008 election, has prompted some Democrats to accuse Obama of focusing more on his legacy and less on his party.

    A Democratic consultant who’s worked on campaigns across the nation said contributors who faced a choice would donate to Organizing for Action rather than to another Democratic campaign group because of the president’s connection. “If you are a donor, which do you go to?” he asked, also speaking only on the condition of anonymity lest he alienate fellow Democrats.

    Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/04/01/187421/democrats-fear-obama-group-will.html#storylink=cpy

  8. The most amazing thing about this article is that it is posted on CBS news site.

    Flattering Obama Images Flourish As White House Media Access Narrows

    Capitalizing on the possibilities of the digital age, the Obama White House is generating its own content like no president before, and refining its media strategies in the second term in hopes of telling a more compelling story than in the first.

    WASHINGTON — A photo of the Obamas hugging that was released on Election Day 2012 has become the world’s most popular tweet on Twitter. A dressed-up version of Barack Obama’s State of the Union speech, packed with charts and graphs, is huge on YouTube. A playful picture of the president cavorting with a 3-year-old in a Spiderman costume is a favorite online.

    It’s all courtesy of the Obama image machine, serving up a stream of words, images and videos that invariably cast the president as commanding, compassionate and on the ball. In this world, Obama’s family is always photogenic, first dog Bo is always well-behaved and the vegetables in the South Lawn kitchen garden always seem succulent.

    You’ll have to look elsewhere for bloopers, bobbles or contrary points of view the truth.

    At the same time, it is limiting press access in ways that past administrations wouldn’t have dared, and the president is answering to the public in more controlled settings than his predecessors. It’s raising new questions about what’s lost when the White House tries to make an end run around the media, functioning, in effect, as its own news agency.

    http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/04/02/flattering-obama-images-flourish-as-white-house-media-access-narrows/

  9. I am of the opinion that Big Pink has a facebook page. Can you tell me the title of that facebook page, is it hillaryis44 or big pink?

  10. Hillary Clinton’s first test

    Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign begins this year in Virginia.

    She hasn’t said anything about 2016, but Terry McAuliffe’s 2013 gubernatorial campaign is serving as a testing ground for Clinton’s clout, operatives and donors.

    In fact, McAuliffe and some of his top allies have suggested to big donors and consultants that supporting his campaign is a way to get in on the ground floor of Hillary 2016, several donors and operatives told POLITICO.

    http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/hillary-clintons-2016-campaign-starts-with-terry-mcauliffes-virginia-governor-race-89523.html

  11. Michelle Obama says she’s still figuring out what to do with her life

    [Translation: “Who is gonna make me the best offer, with lots of money and very little work to do on my part…oh, and paint me as glamorous.”]

    First lady Michelle Obama is still figuring out what she’ll do with her life, she said Tuesday.

    “I still don’t know what I’m going to do with my life,” she told students gathered at the White House for a workshop on the film “42,” about Jackie Robinson’s life.

    “No one comes out a finished product. None of us are finished products. There is no magic that makes someone an actor or a director or a doctor or a lawyer or a president or first lady,” she said. “There is no magic. That is the one thing I want you all to understand. If you gain nothing from this movie or any of our lives, there is no magic. It takes grit. It takes determination and a whole lot of hard work. And as you know in the movie, it takes guts.”

    Whatever that is, it’s unlikely to be politics. Though have been many rounds of chatter that Obama might consider her own career in politics — a bit incongrously given her well-reported dislike of it — and her denials. “I have no interest in politics — never have, never will,” she said in one interview last year.

    Politico

    Puke ))))))>>><<<<….

  12. “Can we agree that April Fools Day should be renamed Barack Obama Day?”

    How about Obama Supporters Day? They’re the biggest fools of all.

  13. Seems as though Obama Fools Day has to be extended for an indefinite period of time, too many Fools to fit in one day a year.

    Here’s another:

    Law school graduates aren’t finding much on the employment docket
    The Internet and other technologies have reduced job openings for lawyers. Some graduates have joined in class-action lawsuits, alleging that schools lured them in with misleading reports of success.

    http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-law-grads-20130402,0,1312864.story

    The ‘success’ they are talking about is in FINDING A JOB.

    Remember Dear Leader said they should go back to school if they couldn’t find a job? They should go after their rainbow colored, pixie dusted unicorn who lied to them – the tin calf named Barry.

