Is It Still 2007?

April 19, 2007 was the date we first published. In one sense much has changed. Now much of our analysis is indisputable. Can Obama be trusted? Most Americans agree with us that Obama cannot be trusted. Is Barack Obama a boob too? Even his most ardent acolytes realize that Barack has botched his presidency. Barack’s big majorities in congress have been devoured. Barack’s assertions of being a world historical leader are exposed as the delusions of a clanking miniature clod. Barack’s promises of receding oceans have drowned in tsunami seas of troubles.

Hillary Clinton? In 2007 the claim from Obama Hopium guzzlers in her own party was that Hillary was a racist dynasty corporatist neo-con war-monger ugly old witch vagina third way Mcauliffe has-been evil monster loser who should be taken into a back room and beaten with a 2×4 until she disappeared forever and ever. Now? The same DailyKooks and party apparatchiks who thought or said such things see Hillary as their salvation and the only tool they have to save the memory of their once and future Messiah.

But much has not changed at all since 2007. There is still the crazy. Consider the recent shoe thrown at Hillary. Hillary handled the episode very well, to the point of amazingly well. Hillary ducked, then amusingly asked if that flying object was a bat. From there on Hillary, like a super talented jazz musician improvising new riffs and melodies on a popular tune, asked if it was all part of a stray Las Vegas act that had escaped from the strip. Hillary ended with a home run by declaring that the shoe thrower missed her mark because she did not possess the training Hillary acquired as a youthful softball player. That last remark was aggressive, mocking, endearing, and boastful, all at once.

The shoe incident should have come as no surprise to anyone. Hillary has some adversaries that want to throw shoes at her. No surprise. Hillary has been giving speeches for generations to hostile and friendly audiences so no surprise that Hillary can handle just about anything. It’s called experience. But we were back to 2007 real quick as callers to Rush Limbaugh (and others who should know better) could not accept Hillary’s grace under fire and quick wit responses:

“Her theory was based on the fact that Mrs. Clinton looked like she knew it was coming. She didn’t look that shocked. She had too many really cute, pat answers just ready to go. And then this woman said the Clintons, they stage things, the Democrats stage things and I said, “You know, I hadn’t thought about it.”

From there Limbaugh educated his audience with more Monica Lewinsky stories.

Limbaugh was not as bad or stupid as the DailyKooks with their conspiracy stories, but if Republicans want to know why they lose to the Clintons the whole episode is a good lesson. Why not accept that Hillary has a lot of experience handling hecklers and critics? Why not accept that Hillary is very good at interactions with audiences, whether hostile or friendly? No, instead it all had to be staged because that delusion emotionally satisfies more than the obvious truth that Hillary is a force to be reckoned with.

It’s back to 2007 for Rush Limbaugh and the E/I Republicans/conservatives. It’s also back to 2007 for Obama Dimocrats:

Democrats hark back to the politics of race

So now it’s out there. After five years of studied reticence (unless they were talking privately to one another or their supporters), Democratic leaders in Washington finally went public last week with what they really think is motivating Republican opposition to Barack Obama. As Steve Israel, one of the top Democrats in Congress, told CNN’s Candy Crowley, the Republican base, “to a significant extent,” is “animated by racism.” [snip]

But it’s not the reaction of Republicans that Democrats should probably have some concern about. It’s the way American voters, and a lot of younger voters in particular, may view a return to the polarizing racial debate that existed before Obama was ever elected.

Coming in an election year, and in the wake of sporadic campaigns to solidify support among women and gay voters, the sudden Democratic focus on race felt like an orchestrated talking point.[snip]

As far as I can tell, though, this eruption on race actually wasn’t born in the kind of strategy session where consultants lay out which issues will move which voters. What seems to have happened was something rarer: Washington Democrats, unable to suppress their frustration for a minute longer, simply blurted out what they have always believed to be true but had been reluctant to say. One catharsis emboldened the next.

As a unifying explanation for the abject dysfunction of our political system, latent racism seems unsatisfying, at least by itself.”

That article is written by Matt Bai. It is a silly circa 2007 article which tries to convince that the race-baiting to help Obama is not planned but somehow organic or excusable at some level. We read the same crap in 2007.

In 2007 the race-baiting by Obama supporters was masked by talk of a new coalition, ascendant and on the march. Any one who opposed this new coalition and thought the winning coalition was the FDR/Kennedy/Clinton coalition was deemed a racist. This race-baiting strategy was and is by design.

Hillary had experience. Barack Obama had little to no experience outside of his “community organizer” efforts. But to say this was deemed “racist”. Anything said on behalf of Hillary Clinton, or later John McCain, was deemed racist and “old” by these race-baiting “ageists”. Yet Matt Bai dares to publish an article that claims the race-baiting is not by design, not planned, not a filthy scheme to win elections.

