Get Over 2008 Big Pink! – Campaign Finance Edition

We’re constantly implored/commanded by the Obama cult to “get over 2008“. But we know our Alinsky Rule #4 and we promised at the end of 2008 to hold Barack Obama’s stinking feet to the fire. Think of us as Banquo’s ghost with a red hot poker to shove up the ass of Obama acolytes.

What we find particularly galling however, is that the whine to “get over 2008” comes from the same people and Big Media institutions that bemoan the Koch brothers and weep about the need for “campaign finance reform“. What Obama supporters mean by “campaign finance reform” is that the other side stop fundraising so that Obama supporters can keep buying/stealing elections.

The hypocrisy of Obama cultists who demand we “get over 2008” was further exposed this week thanks to the Supreme Court’s ruling in a major campaign finance case. Oddly, the hypocrisy of Obama supporters was exposed by a pretty good article from the Obama cult website DailyBeast. Stuart Stevens at DailyBeast made a very good policy case for not getting over 2008:

When Obama rejected federal funding for presidential campaigns before his first term, he changed campaigning as we knew it, with candidates on both sides shifting their focus from what’s important (votes! dialogues! press!) to what’s not (money! money! money!). [snip]

Campaign finance is a complicated, vexing issue. There are freedom of speech issues which are legitimate and compelling with a fierce disparity of opinions on the proper solutions. But for over thirty years we had one positive reform that both parties embraced and maintained: federal funding of presidential elections. That ended in 2008 when Barack Obama became the first nominee since Watergate to reject federal financing.

Hey! that happened in 2008! Obama cultists don’t want to remember that it is Obama that lied and it was Obama they let get away with his lies. That’s the DailyBeast talking, not good ol’ Big Pink. That pig Barack Obama destroyed campaign finance reform:

“Let’s look at the history.

After Watergate, a series of reform campaign finance measures were passed. For the first time in US history, a system was established to fund presidential campaigns with tax dollars. [snip]

The same legislation provided for a partial federal funding mechanism for the presidential primaries. [snip]

This system of federal funding and limits held for both primaries and the general election lasted until 1996, when Steve Forbes running in the Republican primary for President rejected federal funding to self-finance his primary campaign. On the Democratic side, the same happened in 2004 when Howard Dean realized he could raise a lot of money on the Internet and therefore rejected federal funding for the primary. It was probably a mistake as it gave permission to John Kerry, married to a billionaire, to spend personal funds. Kerry did, outspending Dean and quickly won.”

Well isn’t that special? Capitalist tool Steve Forbes and tool/fool Howard Dean broke the public finance system aided and abetted by John Kerry. It wasn’t evil Bill Clinton or corporatist evil Hillary Clinton that broke the system but rather the ‘Dimocratic wing of the Dimocratic party’ Howie and ketchup king weenie John Kerry. Who would’a guessed? According to Big Media it is those evil Clintons raising money in Lincoln’s bedroom that are the cause for all the calamities of campaign finance. Enter the DailyBeast which informs the Obama cult that it was Howie that began to kill the system they whine about.

But it was another beast, a beast that walks on hind legs, a beast from Chicago, that finally chewed the public finance system to death – IN 2008! The beast is called Barack Obama:

“But Kerry still accepted federal funding and limits for his general election, as had every candidate from 1976 until 2008. In the 2004 campaign, Kerry and Bush each received $74.6 million for the general election.

In 2008, Barack Obama, of course, pledged to accept federal funding if he were the nominee. At the time, Hillary was the fundraising juggernaut and it was assumed no progressive candidate could be the first to reject federal funding in a general election. As David Plouffe detailed in his book, The Audacity To Win, the campaign had committed in writing to stay in the federal system. “It was declarative, and it was unquestionably stated we’d be in no matter what the GOP nominee did.”

But Obama and his campaign realized they could raise a lot of money. A lot of money. “I thought if we opted out of the system,” Plouffe wrote, “We could enjoy a significant financial advantage over McCain.”

So they did what no campaign had done since Watergate: They rejected Federal funding and campaign spending limits. In a classic Obama touch, he announced the decision not to accept federal funding in a video that claimed, “I support a robust system of public financing of elections.”

Get over 2008!!!???!!! It’s a year that lives in campaign finance Big Media infamy.

How could that dog chewing carnivorous beast Barack Obama get away with such monstrous acts??? How???? How???? How indeed?:

“The Obama campaign knew they would face criticism in the media. But they were betting that Obama’s special appeal to the media would allow them to get away with it. They were right. The New York Times and Washington Post wrote weak editorials slapping Barack Obama on the wrist; meanwhile the Obama campaign went on to raise historic levels of money. Much is made of their small dollar contribution, but over 20 percent came from a single source: Wall Street, breaking all records.”

Get over 2008? Get over 2008? We’ll never get over 2008! We’ll remember 2008 for eternity and shove our red hot poker up your hypocritical asses so far you’ll see Game of Thrones episodes in holographic 3D!

Meanwhile, as treacherous liar Barack Obama was aided and abetted in his crimes by Big Media and the hypocrite horde of Obama cultists, John McCain was living up to his ideals:

“Meanwhile John McCain, long a champion of campaign finance reform, stayed in the system. He received $84 million and stuck to the limits. By Election Day, Barack Obama had raised $750 million. The Obama campaign smothered McCain in money.

Today many people, including some in the media, have a tendency to confuse Obama’s decision to reject Federal limits with the Citizens United Supreme Court decision that opened the door to corporate dollars in Superpacs. The two are completely unrelated. The Citizens United came two years after Obama rejected federal funding.

The history of campaign finance reform demonstrates that once a voluntarily imposed limit is broken, it is very difficult to go back. For 2012, Obama announced early that he would continue to reject Federal funding. To avoid the financial mismatch that faced John McCain, every Republican said they’d do the same. The system was dead.

The DailyBeast article further notes that the system that Obama spawned in the same way his father spawned him almost insures that incumbent presidents will always win reelection. That’s because a president can amass billions from now on while the opposition party will exhaust it’s finances in primaries. Of course, this scenario can be avoided with a super-rich opposition candidate that self-finances. This means that thanks to Barack Obama 2008 a super-rich candidate is empowered. And we’re supposed to get over 2008?

In addition, because of Obama 2008, which we are supposed to “get over”, the wealthy donor primary is more important than ever:

“A strong candidate who has grass roots appeal but lacks an ability to attract major donors can now be attacked for that weakness as a potentially disqualifying factor. “We can’t nominate a candidate who doesn’t have what it takes to raise a billion dollars from April to November” is a legitimate concern for both parties focused on winning in November.

Everybody hates money in politics. Candidates hate to raise it, most donors would rather not give it and there is almost universal agreement that our system is crazy. Still, it continues and just gets worse. Federal funding of presidential campaigns with spending limits was one of the last great reforms keeping some sanity in the system.”

Big Media and the Obama cult pigs that snort and yelp because we won’t forget 2008 or let 2008 be forgotten are the culprits, not the Koch brothers, not the Supreme Court, not Republicans. It is Barack Obama, Big Media and Obama voters that are to blame for the state of campaign finance reform:

When Barack Obama announced he was thinking of breaking the system, there should have been a much stronger reaction from those invested in good government. The Commission on Presidential Debates should have announced they would not allow any candidate who rejected spending limits in the debates. The New York Times and Washington Post should have called it disqualifying for a nominee. That would have signaled the pain was too great for anyone, even Barack Obama, to undo the Watergate reform. [snip]

The new, post-Obama system requires candidates to spend upwards of 60 percent of their time raising money deep into September and October. That takes them away from voters, away from the press, away from every dialogue we value in our campaign system.”

The Obama hypocrites that want us to “get over 2008” can go f*ck themselves. We’ll provide the red hot poker.

Share

194 thoughts on “Get Over 2008 Big Pink! – Campaign Finance Edition

  1. Great Article Admin……

    the Dems must be beside themselves……Letterman retires in 2015, who is gonna shill for them…….

    Maybe we can get Obama to quit early, take up the job and then cancel it a few weeks later citing crap ratings.

    Any devious plan to get rid of his laziness is welcomed…..job would suit him, up late, talking all about himself all night, sitting around doing nothing.

  2. Admin…thank you, thank you, thank you for this post…

    I was thinking exactly the same thing…it is and has always been Obama that is the money machine that will get it any way he can…the hell with campaign finance reform…this Democratic President does not give a damn about campaign finance reform…

    …you said it and documented it beautifully…

    …they hypocrites are in denial…and as has said before…”do as they say, not as they do”…it is ok for O to break all the rules…they don’t even notice…or care…

  3. Pumapac’s Feck Obama Team filed MUR 6142 regarding the 2008 campaign contributions with the FEC that was answered by the FEC with the audit and fines imposed on the Obama for America Campaign. It was a record setting amount. But still a pittance of compared to the $259 million in “unitemized” donations that the campaign listed. Estimates, based on the data distribution of the itemized donations (that did include some donations under the reporting limit), indicated that only about $40 million of that $259 was from actual donors under the reporting limit. That left over $200 million in dirty money. How could they expect such a person to be a successful leader? Obama is, and always has been a corrupt fraud.

  4. Admin:

    Think of us as Banquo’s ghost with a red hot poker to shove up the ass of Obama acolytes.
    ——————-
    VERY nice!!!

  5. Admin, you have been on fire lately, posting power-house pieces that nail the truth as it has not been nailed in recent memory. The Daily Beast article is surprisingly candid and honest. Hopefully, some of the Obama-nuts will experience a glimmer of insight about their failed president. But honestly, they’re so accustomed to and proficient at covering the truth and defending Obama, some are too far gone to recover. They are the ones who admonish us to get over 2008.

    You set them straight about that little fantasy. That ain’t happenin’. As you said, we have long memories and hot pokers. We need an especially hot one for Dona Brazille, and a number of other Dims.

  6. Fortunately for all of us, we only have to get over 2008. Obama supporters will have to try and get over what they did to this nation from November 2008-January 2017 and the woe-begotten legacy thereafter.

    They bought it, they got it, they own it and all the ridulcule they so richly deserve.

  7. Question: why does the Daily Beast wait until he is a lame duck to blow the whistle on Satan Obama? Is it because they fear that what is good for the goose is good for the gander? Is it because all the abuses of finance laws, of senate rules, of voter intimidation and fraud will hit them in the head like a two by fours when the other party gains control? Is it because they believed Texiara et al when he said demographic destiny will mean they will never have to answer for their sins? For me, this confession is a lame attempt to recover what has been irretrievably lost–their reputation as journalists. Fuck Them, and let God sort them out. Compare them with the people at FOX. I was reading the bio of Catherine Herrige who is their intelligence community correspondent. I would put her up against hangers on like Dana Priest at WashPo any day. Herrige is a solid journalist, whereas Priest who wins all these rewards, it a camp follower.

  8. VotingHillary
    April 4, 2014 at 1:01 am
    Fortunately for all of us, we only have to get over 2008. Obama supporters will have to try and get over what they did to this nation from November 2008-January 2017 and the woe-begotten legacy thereafter.

    They bought it, they got it, they own it and all the ridulcule they so richly deserve.
    ____________

    Well said, VH, and so true.

    wbb, you’re right about the Daily Beast being a day late and a dollar short when it comes to speaking truth to and about power. They should take little satisfaction from their newly acquired taste for honesty and honor. MsM chose Obama over the well being of this country. Hopefully, they, like the Obamacrats will pay for their negligence.

    Regarding FOX, I fail to share your enthusiasm for that network. Their hypocrisy is never more apparent than when they wax indignant about voter fraud, Benghazi, or even MSM’s Obama bias, as reprehensible as it is. They make mountains out of molehills in some cases, particularly when it comes to the Clintons, and have no aversion to creating a little fiction to mix with a few possible facts, spun to appear to be gospel. They, like the
    Republican party players either lack critical thinking ability, or prefer not to apply it when reporting on partisan issues, preferring instead to adhere to the party talking points. Just as Obamanuts have chosen to place Barack’s interest ahead of the county’s, FOX and the Repubs have always chosen party line over the country’s well being. They defended Bush when nothing about him or his administration merited defense. They have screamed about voter fraud perpetrated by the Dems. Obviously, their accusations are accurate. But, until Obama came along with his morally and ethically bankrupt henchmen, the Republicans were the reigning champions of voter fraud. Yet, FOX has been less willing to expose questionable election practices engaged in for decades by the Pubs.

    Just as MSM strengthens the other side because their lack of credibility and the fact that their Obama bias has rendered them irrelevant, so has FOX weakened it’s case against Obama and the Dems because of its aversion to reporting the dishonest or counter-productive actions of the Republicans administrations and officials. Even their accurate and truthful accusations of government infringing on the rights of Americans ring hollow, when they support government interference in personal, private behavior, and call for government suppression of reproductive rights.

    FOX, like MSM has treated politics and political reporting as a game, as way to disadvantage the other side and score political points and votes for their own.. Like MSM, FOX has turned a blind eye to the detrimental effects of their game on the liberty and democracy they claim to hold so dear.

  9. Admin: I woke up this morning, thinking about article and how it bears on the issue of the New York Times, and all those newspapers across the nation who to one degree or another follow its lead. In addition, the testimony of disgraced CIA chief Morrell bears on the same issue.

    Yesterday, the New York Times published a front page headline above the fold blaming the Supreme Court for killing restraints on political spending. However, as your article reveals, long before this case, and long before Citizens United Obama killed those constraints with their full knowledge and support. Thus, on the question of democracy vs. plutocracy, the New York Times by its actions as opposed to its rhetoric favors the latter.

    Earlier this year, the New York Times published a front page headline above the fold resurrecting the theory that a protest–not a terrorist actions caused the attack on Benghazi. This headline ignored a mountain of evidence from witnesses who were on the ground when that terrorist attack took place and internal CIA memos stating that the cause in fact was terrorism, not some video. Their account was even refuted by Mike Morrell.

    The New York Times is not in the business of reporting. They are in the business of politics. And for that reason, they have no credibility and no reason to be listened to in matters involving the safety of this nation, the state of its politics, or anything else that really matters. They should stick to chef recipes and travel logs and real estate–things the have no particular incentive to lie about.

  10. freespirit
    April 4, 2014 at 2:57 am
    ————
    Try thinking about it this way.

    In the entire industry:

    Best interviewer: Megan Kelley, Greta Van Sustern, Brett Baier

    Best investigative reporter: Catherine Herrige, Sharon Atkisson (formerly of CBS)

    Best news analyst: Charles Krauthammer.

    Best gadfly: Barbara Walters,

    With the exception of Sharyl Attkisson and Babawwaa all of them are with FOX.

    If you are talking about O’Reilly, and several others, then I agree with you.

  11. The other thing I would point out is that centrist liberals like Carville and Doug Shoen have a presence on FOX, whereas mainstream media has done an partisan cleansing of ALL opinion which runs contrary to the messiah the beloved great one and cheesie liar for all seasons, Hussein Obama Barack, or if you prefer, just Barry (Berry)–strawberry rootberry jam of the soda pop hop.

    But I did see evidence of what you are talking about when Bush was in power, and when they decided to support Romney over Gingrich. I am betting and hoping that they have evolved in the past eight years, and are capable of providing a semi legitimate forum for the exchange of views and differing opinion, which is something mainstream media has proven it is utterly incapable of doing. After all they are owned by the same multi national corporations that control our politics. Therefore, for them, it is a closed loop.

  12. On the question of Christie, and his fitness to be president, the following article, from a Republican authority Daniel Pipes is insightful. In essence, he makes two (2) salient points about the elephant man, which suggest why he gives me the creeps as well:

    1. The savvy consumer reads between the lines presented by big media, as though he were consuming Pravda, and draws his own conclusions. (Note: in other words, we cannot hope to take what big media tells us at face value. That is a sucker’s play. If we hope to know the truth, then we must interpret it in light of their bias.)

    2. Christie bullies those less powerful and sucks up to those he needs.
    ———————–

    A small but significant event took place on March 29 at the Republican Jewish Coalition in Las Vegas. Hosted by Sheldon Adelson, the mega-donor to Republican presidential campaigns, the event drew four leading potential candidates for president in 2016, including New Jersey governor Chris Christie.

    In the Q&A session, Christie recounted a trip he took with the RJC to Israel in 2012. In the course of a choppy sentence in which he expressed his admiration for the country, he used the term occupied territories to refer to the West Bank: “I took a helicopter ride from the occupied territories across, … and just felt, personally, how extraordinary that was, to understand the military risk that Israel faces every day.”

    New Jersey governor Chris Christie spoke at the Republican Jewish Coalition in Las Vegas March 29. (Video)

    That term caused a stir in the audience. As Christie left the venue, Morton Klein, president of the Zionist Organization of America, confronted him in a hallway. “Governor Christie, you used an inaccurate and erroneous term.” Klein tells me that he explained to Christie that the Kingdom of Jordan lacked recognized control of the territory and that Jews have greater rights to it than Arabs. He concluded by requesting that Christie not use “occupied territories” in the future but rather “Judea and Samaria,” “West Bank,” or “disputed territories.”

    Christie replied, “Yeah, I saw you shaking your head when I used that term.” Klein acknowledged that he had, indeed, shaken his head and again asked if Christie would use a different formulation. Christie rebuffed him a second time saying, “Yeah, I saw you shaking your head,” and walked off.

    Soon after, Christie met privately with Adelson. We have two published accounts of that conversation. Kevin Bohn of CNN writes:

    Christie said “I misspoke,” according to Andy Abboud, senior vice president of Adelson’s Las Vegas Sands Corp. Abboud, who also attended the session, told CNN that Christie said “I don’t believe that,” referring to the view that the West Bank is occupied by Israel. … “They had a nice meeting,” Abboud told CNN.

    Politico’s Kenneth Vogel has a similar account:

    Christie “clarified in the strongest terms possible that his remarks today were not meant to be a statement of policy.” Instead, … Christie made clear “that he misspoke when he referred to the ‘occupied territories.’ And he conveyed that he is an unwavering friend and committed supporter of Israel, and was sorry for any confusion that came across as a result of the misstatement.” Adelson accepted Christie’s explanation.

    To confirm these accounts, I asked Andy Abboud specifically whether Christie apologized: “Gov. Christie did not apologize,” Abboud replied. “He said he misspoke and regretted that he misspoke. It was very matter-of-fact. He did not come crawling in but noted that a lot of people use that term. Then they moved on. It was not a big deal.”

    In other words, Christie acknowledged that he “misspoke” and distanced himself from the offending phrase, saying it was not “a statement of policy.” But he did not retract his use of the term occupied territories or promise not to use it again. Much less did he apologize for using it in the first place. In other words, Christie withdrew tactically but still sees the West Bank as occupied territory.

    I draw two conclusions from this little incident.

    Jon Steward made fun of Christie: “I can’t, for one, wait for the re-mojo-ed governor of New Jersey to take his famous straight honest talk to Vegas to speak truth to money.”

    First, beware journalistic spin. Politico inaccurately headlined its report “Chris Christie apologizes for ‘occupied territories’ remark” and many other media – such as the Daily Mail, New Republic, Huffington Post, and Daily Show with Jon Stewart – based their coverage on this summary. Reporting that Christie abjectly apologized to Adelson, they then drew grand but unfounded conclusions about the commanding role of money in American politics.

    In other words, the media provide accurate facts but present them as it suits their agenda. The savvy consumer reads between the lines, as though he were consuming Pravda, and draws his own conclusions.