  14. jtjames
    April 2, 2013 at 6:43 pm

    —–

    That seems like a hit piece from the Kooks on Hillary…here is an example:

    Hillary Clinton is 14 years older than Barack Obama. A party has never nominated a leader that much older than his immediate predecessor.

  15. Very tough market for young lawyers. Unless you have connections or can bring in
    clients, it is not a very lucrative job considering the hrs we put in.

  16. jbstonesfan
    April 2, 2013 at 9:19 pm

    Very tough market for young lawyers. Unless you have connections or can bring in
    clients, it is not a very lucrative job considering the hrs we put in
    —————–
    For years, I was close with Morgan Lewis, a mainline Philadelphia firm, which is now 3d or 4th largest in the country. Personally, I think they are the Tiffany’s of the major firms, but reasonable minds can differ. They recruit heavily from Harvard, Yale and other top law schools. They get the top law graduates. It takes 8-10 years to make partner, and your chances if you are one of those top law school graduates they hire are 1 in 15. And those eight years involve very hard work, during the prime of life. Many young lawyers today decide it is just not worth it. And where do the 14 who do not make partner go? A handful get corporate council jobs, and tell prospective employers that if they are hired they will get legal advice wholesale rate than retail. But there are only so many of those jobs available as well. In sum, it is a cluster fuck for young lawyers and sometimes a tragedy too.

  17. From Pajama Media:

    There is a liberal coastal aristocrat, but he is really not very liberal, at least in the sense of his regressive life not matching his progressive rhetoric. His views are mostly conditioned on his education, salary, and material circumstances. Put the coastal aristocrat in charge of a 7-Eleven in Stockton, and his therapeutic view would turn tragic quite quickly. And that fear is why he rarely goes to either a 7-Eleven or Stockton.

    Let me give a few examples.

    Fracking is seen as mostly bad, not because of any firsthand knowledge, any in-depth reading of the literature, any quid pro quo, or any cost/benefit analysis of the effect of more oil and gas production on the lives of the poor, but largely because the coastal aristocrat senses that he 1) has quite enough money and job security to ignore the price of gas, 2) does not drive all that much in comparison to the red-state interior Neanderthal, and 3) receives enormous psychological comfort and social acceptance from the fact that he is opposed to carbon emissions. Why, he wonders, do the poor on the way to work drive those gas-guzzling used Yukons, when a second-hand Prius would work just as well?

    Illegal immigration? The Palo Alto aristocrat’s position is predicated on two realities: his hardworking nanny, yardman, and cook are often rather recent arrivals from Mexico, and he most certainly does not wish his children to attend school anywhere near Redwood City. Thus he is for “comprehensive immigration reform,” with the understanding that the benefits are his, and for others the downside.

    Taxes? They are the cost of a utopian worldview, a mordida necessary to live in Cambridge or Santa Monica. For the aristocrat making over $500,000 a year, a few extra thousand dollars a year is a price worth paying, at least for the psychological guarantee that the distant food-stamp recipients, who mostly go to Safeway rather than Ralphs or Whole Foods, are content to live their happy lives as they do. Pay up the penance and be done with the guilt is the creed.
    Guns? For the coastal elite, who do not hunt, who do not live in a dangerous neighborhood, and who believe the Bill of Rights are sacrosanct to the degree they support progressive change and fluid when they do not, guns more or less should just go away. Of course, the celebrity, the CEO, and the politician may need “security,” but no one much asks what hides inside the coats of the husky men at their sides.

    Education? Public unions are saintly. Charter schools and vouchers are satanic. But the aristocrat, who knows best what is good for the masses, prefers and can afford the private school, and feels no guilt in his choice because his version is liberal while the more low-brow alternative is often crappy and not that much better than the public offering. (E.g., if you wish to duck out of the public school system, at least have the class to do it with style rather than on the cheap: a Castilleja or Andover rather than First Christian Academy.)

    In lieu of the traditional aristocrat estate, peerage, or title, the outward manifestation of aristocracy is an Ivy League brand or a West Coast Stanford version. The proper campus is one’s lifelong entrée. The right quad is where your kids meet the right mate and receive a bumper sticker that opens the right doors. Such university snobbery is inconsistent with classical liberalism, but not with liberal aristocratic values, which are based on exclusionary criteria. For the NBC anchor, or the Massachusetts senator, or the Google executive, the key is to get your kid into the right prep school, as requisite for the even more correct Ivy League, where the perfect spouse and Facebook founders-like coterie are found. It is not just that junior will emerge with correct ideas about gay marriage, abortion, green power, the U.S. role abroad, and the poor, but that he will be seen, by virtue of his degree, as having the right ideas.