Matt Bai’s article is a warning to Obama Dimocrats that the race-baiting of 2014 exposes as a lie the racial unity promises of 2007. Matt Bai is wasting his time. Obama Dimocrats have won with race-baiting and they will race-bait again and again.

In 2007 Hillary Clinton and Hillary Clinton supporters were the targets of the race-baiters. In 2007 we saw the threat and saw there were no websites defending Hillary Clinton against the race-baiters. So we began to publish in April 19, 2007. We’ve been on the job ever since.

We’ve changed a lot since 2007. Experience changed us. On issue after issue experience changed us. We think it was for the better.

In 2007 we wrote what we believed. In 2008 we wrote what we believed. When Barack Obama took the nomination in Denver that year we had a choice. We could accept the truth of what we had written and declare we could not support a treacherous boob like Barack Obama. Or we could do what many of our compatriots did and say “whatever, delete everything we wrote, we’ll endorse Barack Obama.”

Our problem in 2008 was we had written the truth about Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton as we knew it. We decided to follow the truth as we saw it. We could never support Barack Obama nor his abominable acts. We continue to write the truth as we see it as painful as it is at times.

Some who wrote the truth about Barack Obama chose to ignore the truth of what they had written and put a political party above the nation’s interests. They now live in a Hell of their own making.

For Hillary Clinton 2016 as in 2007 the enemy remains the same. For Hillary Clinton the enemy is still Barack Obama:

Hillary Clinton’s top 2016 worry is ‘Obama’s economy

If Hillary Clinton runs for president, she’ll be getting a lot of help from Wall Street. But her friends and confidants there tell me she truly hasn’t decided yet.

So why is she hesitating? The big reason, according to these sources, has to do with the dude who occupies the Oval Office now.

Barack Obama’s rapidly disintegrating presidency — and the chance it will get even worse — is Clinton’s top worry these days as she weighs whether she’ll run, and can win, in 2016, these folks say.”

As in 2007 Hillary Clinton’s opponent in 2016 will be Barack Obama. Very few outside the world of Kookdom will want to vote for an Obama third term. Barack Obama has been a disaster and an obamination and like a radioactive Ebola transmitting parasite Barack Obama threatens to continue to destroy:

“She knows economic recoveries (even ones as weak as the one Obama fomented with ObamaCare, higher taxes and his attacks on business) run in cycles, which often last about seven years. In other words, it could turn sharply down just in time to leave her holding the bag.

“If you ask Hillary what she really fears, it’s that in a year or so, when she’s running, that Obama will be so unpopular that no one wants any Democrat as president,” said one Wall Street executive who knows the former first lady. “That doesn’t mean she won’t run — she’s human and when so many people urge you to do something, you often do it. But that doesn’t mean she will win.”

Hillary’s fear of being stained by Obamanomics isn’t just her own; it reflects a broad-based critique of the Obama presidency you hear muttered at Washington and New York cocktail parties where liberal elites (i.e., her Wall Street supporters) often congregate.

On the other hand, Republicans have a way of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory; who knows who they’ll nominate in 2016.

And time is on Hillary’s side as long as the economy doesn’t crater. She has a formidable campaign and fund-raising apparatus ready at a moment’s notice — money will be there and her celebrity isn’t going away.

One test she’ll be looking at, I’m told, is how her new memoir, due out in June, gets received. If the book tour goes well, she’s even more likely to jump in.

But count me as skeptical that she will run — and even more skeptical that, if she does run, she wins. Because, based on everything she’s telling people about the problems of inheriting the Democratic Party from President Obama, even she’s skeptical of her chances.

In 2007 we began to publish because we saw treacherous Barack Obama as the destroyer of the Democratic Party and the single biggest threat to a successful Hillary Clinton presidential campaign. In 2007 we urged Hillary Clinton and Hillary Clinton supporters to realize that Barack Obama was the greatest threat to America, Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party.

Is it still 2007?

120 thoughts on “Is It Still 2007?

  1. Topeka versus bored of education. They don’t want Michelle Obama to stink up the place and hog the spotlight on their big day:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2607817/Kansas-speech-Michelle-Obama-draws-complaints.html

    “High school senior forms petition with over ONE THOUSAND signatures against Michele Obama speaking at their high school graduation ‘because it would overshadow the students’ big day’

    Taylor Gifford, 18, started an online petition on Thursday with over 1,200 signatures asking that Michelle Obama not speak at Topeka High School graduation
    Obama’s speech is tied to the 60th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education outlawing segregation in schools
    Some students feel that the speech would overshadow student accomplishments and others feel limited seating will be a problem

    If expanding the guest list to include Michelle Obama at graduation for high school students in the Kansas capital city means fewer seats for friends and family, some students and their parents would prefer the first lady not attend.

    A furor over what the Topeka school district considers an honor has erupted after plans were announced for Obama to address a combined graduation ceremony for five area high schools next month an 8,000-seat arena. For some, it was the prospect of a tight limit on the number of seats allotted to each graduate.