    Second, Christie’s scornful non-response to Klein contrasts dramatically with his retreat before Adelson and provides important insights. His inconsistency points to the governor’s true views (which do not bode well for Israel) and to the content of his character.

    With someone he encountered in the hallway, he showed disdain; with the largest political donor in American history, he mouthed what was minimally required from him. This is the politician reputed to “tell it like it is”? No, Christie bullies those less powerful and sucks up to those he needs.

    He must not become the Republican nominee for president.

  13. Admin
    …We’re constantly implored/commanded by the Obama cult to “get over 2008“.

    —–
    Hits home for me. Just yesterday, a very dear friend said she wouldn’t campaign with me for Hillary if I didn’t stop making fun of the pResident.

    Who me?

    All I said what the Monday, was Obama’s Day.

    I wish that this woman wasn’t such a fragile friend or I would have said, “You voted for Hillary, then voted for Obama because you thought any Republican was part of the Evil Empire”.

    “Now, even though you are wealthy, you are so removed from the average working American that you wear blinders when Obama’s blunders and corruption are right in front of your eyes. I presented you with proof of voter fraud and misconduct in many states in 2008, I even printed it out for you, and yet, you refused to read it, you refused to watch the documented proof on YouTube. I can’t tell you how many times you have implied that I should get over 2008 and move on”.

    “You, my dear friend, should not feel so proud of yourself if Hillary becomes the first American woman to become our President. You should actually hang your head in shame for falling for all the campaign lies and corruption of Obama and the Democratic Party, and hope to God that if Hillary wins, she will put her party back on track, representing more than half of the American voters”.

  14. For some reason, the left obsesses about the Koch brothers while ignoring the influence of Adelson who is an even bigger whale for the Republican Party–and the largest political donor in American history. I asked a neighbor who is a stock broker affiliated with Buffett about Soros. He is a democrat, and a Hillary supporter. He said Soros name never comes up in his discussions, but the Koch Brothers do. I asked him what specifically the Koch Brothers have done to make them such bette noirs to his party–since I consider myself to be an independent) He had no idea. But that did not stop him from mouthing the platitudes.

  15. One of the great tools of cross examination is the ability to treat an adverse witness who seeks to thwart your right to cross examine him, by changing the subject the way politicians like Obama do, is the ability to treat him as a hostile witness, with the permission of the court. At that juncture, you are allowed to use him as your own witness, and advance a series of propositions that support your case, forcing him to either admit or deny. This is not taught much in the law schools, but it is an art everyone should learn to develop to deal with those who refuse to be pinned down. If we had an honest media in this country, then they would do this to Obama. And the fact that they have not done so, provides further proof that they are not journalists at all, but whores.

  16. Can anyone in big media look themselves in the mirror and say I am a journalist. I speak truth to power. Without flinching?

  17. *All I said was that Monday was Obama’s Day.
    _________

    Says it all.

    Regarding your friend, I assume you were referring to her fragility as a friend, but have you noticed that a lot of people who voted for him are just generally rather fragile. They can’t stand to hear anything negative about the Dems or Obama, and refuse to admit that MSM have given him a total pass, even though that should be obvious to the most cognitively challenged person. It’s like people who can’t tolerate any aspect of their religious belief to be challenged, because it offends their God, Allah, or whomever. I would certainly want my deity to be stronger than that. Similarly, the Party-line Dems can’t tolerate having anything about their party or their president questioned. In the case of those who can’t stand questions about their religious beliefs and Obama/Dems who are so protective of The One, I think the followers just want the easy way out. They don’t want to have to do the research, consider the possibility that some of their life long beliefs might be a little flawed.

    The mindset is, just give me the rules, the talking points, and the basic spin, and I won’t have to think about any evidence that contradicts them. They take the easy road.

  18. They must be praying to ten-plated calf Obama because the prayers go unanswered:

    http://www.politico.com/story/2014/04/democrats-economy-jobs-report-2014-elections-105370.html?hp=f3

    Democrats pray for economic spring

    This was supposed to be the year the U.S. economy would finally break out of the doldrums — the year it would deliver the kind of robust growth that could lift President Barack Obama’s dismal approval ratings and help Democrats avoid a shellacking in November.

    It now looks like that dream is fading fast.

    So far, it’s been easy to dismiss weak economic news as the result of an awful winter. But those excuses ended with Friday’s March jobs report, the first of spring, which showed a lower-than-expected gain of 192,000 — Wall Street traders were looking for something closer to 300,000 — and an economy not losing speed but not exactly revving up for the run to the November midterm elections.

    Democrats were fervently hoping for a bigger number. Because if they don’t get faster growth soon, they could wind up trying to hold off Republicans this fall while fighting the triple threat of an unpopular president, an unpopular health care law and a stagnant economy that has left voters grouchy and pessimistic.

    Experts say even a single good jobs number wouldn’t be enough. And the March number, which also showed unemployment unchanged at 6.7 percent, was hardly a blockbuster. It will take months of stronger employment gains and increases in take-home pay to lift the grim national mood. Democrats, fairly or not, will get nearly all of the blame if the economy sinks back into the mud — and time is running short for them to get credit for any improvement.

    Friday’s jobs number comes against a backdrop of dashed hopes. Late last year, major forecasting firms said the economy could shake off its anemic growth of the past four years and heat up to a 3 percent pace or more in 2014, which would be the fastest rate since 2005. But the first three months of the year saw one weak number after another from job creation, to consumer spending, to construction. Was all of that bad news just the result of frigid temperatures and heavy snows? Or were all the rosy predictions just a bunch of wishful thinking? The answers to these questions could decide the outcome of the 2014 midterm elections.

    “Whether the economy keeps puttering along in this kind of semi-stagnant state that has characterized so much of this recovery or whether we finally break out of it is of the utmost importance to the shaping of the fall campaign,” said Bill Galston of the Brookings Institution. “Many Americans still believe we are in a recession. You can run from that fact, but you cannot hide from it.” [snip]

    Meanwhile, household incomes have actually fallen 4.4 percent since the official end of the recession in June 2009. This helps explain why even though headlines occasionally refer to “consumer confidence” figures hitting highs since the recession, the numbers are still very depressed. [snip]

    “There is a lot of history on the side of Republicans in that in the sixth year of a two-term president a lot of the chickens come home to roost,” Galston said. “And even one or two strong jobs reports will probably not be enough to reverse the very negative views Americans currently have about the economy.”

    False HOPE, dashed HOPE. No CHANGE but CHANGE for the worse. And we’re supposed to get over 2008?

  19. freespirit
    April 4, 2014 at 12:14 pm
    ————-
    The Dean Plan, ergo the Obama campaign, studied the matter and decided that the controlling factor among low information voters is peer group pressure, esteem and conformity. This insight caused them to focus on opinion makers in the peer group, defined as people who could influence 10 or more others, and to empower them with pro Obama propaganda through social media and events. It therefore follows that for these low information voters to recant at this point would require a subtle or overt renunciation not merely of Obama, but of the peer group and the peer group leader who exercised undue influence over their free will in the first place. That is hard for them to do. It is easier for them to engage in denial and to believe the continuing flow of lies fed to them by those like the DU poster who offers bromides for Obama’s serial failures, which have no basis in fact.

  20. I think going up against our Admin in a political fight would be a little like going up against Wyatt Earp at OK corral. Not a good bet. Or, a sure ticket to the political equivalent of Boot Hill, where the tombstone reads:

    Here lies Les More
    Four shots with an A-44
    No less. No more.

    As Bot Nation is now discovering.

    Truth to tell, they and their standard bearer have become so pathetic:

    Ed McMahon: how pathetic is that Johnny?

    Johnny Carson: so pathetic that even a country club RINO puke can beat them.

  21. “Get over 2008? Get over 2008? We’ll never get over 2008! We’ll remember 2008 for eternity and shove our red hot poker up your hypocritical asses so far you’ll see Game of Thrones episodes in holographic 3D!”

    —Hell yea, Admin!!!!!!!!!!!

  22. “We can’t nominate a candidate who doesn’t have what it takes to raise a billion dollars from April to November”

    ——
    Running for President has always been a rich MAN’s game, Baracko is trying to make sure it stays that way. He was not a rich man, but what he lacked in money he was gifted with in DNA.

    A$$wipes!

  23. A tribute to those who put all their marbles (assumes facts not in evidence) on Messiah Obama, who was the product of immaculate conception, hidden from the House of Unamerican Activities the rushes of the Tigress Euprates, sent in an express pack to Hawaii, used as a prop for his mother to collect welfare, and sung lullabies to by Franklin Marshall Davis. A rude awakening for those who finally woke up.

    Look into the pewter pot
    And see the world
    As the world is not
    For faith tis pleasant
    Til tis past
    The mischief is
    That will not last

  24. free

    Admin, you have been on fire lately, posting power-house pieces that nail the truth as it has not been nailed in recent memory.

    [Snip – Getting over 2008]

    You set them straight about that little fantasy. That ain’t happenin’. As you said, we have long memories and hot pokers. We need an especially hot one for Dona Brazille, and a number of other Dims.

    ——
    Perfect.

  25. Free

    Regarding FOX, I fail to share your enthusiasm for that network. Their hypocrisy is never more apparent than when they wax indignant about voter fraud, Benghazi, or even MSM’s Obama bias, as reprehensible as it is. They make mountains out of molehills in some cases, particularly when it comes to the Clintons, and have no aversion to creating a little fiction to mix with a few possible facts, spun to appear to be gospel.

    —–
    You’re on fire, another big YUP on this.

  26. Experts say even a single good jobs number wouldn’t be enough. And the March number, which also showed unemployment unchanged at 6.7 percent,
    —————-
    It is bad enough that the political scene be festooned with lies

    Worse yet, when those lies are not just lies, but damned lies

    But worst of all when those lies are conveyed through seemingly objective statistics

    It therefore follows when 2 out of 5 people of working age are not working

    While the official government report shows 6.7 unemployment

    We find ourselves in that worst of all possible worlds

    Where truth become utterly meaningless

    Until we look at all the other statistics which prove to a fare thee well

    That when it comes to this unemployment figure, liars figure.

  27. What I am saying is this: the 6.7% number is materially misleading and if it is to be cited at all, as it was in the article by Politico, who manifest no understanding of Obama’s policies and their effect beyond the Beltway, it must be accompanied by a caveat which notes what the real unemployment number is which looks beyond the two year period, and the huge reservoir of qualified people in that category, i.e. unemployed for more than 2 years, and have been unable to find work because of a moribund economy and uncontrolled immigration which are primarily the doing of their golden calf Messiah Obama. Washington and Versaille under Louis IV have much in common.

  28. heir hypocrisy is never more apparent than when they wax indignant about voter fraud, Benghazi, or even MSM’s Obama bias,
    —————–
    Well by that definition, mea culpa.

    Voter fraud undermines democracy at the grass roots level.

    Benghazi calls to mind the lesson of Watergate: its not the crime. Its the cover-up.

    True?

  29. The people you are thinking of on FOX are O’Reilly and Hannity.

    Possibly Pork Pig Rove.

    I carry no brief for them.

    When I think of FOX

    I think of the names I mentioned above.

    Those people are the creme of broadcast journalism, in my opinion.

  30. Free

    Regarding your friend, I assume you were referring to her fragility as a friend,

    – Yes.

    but have you noticed that a lot of people who voted for him are just generally rather fragile. They can’t stand to hear anything negative about the Dems or Obama, and refuse to admit that MSM have given him a total pass, even though that should be obvious to the most cognitively challenged person.

    Absolutely.

  31. Well, some good news, finally. Looks like Lerner will be held in contempt. Vote will be next week. At that point, I believe she is subject to incarceration. At that point she may have more to say. Or, perhaps, she will go quietly into the night like Uncle Tony, who is awaiting Obama’s pardon as the lame duck Obama slips into political oblivion.
    ———————————————————–

    The Government Oversight Committee issued a staff report last month focused on Lerner’s involvement in the scandal and making a detailed case that she had improperly asserted her 5th amendment right not to testify. Democrats led by Rep. Elijah Cummings issued a letter responding to the report with a legal opinion suggesting that Lerner had not been properly notified she could be held in contempt. Rep. Issa responded with his own letter rejecting Cummings conclusion and saying he was behaving as if he were Lerner’s defense attorney.

    Since then the House Office of General Counsel weighed in on Issa’s side of the argument. In a 22-page memo dated March 25th, they conclude “it is this Office’s considered opinion that Mr. Rosenberg [Rep. Cummings’ attorney] is wrong in concluding that ‘the requisite legal foundation for a criminal contempt of Congress prosecution [of Ms. Lerner…ha[s] not been met…’.”

    In announcing the vote, Rep. Issa, who chairs the Oversight Committee, said “Ms. Lerner’s involvement in wrongdoing and refusal to meet her legal obligations has left the Committee with no alternative but to consider a contempt finding.”

    The vote is scheduled to take place at 9 a.m. If the Committee finds Lerner in contempt of Congress the matter would then go to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia for presentation to a grand jury.

    http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2014/04/04/Vote-to-Hold-Lois-Lerner-in-Contempt-of-Congress-Scheduled-for-Next-Thursday

  32. Morris claims that the democrat base will not turn out and that the republican base will at the mid term elections. Seldom right but never in doubt Dick. A couple comments to this struck me as accurate concerning the Republican base, perhaps because I happen to agree with them . . .

    If polls showed Republicans were 10% more enthusiastic in 2012, they would have won. But they didn’t. I agree with Mr. Trevor below, the free stuff is the hook.. Conservatives are turned off by establishment Republicans including Rubio who also encourage amnesty and illegal immigration just like the Democrats though for very different reasons. Government tyranny increases every day but it may take decades for people to wake up and realize the government that gives you everything can and will take away everything (including your children) and that maybe the free stuff wasn’t worth the tradeoff. The massive influx into this country of millions of ignorant, uneducated 3rd worlders with no conception or tradition of liberty, independence and selfreliance has done perhaps irreparable harm. And those undocumented Democrats vote too. Our elections are as corrupt as any banana republic. That’s the great dirty secret they don’t want you to know. It’s how Obama won in swing states. Democrat poll “workers” (operatives) control the vote counts and ballots in most precincts.
    Reply · Like· 3 · 3 hours ago
    Add a Reply… Reply using…FacebookYahooAOLHotmailReply using…FacebookYahooAOLWindows Live.

    .

    Bob Tepedino · Top Commenter · Associate Broker at Windermere Real Estate
    Please ignore the inevitable Democrat trolls who will sputter about Dick’s 2012 presidential predictions… Dick’s predictions about that race were spot-on concerning the Democrats, but he failed to take into consideration the fact that the Republicans would be so disgusted and demoralized by the whole unethical process that they would simply refrain from voting at all.

  33. Never defend an indefensible position . . .

    And no, it ain’t over just because you say the program has met its goal

    You are about to learn what the term a thousand misfortunes means.
    ——————

    The Obamacare Turd Sandwich
    Larry Johnson

    The delusion of Barack Obama and his disciples is alarming. They genuinely believe that they have turned the corner on the “problems” with Obamacare and that the only thing left to do is simply remind Americans of that this is a great law and fixes the problem of people not being able to get health insurance. This is beyond whistling past the graveyard.

    Radio shock jocks, Opie and Anthony, are not fans of Fox News nor are they tea party stalwarts. Listen to their profane take on having their insurance cancelled:

    This problem is not going away. Pity the crazy Democrats who insist that all passengers on the Titanic, having hit the iceberg, should stay in bed in their state rooms. That strategy only leads to a sunk ship and dead people.

    Obama lied. Obama lied. Obama lied.

  34. I always thought Dick Morris was on the verge of being a high ranking wachadoodle, but in the last election, I was so darn desperate, I was willing to have a little hope at his predictions and tiny whiteboard.

    I was reaching for straws in 2012 and have advanced to thinking of him as a full member of the bullshit club.

    The Republican’s didn’t come out in mass to stop Obama from stealing the election in 2008, and they didn’t show up in 2012 either. They would rather have Obama win two terms than toss his corrupt butt out of DC.

    No more big tanks will roll in when the GOP is called to duty, just a lot of hot air and empty words.

  35. As a matter of fact, the only Repulican’s the Rethugs like are the:

    1- B rate actor that screwed up California as a Governor, Raygun

    2- Nixon

    3- Bushes (Sort of, especially Jeb because he hasn’t effed up yet.)

  36. More chickens dead at the roost:

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/carlschramm/2014/04/01/blowback-for-obama-obamacare-is-strangling-unionism/

    “It is no stretch to say that Obamacare would never have become a reality without the active support of labor for nearly five decades. But labor’s commitment to what finally took shape in the Affordable Care Act may become the textbook case of a political backfire. Obamacare is killing unionism.

    The recent rejection of the UAW at Volkswagen’s Chattanooga plant presents only the latest chapter in the erosion of labor’s appeal. This election wasn’t about wages — VW pays well. Rather it was about work rules and benefits. With so much of the work place already regulated, the election was really about the only thing unions can promise any more, namely, lavish health plans.

    But many VW workers recalled that last summer unions begged the President for an exemption from Obamacare’s tax penalty on “Cadillac-style” union benefits. Union members everywhere worry that their plans cannot remain immune from higher co-insurance costs and unwelcome disruptions of provider relationships. The vote in Tennessee was as much about “no-thanking” the UAW for Obamacare as it was about saying “we don’t want Chattanooga to look like Detroit.” [snip]

    But, unexpectedly Obamacare hurts many people unions thought it would help, including their members. And, it appears unions can’t reverse this reality. Without dues unions are a declining political force. The president’s post-healthcare pivot to protecting the world’s climate at the cost of union jobs; a newly invented goal for progressives, is a non-starter with the rank and file. Who cares? Obama’s new progressives don’t really need union help any more. They’ve got hedge-fund billionaires ready to fund pursuit of the new utopian frontier – ending the use of carbon fuels!

    Long ago Selig Perlman saw the danger to unions by looking to expand government as a means to balance class grievances through public benefits. In his 1928 book Theory of the Labor Movement he argued that our nation of immigrant workers knew and rejected the European social democrats’ model that vested enormous power in the state.

    America’s immigrants were attracted by the very freedom that limited government provided. Class grievance was not part of American political vocabulary. A non-hierarchical meritocracy meant that one’s children, through hard work and with luck, could become owners of capital – bosses! This vision shaped the pragmatism of American labor. Once asked what unions wanted, Samuel Gompers who founded the American Federation of Labor replied “more.” What he meant was higher wages and better conditions.

    Gompers rejected “international” comity with European labor. He saw risk in its focus on class struggle rooted in Marxism. Gompers kept his unions out of partisan politics believing that alignment would be dangerous to the best interests of workers. The relationship between owners and unionized workers was a matter of private contract. Perlman called this “business unionism,” also known as “bread and butter unionism.”

    Indeed, Gompers would not ally the AFL with early efforts to enact federal compulsory health insurance. He believed that a social welfare state was detrimental to economic growth. Every union leader up to George Meany believed this too.

    Commenting on Woodcock’s decision to champion national health insurance Milton Friedman writing in Newsweek at the time said that committing the union to a government insurance scheme “was against the interests of members of his own union, and even the officials of the union.” Friedman saw unions as businesses. Their customers paid dues in return for effective bargaining over wages and benefits. By going political, seeing to the expansion of government into every nook and cranny of the workplace and the economy, unions eventually devalued their role. Now, having midwifed Obamacare, organized labor cannot escape the suicidal path it chose long ago.