    Apartheid is the unifying theme of coastal aristocracy. Without it, reality would disabuse the grandee of his worldview. Take any tenured Berkeley professor of environmental studies and make his existence hinge on squeezing a daily profit out of a Selma Stop-N-Go, and this gentle brontosaurus would turn into a Tyrannosaurus rex in a nanosecond. Therefore exclusion of all sorts from the underbelly of America is an essential.

    One associates with mostly fellow one percenters. One picks and chooses friends on the basis of where they work and where they were educated and the views they hold. A Chevron field job, a University of Idaho degree in sports journalism, a strong aversion to abortion — all this is impermissible. In some Frankenstein-like laboratory, an evil genius cooked up Sarah Palin, whose looks, accent, background, views, and style were designed to enrage the coastal aristocracy.

    I used to think that the coastal aristocracy was just hypocritical in matters of race, but as I age I fear I have become more cynical: it is not white guilt that explains why the coastal elite seek gestures of progressive caring (how else would an anti-Semitic, race-baiting provocateur like Al Sharpton be given his own show? Or an unaccomplished Touré rate over the accomplished Dr. Carson?), but a real aversion to mixing with unlike kind. On matters of race, the liberal worldview of affirmative action, busing, amnesty, and vast entitlements is a psychological mechanism for conniving to get your own into Princeton, for ensuring they are not schooled in fourth grade with a bused-in student body, and ensuring that you are not in the evening line at Save Mart as the only English speaker or privately racially profiling the two scary people who just lined up behind you at the convenience store checkout stand. An alien from Mars who studied the liberal aristocrat would conclude that he is a segregationist of the first order.

    The Iconic UFW

    Another myth. I opened my Easter Sunday Google browser and did not find a Christian icon on the page, but instead a (badly done) romantic rendition of a youthful Cesar Chavez, apparently our age’s version of a politically correct divinity.

    Yet I wondered whether the midlevel Googilites who post these politically hip images knew all that much about Chavez. I grant in this age that they saw no reason to emphasize Christianity on its most holy day. But there is, after all, Miriam Pawel’s 2010 biography of Chavez still readily accessible, and a new essay about him in the Atlantic — both written by sympathetic authors who nonetheless are not quite the usual garden-variety hagiographers. To suggest something other than sainthood is heresy in these parts, as I have discovered since the publication of Mexifornia a decade ago.

    I grew up in the cauldron of farm-labor disputes. Small farms like ours largely escaped the violence, because there were five of us kids to do the work in summer and after school, and our friends welcomed the chance to buck boxes or help out propping trees or thinning plums. Hired help was rare and a matter of a few days of hiring 20 or so locals for the fall raisin harvest. But the epic table grape fights were not far away in Parlier, Reedley, and down the 99 in Delano. I offer a few impressions, some of them politically incorrect.

    First, give Chavez his due. Farmworkers today are more akin to supposedly non-skilled (actually there is a skill required to pruning and picking) labor elsewhere, with roughly the same protective regulations as the food worker or landscaper. That was not true in 1965. Conservatives will argue that the market corrected the abuse (e.g., competition for ever scarcer workers) and ensured overtime, accessible toilets, and the end to hand-held hoes; liberals will credit Chavez — or fear of Chavez.

    But that said, Chavez was not quite the icon we see in the grainy videos walking the vineyards with Robert Kennedy. Perhaps confrontation was inevitable, but the labor organizing around here was hardly non-violent. Secondary boycotts were illegal, but that did not stop picketers from yelling and cursing as you exited the local Safeway with a bag of Emperor grapes. There were the constant union fights with bigger family growers (the 500 acre and above sort), as often demonstrators rushed into fields to mix it up with so-called scabs. Teamsters fought the UAW. The latter often worked with the immigration service to hunt down and deport illegals. The former bused in toughs to crack heads. After-hours UFW vandalism, as in the slashed tire and chain-sawed tree mode, was common.