  37. I read a synopsis of Breyers dissent and it is disgusting. He should have stopped with Brandeis. Instead he goes on to quote Rousseau–who was the intellectual forebearer of the French Revolution. He could have quoted Robspierre just as easily, whose weapon of choice was the devil’s tooth, i.e. guillotine.

  38. At the Women’s Summit in NYC Hillary addressed the problem of the double standard for women. In an interview with Candy Crowley, Nancy P. who in the recent past, has expressed support of a potential Hillary Clinton run for POTUS in 2016, demonstrated just how much and how genuinely she supported Hillary. Nancy, who worked harder than anyone to defeat Hillary in 2008 talking with Candy, Barack’s #1 defender, who disgraced herself by entering the debate between Romney and Barack, not to fulfill her role as moderator, but to defend Barack. What a waste of time and hot air is a discussion about Hillary Clinton between these two women whose biggest claim to fame is that they always stand by their man.

    CNN has always demonstrated an anti-Hillary bias, as we know. That attitude comes through in the Crowley interview and in the article below about it. Of course, we knew Nancy P. was never really a supporter, even when she smiled her best frozen, plastic smile, and through gritted teeth expressed hope that Hillary would run.

    _____________

    “Nancy Pelosi on Hillary Clinton, women in politics: ‘I never expected anything but a double standard'”

    Posted by
    CNN’s Dana Davidsen

    In an interview with CNN’s Candy Crowley, the top House Democrat said, “If Hillary Clinton thinks there is a double standard – she’s been in the main event, and that is a presidential race – then I respect that.”

    Pelosi’s comments follow remarks Clinton made Thursday at a women’s forum in New York, lamenting what she billed as a double standard for women in the workplace. Clinton pointed to the media as being the biggest propagator of that imbalance.

    For her part, Pelosi said she “never expected anything but a double standard” though, “I don’t know if it’s the media or whether people say things that’s news that you have to cover.”

    (snip)

    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/04/04/nancy-pelosi-on-hillary-clinton-women-in-politics-i-never-expected-anything-but-a-double-standard/

  39. holdthemaccountable

    April 5, 2014 at 8:56 am

    _____________________________________

    Did you notice how good Hillary looks? Fresh, well rested, HEALTHY, and apparently just happy in general. She still maintains a very busy schedule, but nothing close to what she was doing at state.

    2016 can’t get here fast enough.

    Hillary 2016

    P.S. – Got my Ready for Hillary bumper sticker this week. I was leaving the grocery store after work yesterday and a lady in a car with a Romney sticker pulled up next to me at a light and gave me the thumbs up for the sticker and shouted to me that if she runs, she is going to make her entire republican family vote for our girl.

    That made my day!

  40. The Rock

    she is going to make her entire republican family vote for our girl.

    That made my day!

    —-
    That made my day too. Hope more Repubs feel the same way in 2016.

  41. Shadowfax
    April 5, 2014 at 3:39 pm
    The Rock

    she is going to make her entire republican family vote for our girl.

    That made my day!

    —-
    That made my day too. Hope more Repubs feel the same way in 2016.

    ____________

    Mine too, Rock. I do think a lot of Pubs will vote for her, if she continues to move to center and away from the half-black plague.

  42. While working on a project today, I listened to FOX News. We should never let our guard down and assume that they will be fair and balanced about Hillary. THEY ARE NOT!

  43. Southern

    Ture, the only time they attempt to sound fair is when they approve of Hillary’s choice over oBama. They will only use Hillary, they are anything but fair an balanced.

    Except Greta, she has been fair almost all of the time when it comes to Hillary.

  44. Agreed about Greta being the exception to the FOX anti-Hillary bias. Wbb was right above when he mentioned Greta. Some of the others I was not familiar with. Not a fan of Megan Kelly, Oreilly, Hannity – a raving nutter. Some of the other who air in the morning are biased, as well. Laura Ingram is one I particularly avoid.

  45. There are certain words which convey opposite meanings.

    When they are juxtaposed against each other we have what is called an “oxymoron”.

    During the Viet Nam war, radical chic called military intelligence an oxymoron.

    Today, the biggest oxymoron I can think of is president Obama.

    Truly, a contradiction in terms, not to be taken seriously.

    Just ask Putin–ok poo-teen.

  46. Yes, the blondes on Fox, well that certainly narrow it down doesn’t it, (LOL) are very snippy about Hillary. Megan Kelly is no friend to Hillary and not someone I respect either. I suspect when the 2016 campaign begins in earnest we are going to see FOX turn into the nasty little new organization they have been in the past. They are, indeed, eaten up with CDS.

  47. But wasn’t it Bush Jr. who said he had looked into the eyes of Poo-teen and saw a honest man or some such drivel?
    So I guess George took Putin seriously. 😉

  48. When I canvassed for Hillary Clinton in 2008, I was given a list of people who had voted democrat in prior elections, and a geographic area to work in. We would spend the 12 hour day finding those addresses, ringing the doorbells, handing out campaign literature, tell them the time and polling place, and making arrangements to get them there if they did not have transportation. We did not ring doorbells of Republicans but there were a number of Republican women who were interested in what we were doing, and so we spoke to them. They told me they would vote for Hillary if she made it into the general election. This happened in Indiana and in Pennsylvania. I suppose the situation is different now based on everything that has occurred. But maybe not. They told me their view differed from that of their husbands.

  49. Wbb

    I think Hillary appeals to many people, besides Democrats. Older women think it’s time for a strong, smart, experienced woman to take over the Presidency and show how things should be done, and no one fits the bill better than our girl.

  50. I just watched Noah online, what a flippin’ disaster of a movie. I wonder if any religious person would take this movie seriously.

    A Hollywood bomberooo.

  51. I have reason to agree with those here stating that Republican women will consider Hillary this time around;
    it was a nice day in 2008 when I waited in line for a Palin rally & found myself in the company GOP women who had voted for Hillary.

  52. Soros has talked about this idea, and about the reduction of population to 2 billion. If I can find the source, I will post it. What about the remaining 5 billion? Useless eaters he called them. Fortunately, right now, he is otherwise engaged, trying to defend what he once described as the Soros Empire against Russian efforts to reclaim it. When we get through that and the 2016 election, he and his sons will pursue this new agenda in earnest. Conspiracy theory? Ya sure youbetcha, except for this:
    ———————————-
    “Although microchip implantation might be introduced as a voluntary procedure, in time, there will be pressure to make it mandatory. A national identification system via microchip implants could be achieved in two stages. Upon introduction as a voluntary system, the microchip implantation will appear to be palatable. After there is a familiarity with the procedure and a knowledge of its benefits, implantation would be mandatory.” – Dr. Elaine M. Ramesh, patent attorney for Franklin Pierce Law Center

    Most people today are familiar with radio-frequency identification (RFID) technology that is increasingly expanding within public and private firms as a method for verifying and tracking inventory and people. Yet how many know a plan exists for widespread adoption of human microchipping beginning in the year 2017?

  53. The two obvious goals of this program, and other programs promoted by the establishment cognicenti are:

    1. to control the people (as Representative John Dingel put it, in talking about Obamacare)

    2. to preserve the power of the establishment. (note: I read a recent study showing that contrary to popular myth of an upwardly mobile society, the elite class has gotten much richer and it preserves itself over the course of generation. Another myth shattered.)

  54. The myth of an egalitarian society. I believe much of this drivel about racism is instigated by the elites to re direct the angst, anxiety and despair of a stratified society away from the oligarchy and to get the people fighting among themselves. That way, the upper class can loot the middle class, and allow the underclass to do likewise, without drawing attention to themselves. For years, the democratic party was the guardian of the middle class. No more. Not since Obama came along.

  55. The forced resignation of the CEO of Mozilla because he made a thousand dollar donation to a pro traditional marriage group ten years ago by the snarling beast of the totalitarian left which has taken up residence in the democrat party, begs one unavoidable question: what kind of society do you want to live in?
    ———————————————
    That’s the very definition of “tolerance.” Fat lot of good it did him. Two years later, just a couple of weeks after becoming CEO of Mozilla Corporation, Eich was forced out by a vengeful mob, entirely because of that $1000 donation he made in 2008. He was not allowed to explain what was in his heart; the brownshirts did it for him.

    This is a depressingly common thread running through our totalitarian culture, where everything is politicized. Those without the right political connections and ideological affiliation are given zero credit for good intentions. Their adversaries decide what really motivates them, and in the new Empire of Intention, motivation means everything. The worst failures are excused from people with presumed good intentions, while those classified as Enemies of the People can do nothing right.

    Thus we have the Democrat Party relentlessly attacking the Koch Brothers, who likely donate more to charitable endeavors than every Democrat in Congress combined. When David Koch funded a new wing at New York-Presbyterian Hospital, left-wing activists turned out to protest it. And the hospital gift came on top of Koch donations including “$15 million to New York-Presbyterian’s Weill Cornell Medical Center, $30 million to Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, $25 million to the Hospital for Special Surgery, $20 million to a dinosaur exhibit at the American Museum of Natural History, $65 million to the Metropolitan Museum of Art and $100 million to the Lincoln Center theater that is home to the New York City Ballet and the New York City Opera,” according to the New York Post.

    No doubt a Koch-hating obsessive loon like Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid would say the Kochs just give away these millions to soothe their guilty consciences… well, no, strike that, he’d say they don’t have anything resembling a human soul. They’re probably just trying to fool everyone into ignoring their rapacious ways by financing hospitals and sponsoring the ballet. Reid should spend his free time lurking in those Koch-funded hospital wings, telling every departing patient his life was saved as a ploy to distract the public from a robber barony.

    Sometimes the business of sussing out true intentions through the lens of totalitarian left-wing ideology gets really complicated. Take the case of comedian Stephen Colbert, who made a “joke” that was incredibly insulting to Asian-Americans, warbling in a phony Chinese accent to push his “Ching Chong Ding Dong Foundation for Sensitivity to Orientals or Whatever.” The full fury of the sensitivity police descended upon an astonished Colbert… who was astonished because everyone is supposed to understand he’s really a tolerant liberal in good standing. His comedy routine involves pretending to be a right-winger – all of whom are presumptively evil bigots, you see – and saying the sort of insensitive things he imagines people who disagree with him say on a daily basis.

    What a knee-slapper! Are you laughing yet? Well, here’s the punch line: the “Ching Chong Ding Dong” joke was really meant as a dehumanizing insult toward Washington Redskins football team owner Dan Snyder, who had the unmitigated, insensitive gall to create a foundation that helps Native Americans, among other things by distributing cold-weather clothing on tribal lands during a bitter winter. Snyder has been tried and convicted as a hate criminal because he refuses to change his football team’s name, which some unmeasured, but loud, minority of Native Americans considers a racist insult. It doesn’t matter what Snyder says or does, or even what tribal leaders say about them – those he visited on a cross-country tour generally gave him high marks for sincerity. A gang of white liberals has decided Snyder is a non-person, so he couldn’t regain his humanity even if he cured cancer, and staffed factories to manufacture the cure exclusively with Native Americans.

    Behold the Empire of Intention in action: No one can speak the name “Washington Redskins” without having the worst possible intentions, even though absolutely no one actually means it as an insult. Dan Snyder can’t be sincerely interested in helping Native Americans. And Stephen Colbert can’t possibly be an insensitive jerk, no matter what he actually says – even when he hits an entirely unrelated ethnic group in a drive-by slandering. Never mind that the slander he actually intended to deliver, about the supposed deep-seated racism of conservatives and Dan Snyder, is every bit as disgusting as the “Ching Chong Ding Dong” stuff. You can smear conservatives all you want – and not just white conservatives – without losing any of your assumed credit for good intentions, because their bad intentions are a given.

    Barack Obama is clearly the Emperor of Intentions. His perpetual campaign spends a great deal of energy slandering Republicans. He never engages with their ideas – indeed, he spends a great deal of time falsely claiming they don’t have any – but he spends a lot of time discussing their supposedly evil motivations. In his April Fool’s Day remarks on ObamaCare, he said he could think of no reason for Republican opposition to his health-care boondoggle except a cruel desire to take away health insurance from suffering people, just for the fun of it. Shortly afterward, he used grade-school taunts before a college audience to describe Republican budget proposals as “stinkburgers” and “meanwiches,” explicitly stating that his opponents are motivated by cruelty and greed. The media is happy to let him get away with this, even though they often fret about “divisive” rhetoric and claim to value “bipartisanship.”

    This business of asking the public to judge behavior not on merit, but on alleged motivation, provides a path to both overbearing power and irresponsibility. Intentions are subjective. We don’t know what’s really floating in the hearts of people we read about on the news. And as seen in these examples, the imputation of intention becomes an exercise in political power. A howling mob decided what Brendan Eich really thinks about homosexuals; the Left is not interested in what either Dan Snyder or actual Native American tribal leaders have to say about the quality of Dan Snyder’s character; the media lets Obama define his opponents as monsters, while asking absolutely no questions about what truly motivates this President. In fact, his media palace guards become very angry when anyone floats theories as to his true goals.

    Government should never be judged by the intentions of politicians. For one thing, they are, as a class, very good at portraying themselves as the soul of benevolence. As for the bureaucracy, its true primary goal is, everywhere and always, perpetuation of the bureaucracy. Plenty of individual people working for the government are compassionate, civic-minded folk of high character, but that doesn’t make much of a difference at the macro level. You can hope to find a good person that helps you out of a jam when you encounter local, state, or federal officials, but taken in total, the bureaucracy is a living organism that grows and protects its own interests.

    And what difference does it make if the people behind a horrible policy had truly good intentions? Conversely, why should sound policy that respects our Constitution be disdained because a particular advocate is personally unpleasant? We’re talking about billions of dollars moving around, and immense coercive force crashing down on people… and their motivations don’t count for squat, do they?

    In fact, the entire Big Government system is premised on the belief that individual Americans are greedy, short-sighted fools who won’t do the right thing unless lured with carrots and prodded with sticks. Earn too much money, and you’re judged guilty of offenses to social justice, and punished without trial. If you had a good health care plan before 2010, you must have stolen your coverage from a sick person who needed it more. We’re supposed to regard each other as predators, and view everything free people in the private sector do with suspicion. At the same time, we are required to view government as the avatar of benevolence. You don’t really “care” about an issue until you support a billion-dollar program to address it, and even if that program turns into an abject failure, you’re judged hateful of its beneficiaries when you call for its abolition, or even modest cuts to its budget.

    The balance of good intentions shifts decisively to the Ruling Class as government grows, because if citizens truly respected each other, they wouldn’t support the deployment of so much coercive force against their neighbors. If we respected ourselves, we wouldn’t surrender so much of our liberty to the State, or expect it to take care of essential needs we’re apparently unfit to provide for our families. You cannot logically support the growth of government power without conceding that it means better than the people it governs, or else you would view that power as tyrannical. Our society has reached the point where we can barely speak to each other, without the assumption of bad intent behind every loaded word. Good manners are in large part the presumption of good intentions by others; a society filled with people who assume the worst about each other becomes coarse and rude. Power-hungry politicians have always understood that such a coarse, childish society will expect a good deal of adult supervision from its government.

  56. Make no mistake. This schism in the Republican Party will be a factor in 2014 and 2016. The RINO controls the party. And much as the elites implore the base to ignore the fact that the RINO is more in tune with Obama than with them, that effort is doomed to failure. Beck made this point at Freedomworks earlier this month. This will not drive the base to Hillary. But it will cause them to stay home.
    ——————-

    I told you at the very beginning what this administration tries to do you and what the progressives on the right, let me tell you something, Mitch McConnell is as big of a danger to this country as Barack Obama is. The progressive disease is in both parties. Big government is a philosophy in both parties, period. It is antithetical to the American system. Period.”

    Glenn had the crowd on their feet several times, and, like Matt Kibbe’s and Matt Bevin’s speeches before his, the biggest applause came when attacking the Republican party leadership, or what many grassroots attendees refer to as “the party establishment.”

    The party leadership is facing strong resistance from much of the base in this mid-term. It remains to be seen how that will affect election results and the party in general.

  57. More boobery, in support of a Nobel Prize for Kerry. And throwing our nation under the bus just to get it for old horse face. Yes, he belongs in the Obama cabinet of fools and traitors. Obama sets the standard on that score. And he is one Nobel Prize ahead of Horse face, not for doing anything, but conning the dottering fools of the committee nudged by Soros into believing he would do something constructive.
    ———————-

    Former CIA Director Michael Hayden suggested Sunday the Obama administration’s apparent offer to release convicted Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard to salvage the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks is a desperate effort that could open the door for Edward Snowden to walk away free. (snip)

    “It’s almost a sign of desperation to throw this in the pot, offer a third view. If this were to take place … people in the intelligence community would not be hearing the name Pollard, they would be hearing Snowden.”

  58. When I think about Obama and the totalitarian left, I think about the rise of Hitler in Nazi Germany. Obviously, there were many similarities–the supreme leader, the cloying cult, the abdication of the media, the condonoation of secrecy and the attack upon dissent. But there is another analogy that does not draw that same degree of opprobrium but is equally apt. The British oppression of the colonists which led to the American Revolution, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. And that is why the totalitarian left attacks the Constitution et. al. and those of us who believe in it. For it is, after all, a constraint on the total power of the state over the individual, which is something the left cannot countenance. We talked about this several years ago on this blog, and one of the commenters at that time was related to Nathaniel Greene who was Washington’s second in command, an able general, and a humanist as were others in the founding generation. Some of his quotes tell you a lot about the man, and help to explain why apart from partisan politics are unalterably opposed to Messiah Obama, and the left wing billionaires who support him. For they are the antithesis of these things Greene said:
    —————————-

    1. “I am determined to defend my rights and maintain my freedom or sell my life in the attempt.”[4]

    2.”It had been happy for me if I could have lived a private life in peace and plenty, enjoying all the happiness that results from a well-tempered society founded on mutual esteem. But the injury done my country, and the chains of slavery forging for all posterity, calls me forth to defend our common rights, and repel the bold invaders of the sons of freedom.” Nathanael Greene to his wife, Catharine Littlefield Greene.

    3. “We fight, get beaten, rise, and fight again.”

    4. “Learning is not virtue but the means to bring us an acquaintance with it. Integrity without knowledge is weak and useless, and knowledge without integrity is dangerous and dreadful. Let these be your motives to action through life, the relief of the distressed, the detection of frauds, the defeat of oppression, and diffusion of happiness.”

    5.”Permit me then to recommend from the sincerity of my heart, ready at all times to bleed in my country’s cause, a Declaration of Independence, and call upon the world and the Great God who governs it to witness the necessity, propriety and rectitude thereof.”

    6. “We are soldiers who devote ourselves to arms not for the invasion of other countries, but for the defense of our own, not for the gratification of our private interests but for public security”

    7.”I hope this is the dark part of the night which is generally just before day.”

    8, “I wish we could sell them another hill at the same price we did Bunker Hill.”

  59. If all that big media had done during the past seven years was fail to investigate Obama, and point out his shortcomings, then we could rationalize that failure by simply saying that they manifested the same weakness that is prevalent in human nature, where money is at stake. Like the old saying, it is hard to get a man to understand your argument when his livelihood depends on not understanding it.

    But the hard truth is big media has gone far beyond that. Theirs is no sin of omission. On the contrary it is a sin of commission, whereby they enabled Obama every step of the way, from covering up his defects, libeling those who questioned him, covering up his failures, and misleading the American People. Justice requires they be held accountable. And I can think of no better way to do that, than to question everything they say in terms of bias motive and interest. Nothing they say can or should be taken at face value, because experience has shown it is most likely a lie.