    The politics were explicable by one common theme: Cesar Chavez disliked small farmers and labor contractors, and preferred agribusiness and the idea of a huge union. Otherwise, there were simply too many incongruities in an agrarian checkerboard landscape for him to handle — as if the UAW would have had to deal with an auto industry scattered among thousands of small family-owned factories.

    For Chavez, the ideal was a vast, simple us/them, 24/7 fight, albeit beneath an angelic veneer of Catholic suffering. In contrast, small farmers were not rich and hardly cut-out caricatures of grasping exploitation. Too many were unapologetic Armenians, Japanese (cf. the Nisei Farmers League), Portuguese, and Mexican-Americans to guarantee the necessary white/brown binary. Many had their own histories of racism, from the Armenian genocide to the Japanese internment, and had no white guilt of the Kennedy sort. I cannot imagine a tougher adversary than a Japanese, Armenian, or Punjabi farmer, perched on his own tractor or irrigating his 60 acres — entirely self-created, entirely unapologetic about his achievement, entirely committed to the idea that no one is going to threaten his existence.
    The local labor contractors were not villains, but mostly residents who employed their relatives and knew well the 40-acre and 100-acre farmers they served. When there were slow times on the farm, I picked peaches for two summers for a Selma labor contractor, whose kids I went to school with. He was hardly a sellout. The crusty, hard-bitten small farmers (“don’t bruise that fruit,” “you missed three peaches up there on that limb,” “you stopped before it was quite noon”) who monitored personally the orchards we picked looked no different from the men on ladders.

    In contrast, Chavez preferred the south and west Central Valley of huge corporate agribusiness. Rich and powerful, these great captains had the ability by fiat to institute labor agreements across hundreds of thousands of acres of farmland. Chavez’s organizing forte was at home in a Tulare, Delano, Shafter, Mendota or Tranquility, not a Reedley, Kingsburg or Selma. In the those days, the former were mostly pyramidal societies of a few corporate kingpins with an underclass of agricultural laborers, the latter were mixed societies in which Mexican-Americans were already ascendant and starting to join the broader middle class of Armenians, Japanese, and Punjabis.

    Chavez was to be a Walter Reuther or George Meany, a make-or-breaker who sat across from a land baron, cut a deal for his vast following, and then assumed national stature as he doled out union patronage and quid-pro-quo political endorsements. In that vision, as a 1950s labor magnate Chavez largely failed — but not because agribusiness did not cave in to him. Indeed, it saw the UFW and Chavez as the simple cost of doing business, a tolerable write-off necessary to making all the bad press, vandalism, and violence go away.

    Instead, the UFW imploded by its own insider and familial favoritism, corruption, and, to be frank, lunatic paranoia. The millions of dollars Chavez deducted for pension funds often vanished. Legions of relatives (for a vestigial experience of the inner sanctum, I suggest a visit to the national shrine southeast of Bakersfield) staffed the union administration. There were daily rumors of financial malfeasance, mostly in the sense of farmworkers belatedly discovering that their union deductions did not lead to promised health care or pensions.

    Most hagiographies ignore Chavez’s eerie alliance with the unhinged Synanon bunch. In these parts, they had opened a foothill retreat of some sort above Woodlake, not far from here. (I visited the ramshackle Badger enclave once with my mother [I suppose as her informal “security,”], who was invited as a superior court judge to be introduced to their new anti-drug program in their hopes that county officials might save millions of dollars by sentencing supposedly non-violent heroin addicts to Synanon recovery treatments. Needless to say, she smiled, met the creepy “group,” looked around the place, and we left rather quickly, and that was that.)

    I don’t think that the Google headliners remember that Charles Dederich (of rattlesnake in the mailbox and “Don’t mess with us. You can get killed, dead” fame) was a sort of model for Chavez, who tried to introduce the wacko-bird Synanon Game to his own UFW hierarchy. No matter, deification of Chavez is now de rigeur; the young generation who idolizes him has almost no knowledge of the man, his life, or his beliefs. It is enough that Bobby Kennedy used to fly into these parts, walk for a few well-filmed hours, and fly out.

    When I went to UC Santa Cruz in September of 1971, I remember as a fool picking a box of Thompson seedless grapes from our farm to take along, and soon being met by a dorm delegation of rich kids from Pacific Palisades and Palos Verdes (a favorite magnet area for Santa Cruz in those days) who ordered me not to eat my own grapes on my own campus in my own room. Soon I had about four good friends who not only enjoyed them, but enjoyed eating them in front of those who did not (to the extent I remember these student moralists, and can collate old faces with names in the annual alumni news, most are now high-ups and executives in the entertainment industry).