  60. Suspicions confirmed . . . Remember, Obama wanted to attack Syria, based on this false evidence. A number of us made our objections known to congress. They balked, he folded, and Pooteen came to the rescue, which turned out to be a nasty trap for big media beloved Messiah. Until now, those were merely suspicions.
    ——————
    The article, The Red Line and the Rat Line, is in the London Review of Books. Mr. Hersh once again reminds the world why he is the preeminent investigative journalist. The key revelations are that:

    The United States had a covert program, which was disguised as a liaison effort with the Brits, to move weapons from Libya to Syria via Turkey. This program was never briefed to the Congress.

    Two months after the September 2012 attack on the CIA installation in Benghazi, the United States suspended the weapons supply program, which in turn angered the Turks and the Saudis.

    The US intelligence community, the DIA specifically, knew as early as June 2013 that Syrian Islamic extremists fighting against President Assad had an active program to produce and use sarin and were receiving support from the Turks.

    By the summer of 2013, the Turks were worried that the tide had turned against the Syrian rebels and decided to create an incident that would compel the United States to take military action.

    Within days of the 21 August attack, British intelligence informed the United States, specifically the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, that the sarin used had come from the rebels, not the Syrian Government.

    The US military drew their own red line and refused to proceed with an attack in Syria, which is why Obama reversed course so suddenly and turned to Congress.

    Once you read Sy’s piece you will have a better understanding of how badly Obama has botched US foreign policy in the Middle East. It is not just incompetence. It is dangerous hubris that the intrepid Mr. Hersh has exposed.

  61. Notice, he could not get this published here, where big media controls what the American People are permitted to know. So he goes to London where the big media cartel cannot suppress the truth so easily.

  62. Obama’s Legacy:

    1. first black president (source: big media)

    2. cheesie liar domestically (source: roger simon)

    3. dangerous incompetent on world stage (source: larry johnson)

    Give the man a cupie doll. Or better still, a Nobel Prize.

  63. People may want to read this…especially you Admin….

    http://www.lrb.co.uk/2014/04/06/seymour-m-hersh/the-red-line-and-the-rat-line

    The Red Line and the Rat Line
    Seymour M. Hersh on Obama, Erdoğan and the Syrian rebels

    In 2011 Barack Obama led an allied military intervention in Libya without consulting the US Congress. Last August, after the sarin attack on the Damascus suburb of Ghouta, he was ready to launch an allied air strike, this time to punish the Syrian government for allegedly crossing the ‘red line’ he had set in 2012 on the use of chemical weapons.​* Then with less than two days to go before the planned strike, he announced that he would seek congressional approval for the intervention. The strike was postponed as Congress prepared for hearings, and subsequently cancelled when Obama accepted Assad’s offer to relinquish his chemical arsenal in a deal brokered by Russia. Why did Obama delay and then relent on Syria when he was not shy about rushing into Libya? The answer lies in a clash between those in the administration who were committed to enforcing the red line, and military leaders who thought that going to war was both unjustified and potentially disastrous.

    Obama’s change of mind had its origins at Porton Down, the defence laboratory in Wiltshire. British intelligence had obtained a sample of the sarin used in the 21 August attack and analysis demonstrated that the gas used didn’t match the batches known to exist in the Syrian army’s chemical weapons arsenal. The message that the case against Syria wouldn’t hold up was quickly relayed to the US joint chiefs of staff. The British report heightened doubts inside the Pentagon; the joint chiefs were already preparing to warn Obama that his plans for a far-reaching bomb and missile attack on Syria’s infrastructure could lead to a wider war in the Middle East. As a consequence the American officers delivered a last-minute caution to the president, which, in their view, eventually led to his cancelling the attack.

    For months there had been acute concern among senior military leaders and the intelligence community about the role in the war of Syria’s neighbours, especially Turkey. Prime Minister Recep Erdoğan was known to be supporting the al-Nusra Front, a jihadist faction among the rebel opposition, as well as other Islamist rebel groups. ‘We knew there were some in the Turkish government,’ a former senior US intelligence official, who has access to current intelligence, told me, ‘who believed they could get Assad’s nuts in a vice by dabbling with a sarin attack inside Syria – and forcing Obama to make good on his red line threat.’

    The joint chiefs also knew that the Obama administration’s public claims that only the Syrian army had access to sarin were wrong. The American and British intelligence communities had been aware since the spring of 2013 that some rebel units in Syria were developing chemical weapons. On 20 June analysts for the US Defense Intelligence Agency issued a highly classified five-page ‘talking points’ briefing for the DIA’s deputy director, David Shedd, which stated that al-Nusra maintained a sarin production cell: its programme, the paper said, was ‘the most advanced sarin plot since al-Qaida’s pre-9/11 effort’. (According to a Defense Department consultant, US intelligence has long known that al-Qaida experimented with chemical weapons, and has a video of one of its gas experiments with dogs.) The DIA paper went on: ‘Previous IC [intelligence community] focus had been almost entirely on Syrian CW [chemical weapons] stockpiles; now we see ANF attempting to make its own CW … Al-Nusrah Front’s relative freedom of operation within Syria leads us to assess the group’s CW aspirations will be difficult to disrupt in the future.’ The paper drew on classified intelligence from numerous agencies: ‘Turkey and Saudi-based chemical facilitators,’ it said, ‘were attempting to obtain sarin precursors in bulk, tens of kilograms, likely for the anticipated large scale production effort in Syria.’ (Asked about the DIA paper, a spokesperson for the director of national intelligence said: ‘No such paper was ever requested or produced by intelligence community analysts.’)

    Last May, more than ten members of the al-Nusra Front were arrested in southern Turkey with what local police told the press were two kilograms of sarin. In a 130-page indictment the group was accused of attempting to purchase fuses, piping for the construction of mortars, and chemical precursors for sarin. Five of those arrested were freed after a brief detention. The others, including the ringleader, Haytham Qassab, for whom the prosecutor requested a prison sentence of 25 years, were released pending trial. In the meantime the Turkish press has been rife with speculation that the Erdoğan administration has been covering up the extent of its involvement with the rebels. In a news conference last summer, Aydin Sezgin, Turkey’s ambassador to Moscow, dismissed the arrests and claimed to reporters that the recovered ‘sarin’ was merely ‘anti-freeze’.
    ………………………

    What have they all been up to in Syria?

    ………………………………………….

    The foreign policy expert told me that the account he heard originated with Donilon. (It was later corroborated by a former US official, who learned of it from a senior Turkish diplomat.) According to the expert, Erdoğan had sought the meeting to demonstrate to Obama that the red line had been crossed, and had brought Fidan along to state the case. When Erdoğan tried to draw Fidan into the conversation, and Fidan began speaking, Obama cut him off and said: ‘We know.’ Erdoğan tried to bring Fidan in a second time, and Obama again cut him off and said: ‘We know.’ At that point, an exasperated Erdoğan said, ‘But your red line has been crossed!’ and, the expert told me, ‘Donilon said Erdoğan “fucking waved his finger at the president inside the White House”.’ Obama then pointed at Fidan and said: ‘We know what you’re doing with the radicals in Syria.’ (Donilon, who joined the Council on Foreign Relations last July, didn’t respond to questions about this story. The Turkish Foreign Ministry didn’t respond to questions about the dinner. A spokesperson for the National Security Council confirmed that the dinner took place and provided a photograph showing Obama, Kerry, Donilon, Erdoğan, Fidan and Davutoglu sitting at a table. ‘Beyond that,’ she said, ‘I’m not going to read out the details of their discussions.’)

    Read on for the rest…….disturbing…

  64. Great read per usual. Sorry have not been around much
    as still have some unresolved medical issues with eyes
    and head. Sinus CT was negative so now brain MRI this week
    and have to see a ” tearing ” specialist as my eyes are
    constantly tearing and it is non allergy. Otherwise things down
    here are dandy.

  65. WH have issued a statement denying the claims about Turkey and the Sarin gas…….very quick denial from them, which usually means they have something to hide………of course they deny it, it ruins their story on Syria.

    http://ilhantanir.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/white-house-refutes-seymour-hersh.html?spref=tw

    White House Refutes Seymour Hersh
    White House says they provided answers to Sy Hersh earlier:

    We have seen Mr. Hersh’s latest story, which is based solely on information from unnamed sources and which reaches conclusions about the 21 Agustos chemical weapons attack in Syria that are completely off-base. The following are relevant on-record rebuttals we provided to Mr. Hersh’s fact checker in advance of publication from ODNI Director of Communications and Spokesperson Shawn Turner and National Security Council Spokesperson Caitlin Hayden:

    In response to your question about weapons moving from Libya and the suggestion that others could have been responsible for the CW attack, on the record from Shawn Turner:

    the Assad regime, and only the Assad regime, could have been responsible“We’re not going to comment on every inaccurate aspect of this narrative, but to be clear: the Assad regime, and only the Assad regime, could have been responsible for the chemical weapons attack that took place on August 21 We have made that judgment based upon intelligence collected by the United States and by our partners and allies. It is a view that is shared overwhelmingly by the international community and has led to unprecedented cooperation in the dismantling of Assad’s CW stockpiles. The suggestion that there was an effort to suppress or alter intelligence is simply false. Likewise, the idea that the United States was providing weapons from Libya to anyone is false.”

    In response to your question about a classified paper on the Syrian rebels’ chemical-weapons capabilities, on the record from Shawn Turner:

    “No such paper was ever requested or produced by Intelligence Community analysts.”

    A fixed deadline of September 2, 2013 is completely fabricated.
    In answer to your questions about military planning, on the record from Caitlin Hayden:

    “We have long said that all options were on the table in Syria and that our military was doing appropriate contingency planning, as you’d expect them to do. The President said publicly on August 31, 2013 that he had determined that it was in the national security interests of the United States to respond to the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons through a targeted military strike. He said that the purpose of this strike would be to deter Assad from using chemical weapons, to degrade his regime’s ability to use them, and to make clear to the world that we will not tolerate their use. But the notion that the President ordered our military to undertake action in Syria by a fixed deadline of September 2, 2013 is completely fabricated. As the President said when he addressed the nation on August 21 even though he possessed the authority to order military strikes, he believed it was right, in the absence of a direct or imminent threat to our security, to take the debate to Congress. That’s what he did, and on September 10 asked the leaders of Congress to postpone a vote to authorize the use of force so we could pursue the diplomatic path we are now on and that is resulting in the removal of Syria’s chemical weapons.”

    ………………………..

    Do i believe Hersh….Yup…..

    Would i believe the Obama WH on Syria…..No, i would not. They have form.

  66. More healthcare fall-out for Barack over proposed cuts in Medicare Advantage. The Dems knew this was coming. They should have begun “battling the White House” a long time ago. Maybe they didn’t realize until recently the impact Obamacare would have on their chances for re-election. Not long on insight, are they?

    And who knew that the Dems had “new found momentum” and the party had been “electrified” due to the fake report of 7.1 million O-care enrollees? What’s wrong with the Dims? Even if the 7.1 million figure represented previously uninsured, actual paying customers, whose lives had been saved by Barack – which it doesn’t – it’s still about 25 million or so short of the original projected number.

    The WH and MSM can do all the happy dances they want, and continue to spin their asses off, but when they lose the senate in November, maybe they’ll understand that the public is no longer buying Obama’s “words, just words”.

    __________________

    “Obama’s New Healthcare Dilemma”

    Democrats are battling the White House over proposed cuts to Medicare Advantage, creating a new divide on healthcare just as the party had begun to rally around ObamaCare’s 7.1 million enrollees.

    The issue threatens the newfound momentum Democrats have on healthcare after a late surge of ObamaCare enrollees surprised and electrified a party that had been beaten down after months of bad news associated with the healthcare law’s rollout.

    (snip)

    Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/medicare/202702-obamas-new-healthcare-dilemma#ixzz2yBanONiP
    Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

  67. This article questions the appropriateness of the so-called president attending 2 Dem fundraisers the night of the recent Fr. Hood shooting. It also makes a good point about Barack’s tendency to sound “detached” when commenting on national tragedy, especially compared to the “hubris” he demonstrates when feels he has triumphed. Of course it doesn’t take much for Barack to feel he has triumphed. Even if he really hasn’t, he proclaims that he has, which is MSM’s cue to break out the party hats and crank up the volume on their favorite song: “Barack’s a Jolly Good Fellow”. After two or three weeks of reminding the country daily that Barack has triumphed in one way or another, it just becomes truth in their minds and in Barack’s . It’s all good.

    _________

    Will Hubris Sink the Democrats?

    By Salena Zito – April 6, 2014

    Standing at a gas station pump, as news blared overhead about the Fort Hood shootings, a young mother with two children buckled into her sedan’s car seats sighed.

    “I hope someday if, God forbid, tragedy strikes again at a military base, whoever is president doesn’t still head to a fundraiser,” she said.

    She didn’t think that President Obama doesn’t care, she said. “It is just, come on, do the right thing!” The visual impact of Obama discussing the tragedy at a political fundraiser is “uncaring, arrogant, wrong,” she said, punctuating each adjective.

    Impressions are lasting. Americans in general have a fairly good sense of what is right or wrong. Despite the blurred lines of news intersecting with opinion — and sometimes buffering a casual viewer from facts — Americans also have a pretty good sense of when some official is getting things right or wrong.

    Attending two fundraisers on the night of a military base shooting can irritate many people. Celebratory champagne toasts, exotic hors d’oeuvres, well-heeled guests and hundreds of thousands of dollars flowing to elected officials. These are not the images you should wish to convey to Americans on such a night.

    Since the beginning of his administration, President Obama has struggled with image at times of tragedy and triumph.

    When a tragedy strikes, his reaction always comes across as detached; when he feels he has triumphed, he oozes hubris that is incredibly off-putting, even to his supporters.

    (snip)

    Read more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/04/06/will_hubris_sink_the_democrats_122191.html#ixzz2yBj4S4qF
    Follow us: @RCP_Articles on Twitter

  68. Nancy is still “celebrating” the fact that 7 million people signed up for Ocare. She cannot be worried about Gibbs’ speculation that the employer mandate will be removed.

    Nancy is excited to have been one of the Dems “who made this fight” , referring to shoving O-care down the throats and up the asses of the country. Even though she is more excited than an OFA member with a brand new dime-bag about the whole thing, she knows that Dems seeking re-election will have to distance themselves from Obamacare.

    Something is just fundamentally wrong with Nancy.

    ____________

    April 06, 2014, 10:00 am

    “Pelosi rebuffs Gibbs on O-Care prediction”

    By Benjamin Goad

    Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/regwatch/healthcare/202757-pelosi-rebuffs-gibbs-on-o-care-prediction#ixzz2yBpv3bGL
    Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

    Speaking last Wednesday to a crowd in Colorado, former White House press secretary Robert Gibbs made headlines by predicting the provision – a cornerstone of the president’s signature law – would be abandoned.

    “I don’t think the employer mandate will go into effect,” Gibbs said. “It’s a small part of the law. I think it will be one of the first things to go.”

    On Sunday, Pelosi downplayed the remarks, saying of Gibbs: “I don’t know who his clients are, or what his perspective is.”

    “I don’t know why we’re focusing that – one person says one thing,” Pelosi said. “Seven million people signed up. “

    The minority leader acknowledged that some Democrats would likely distance themselves from ObamaCare during their fall election campaigns. Democrats, already greatly outnumbered in the House, are expected to lose more seats in November.

    However Pelosi predicted that many Democrats would embrace the law, particularly in light of the recent surge in participation.

    “It’s really pretty exciting for those of us who made this fight,” she said.

    Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/regwatch/healthcare/202757-pelosi-rebuffs-gibbs-on-o-care-prediction#ixzz2yBpgeQs6
    Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

  69. Something is just fundamentally wrong with Nancy.
    ——————–
    You mean, besides the fact that she is stupid, delusional and partisan to a fault?

    ____________

  70. wbboei
    April 7, 2014 at 8:58 am

    Something is just fundamentally wrong with Nancy.
    ——————–
    You mean, besides the fact that she is stupid, delusional and partisan to a fault?

    ____________
    Indeed. Nan has earned the double standard she expects.

  71. Charles Koch Fights Back

    Friday, 04 Apr 2014 06:06 PM

    By Larry Kudlow

    Share:

    A A |

    Email Us |

    Print |

    Forward Article |

    Get Short Link

    Copy Shortlink

    0

    in

    Share
    .

    Is it too farfetched to connect the dots between a brilliant Wall Street Journal op-ed by Charles Koch, the chairman and CEO of Koch Industries, and the continued sluggish recovery in jobs, business investment, and the overall economy? I don’t think so.

    In his piece, Mr. Koch seems to make a plea for a big dose of free-market capitalism. He argues, “The central belief and fatal conceit of the current administration is that you are incapable of running your own life, but those in power are capable of running it for you. This is the essence of big government and collectivism.”

    Charles Koch and his brother David have been vilified by the left for fighting hard to get political candidates with free-market points of view elected. Protected by U.S. Senate rules against libel, Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid has called the Kochs virtually every name in the book — including “un-American.” But now the Kochs are fighting back. And I hope they do more of it.

    Editor’s Note: Add Up to $152,046 to Your Social Security Benefits Using Weird Trick

    Charles Koch’s op-ed reveals a consistency of thought. He writes, “I have spent decades opposing cronyism and all political favors, including mandates, subsidies and protective tariffs — even when we benefit from them. I believe that cronyism is nothing more than welfare for the rich and powerful, and should be abolished.”

    Koch concludes that the current batch of administration policies “destroys value, raises costs, hinders innovation and relegates millions of citizens to a life of poverty, dependency and hopelessness.”

    This is strong stuff. And spot on.

    Think of Obamacare as the ultimate central-planning, collectivist, big-government approach. The government is mandating what health-care insurance to buy, and taxing you if you don’t buy it. You may lose your favorite doctor or hospital or insurance plan, all while job hiring and work effort are undermined. These intellectual eggheads tell you what you can and cannot do, and where you can and cannot do it. And they prescribe a multi-trillion-dollar government expansion of spending and taxing while they’re at it.

    The good news here is that Obamacare is incredibly unpopular. The bad news is that it’s going to be incredibly difficult to rewrite or replace this law.

    But Mr. Koch’s big fear is that collectivism can’t and won’t stop with Obamacare. He has a point. The Obama machine continues to roll out poverty-trap incentives, paying people not to work. Obama’s EPA is aiming to obliterate the entire coal industry and all the blue-collar workers in it. The president can’t even give the okay to the Keystone pipeline, which is favored by all but the far-Left environmental radicals. Obama’s National Labor Relations Board now wants to unionize college football players. Our corporate tax rates are the highest in the world. And the entire IRS tax system is so corrupt and complex, it has become a major hindrance to growth. I could go on and on.

    So why is it surprising that the economic recovery is happening at only half the rate of a normal expansion? Sure, there was some decent news in the March jobs report. But it took nearly five years for private jobs to regain the peak reached in January 2008. Inw1` fact, this jobs recovery is the slowest on record since the Labor Department started tracking the data in 1939. And we are at least 5 million jobs below potential.

    I don’t want to be too pessimistic. The March employment report of 192,000 new jobs is at least keeping pace with the monthly changes of recent years, sluggish as that may be. And there was good news with a lengthening private workweek and a big jump in the small-business household-employment report.

    However, wages were flat in March, and only 2.1 percent higher than a year ago. And the so-called U-6 labor-impairment unemployment rate — which includes people who have jobs they don’t like — is stuck at a high 12.7 percent. A full 10.5 million Americans are unemployed, and 7.4 million are working part time.

    One huge reason for the tepid jobs recovery is that long-term business investment in new plants, equipment, warehouses, office buildings, and so forth remains very soft. Only recently, in last year’s fourth quarter, did so-called cap-ex get back to its prior peak of early 2008.

    High taxes are causing firms to deploy profits overseas. The president keeps bashing business with the threat of even higher taxes and regulations. And no one knows what Obamacare regulatory costs are ultimately going to be.

    So with the economy only crawling toward recovery, the solution is not character assassination or more government collectivism. Mr. Charles Koch has it exactly right: We need more liberty and freedom to restore American values and economic prosperity. Politicians and regulators can’t do it. Only hard-working and innovative people can.

    So let’s let them do it.

  72. holdthemaccountable
    April 7, 2014 at 10:50 am

    Free, wbboei, hold’um

    Something is just fundamentally wrong with Nancy.
    ——————–
    You mean, besides the fact that she is stupid, delusional and partisan to a fault?

    ____________
    Indeed. Nan has earned the double standard she expects.

    —> Yup, Nasty really lost all her marbles when she got on her knees for her Barry.

  73. Drudge headline, Sharpton was a snitch to the FBI against the mob

    —-

    Hmm, people just don’t walk into the FBI and apply for the job of snitch against the mob.

    I wonder what dirty deeds Sharpton was caught doing…that he put his life in danger to snitch instead?

  74. Darn, I thought I might skip work tomorrow and finally get to see Hillary. One of her speaking engagements in the Bay Area was posted on Drudge. I went to the site to see if it was possible, clicked on the part that said it was open to non members and free, when to a new page and this is what it said:

    “Thank you for your interest in the Marketo Marketing Nation Summit. At this time, online registration is now closed. Please register onsite at the rate of $1,395. Please note no substitutions will be permitted onsite and payment must be paid in full via credit card before a badge is printed.”

    —–
    Maybe another day will come when I can finally see our girl.

  75. So Jeb Bush is for No Child Left Behind, Common Core and apparently for open borders? It’s interesting to see some Republicans twist themselves into pretzels trying to find a way to support Jeb Bush’s stance. Charles Krauthammer just said that the Clintons have a biological need to run for president. Wonder what they call the Bush “need”?

  76. Shadowfax
    April 7, 2014 at 2:23 pm
    ———————————

    It’s pretty obvious now that HC is buildng a war chest so that when the time comes to declare her candidacy, she will have enough funds to survive the primaries and the elections.

  77. Obama’s such a big hearted guy. The progressives are soooo proud of his determination to create economic equality, and every other kind of equality imaginable. No one can have or do or be anything better or more than anyone else. The only inequity he doesn’t give a rat’s rear-end about is gender inequality.

    _______________

    April 07, 2014, 04:39 pm

    “WH says its gender pay gap ‘better than the national average’

    By Justin Sink

    The White House on Monday looked to deflect criticism over its own pay policies ahead of an event Tuesday on lessening wage discrimination.

    White House press secretary Jay Carney was peppered by questions from reporters about an American Enterprise Institute study that found the salary for the median female White House staffer was 12 percent lower than for a male staffer.

    Carney said that men and women in the same jobs at the White House earn the same salaries.

    “We have two deputy chiefs of staff, one man and one woman, and they make the same salary,” Carney said. “We have 16 department heads. Over half of them are women, all of whom make the same salary as their male counterparts.”

    “What I can tell you is that we have, as an institution here, have aggressively addressed this challenge, and obviously, though, at the 88 cents that you cite, that is not a hundred, but it is better than the national average,” Carney said. “And when it comes to the bottom line that women who do the same work as men have to be paid the same, there is no question that that is happening here at the White House at every level.”

    The discrepancy is likely explained by concentrations of women in lower-paying jobs at the White House, and, conversely, more men holding higher-level positions. Although workers are paid the same regardless of gender — a female assistant makes the same as a male in the same position — more women hold lower-paying jobs.

    Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/202856-white-house-says-its-gender-pay-gap-better-than-the-national-average#ixzz2yG1cGnFh
    Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

  78. Tony S
    It’s pretty obvious now that HC is buildng a war chest so that when the time comes to declare her candidacy, she will have enough funds to survive the primaries and the elections.


    Do you think that the speaking money Hillary is building is for a war chest? I thought candidates only use their own money if they have no donations. Hillary could be saving for retirement, and spend some money on new, bright orange pant suits and scrunchies.

  79. There is an article entitled “CWA panel: Political crystal ball gazing sees Hillary — and some questions” that points out some of the pitfalls of calling elections this far out. But aside from 2016, one panelist stepped back from the discussion to talk about 2014:

    Stepping away from the discussion of individual candidates, Bender said his political forecast includes strong political ramifications stemming from the Affordable Care Act, which saw its open enrollment period just wrap up with more than 7 million people signing up for coverage.
    “This means people who are benefitting from the law and having health coverage no longer have to watch a 30- or 40-second spot to find out what they think,” he said.
    “They get to talk to their family members about how their lives have changed, and six months from now, I think with the ripple effect of real life changes, that is much more important than any political campaign. People don’t trust what politicians tell them, and they don’t trust what the media tells them, but they do trust their brother-in-law , who is suddenly getting health coverage and didn’t have it before.”

    This was why I also stepped back from all the hoopla about the Obamacare rollout at the end of last year, began to read the PPACA, gave up and then decided to call the people I know in the US to get their experiences and views on it – all as a matter of trusting my relatives and friends more than the media.

    I simply don’t trust what the government, the media or especially the pollsters tell me. I am not subject to groupthink, which is what you do when you follow the polls. I want to hear the story from real people – individuals whom I know, which gives me a chance to give my feedback, get the broader picture and the details with it.

    The above statements in pink are the reason why WJC recently called for Democrats to embrace the PPACA and not run away from it, and it is also the reason why HRC says we have to wait for the dust to settle so we can get some facts together and go about fixing the PPACA, not repeal it.

    I don’t know about you people, but I’m with the Clintons on this matter – even if they happen to agree with Pelousy!

  80. Btw, coming back from London and at the end of March, I found my copy of HRC: State Secrets and the Rebirth of Hillary Clinton had arrived, and am resolved to read it from cover to cover.

    There is a typo in the blurb, which boded ill. But I advise any of us who read the book not to skip the introduction, because it explodes the Republican argument that Benghazi was a disaster that was all HRC’s fault, disqualifying her for higher office.

    Also, the first chapters are about the 2008 campaign – and it’s thrilling to relive that experience from inside the campaign, indeed inside HRC’s head – leading up to her decision to take the SoS offer.

    That’s as far as I’ve got as of now.

  81. Sallie Krawcheck is at the heart of HRC’s support on Wall Street and among business in general. Here she says a few things about HRC:

    http://www.bloomberg.com/video/krawcheck-hillary-clinton-enormously-qualified-Hhw99NFjR_uVm3sSraiVkA.html

    In this three-minute interview, she also talks business, taxes and policy frankly and shows why Republicans no longer have a grip on the business community despite their talk of small government, lower taxes, “free” enterprise and this and that. She says no investors are concerned with taxes, it’s all about finding the best talent to launch new business.

  82. Shadowfax April 6, 2014 at 2:56 am

    I just watched Noah online, what a flippin’ disaster of a movie.
    _____________

    Hey, you could’a figured that out from the trailer!

    I go to the movies about twice a week and pay attention to the half-dozen trailers they show before each movie. Anyone could see “Noah” is a disaster and avoid it.

    Recently, some people here were complaining that movies are all crap. Dunno, but in those 2 shows a week I see, only about 5% or less of them are disappointing.

    Then again, only a quarter of those movies come from Hollywood. We get to see movies from Denmark & Sweden (a lot of psychodrama), England, Japan (artsy), France (mostly comedy), along with the best exports from Hollywood and the American independents.

  83. freespirit April 7, 2014 at 10:33 pm

    …. The only inequity he doesn’t give a rat’s rear-end about is gender inequality.
    _________

    Actually, Carney is right. Women are not paid less for the same job, they just don’t get the top jobs.

    But that, my friend, is something that would change radically in an HRC White House. In fact, the ratio would be reversed.

  84. Shadowfax April 7, 2014 at 2:23 pm

    Darn, I thought I might skip work tomorrow and finally get to see Hillary…. ‘Please register onsite at the rate of $1,395….’

    —–

    “I feel your pain”!! Imagine how I felt stumbling across her on the steps of the Capitol. No entrance fee, no klieg lights, just HRC, my young woman friend and me… with 2 SS thugs hovering about 10 feet away. I doubt anyone will ever get a chance like that again!

  85. wbboei April 6, 2014 at 1:47 pm

    There you go on the vast left-wing conspiracy again. Besides, we also disagree on Hitler as left-wing. I’ll agree that the extremities of the political spectrum tend to resemble each other, so we could say Stalin = Hitler in many respects. But Stalin’s communists and their socialist allies always identified as the left and Hitler, who was out to crush the communists and socialists, has always been identified as the Right.

    At a later epoch, as the communist party disintegrated in France, half the communists joined up with Mitterrand’s Socialist Party and half joined ranks with the extreme right wing (and racist) National Front, proving once again that the extremes resemble each other.

    But as a pure matter of terminology, you’re getting things backward to say that Nazis and the National Front were the Left, implying that Stalin was the Right.

    Or perhaps you mean that Hitler and Stalin were both leftists? In which case, why the war between them? Because Hitler never did battle against Mussolini, who was definitely on the Right and an idol for Hitler.

    No, the communists and socialists were the Left and Hitler, taking them as responsible for the dire situation of Germany in the 20’s and 30’s, wanted to exterminate them. The communists and socialists were also rife with Jews, which is the basic reason why Hitler wanted to exterminate the Jews.

    Hitler was the very definition of the Right, not the Left. But again, I will admit that the extremes resemble each other.

  86. Shadowfax April 6, 2014 at 2:55 am

    I think Hillary appeals to many people, besides Democrats. Older women think it’s time for a strong, smart, experienced woman to take over the Presidency and show how things should be done, and no one fits the bill better than our girl.
    __________________

    HRC does have broad appeal – in fact, it’s broader than that of any men I can think of (with possible exception of Donald Trump). I contend that this appeal is simply because she is a woman. If you watch how women operate in Congress, you see they do not follow party discipline as much as the men do. I think this is due to men’s obsessions with their careers and the next election, plus an Us vs Them team mentality that works in win/lose situations like football, and thus accept partisan lines, whereas teamwork for women is different – it’s more a matter of finding a win/win solution for everybody and not just “my team”.

    Hillary has an exemplary history in this regard, but I think there are plenty of other women who are not obsessed with their own careers but concentrate on getting results of value for the country or their constituency. These women just have not had the advantage of 20 years of publicity.

  87. Well, Boehner is at it again.

    Somebody IN THE IRS violated the law?

    This comment exonerates those above the IRS where the directive came from.

    So we are referring it to the US Attorney for the DC Circuit?

    Who is an Obama Bundler.

    Who will take a plea based on whatever story she comes up with.

    Probation, no jail time.

    And then there will be no contempt proceeding.

    Stupid ass.

    With a RINO like him, it is all just politics.

  88. Yesterday, the editor of Hot Air opined that for all the talk that Republicans will take the Senate later this year, and despite Morris’s poll indicating that the Republican candidates are leading in 7 races, the hard statistical evidence suggests that the race as a whole is no slam dunk, and the Republican argument has not sold. Today, Erickson refutes that argument saying that the Democrats are battle weary and their prospects are dim what with Obamacare hanging around their necks like an albatross, while Pelosi sounds more and more like Mad King Lear proclaiming its non-existent virtues. However he ends with a caveat

    It is pretty clear to me that Hillary is better off if the Republicans win the senate, for two reasons. First, it will cause the party as a whole to blame the Messiah, and thereby diminish the hold his left wing cabal has over the party in the dying days of Obama’s pathetic presidency. Second, the party establishment which is run by big money and consultants, will blow the opportunity to enact real change, thereby alienating their base, thus setting the stage for 2016 when the full electorate will turn out, and the Republican base, disgusted with the RINO candidate will stay home.
    ———————
    Among those strongly interested in politics in America right now, the GOP leads by 14 percentage points on the question of who should control Congress. Among the electorate as a whole, the GOP and Democrats are largely tied. But the electorate as a whole does not vote, particularly in midterms.

    The Democrats are less likely to vote in 2014, they are less energized, and they do not even see Organization for Action making much headway. The Republicans have had several good weeks. The news about Obamacare, spun by the press as good enrollment numbers, is not helping. Many of those who signed up did not want to be in Obamacare and they do not like the program.

    The Democrats are left to distraction. Harry Reid beclowns himself with regular attacks on the Koch brothers. It is not penetrating the consciousness of the average American. It’s only to keep him most engaged activists continually engaged. But it won’t work. The Democrats are tired. They know the odds are against them. And everything they seem to advance blows up in their face.

    The albatross of Obamacare is around their necks and it looks more and more like a millstone.

    The GOP leads by 14 points among voters most likely to vote in November. That is another reason conservatives should work hard in primaries to defeat the establishment. If the GOP takes back all of Congress and continues to be a nothing burger, there will be hell to pay.

  89. jeswezey
    April 8, 2014 at 7:16 am
    freespirit April 7, 2014 at 10:33 pm

    …. The only inequity he doesn’t give a rat’s rear-end about is gender inequality.
    _________

    Actually, Carney is right. Women are not paid less for the same job, they just don’t get the top jobs.

    But that, my friend, is something that would change radically in an HRC White House. In fact, the ratio would be reversed.

    ____________

    I’ll concede that Carney may have spoken the truth about the specifics. But, the fact that women don’t get the top jobs goes to the heart of the gender inequality issue. Just as the DNC chose the inexperienced, all hat-no cattle male over the experienced, capable female in 2008, the WH hiring practices represents the age-old scenario with which women have been forced to deal since entering the work place.

    In 2013, the generally accepted figure of pay gap was – Women: 77 cents, Men: $1.00. Although additional research by other groups indicated that the gap was slightly smaller than 23 cents, there was still a gap.

  90. foxyladi14
    April 8, 2014 at 11:15 am
    Holder in the Hot seat. 😆
    _________

    I hope his ass if flaming.

  91. foxyladi14

    April 8, 2014 at 11:15 am
    ————-
    You can see what snake in the grass Holder is up to.

    Why have the criminal division in charge?

    Why not the public integrity division?

    Why have five different agencies–FBI, US Attorney, Civil Rights Division, Public Integrity, etc. to investigate/

    Unless the goal is to delay, obfuscate and prevent an agreed to finding on the issue of whether Lerner and others broke the law–at the obvious behest of the administration.

  92. Also, if the US Attorney is leading the investigation, then we must not forget who he is: an Obama bundler.

  93. On Monday, Senator Franken sent out a dire email warning of Palin’s influence on the election. He also could not resist attacking the Koch brothers as well.

    “Sarah Palin is now involved in the race — she just endorsed the Republican who, according to the Koch-affiliated poll, is only three points down,” he wrote. “The Koch-backed attack group running ads against me just put out a new poll showing two of my Republican opponents within single digits — and, regardless of whether you trust their numbers, it’s sure to egg on more right-wing attacks.”

    “The only way to beat Al Franken is with a public servant from the people, not from the establishment in Washington, and Julianne Ortman is just that public servant,” Palin said in her endorsement announcement. Palin also said that Ortman is a true conservative and “a fighter for life and for our Second Amendment.”

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/04/07/Franken-Freaks-Out-Over-Palin-Endorsement-of-Tea-Party-Rival-in-Minnesota-Senate-Race

  94. Nice 🙂

    ARLINGTON, Texas — Former President Bill Clinton initially took a back seat to his successor during the national anthem at the NCAA championship game.

    But once the game began, Clinton and former President George W. Bush gathered in the same row and sat next to each other in the luxury box belonging to Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones at AT&T Stadium. They laughed while their images were being shown on the giant stadium video boards, and drew applause from the crowd during a break in the first half.

    http://www.politico.com/story/2014/04/ncaa-final-george-w-bush-bill-clinton-105462.html?hp=r11

  95. jeswezey

    April 8, 2014 at 8:07 am
    wbboei April 6, 2014 at 1:47 pm

    There you go on the vast left-wing conspiracy again.

    ————
    You don’t really believe that do you?

    If you do, then I commend to your attention the following excerpt from an article which appeared in The Nation, which is no conservative publication. And, by the way, is there anything in Obama’s agenda that you actually oppose?

    It is as plain to me as it is to many others across the political spectrum that our nation is being hijacked.

    And before you assume that Nazism was not a left wing ideology, consider what it stands for–the national socialist party. But that is really immaterial, because if you go back and re-read my post you will see that the thrust of my remarks related to an American hero of the Revolutionary War who was an inspired general and a gentleman.
    ————
    “One of the most striking characteristics of ‘60s radicalism was its aversion to liberalism,” wrote Alice Echols in Daring to Be Bad, her history of radical feminism. “Radicals’ repudiation of liberalism was not immediate; rather, it developed in response to liberalism’s defaults—specifically, its timidity regarding black civil rights and its escalation of the Vietnam War.” Something similar, albeit on a much smaller scale, happened after Bill Clinton ended welfare as we know it, and it’s happening now, as economic misery persists under Barack Obama. There’s disenchantment not just with electoral politics, but with liberal values as a whole. “White liberal” has, once again, emerged as a favorite left-wing epithet.

    Radicals are not liberals. In fact, they hate liberals for not embracing Marxism strongly enough and quickly enough to institute rapid, overnight change. (For further proof, simply search the #liberalzioniststrategies tag on Twitter.) We have learned from Obama and his “Rules for Radicals” cronies that radicalism can be dressed up and marketed as “liberal” because the “ends justify the means”. That is when, as Goldberg points out,

    “…activism becomes less about winning converts and changing the world and more about creating protected enclaves and policing speech.”

    The radicals in liberals’ clothing feed this chaos-induced “need” for government protection by drumming up carnal emotions about race, class, gender, sexuality, even religion. Ask yourself what you first noticed about the above-quoted paragraph: The fact that radicals have an aversion to liberalism, or the racism apparent in their expression “White liberal”? Like magicians, radicals distract their audience by demographically baiting them, all the while performing slight-of-hand with Constitutional freedoms.

  96. jeswezey

    Also, the first chapters are about the 2008 campaign – and it’s thrilling to relive that experience from inside the campaign, indeed inside HRC’s head – leading up to her decision to take the SoS offer.

    That’s as far as I’ve got as of now.

    ——–

    Anything new that you can share? Did Hillary resent what happened by the DNC?

    Did she mention that she had copies of the proof that voting fraud went on at the caucuses? If neither is mentioned, it’s proof that she is being careful of what she says for the sake of her party, and a run in 2016.

  97. Hey, you could’a figured that out from the trailer!

    —–
    I had no expectations on either the subject nor Russell Crow, but I was at least hoping for some decent side story line and special effects.

    It sucked to high heaven, all the way around.

  98. wbboei April 8, 2014 at 12:00 pm
    “The radicals in liberals’ clothing feed this chaos-induced “need” for government protection by drumming up carnal emotions about race, class, gender, sexuality, even religion.”