    Obamism
    Our greatest legend is Barack Obama. Liberals believe that he is still the fierce anti-Cheney civil libertarian of 2008, as he institutionalized the idea that drones could target U.S. citizens (as they did in Yemen) and expanded or embraced renditions, preventative detention, tribunals, wiretaps, and intercepts. In our secular bible, Obama still shuns money from Wall Street sorts like Goldman Sachs, follows campaign-financing reform laws, vacations as a man of the people, and has squeezed out of the exploiting classes millions of new jobs for minorities.

    There were not 50 consecutive months of 7.8% unemployment (until last month, no one month of the Obama administration saw unemployment lower than in any one month of the Bush administration). What about sluggish GDP, record debt, chronic deficits, unheard of zero interest, vast numbers on food stamps and unemployment and disability insurance? Bush did it.

    We all know how this Paul Bunyan legend will end up. The next president, be it Hillary or Marco Rubio or Joe Biden or Rand Paul, will not embrace Obamism. They cannot and have the nation still survive. The federal saddlebags are empty. We will not follow the Obama trajectory to 70 million on food stamps or $30 trillion in debt. Even a President Hillary Clinton would not lecture us that we didn’t build that. We cannot keep printing a trillion dollars through quantitative easing. Interest rates will climb. I don’t think Rand Paul will tell the Tea Party “to punish our enemies” or Hillary Clinton “to get in their faces.”

    You see, Obamism is an emotional flight from reality, completely unsustainable to the degree it is a paradigm for anything. It is mythical, this notion of borrowing vast amounts of money to grow government and subsidize a new cadre on government support, or demonizing millions as suspect for their success, or assuming that foreign nations react best to apologies, contextualization, and sermons, or wish to join in the cultural adulation of an American president. Putin could care less. Ditto the North Koreans.

    In short, in this mythical age, we all know that Barack Obama won the Nobel Prize, but none of us quite know what for.
    Such is what passes for reality in our age of myth.

  18. How far are they going to go? This is monstrous!

    Should we take eggs from aborted babies?
    Scientists are ready to plunder the ovaries of aborted babies for eggs to use in IVF treatment. Experiments have taken the process almost to completion, it emerged yesterday.
    They raise the nightmare prospect of a child whose biological mother has never been born. The news, from a scientific conference in Madrid, was greeted with widespread revulsion at how far science is testing ethical frontiers.
    Experts warned of appalling emotional and biological problems.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-186802/Should-eggs-aborted-babies.html

    Now that the scientists want to tear their little bodies apart, notice that they are now babies and not fetuses!

  19. Ethical frontiers????

    A euphemism.

    They belong to the same family as Josef Mengele.

    Suppose we take those scientists and tear THEIR bodies limb from limb.

    That would be an eye for an eye.

    And when they protested, we would say this is all for the sake of science.

    They have the same moral compass as your limousine liberal.

    Dead souls.

    These doctors remind me of the

  20. Shadowfax

    April 2, 2013 at 6:57 pm

    jtjames
    April 2, 2013 at 6:43 pm

    —–

    That seems like a hit piece from the Kooks on Hillary…here is an example:

    Hillary Clinton is 14 years older than Barack Obama. A party has never nominated a leader that much older than his immediate predecessor.
    ====================================================

    Well we have never been in this much trouble before, and we need a mature experienced hand to get us out of this Mess.

    It will be interesting to see what happens if she overwhelmingly wins the Popular vote. The Super Delegates are going to be watched very closely.

    I am not quite sure that they realize what a mistake they made, and how MAD people are.

  21. foxy

    Hillary and joe biden 😉
    She looks great.

    ——-I loved the upbeat of this news video, thanks for posting.

  22. GAME OF CHICKEN…

    Ain’t it great that NKorea and the US have inexperienced jerks running their countries and they are ready to put their nukes into pay if the other idiot doesn’t back down.

    All the lives in these two nitwits hands.

    ==========

    N. Korea approves nuclear strike on United States

    By Jung Ha-Won (AFP) – 26 minutes ago

    SEOUL — North Korea dramatically escalated its warlike rhetoric on Thursday, warning that it had authorised plans for nuclear strikes on targets in the United States.