    The underpinnings of their ideology is greed. They never admit it but it is almost always about accumulating wealth-from other people. It is remarkable how little they create so they appropriate from others. They steal, eliminate competition, bankrupt, outlaw, tax to accumulate what they cannot or will not create for themselves. They are a parasitic ideology.

  99. jeswezey
    April 8, 2014 at 7:23 am

    ——
    Amazing, I am so jealous.

    In 2008, I was in Denver and missed several opportunities to see Hillary outside the convention. I went with a bunch of PUMAs to support and protest for her, and not having a rental car handy, and not getting the memo on her itinerary, we missed every chance to see her… by minutes. I am not a crybaby, but on the flight back home, while the fraud was giving his speech, I cried all the way home.

  100. foxyladi14
    April 8, 2014 at 11:54 am

    That photo is so cute, the two of them having fun together, watching the game.
    How about them Dallas cheerleaders, boys? 😉

  101. The idea that women make as much money at the same job as men, is just a mindf*ck to me.

    – Man and woman both get hired, do the same level job, get the same pay. At this point, Carville is right.

    The only way to get more pay for either of these people is to do a great job, and move up the ladder to the next level. This is where the ‘equal pay’ situation goes to Hell.

    Women, more often than not, doing a better job, are skipped over to move on to the next level, or their wait to move up is much, much longer than it takes the man to move up and make more money.

    Women are held back from being promoted, more so than men.

    I had this happen to me in banking. I was told by the manager that I was more qualified for the promotion, my record was better, I was next in line for the promotion that would be a pay increase, but the less experienced male, with poorer reviews would be promoted instead. The reasoning, “…he would be a husband someday, and he would have a family to support.

    I left banking within months of his promotion. The huge bank already had a class action lawsuit against them by women. (BofA)

  102. Me: There you go on the vast left-wing conspiracy again.

    wbboei April 8, 2014 at 12:00 pm:

    You don’t really believe that do you?

    I’m not sure what you’re referring to by “that”….

    If it’s your calling Hitler a leftist (which is what I objected to), then it’s not a matter of belief on my part, only a reversal of a linguistic convention the exact content of which has evolved over time.

    The Weimar Republic was very weak and beleaguered by debt demanded by the WWI victors. It was also socialist and communist, both parties rife with Jews as I said. Those socialists and communists, and therefore the Jews, were considered to be of the left. Weimar was a leftist state.

    Hitler adopted the name “National Socialist” for his party, but the name of his party did not make him or his party leftist, nor even socialist. He hated the socialists and communists, and therefore the Jews, with a passion because he felt they had lost the war for Germany, were effete intellectuals, and were keeping hard-working Germans from dominating the world as they should.

    When it came to imprisoning and exterminating people, Hitler brought all the socialists and communists he could find into the camps and, since he assumed all Jews were communists, he brought as many Jews as he could lay his hands on. Don’t forget that, if an estimated 6 million Jews died in the camps, there were another 6 million who died who were not Jews. He wanted to wipe out the left, which he viewed as weak.

    Hitler was the Right. His buddy and role model was Mussolini, and there is no doubt that Mussolini was of the Right too.

    The Russian Revolution brought the left to power in Russia. The Mensheviks were socialists, the left if you will, and the Bolsheviks came to be known as the pure communists, the hard left. Stalin, as leader of the Bolsheviks, was hard left.

    In any event, Hitler hated them all, left or hard left, and that’s why he went to war with Russia, which was what brought him down as we know. And I will also grant you that hard left and hard right resemble each other in more ways than one.

    if you go back and re-read my post you will see that the thrust of my remarks related to an American hero of the Revolutionary War who was an inspired general and a gentleman.

    Yes, I wasn’t refuting anything else in your post, just the reference to Hitler as the epitome of the hard left.

    Sorry, but I usually don’t put in my 2 cents just to say I agree….

    Your quote of Alice Echols is interesting but confusing. Again, there is a problem of vocabulary here, in which “radicalism” (of the 60’s) is equated with Marxism, and “liberalism” seems to have the meaning given to it in the early 20th century, i.e., valuing free speech, freedom of religion, free enterprise, etc., those things that seem to be guaranteed by the Constitution.

    You then use this antiquated vocabulary and apply it to the America of today, coming up with “radicals in liberals’ clothing”. “Liberal” means something else now, and “radical” is hardly associated at all with Marxism. I’m not sure what to make of it.

    Anyway, when you say…

    … by the way, is there anything in Obama’s agenda that you actually oppose?

    … it is obvious you’re trying to stray from the subject and pick a fight with me. I refuse to defend myself.

  103. jeswezey

    Sorry, but I usually don’t put in my 2 cents just to say I agree….

    —–
    That’s an important statement.

    Once, you asked me why you thought you were more prone to get into dust-ups on the blog.

    Maybe this is the key to why this happens.

    If most of your posts are based on disagreements or corrections to text written, and not necessarily agreements stated, then many may perceive you as being either an antagonist, or more approving of Obama than most of us.

    To me, the blog is about sharing ideas and politics in general. Some I agree with strongly, some I don’t give a hoot, some rub me the wrong way.

    I enjoy most of your comments, enjoy your battles and thoughts.

    That’s all.

  104. Obamacare’s next obstacle: Confusion as people use it

    [snip]

    1. I’m sick! Why can’t I get covered?

    Coverage of pre-existing conditions was a big selling point of the law, but not everyone realizes that they can’t just sign up the minute a condition is diagnosed. The regular dates and deadlines for enrolling still apply, no matter when you get appendicitis.

    Yet 6 in 10 uninsured Americans didn’t know March 31 was the cutoff for getting 2014 coverage, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation poll last month. They didn’t know that missing the deadline meant they’d be locked out until November (unless they’re eligible for Medicaid, which has no such restriction.)

    “Since they don’t even know that there’s a deadline, I don’t think that they could know the next step, which is that they can’t enroll for the rest of the year,” said Mollyann Brodie, executive director of public opinion and survey research at Kaiser.

    “It’s going to be a shock, and we are going to be fielding a lot of calls,” said Michael Mahoney, a senior vice president with the online insurance broker GoHealth. “But there’s not much you can do to help.”

    One reason for the confusion might have been all those delays and extensions. Just before March 31, the administration granted people with special circumstances or sign-up difficulties a bit more time.

    “There’s almost an assumption that there’s never a real deadline on anything,” said Tom Miller, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a critic of the law.

    The risk: Anyone who gets sick and thinks they can just waltz in and get insurance is in for a shock. They just might blame it on Obamacare — or President Barack Obama. And then when they get hit with a penalty for not having insurance, they’ll be even angrier.

    2. The $95 mandate myth

    Most people know there’s a penalty for being uncovered. But they are wrong about the amount.

    “You have to pause and say, ‘It’s not one Ben Franklin, it’s probably closer to three,’” said Brian Haile, senior vice president for health policy at Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc. Customers constantly walked in and declared that they were going to forgo coverage and cough up the $95 penalty, he said. Then they’d learn that it was actually $95 or 1 percent of income, whichever is greater. In 2016, the amount increases to $695 or 2.5 percent of income.

    http://www.politico.com/story/2014/04/obamacare-next-obstacle-105456.html

  105. WOW !!!! What a post. Fucked up the ass with a red hot poker. Thank Hey Zeus my keyboard is water proof.
    With regards to FOX. I think Greta is the best. Mostly because she asks herself questions. Bairr is good and Kelley I think is still learning. Hemmer and the morning crew are competent. Even Hannity has grown on me but I despise Bill O. Attacking the Clintons is fair game and every politician should get it. Disgusting tingles and his freakish allegiance to all things waffles is a joke.
    Has FOX ever been caught in an all out lie. I ask because my former friends always revert to blaming Bush, the stupid half term governor(i heart Palin), racism, homophobia and faux news lies. Every conversation. No matter the subject. When I inquire how many times has the New York Times printed a retraction I am called a name. Have a friend with a masters in sociology who argues with me that the story fabricated by a writer about Kitty Genovese took place. People did not watch from their windows as that poor woman died. She is a rabid democrat that goes ballistic about 1 percenters. Thinks her salary is too low. Works for the state as the person meeting with college kids on disabled stipends. Twice a semester she has meetings. Maybe 50k is under paid but she knew it when she got her degrees.

  106. Par for the course the wikipedia article on the Genovese murder reads a newspaper story — does not give the name of the newspaper(The New York Times) until half way throuhg the piece.

  107. http://nymag.com/news/frank-rich/clinton-scandals-2014-4/index3.html

    now here is an article that Leonara will find of interest…and probably believe every detail of…

    for Clinton supporters…especially supporters who lived through this period, most of us will find this article ironic…and ‘rich’, pardon my pun…for it to have been written to ‘defend’ the Clintons…by non other than Frank Rich (insert big laugh)

    …the only problem is Rich forgot to mention that the enemies against the Clintons went far beyond the GOP…he forgets to include himself, the hyperactive Tim Russett and the mean spirited and mysogynist Chris Matthews…all devoted Dems that attacked the Clintons while enjoying the re-occuring wisdom and a few laughs with the likes of G. Gordon Liddy and Tom Delay on their shows, as in Matthews referring to Liddy as “his good buddy”…for starters…

    yes, Rich forgot to go back and find quotes from dims going after the Clintons…I will never forget Tim Russet saying with such glee and a smile on his face “that Clinton’s Presidency was over” (first term, that is) and of course, the Clintons always made Chris Matthews “sick to his stomach, he could not stand them and what they stood for”

    …the one line like from this article is:

    It apparently hasn’t occurred to these outraged moral arbiters that the projection of sex scandals onto a couple campaigning as beloved national grandparents—Bill Clinton turns 70 in 2016, Hillary 69—will strike many Americans as ludicrous.

    …oh brother!

  108. More treasures on the link I posted at 5:41 above –

    5. It’s not free?

    Many people who signed up for Obamacare are insured for the first time — or the first time in a long time — and they are now confronting an array of befuddling terms. They don’t necessarily understand that a monthly premium isn’t the only bill they have to pay. The co-pays, deductibles and other costs they’ll encounter when they go see a provider could be a real shock.

    “Messages get very simplified, and it sounds like, ‘enroll in the Affordable Care Act and your worries are over for medical bills,’” AEI’s Miller said.

    [snip]

    6. The reality of costs

    Remember that “save $2,500 on your insurance” promise that presidential candidate Obama made in 2008? It took a few different forms and was couched with different time frames. Sometimes it was promised by the end of Obama’s first term. But all the nuances of economic modeling and different cost-growth curves never made it into the sound bites. People with insurance heard promises of big savings and — except for some on the exchanges — they haven’t experienced that.

    The overall rate of growth in national health spending including Medicare has slowed, Connolly noted. But for individuals? Neither premiums nor out-of-pocket spending has dropped — most certainly not by the $2,500 that people thought they were promised.

  109. S

    The people that hate the Clinton’s at this day in age are just morons.

    Bill was a GREAT President.
    Hillary was a great senator, SoS and they hated that she worked so hard as the First Lady.

  110. Holder’s refusal to treat members of the US congress with one ounce of respect is reprehensible. He is an arrogant, entitled ass, who believes himself to be above any law with which he disagrees. As Chief legal officer of the country, he sets one hell of an example. That POS should have been gone a long time ago.

  111. Reid think’s the Dems are doing “quite well”, and that if the election were held today, they would do well. He’s not worried about his job. no worries.
    I hope that beady-eyed little cretin has to eat those words. He had better hope he goes back in as majority leader. Otherwise, he’ll be on the receiving end of some well-deserved payback.

    _____________

    April 08, 2014, 03:35 pm

    “Reid: Dems would be ‘fine’ if election today”

    Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/202976-reid-dems-would-be-fine-if-election-were-today#ixzz2yMLOKXFo
    Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

  112. Shadowfax April 8, 2014 at 2:08 pm

    If most of your posts are based on disagreements or corrections to text written, and not necessarily agreements stated, then many may perceive you as being either an antagonist, or more approving of Obama than most of us.

    It’s a very good point, well-stated, and I get it; but this is a professional disease that is very hard to cure: I spend days on end poring over other people’s writings, and other people poring over mine, just to make sure we get a final product that is pertinent, complete and true. None of us spends any time praising anybody else for capturing the right turn of phrase, and we take criticism seriously but not personally.

    Anyway, about approving of Obama more than most of us, I should point out that most of us here, if not all, thoroughly disapprove of Obama, to the point where, if anyone says anything exculpatory of him at all, he or she is accused of being an Obot.

    For my part, I simply don’t care about Obama anymore since Nov 6, 2012. I can’t do anything about him and there’s no more to say. We’ve said a thousand times already that he’s a boob, a zero, a lazy narcissist, a sociopath, a weakling and so on and so forth, and we might take some pleasure in knowing that the media and the American people are finally coming around to our assessment of him; but what is the point of repeating all these epithets and rants for the thousand-and-first time amongst ourselves on this little blog, when there are so many issues that need to be hammered out in view of HRC 2016 and even 2014?

    To me, the blog is about sharing ideas and politics in general. Some I agree with strongly, some I don’t give a hoot, some rub me the wrong way.

    I agree.

    See? There! I said it!

  113. freespirit April 9, 2014 at 12:24 am

    Reid think’s the Dems are doing “quite well”, and that if the election were held today, they would do well. He’s not worried about his job. no worries.
    ———–

    Reid is about as relevant to national politics now as Obama. He’s up for re-election in 2016 and I doubt the Clintons will lift a finger to defend him – he ranks high on HRC’s hit list. He’ll probably be spending the 114th Congress without the gavel, he’ll be about 76 yr old, and he may just retire into oblivion.

    But:

    My (very faulty) crystal ball tells me that the Clintons will be very active in 2014 trying to keep the Senate and stave off losses in the House. They stand a chance of succeeding in this effort and, even if they fail, the chit list for 2016 will be enormous, and the next cycle (2016) can see a comeback of the Democratic Party under HRC’s baton. The 115th Congress will be very amenable to HRC.

    That also depends on what the Repugs do with their victory this year, assuming they do take the Senate. Will they impeach Obama? Will they repeal the PPACA? I don’t think they’ll do either.

  114. Shadowfax April 8, 2014 at 5:41 pm, Shadowfax April 8, 2014 at 6:51 pm

    Good article: What it shows is mainly lapses in messaging and not anything basically wrong with the law.

    My reaction is that, if the government and media had spent less time up till now decrying the faults in the law and rather explaining it to people, there would be less difficulty with it all around.

    Sorry again if that sounds like I’m going pro-Obama; it’s actually what HRC is saying…. Clear away the smoke and get down to the facts and evidence.

  115. My (very faulty) crystal ball tells me that the Clintons will be very active in 2014 trying to keep the Senate and stave off losses in the House. They stand a chance of succeeding in this effort and, even if they fail, the chit list for 2016 will be enormous, and the next cycle (2016) can see a comeback of the Democratic Party under HRC’s baton. The 115th Congress will be very amenable to HRC.

    That also depends on what the Repugs do with their victory this year, assuming they do take the Senate. Will they impeach Obama? Will they repeal the PPACA? I don’t think they’ll do either.
    _______________

    No doubt they will actively work to salvage the Dem seats in both houses. Bill lent his influential signature to DSCC for a fundraising email sent out last week. And, as we know about the Clintons, they will campaign those who remained loyal Hillary in 2008.

    I respect the fact that they have to do what they have to do. They are the two most influential members of the Democratic Party, and remain party loyals, in spite of this temporary period of Progressive dominance. It’s understandable that Big Dawg would support the DSCC fundraising effort. But, that doesn’t mean I have to feel compelled to contribute. Indeed, I did not. I believe it’s imperative that the Dims and MSM be taught a lesson. The Dims need to learn that they cannot willfully destroy democratic process (as they did in 2008), weaken this country economically and militarily, create racial strife, undermine the middle class, and on and on and on … and still expect Dems and former Dems to support them. MSM needs to learn that they cannot manipulate voters and control election outcomes.

    Even though I whole-heartedly support Hillary, I don’t support the Democratic Party at this point. If and when the progressives return to the slimy hidey-holes from which they emerged in 2008, and control of the party is returned to the Dems who actually give a damn about this county, maybe then the party will be deserving of support.

  116. For goodness sake…looneys on the loose….hope all are not in any danger…

    Update – Police say 20 students injured in stabbing outside a high school in Murrysville in Pennsylvania and the suspect is now in custody

  117. Larry Johnson exposes big media for what they are, and it is exactly what I have been saying about them ever since 2007.

    It cannot be otherwise:

    —————————
    The feckless irrelevance of the US media was on display this week as they averted their eyes and ignored the damning article by Sy Hersh. Taking America to war is the most serious matter there is. Doing so on false pretenses should awaken the slumbering public and evoke a demand for accountability. But not in America. Hell, the mainstream media, including conservative outlets, do not even want to engage the debate.

    This is dangerous. The concept of a free press is critical to a functioning, healthy democracy. Journalists are supposed to provide a check on Government by exposing lies and misrepresentations. But we have lived to witness the transformation of journalism into a lap dog for the governing power. Right now it is serving the interests of Barack Obama. Few are willing to blow the whistle on his foreign policy debacles. Actual whistleblowers who do try to raise the alarm end up being prosecuted by the Obama Administration and how does most of the media react? They do nothing. They sit silently or, worse, make excuses to justify the abuse of power by their beloved Obama.

    I will state this clearly–if you think it does not matter that President authorizes the CIA to put together a covert plan to provide arms to radical Islamists intent on ousting a secular ruler then you are a moron. If you think it does not matter that the President lies about intelligence and uses this fiction to try to persuade the American public that they should back a military strike in Syria then you are a moron.

    I am terrified at what American has become. We are enamored of petty, meaningless scandals, both real and imagined. We are unwilling to demand accountability of our government. And when someone of the stature of Seymour Hersh produces a heavily documented, multiply sourced exposé on the failed attempt of Barack Obama to start a war, there is not even a collective yawn, we are in trouble.

  118. Forty years ago, I wrote an article critical of the insanity defense. In the course of the research, I encountered an article by one of the leading proponents. He said that our society was so riven with fundamental disagreements on core values as it moved from a judae christian to a secular foundation that it was incumbent upon government to play a paternalistic role, and to engage in speech codes to keep the lid on the boiler. Whether or not that was true then was subject to debate, but today…. res ipsa locitur–the thing speaks for itself. Just look at this one–at Brandeis University. There is no way their namesake would have ever approved of this, but then again he was a liberal, not a totalitarian. The great accomplishment of the Obama administration is to conflate the two concepts in the public mind, which is ironic since the first target of the left is the moderate liberal, as noted in my posting above. Thus, the new test for speech is not whether it is true, but whether it makes someone uncomfortable, someone who might otherwise be incented to do something about it, to correct the underlying problem.
    ————————————-
    Brandeis University in Massachusetts announced Tuesday that it had withdrawn the planned awarding of an honorary degree to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a staunch critic of Islam and its treatment of women, after protests from students and faculty.

    The university said in a statement posted online that the decision had been made after a discussion between Ali and university President Frederick Lawrence.

    “She is a compelling public figure and advocate for women’s rights, and we respect and appreciate her work to protect and defend the rights of women and girls throughout the world,” said the university’s statement. “That said, we cannot overlook certain of her past statements that are inconsistent with Brandeis University’s core values.”