    “The moment of explosion is approaching fast,” the North Korean military said, warning that war could break out “today or tomorrow”.

    Pyongyang’s latest pronouncement came as Washington scrambled to reinforce its Pacific missile defences, preparing to send ground-based interceptors to Guam and dispatching two Aegis class destroyers to the region.

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gpuimXzka5inwGnL0c9vZsbQ54fw?docId=CNG.4eb43e27607cb9d4be6b952b88ddefeb.01

  23. Obama Fools day continues while HE wastes our tax dollars…

    Tens of thousands Obamacare ‘navigators’ to be hired

    Tens of thousands of health care professionals, union workers and community activists hired as “navigators” to help Americans choose Obamacare options starting Oct. 1 could earn $20 an hour or more, according to new regulations issued Wednesday.

    The 63-page rule covering navigators, drawn up by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, also said the government will provide free translators for those not fluent in English — no matter what their native language is.

    http://washingtonexaminer.com/obamacare-to-pay-navigators-20-to-48-an-hour-provide-free-translators/article/2526167

  24. Admin,
    I didn’t see this myself, but according to a FB friend, Fox News did a report about Hillary 2016. They mentioned her online supporters and showed visuals of the Ready For Hillary SuperPAC webpage, Still4Hill’s blog, and Hillary is 44.

    It was on around 5PM Central, 6PM Eastern.

    Just thought you’d want to know. 😀

  25. gonzotx
    April 3, 2013 at 2:44 pm

    wbboei
    April 3, 2013 at 12:36 am

    How many congressman or senator’s are lawyers?

    Majority
    ———————
    I would guess at least 60%. Too many. Far too many. They do not need to be lawyers. They have lawyers on staff.

  26. Jen the Michigander, thanks. It was Bret Baier’s Special Report and aired about 6:15 eastern. We’ll try and get the video and post it. The DailyKooks will be especially irked to see our wholesome Big Pink goodness televised. 🙂

  27. Similar To Nazi’s….Harry Reid’s Gun Control Bill Allows the Beginnings of a National Gun Registry
    The final step of Nazi control in Austria was registration and confiscation of guns.

    As Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) must know, Americans who own firearms have a special sensitivity to a “Big Brother” federal government that wants to keep centralized records on who owns what guns and where in America. Loose language in his gun control bill (S. 649) could start America down that slippery slope.

    http://www.theodoresworld.net/archives/2013/04/similar_to_nazisharry_reids_gu.html
    ~~

    America is getting scary.

  28. Dems Want Amnesty Immigration Bill Rushed – White House Wants Illegal Voting Block Available/Eligible Before Mid-Terms in 2014…

    Another one of those ‘PASS THE BILL TO SEE WHAT’S IN IT’ manuevers. The last time did not work out too well.

    http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2013/04/04/dems-want-amnesty-immigration-bill-rushed-white-house-wants-illegal-voting-block-availableeligible-before-mid-terms-in-2014/#more-61110

    ~~

    BTW why the hell isn’t Menendez in jail???

  29. A person familiar with Ready for Hillary PAC’s outreach efforts tells Post Politics that Carville has joined the effort and will send an e-mail Thursday asking supporters to do the same.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/04/04/carville-signs-on-with-pro-hillary-super-pac/
    ——————————————————————————————————————–

    The time is drawing near to cease with the sour grapes and bile, to cease with the decided right wing slant and nods to Breitbart and Fox, and support HILLARY.
    Hint: She won’t be running as a Republican.

    What percentage of the stuff on this site for the past few years would make Hillary CRINGE? It’s time to adopt a more positive message and make this place recognizable to Hillary supporters,as opposed to Obama HATERS….

  30. Carville said in December: “We just want to win. We think she’s the best person…. And that’s across the board.”

    That about sums it up…;-)

  31. finally, a facebook page! excellent. although they asked me for a dollar to send admin a message. i just want to be sure that this is admin’s facebook page and it is. 🙂

  32. foxyladi14
    April 3, 2013 at 10:13 am
    Hillary and joe biden
    She looks great.
    &&&&&&&&

    Thanks for the link. Maybe he’d be her vice president too…

  33. http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/hillary_clinton_book_about_time_4BZxo0IYMsdytXN2FRCRVM

    Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has a book deal.