    Ali, a member of the Dutch Parliament from 2003 to 2006, has been quoted as making comments critical of Islam. That includes a 2007 interview with Reason Magazine in which she said of the religion, “Once it’s defeated, it can mutate into something peaceful. It’s very difficult to even talk about peace now. They’re not interested in peace. I think that we are at war with Islam. And there’s no middle ground in wars.”

    Ali was raised in a strict Muslim family, but after surviving a civil war, genital mutilation, beatings and an arranged marriage, she renounced the faith in her 30s. She has not commented publicly on the issue of the honorary degree.

    In 2007, Ali helped establish the AHA Foundation, which works to protect and defend the rights of women in the West from oppression justified by religion and culture, according to its website. The foundation also strives to protect basic rights and freedoms of women and girls. This includes control of their own bodies, access to an education and the ability to work outside the home and control their own income, the website says.

    More than 85 of about 350 faculty members at Brandeis signed a letter asking for Ali to be removed from the list of honorary degree recipients. And an online petition created Monday by students at the school of 5,800 had gathered thousands of signatures from inside and outside the university as of Tuesday afternoon.

    “This is a real slap in the face to Muslim students,” said senior Sarah Fahmy, a member of the Muslim Student Association who created the petition said before the university withdrew the honor.

    “But it’s not just the Muslim community that is upset but students and faculty of all religious beliefs,” she said. “A university that prides itself on social justice and equality should not hold up someone who is an outright Islamophobic.”

    Thomas Doherty, chairman of American studies, refused to sign the faculty letter. He said it would have been great for the university to honor “such a courageous fighter for human freedom and women’s rights, who has put her life at risk for those values.”

    Bernard Macy, a 1979 Brandeis graduate, sent an email this week to university President Frederick Lawrence and several members of the faculty saying, “Thank you for recognizing Ayaan Hirsi Ali for defending Muslim women against Islamist honor violence.”

    But Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the nation’s largest Muslim advocacy group, said, “It is unconscionable that such a prestigious university would honor someone with such openly hateful views.”

    The organization sent a letter to university President Frederick Lawrence on Tuesday requesting that it drop plans to honor Ali.

    “This makes Muslim students feel very uneasy,” Joseph Lumbard, chairman of Islamic and Middle Eastern studies, said in an interview. “They feel unwelcome here.”

  119. Media I saw had nothing to say about Holder/Gohmert/Gowdy. But that may not be over if enough people stir.

    In lieu of questioning Holder, TX Republican Congressman Blake Farenthold delivered the following statement: “I’m committed to maintaining the Constitutional balance of power and the authority that this legislative branch has, and I just don’t think it’s appropriate that Mr. Holder be here. If an American citizen had not complied with one of the Justice Department’s subpoenas, they would be in jail and not sitting here in front of me, testifying.”
    http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/04/09/congressman-eric-holder-should-be-jail

  120. Hold’em, I hadn’t seen a report of Farenthold’s response to Holder’s appearance, and i’m sure if MSM reports at all on this, it will paint the Congressman as a stark-raving racist, or another right wing kook from Texas. I don’t know the man. He may be both. But, he is right about Holder. Holder has consistently behaved as if he were above the law, not subject to the constraints and legal standards that apply to all Americans. Yet, while blatantly refusing to comply with the law, he had the gall and bad judgement to accuse a state’s legal system of failing to uphold the law in the Zimmerman case, targeting this American, judging him as racist, and pronouncing him guilty.

    The president fails to hold him accountable for his violations, because he too, believes himself to be above the law, and exempt from all standards and regulations with which he disagrees. Dems in congress refuse to hold him accountable because they’re weak, cowardly, and lacking moral fiber.

    Both are the horrible role models for the country in general, and especially for the young black and Hispanic men they have identified as in need of support.

  121. This was the one guy I worried about. Since he had supported Bush before, and is listened to by the base, I was concerned that he would support him again in 2016. Fortunately for the nation, the bloom is off the rose. Personally, I think Bush’s ill considered comment that illegal immigration is an act of love, which trumps the rule of law, the weight on our safety nets, and the depressing effect on wages, was the political equivalent of the kiss of death. That an experienced politician like him would say this is remarkable–or a better descriptor might be just insane./
    ————————–

    In 2012, I encouraged Jeb Bush to run for President. He would have been a far superior candidate to the Republican nominee.

    But I think Jeb Bush’s time to run is over. We have an amazing crop of potential candidates and a far deeper bench than the Democrats. Bush running in 2016 would be a distraction in media coverage from a solid crop of candidates. Frankly, the idea of his candidacy is just a security blanket for the Linuses of the party who feel their control slipping away. It is not a surprise that many of them are former G.W. Bushies not yet ready to move out of the way for a new team with a new leader.—Erick Erickson, editor, Red State Blog

  122. free: i’m sure if MSM reports at all on this, it will paint the Congressman as a stark-raving racist, or another right wing kook from Texas
    —————
    There is that weakness, but the Congressman was courageously pointing out the double standard. Someone at Fox chose the headline + link for sensationalizing the report.
    Nonetheless, that’s 3 House members not backing down and I’m trying to coax Boehner out of hiding.

    Many screen captures I’d taken early on were unavailable to me for the longest time but I can see them all now and took such pleasure in the January 6 2011 coverage of Boehner leading the House in reading aloud the US Constitution. He was celebrating the Tea Party victory of GE 2010. He was full of We The People, vowing to rule by the book. etc. https://twitter.com/viannahlee/status/453181565741170688/photo/1 You’re all welcome to have a look if you care to. I never got those Puma Prowls out of my system.

  123. What are the 2016 people up to…..well this tells you…..

    Hmmmm……For those keeping track: this weekend, Ryan will be in Iowa, and Cruz, Rand, and Huckabee will be in New Hampshire. Where will Jeb be? you can tell those running…….

  124. foxyladi14
    April 9, 2014 at 3:22 pm
    ——————————

    Not gonna happen, not while Holder is running the show at the DOJ. That’s like asking the fox to guard the hen house.

  125. Cummings….you may be going to jail…

    http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2014/04/09/new-emaisl-show-lois-lerner-fed-information-about-true-the-vote-to-democrat-elijah-cummings-n1822247

    BREAKING: Emails Show Lois Lerner Fed True the Vote Tax Information to Democrat Elijah Cummings

    New IRS emails released by the House Oversight Committee show staff working for Democratic Ranking Member Elijah Cummings communicated with the IRS multiple times between 2012 and 2013 about voter fraud prevention group True the Vote. True the Vote was targeted by the IRS after applying for tax exempt status more than two years ago. Further, information shows the IRS and Cummings’ staff asked for nearly identical information from True the Vote President Catherine Engelbrecht about her organization, indicating coordination and improper sharing of confidential taxpayer information.

    Chairman of the House Oversight Committee Darrell Issa, along with five Subcommittee Chairmen are demanding Cummings provide an explanation for the staff inquiries to the IRS about True the Vote and for his denial that his staff ever contacted the IRS about the group.

    “Although you have previously denied that your staff made inquiries to the IRS about conservative organization True the Vote that may have led to additional agency scrutiny, communication records between your staff and IRS officials – which you did not disclose to Majority Members or staff – indicates otherwise,” the letter to Cummings states. “As the Committee is scheduled to consider a resolution holding Ms. Lerner, a participant in responding to your communications that you failed to disclose, in contempt of Congress, you have an obligation to fully explain your staff’s undisclosed contacts with the IRS.”

    The first contact between the IRS and Cummings’ staffers about True the Vote happened in August 2012. In January 2013, staff asked for more information from the IRS about the group. Former head of tax exempt groups at the IRS Lois Lerner went out of her way to try and get information to Cummings’ office.The information Cummings received was not shared with Majority Members on the Committee.

    On January 28, three days after staffers requested more information, Lerner wrote an email to her deputy Holly Paz, who has since been put on administrative leave, asking, “Did we find anything?” Paz responded immediately by saying information had not been found yet, to which Lerner replied, “Thanks, check tomorrow please.”

    On January 31, Paz sent True the Vote’s 990 forms to Cumming’s staff.

    Up until this point, Rep. Cummings has denied his staff ever contacted the IRS about True the Vote and their activities during Oversight hearings. In fact, on February 6, 2014 during a Subcommittee hearing where Engelbrecht testified, Cummings vehemently denied having any contact or coordination in targeting True the Vote when attorney Cleta Mitchell, who is representing the group, indicated staff on the Committee had been involved in communication with the IRS. This was the exchange:

    Ms. Mitchell: We want to get to the bottom of how these coincidences happened, and we’re going to try to figure out whether any – if there was any staff of this committee that might have been involved in putting True the Vote on the radar screen of some of these Federal agencies. We don’t know that, but we – we’re going to do everything we can do to try to get to the bottom of how did this all happen.

    Mr. Cummings. Will the gentleman yield?

    Mr. Meadows. Yes.

    Mr. Cummings. I want to thank the gentleman for his courtesy. What she just said is absolutely incorrect and not true.

    After the hearing, Engelbrecht filed an ethics complaint against Cummings for his targeting and intimidation of her organization.

    Rep. Cummings has described the investigation into IRS targeting of conservative groups as a “witch hunt,” and has tried multiple times to put the investigation on hold.

    “These documents, indicating involvement of IRS officials at the center of the targeting scandal responding to your requests, raise serious questions about your actions and motivations for trying to bring this investigation to a premature end. If the Committee, as you publicly suggested in June 2013,’wrap[ped] this case up and moved on’ at that time, the Committee may have never seen documents raising questions about your possible coordination with the IRS in communications that excluded the Committee Majority,” the letter sent by Issa and the Chairmen further states. “As the Committee continues to investigate the IRS’s wrongdoing and to gather all relevant testimonial and documentary evidence, the American people deserve to know the full truth. They deserve to know why the Ranking Member and Minority staff of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform surreptitiously contacted the IRS about an individual organization without informing the Majority Staff and even failed to disclose the contact after it became an issue during a subcommittee proceeding…We ask that you explain the full extent of you and your staff’s communications with the IRS and why you chose to keep communications with the IRS from Majority Members and staff even after it became a subject of controversy.”

    The House Oversight Committee will vote tomorrow about whether to hold Lerner in contempt of Congress.

    ………………

    Did Cummings knowing ask and get confidential tax info on opponents?

    This is beyond a joke.

    Can of worms opening right up.

  126. foxyladi14
    April 9, 2014 at 3:22 pm
    Go to jail Lois.
    —————–
    Holder’s busy doing Christie.

  127. I’m afraid you’re probably Tony S. There is no reason to think that Eric Holder will allow any serious action against Lerner. His Department of Justice is anything but.

    This is an old article, and I may have posted it previously, but it shows a pattern of abuse of power from back when Lerner was with the Federal Election Commission. The attorney who claims to know Lois’s career as well as anyone says she wanted to limit the influence of money on politics, and believed the Republicans sought to gain influence through money. She, apparently, took it upon herself to find a way to right what she believed to be a wrong. Wow. Talk about self-importance. She decides how things need to be done, assumes the Pubs are not doing things as they should, and sets about violating the law in order to punish and curtail what she believed to be their wrongdoing. Some ego Lois has.

    No doubt the Pubs have pulled every trick in the book to gain a political advantage. They’re no strangers to dirty dealings. But if anyone thinks the Dems are one bit better, they are sadly misinformed.
    ____________

    MAY 23, 2013 4:30 PM

    “Lois Lerner at the FEC
    Before her IRS tenure, Lerner subjected conservative groups to heightened scrutiny.”

    By Eliana Johnson
     
    Before Lois Lerner was embroiled in the IRS scandal, she was involved in a questionable pattern of law enforcement at the Federal Election Commission that mirrors the discrimination recently exposed at the nation’s tax-collection agency.
    One of Lerner’s former colleagues tells National Review Online that her political ideology was evident during her tenure at the FEC, where, he says, she routinely subjected groups seeking to expand the influence of money in politics — including, in her view, conservatives and Republicans — to the sort of heightened scrutiny we now know they came under at the IRS.

    Before the IRS, Lerner served as associate general counsel and head of the enforcement office at the FEC, which she joined in 1986. Working under FEC general counsel Lawrence Noble, Lerner drafted legal recommendations to the agency’s commissioners intended to guide their actions on the complaints brought before them.

    “I’ve known Lois since 1985,” says Craig Engle, a Washington, D.C., attorney who from 1986 to 1995 served as the executive assistant to one of the FEC’s commissioners and later worked as general counsel to the National Republican Senatorial Committee. “I’m probably one of the few people in Washington who really knows her whole career as opposed to those who have come across her lately.”

    Engle describes Lerner as pro-regulation and as somebody seeking to limit the influence of money in politics. The natural companion to those views, he says, is her belief that “Republicans take the other side” and that conservative groups should be subjected to more rigorous investigations. According to Engle, Lerner harbors a “suspicion” that conservative groups are intentionally flouting the law. 

    (Snip)

    http://www.nationalreview.com

  128. wbboei April 9, 2014 at 10:56 am

    It’s a very interesting event recounted in the article you post, though I’m not sure how it reflects your introductory comments about “speech codes”, which are very interesting too.

    In my opinion, the “underlying problem” of the objection to Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s honorary degree can be seen in a quote in the article:

    “Once it’s defeated, it can mutate into something peaceful. It’s very difficult to even talk about peace now. They’re not interested in peace. I think that we are at war with Islam. And there’s no middle ground in wars.”

    Here, we have “they’re not interested in peace.… we are at war with Islam.”

    Such a statement is obviously a “we-they” view of her subject that is indicative of a win-lose war mindset, moreover speaking directly of “defeat,” “at war” and “no middle ground.” Is this something that Brandeis – whether the founder or the present administrators – would be willing to support?

    How to take such a statement? Am I “we” or am I “they”? Since I am not a Muslim, I suppose I am in the “we” camp, while the student in the next room, who is Muslim, is in the “they” camp. Ayaan Hirsi Ali is projecting her war onto both me and that student, and so we get:

    “But it’s not just the Muslim community that is upset but students and faculty of all religious beliefs,” [Sarah Fahmy of the Muslim Student Association] said. “A university that prides itself on social justice and equality should not hold up someone who is an outright Islamophobic.”

    So, in the final analysis, I have to agree with the objection to Ali’s honorary degree. Do we agree on this? Or does your new-found liberalism dictate that Brandeis hand out the degree despite the war-mongering content of Ali’s remarks?

  129. moononpluto
    April 9, 2014 at 7:01 pm
    “Ms. Mitchell: We want to get to the bottom of how these coincidences happened, and we’re going to try to figure out whether any – if there was any staff of this committee that might have been involved in putting True the Vote on the radar screen of some of these Federal agencies. We don’t know that, but we – we’re going to do everything we can do to try to get to the bottom of how did this all happen.”

    True the Vote was organized by a small business owner who was harassed not only by IRS audits which found nothing amiss, but also by the EPA, OSHA, and other federal agencies at her business in a suburb of Houston, Texas. Some of the agencies told her that they did not know why they were told to show up at her business.

    Cummings staff need to be questioned under oath on who else besides the IRS they contacted to punish and terrorize Ms Engelbrecht to stop her activism for publicizing voter fraud. Cummings being placed as minority ranking member on this investigative committee and his bizarre behavior is becoming all too apparent.

  130. Big Dawg’s in Phildelphia today to help Chelsea’s mother-in-law who has been out of office since she cast a deciding vote for Bill way back when.
    Bill Clinton visits Phila. to work his charm for Margolies
    4/9/14. Snip On Thursday, Clinton comes to Philadelphia for a cause close to home: the U.S. House campaign of Marjorie Margolies, who is trying to win back the suburban seat she lost in 1994 after her decisive vote for Clinton’s first budget, which hiked taxes. He has said that she saved his presidency and helped create the economic expansion of the 1990s. Oh, and Margolies is also Chelsea Clinton’s mother-in-law. The former president is scheduled to headline two fund-raising receptions for Margolies at the Radisson Blu Warwick Hotel in Center City.
    In the summer of 2012, when President Obama’s reelection campaign seemed listless, Bill Clinton electrified the Democratic National Convention with a ringing defense of the administration’s record. Obama gave him a new nickname: Secretary of Explaining Stuff. Clinton barnstormed the swing states. This year, Democrats are deploying him in the seven most competitive U.S. Senate races, all in states that Obama lost in 2012.In Pennsylvania, Clinton, 67, has a reputation as a closer who can tilt some elections. His support helped elect Kathleen G. Kane attorney general in 2012 and turned around a special congressional election in western Pennsylvania that year. Farther back, Clinton rallied Philadelphia voters for John F. Street in the 1999 mayoral race, when it looked as if he could lose to Republican Sam Katz….
    http://articles.philly.com/2014-04-09/news/49003156_1_bill-clinton-president-obama-hillary-rodham-clinton

    AG Kane currently looking too much like a Democrat for informed Pennsylvanians. Don’t know if that recent bump will affect WJC’s efforts today.

  131. Mormaer
    April 10, 2014 at 5:51 am
    moononpluto
    April 9, 2014 at 7:01 pm
    “Ms. Mitchell: We want to get to the bottom of how these coincidences happened, and we’re going to try to figure out whether any – if there was any staff of this committee that might have been involved in putting True the Vote on the radar screen of some of these Federal agencies. We don’t know that, but we – we’re going to do everything we can do to try to get to the bottom of how did this all happen.”

    True the Vote was organized by a small business owner who was harassed not only by IRS audits which found nothing amiss, but also by the EPA, OSHA, and other federal agencies at her business in a suburb of Houston, Texas. Some of the agencies told her that they did not know why they were told to show up at her business.

    Cummings staff need to be questioned under oath on who else besides the IRS they contacted to punish and terrorize Ms Engelbrecht to stop her activism for publicizing voter fraud. Cummings being placed as minority ranking member on this investigative committee and his bizarre behavior is becoming all too apparent.

    ____________________

    I heard the True the Vote founder interviewed a few months ago. If what she said was true, and there’s no reason to believe otherwise, she was harassed mercilessly by various agencies of government. By the time it was all over, it had taken a financial toll and disrupted her life in various ways, creating much stress for her and her family.

    Both Republicans and Democrats should be outraged that this woman was targeted in this way.

    wbb, regarding the “we-they” mindset related to Islam, in Jeswezy’s response to your post – Irrespective of its applicability in the situation on campus, a significant faction of Islam drew that “we-they” line a long time ago, declaring that “they” (radical Islam – and some not so radical) hate and want to annihilate us (meaning Americans – the “we” in that equation).

  132. holdthemaccountable April 10, 2014 at 6:00 am

    “…new nickname: Secretary of Explaining Stuff.”

    It’s a pretty good description of WJC as a whole and, in my opinion, why he’s such a good campaigner: He appeals to people’s reason. I remember his speech before the 2012 D convention: In particular, he made a reasoned, evidence-base defense of Obamacare – and that is the main reason why, on this blog, I have not jumped on our little bandwagon in favor of its repeal.

    More recently, in a speech that I failed to report here, WJC told Democrats up for election this year that their best bet was not to run away from Obamacare but to embrace it.

    There is no doubt that, if “Democrats are deploying him in the seven most competitive U.S. Senate races, all in states that Obama lost in 2012,” it is for this very same reason: Obama never appealed to people’s reason, but WJC does. He is exemplary in this regard – I think even better than HRC.

    As for his campaigning for Margolies, as your article points out, it’s not because she is Chelsea’s mother-in-law but because WJC owes her from way back. The chit list cuts both ways.

  133. freespirit April 10, 2014 at 8:37 am

    “…Irrespective of its applicability in the situation on campus, a significant faction of Islam drew that “we-they” line a long time ago…“

    True, but pointless:

    (1) If we want to talk about what happened “a long time ago,” we can go back further still and find that, since the Crusades, “we” declared war on “them” first, and often, for centuries.

    (2) Deciding who started this particular war is part of the war mindset that Brandeis, or at least anyone who wants to end it, cannot be especially concerned about.

    For example: Who started World War I? The victors decided the other guy started it and thus inflicted a “peace” treaty that brought on the Second World War. Who started the Vietnam war? The victors did, so there was no retribution.

    In other words, the answer to Who Started This War is: So what? Who cares?

    (3) The award of an honorary degree at Brandeis is the subject of the article wbb posted. Pointing out that “we-they” was invented by the other side cannot be taken “irrespective of its applicability in the situation on campus.” The degree is all about Brandeis, it’s a Brandeis event. The question of whether or not Brandeis should participate in the war should be posed, rather, irrespective of who started it.

  134. CBS announces Stephen Colbert to succeed David Letterman as next host of “The Late Show”

    …………………………

    Ugh from bad to worse………..could think of way better people for the job.

  135. Hmmmm……For those keeping track: this weekend, Ryan will be in Iowa, and Cruz, Rand, and Huckabee will be in New Hampshire. Where will Jeb be? you can tell those running…….


    Toss Sweaters into the mix too, and Hillary will win in a landslide against all of these weaklings.

  136. jeswezey

    It’s a very good point, well-stated, and I get it; but this is a professional disease that is very hard to cure: I spend days on end poring over other people’s writings, and other people poring over mine, just to make sure we get a final product that is pertinent, complete and true.

    —-

    Sounds like more of a choice than a disease. You are intelligent enough to know that this blog is nothing like the work that you do. Lighten up, at least here.

  137. Jes, It’s not pointless to those who have been victims or survivors of victims of terrorist attacks by radical Islamists. The issue of who started which war , when is irrelevant to the point I was making. War and the resulting loss of life are tragic – especially, when those killed are innocents, not engaged in combat. However, in my view, there is a difference between war, declared or initiated by a country, and acts of terror carried out by non-government (ostensibly) entities who have an obsessive hatred for Americans.

    You may disagree, which, obviously is your right. I’m not sure how helpful it is to parse the premise expressed to such an extent that its basic premise is distorted.

  138. Shadowfax April 10, 2014 at 12:53 pm
    Ryan… Cruz, Rand, and Huckabee, Sweaters

    Hillary will win in a landslide against all of these weaklings.
    ******

    Weaklings? I’m not sure that’s the word.

    BTW, I missed something somewhere along the line: Who is “Sweaters”?

  139. NSA monitors WiFi on US planes ‘in violation’ of privacy laws

    —–
    What next? Webcams in bathrooms?

    …………………

    How would we know, probably there already…i saw this news report here europe a little while back where in one airport they have installed new cameras and microphones built into the lights, you would not even know they were there….there was no part of the airport uncovered.

  140. freespirit April 10, 2014 at 1:40 pm

    It’s not pointless to those who have been victims or survivors of victims of terrorist attacks by radical Islamists.

    No, you’re right, I was going to make that point too: That the war Ali speaks of is for real – especially as it concerns her own personal history – and that it is real for a lot of innocents, as you say, who are embroiled in it by terrorists who strike randomly.

    Such a war may someday even be brought to the Brandeis campus.

    But that is no reason for Brandeis to take a stand as “we” in this war, now, by giving an honorary degree to someone who is fighting however bravely on “our” side.

    I’m sorry if I distorted your basic premise. To my mind, I don’t think I did. Please explain.

  141. Shadowfax April 10, 2014 at 1:12 pm

    Sounds like more of a choice than a disease. You are intelligent enough to know that this blog is nothing like the work that you do. Lighten up, at least here.

    Well, it’s a choice if you wish; but it really could be no other way. I’m cut out for my work – it didn’t fall into my lap like that.

    I take your admonishment to “lighten up” like calling monkeys to come eat a scrumptious steak-and-potatoes dinner. It’s not in my DNA. My brother was the joker and could have made a living off his comedy; but I was the sourpuss of the family.

    One thing would lighten me up considerably: Early in the morning (Paris time) on the first Wednesday of November 2016, reading here at H44 that “It’s over: Hillary is the next president of the United States.”

  142. Just listened to President Obama’s big Civil Rights speech in Austin today honoring LBJ and his role in it.

    Refresh my memory, didn’t Hillary say in the 2008 Primary that it took Martin Luther King…and…LBJ to shepherd
    the act through? If I am remembering correctly she was nailed as a RACIST by BO and his campaign.

    Now BO is in Austin, TX literally singing the praises of LBJ and his role and it is considered historic and wonderful.
    Whatever it takes to whip up “the base” it would seem.

  143. Southern Born April 10, 2014 at 2:20 pm

    “… didn’t Hillary say in the 2008 Primary that it took Martin Luther King…and…LBJ to shepherd the act through? If I am remembering correctly she was nailed as a RACIST by BO and his campaign.”

    You remember correctly. But you see, BO can say things like that because of his skin color – everyone knows he’s not racist.

  144. wbboei
    April 4, 2014 at 4:14 pm

    Morris claims that the democrat base will not turn out and that the republican base will at the mid term elections. Seldom right but never in doubt Dick. A couple comments to this struck me as accurate concerning the Republican base, perhaps because I happen to agree with them . . .
    _____________________

    I hope he is right. 🙂

  145. moononpluto
    April 10, 2014 at 12:11 pm

    CBS announces Stephen Colbert to succeed David Letterman as next host of “The Late Show”
    __________________________

    I won’t be watching no matter who does it.
    There will never be another Carson. 🙂

  146. moononpluto
    April 9, 2014 at 7:01 pm

    Cummings….you may be going to jail…

    ________________________

    No one will go to Jail Moon. Holder and Obama will see to that. 👿

  147. I was the sourpuss of the family.


    Well, here’s a taste of existential philosophy for ya, the choice to frame yourself as a sourpuss can only be changed by you.

    We may not be privileged enough to have much of anything fall into our laps, but how we reprieve of ourselves, is something we do have some control over.

    I bet you could have a few bites of meat and potatoes before Hillary is President, if you try. 😉

  148. Morris claims…

    Sooner or later, he is bound to get something right.

    He is such a gasbag, I am glad to see him struggle to climb back on his high horse.

    I hope Hillary gets another chance to slap him around in the near future.

  149. foxyladi14
    April 10, 2014 at 3:31 pm

    ——
    Foxy, I can’t tell you what a pick-me-up it is to see your posts of Trey.

    Another day with Trey, yea!

  150. CBS announces Stephen Colbert to succeed David Letterman as next host of “The Late Show”

    ——
    The fake Republican.

    Zzzzzzzzzzzzz

    Boring.

  151. this is for Admin and Wbboei…if you can clarify consititionally speaking…

    when you have someone like AG Holder in contempt of Congress and now Lerner…and we have Holder, Lerner and the Executive Branch working on the same side for different issues, Fast & Furious, IRS, etc. and withholding subpoened information the Congress has requested..

    what recourse does the Congress have? can they have the Supreme Court make a ruling??

    can the Supreme Court interpret or mediate the impasse?

    today I read that Holder, while attending Sharpton’s meeting, was whing about how he is treated and that no other AG has ever been treated in such a manner, implying racism…hmmm…seems to me Gonzales was hounded out of his AG position and others that are before my time have have had to deal with the “hardball” of the political game…hell, Bill and Hill got it much worse than anything O or MO have had to endure…imagine dragging MO before a special prosecutor…

    anyway…and then to see Holder yesterday as the embodiment of the AG of the USA say to a member of Congress “You don’t want to go there with me buddy” was shocking…

    it almost sounded like a threat and the ultimate in disrespect and a very bad example to set…especially for young hotheads…

    so I am wondering…if Holder is in contempt of Congress for multiple reasons, what can the Congress do? is there a position or avenue for the Supreme Court to intercede??

  152. Eric Holder’s defiant exchange with Representative Louis Gohmert on Tuesday shouldn’t surprise anybody. This is typical behavior by Obama’s thug regime. But Gohmert, on the other hand, was surprising. He was over the target when he brought up Fast and Furious. The mere mention rattled Obama’s top enforcer. Holder’s body language and “Don’t go there, buddy” along with his parting shot, “good Luck with your asparagus” couldn’t have been a better sign of how guilty Holder really is. Just because the AG has no fear of a Congress led by a wimp crying over at Taco Bell, doesn’t mean the spirits of Brian Terry, Jaime Zapata and Mexican children, murdered by weapons the DOJ walked straight into the hands of drug cartels, aren’t still seeking justice. Otherwise, why would Holder become so unhinged when Gohmert brought up the contempt charge, saying “You should not assume.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/04/holder_is_a_basket_case_when_it_comes_to_fast_and_furious_.html

  153. After Attorney General Eric Holder revealed that he was considering forcing gun owners to wear identifying bracelets

    —-

    He and oBama think of the most nitwit ideas to try and control us, meanwhile they are totally incompetent when it comes to their jobs.

    Have we ever had such slackers running our country before?

  154. S

    April 10, 2014 at 4:35 pm

    when you have someone like AG Holder in contempt of Congress . . . what recourse does Congress have?
    —————————

    Congress’s Contempt Power and the
    Enforcement of Congressional Subpoenas:
    Law, History, Practice, and Procedure
    by the Congressional Research Service

    Congress has three formal methods by which it can combat non-compliance with a duly issuedsubpoena. Each of these methods invokes the authority of a separate branch of government.

    First,the long dormant inherent contempt power permits Congress to rely on its own constitutional authority to detain and imprison a contemnor until the individual complies with congressional demands.

    Second, the criminal contempt statute permits Congress to certify a contempt citation tothe executive branch for the criminal prosecution of the contemnor.

    Finally, Congress may rely on the judicial branch to enforce a congressional subpoena. Under this procedure, Congress may seek a civil judgment from a federal court declaring that the individual in question is legally obligated to comply with the congressional subpoena.

    A number of obstacles face Congress in any attempt to enforce a subpoena issued against an
    executive branch official. Although the courts have reaffirmed Congress’s constitutional authority to issue and enforce subpoenas, efforts to punish an executive branch official for non-compliance
    with a subpoena through criminal contempt will likely prove unavailing in many, if not most, circumstances. Where the official refuses to disclose information pursuant to the President’s decision that such information is protected under executive privilege, past practice suggests that the Department of Justice (DOJ) will not pursue a prosecution for criminal contempt.

    In addition, although it appears that Congress may be able to enforce its own subpoenas through a declaratory civil action, relying on this mechanism to enforce a subpoena directed at an executive official may prove an inadequate means of protecting congressional prerogatives due to the time required to achieve a final, enforceable ruling in the case. Although subject to practical limitations, Congress retains the ability to exercise its own constitutionally based authorities to enforce a subpoena through inherent contempt.

    (In the case of Eric Holder)

    In light of the Committee’s continued dissatisfaction with DOJ’s refusal to comply fully with the subpoenas, Chairman Issa scheduled a vote to hold Attorney General Holder in contempt ofCongress. Although the Attorney General and Chairman Issa met the night before the scheduled vote, they were unable to reach an acceptable accommodation with regard to document disclosure. On the morning of the vote, President Obama formally invoked executive privilege “over the relevant post-February 4, 2011, documents.”361 In defending this assertion, DOJ noted that:

    the compelled production to Congress of these internal Executive Branch documents
    generated in the course of the deliberative process concerning the Department’s response to congressional oversight and related media inquiries would have significant, damaging consequences … it would inhibit the candor of such Executive Branch deliberations in the future and significantly impair the Executive Branch’s ability to respond independently and effectively to congressional oversight. Such compelled disclosure would be inconsistent with the separation of powers established in the Constitution and would potentially create animbalance in the relationship between these co-equal branches of the Government.

    In its contempt citation, the Oversight and Government Reform Committee rejected the
    President’s assertion of executive privilege, calling it “transparently invalid” due to the timing
    Research Service 48
    and blanket application of the privilege to all withheld documents.363 The Committee The contempt citation was reported to the full House, and on June 28, 2012, two important resolutions were passed.

    The first, H.Res. 711, constituted the formal criminal contempt citation and was approved by a vote of 255-67.365 The resolution found the Attorney General in contempt of Congress for his failure to comply with a congressional subpoena and directed the Speaker,pursuant to 2 U.S.C. § 194, to certify the contempt citation to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia for prosecution.

    The second resolution, H.Res. 706, authorized Chairman Issa to
    initiate a judicial proceeding on behalf of the Committee “to seek declaratory judgments affirming the duty of Eric H. Holder Jr….to comply with any subpoena…issued to him by the Committee as part of its investigation into [Operation Fast and Furious].”366 H.Res.

    706 was approved by a vote of 258-95.367 As in the Miers and Bolten contempt proceedings, the House voted to hold an executive branch official in criminal contempt of Congress, while preserving the option to seek enforcement of the Committee subpoenas through a civil action in federal court.

    Consistent with DOJ’s legal position and the precedent set in the Burford, Miers, and Bolten
    contempt actions, Deputy Attorney General James Cole informed Speaker Boehner on the same day that the contempt was approved that “the [DOJ] has determined that the Attorney General’s response to the subpoena issued by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform does not constitute a crime, and therefore the Department will not bring the congressional contemptcitation before a grand jury or take any other action to prosecute the Attorney General.”

    Although the criminal prosecution of the Attorney General for contempt of Congress appears to be foreclosed, H.Res. 706 still permits the Committee to ask a federal district court to compel theAttorney General to comply with the Committee subpoena.

    This civil case, although arising in conjunction with a contempt action, will likely have a greater impact on the scope of executive privilege than it will on the law surrounding contempt of Congress. The case will not resolve whether DOJ has an obligation to prosecute contempt citations that have been approved by a House of Congress and forwarded to the appropriate U.S. Attorney. Nor is it likely that the court will opine on the scope of the contempt power and its proper application. Instead, if the court proceeds to the merits of the claim, the case will likely focus only on the validity of the Committee subpoenas. In evaluating whether the Attorney General is required to comply with the subpoena, the court will likely consider whether the subject matter covered by the subpoena was within the Committee’s jurisdiction and whether the Committee was pursuing a valid legislative purpose.

    Perhaps more significantly, the court will also likely consider whether the documents
    363 Contempt Committee Report, p. 42 (as stated in Representative Gowdy’s amendment, approved by a 23 to 17 vote).

    https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34097.pdf

  155. Note: there is something unclean about an administration that shows no respect for the separation of powers when it is infringing upon the powers of congress, suddenly invoke that same principle like it was holy writ, then it comes to seeks to thwart a congressional investigation into its own malfeasance and misfeasance.

    But the larger scandal involves Representative Cummmings if he and his minions are shown to have first conspired with Louis Learner to violate the first amendment rights of Tea Party groups, and later when the matter came before congress, using his position as ranking minority member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee to shut down an investigation into Learner’s and his own misfeasance.

    This charge is so serious, that if it can be proven, the censure is not enough. Expulsion is the only appropriate remedy. We have had a few examples lately of corrupt congressmen, and those are bad enough. But when the minority leader of a key committee uses his position to cover up his own malfeasance, then he has no business in the US House of Representatives. For now, he must recuse himself from further work on that committee. This is not merely the appearance of impropriety, it is the essence of impropriety. But first, he needs to come clean.

  156. Kathleen Sibelious is resigning
    ——————————-

    To an Athlete Dying Young

    By A. E. Housman

    The time you won your town the race

    We chaired you through the market-place;

    Man and boy stood cheering by,

    And home we brought you shoulder-high.

    Today, the road all runners come,

    Shoulder-high we bring you home,

    And set you at your threshold down,

    Townsman of a stiller town.

    Smart lad, to slip betimes away

    From fields where glory does not stay,

    And early though the laurel grows

    It withers quicker than the rose.

    Eyes the shady night has shut

    Cannot see the record cut,

    And silence sounds no worse than cheers

    After earth has stopped the ears.

    Now you will not swell the rout

    Of lads that wore their honours out,

    Runners whom renown outran

    And the name died before the man.

  157. Cory Booker is gone but the stench of Newark NJ is not.

    …A second person connected to Newark mayoral candidate Shavar Jeffries’ campaign has been charged with orchestrating a plot to set fire to the opponent Ras Baraka’s campaign bus earlier this year, prosecutors said today. Shareef Nash, a 35-year-old South Orange resident and field coordinator for the Jeffries’ campaign, was charged with first-degree arson-for-hire and conspiracy in connection with the Feb. 16 incident, in which a small fire was set inside bus while it was parked outside Baraka’s campaign headquarters. Investigators also found sugar had been poured into the gas tank, rendering the vehicle inoperable, prosecutors have said. No one was injured in the fire. Nash surrendered to police around 1 p.m. and is being held at the Essex County Correctional Facility in Newark in lieu of $200,000, acting Essex County Prosecutor Carolyn Murray said….
    http://www.nj.com/essex/index.ssf/2014/04/newark_mayors_race_jeffries_campaign_worker_charged_in_baraka_bus_burning.html

    The poor citizens. The real people who have been trying to prop Newark up since the riots of the 1960’s are the victims. Shame on all politicians who use gutter tactics for gain.

  158. I just got an email from Barbara Boxer about equal pay for women.

    This was my reply to her Senate email address:

    Please don’t email me again, you stabbed Hillary in the back to get Obama in office.
    I won’t forgive you for that.

    XXXX (My name)

  159. Thank you Wbboei for that explanation for what the hell is going on with the executive branch, justice dept and congress…

    and ‘they’ wonder why we have no faith in our government anymore…

    wbboei, your comment at April 10, 2014 at 6:50 pm re: Cummings and Lerner

    But the larger scandal involves Representative Cummmings if he and his minions are shown to have first conspired with Louis Learner to violate the first amendment rights of Tea Party groups, and later when the matter came before congress, using his position as ranking minority member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee to shut down an investigation into Learner’s and his own misfeasance

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

    what makes me so sick is that O, the Dims and Justice is trying to blur everything and turn it into race…they seem to think they can do anything the hell they want and then just turn everything into as Holder said “he has vast latitude to do what he wants” and if you dare critcize him…you are a racist…

    i cannot stand the hypocrisy of these dems…cannot trust what comes out of their mouths…they were supposed to be above and better than what they complained the other side did…they are worse…no standards or dignity…

  160. Foxy and Shadowfax…

    when I read your comments about Holder and gun owners wearing bracelets I thought you were being funny or sarcastic and making a joke…

    then I read the link foxy posted and saw this:

    On Friday, Holder told a House Committee that he was exploring the idea of gun bracelets.

    “I think that one of the things that we learned when we were trying to get passed those common sense reforms last year, Vice President Biden and I had a meeting with a group of technology people and we talked about how guns can be made more safe,” Holder said. “By making them either through finger print identification, the gun talks to a bracelet or something that you might wear, how guns can be used only by the person who is lawfully in possession of the weapon.”

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

    are Holder and Biden freaking crazy? are these people drunk with power over the pinons…can you imagine trying to enforce that proposterous idea?

    why don’t they and their “technology people” just plant chips in all of us while they are at it, they can isolate dims from everyone else…as long as the dims follow their rules and behave…

    they treat Americans like children that have no brains…

    I cannot wait for this administration to be over…

Comments are closed.