    She is working on a memoir and policy book about her years as secretary of state, Simon & Schuster told The Associated Press. The book has yet to be titled and is tentatively scheduled for June 2014. Financial terms were not disclosed. Clinton reportedly received $8 million for the 2003 memoir, “Living History,” also published by Simon & Schuster.

    “Hillary Clinton’s extraordinary public service has given her a unique perspective on recent history and the challenges we face,” Jonathan Karp, president and publisher of the Simon & Schuster Publishing Group and the book’s editor, said in a statement Thursday. “This will be the ultimate book for people who are interested in world affairs and America’s place in the world today.”

    By launching her book tour in June 2014, Clinton will travel the country as Democrats work to recapture the House in the fall midterm elections. Her itinerary will be closely scrutinized for any signs she may run for president in 2016 — any book tour events in early voting states like Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina would receive broad attention.

    As with “Living History,” Clinton was represented by Washington attorney Robert Barnett, who has handled deals for President Barack Obama and Clinton’s husband, former President Bill Clinton. Karp previously served as editor for another Barnett client, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, and his memoir “True Compass.”

    Hillary Clinton, 65, stepped down as secretary of state earlier this year after serving throughout Obama’s first term. Polls indicate she would be a leading contender for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, but she has yet to announce a decision about a bid. Clinton was defeated by Obama for the Democratic nomination in 2008.

    Her book will likely be anticipated on several levels — as a possible signal of a presidential run; as the latest chronicle of one of the most eventful public lives of the past quarter-century; as the continuation of a tradition of secretary of state memoirs that includes Dean Acheson’s Pulitzer Prize-winning “Present at the Creation” and works by Henry Kissinger, Madeleine Albright and Clinton’s immediate predecessor, Condoleezza Rice.

    According to Simon & Schuster, Clinton will write about everything from the killing of Osama bin Laden and the Arab Spring to China and climate change. She “will share her views as to what it takes for the United States to secure and sustain prosperity and global leadership. Throughout, Secretary Clinton will offer vivid personal anecdotes and memories of her collaboration with President Obama and his national security team, as well as her engagement with leaders around the world.”

    Clinton, who already has started writing the book, was often praised as a hard-working and effective secretary of state. But it’s unclear whether she will cover one of the bleakest events of the past four years — the attack last fall against the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, which left four Americans dead and led to widespread criticism of security procedures and allegations by Republicans of an election-year cover-up of an act of terrorism.

    Simon & Schuster’s announcement mentions the 2011 overthrow of Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, but not the Benghazi attack. The publisher did not immediately respond to a request for comment about the attack.

    The announcement also says nothing about Clinton’s 2008 presidential run, an intense and sometimes bitter campaign that led to widespread reports of animosity between Clinton and Obama.

    A person familiar with the book said that Clinton does not plan to write about the 2008 campaign or any possible future runs. The person was not authorized to speak publicly about the book and requested anonymity to discuss it.

    Clinton is a well-established author. Her “Living History” was a million-seller that was highly publicized, if only for her thoughts on her husband’s affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. Her other books, all from Simon & Schuster and all released while she was the first lady, include her best-seller about raising children, “It Takes a Village”; “Dear Socks, Dear Buddy: Kids’ Letters to the First Pets”; and “An Invitation to the White House: At Home With History.”

  34. S
    Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has a book deal.

    ——
    She has Barry and his thugs shaking in their boots that she will spill the beans…

    She will at least leave bread crumbs, unless they really are threatening her…and then – they had better take cover.

  35. rgb44hrc
    April 4, 2013 at 11:10 am
    foxyladi14
    April 3, 2013 at 10:13 am
    Hillary and joe biden
    She looks great.
    &&&&&&&&

    Thanks for the link. Maybe he’d be her vice president too…
    ********************

    You must be joking

  36. April 04, 2013
    Marco Rubio May Walk From Gang of Eight?
    —Ace

    According to this report, he may have decided he’ll get credit enough for trying to work with the Open Borders committee.

    In other words, it’s a lot easier to walk away, basically unscathed, and portray himself as the reasonable guy who genuinely wanted reform but couldn’t negotiate with the unreasonable Democrats, than it is to stick around and actually get the bill done.
    If he does walk away, it would be great boon to the Rational side of the immigration debate. We could put him forward as The Guy Who Tried to Broker a Deal with the Open Borders Committee, But Who Was Thwarted At Every Turn.

Comments are closed.