    For others, it was the notion that Obama’s speech, tied to the 60th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education outlawing segregation in schools, would overshadow the student’s big day.

    ‘I’m a single mother who has raised him for 18 years by myself,’ said Tina Hernandez, parent of Topeka High School senior Dauby Knight. ‘I’ve told him education is the only way out. This is one of the biggest days of their lives. They’ve taken the glory and shine from the children and put on Mrs. Obama. She doesn’t know our kids.’ [snip]

    ‘People think it’s a great opportunity, but it’s the graduates’ time. They are getting that diploma that they worked so hard for,’ Gifford said. ‘Families are feeling that they are being cheated out of the loved ones special day.’

    Abbey Rubottom, 18, a Topeka High senior, described herself as a ‘die-hard Democrat’ but doesn’t like the idea of Obama sharing the stage with graduates.

    ‘No disrespect for the first lady, and it’s amazing that she wants to come speak, I just think it doesn’t belong at graduation,’ Rubottom said.

    Racists!!!

  2. http://news.yahoo.com/advice-democrats-dont-recovery-073618756–election.html

    Advice to Democrats: Don’t say ‘recovery’

    WASHINGTON (AP) — Election-year memo to Democratic candidates: Don’t talk about the economic recovery. It’s a political loser.

    So say Democratic strategists in a blunt declaration that such talk skips over “how much trouble people are in, and doesn’t convince them that policymakers really understand or are even focusing on the problems they continue to face.”

    In addition, Stan Greenberg, James Carville and others wrote that in head-to-head polling tests the mere mention of the word “recovery” is trumped by a Republican assertion that the Obama administration has had six years to get the economy moving and its policies haven’t worked.

    Coincidentally or not, Democrats have largely shelved the “R” word.

    President Barack Obama’s only utterance of it in recent weeks was on April 8, and it was in the context of accusing Republicans of blocking progress on issues that “would help with the economic recovery and help us grow faster.”

    Additionally, at a news conference on March 26 where they announced a campaign-season agenda, neither Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., nor most of the other five lawmakers present uttered the word “recovery.”

    The strategic advice comes at a time Democrats are working to maximize turnout, particularly among women, for the fall elections, when they face a determined challenge from Republicans vying to add control of the Senate to their seemingly secure House majority.

    Simultaneously, Democrats are struggling to respond effectively to persistent Republican attacks on the nation’s health care law.

    [snip]
    In their memo for Democracy Corps and the Women’s Voices Women Vote Action Fund, the authors propose that to boost turnout among their target groups Democrats should back an economic agenda that “puts working women first,” and says that incomes are soaring only for CEOs and the top 1 percent of the country.

    “As a start, Democrats should bury any mention of the recovery. That message was tested … and it lost to the Republican message championed by Karl Rove,” they wrote. [snip]

    At the same time, though, many of the jobs that have been created are lower-paying than the ones that preceded them. Long-term unemployment is at historically high levels, another factor that does little or nothing to reassure hard-pressed men and women that any recovery is helping their own pocketbooks.

  3. I’m joining in the chorus of happy birthday wishes to Big Pink & am particularly enthralled with perspective of this post: “It’s back to 2007 for Rush Limbaugh and the E/I Republicans/conservatives. It’s also back to 2007 for Obama Dimocrats:”
    —————
    It is like we’ve been treading water (best case scenario) for 7 years. I’ll FB share tomorrow which is not quite the dedicated holiday today is. For me and my gang, it is Easter Sunday, and Christians worldwide, if they attend church service only twice, will be there today, leaving with the benediction “Go in peace.”

    And the doofus-inspired headline for ABC this morning? Drone strike kills 10 AL QAEDA in Yemen. Jerk or satan. He figures this headline will win points. Or further aggravate.

  4. A perfect response to the latest oft repeated Obamalie which is that the debate over Obamacare is o-v-e-r . . .

    —————-

    The Debate Will Be Over When the American People Say It’s Over

    Repeal, now more than ever!

    Jeffrey H. Anderson

    April 18, 2014 8:40 AM

    Shortly after the Supreme Court’s decision on Obamacare, the CBO projected that 9 million people would buy Obamacare-compliant insurance through newly established government-run exchanges. Now, after an enrollment period that his administration expanded by about two months—to more than half a year—President Obama says that 8 million people have “signed up” for (but in many cases haven’t actually bought) insurance through those exchanges.

    The Obama administration’s stated goal was to have 39 percent of those who bought such insurance be between the ages of 18 and 34. Now Obama says the actual percentage is 28 percent.

    Only in Washington, D.C. could someone put up numbers like these and then brag about them.

    But, in truth, all of this talk about enrollment numbers is beside the point. Back when the Democrats defied public opinion and rammed Obamacare into law using the Cornhusker Kickback, Gator Aid, the Louisiana Purchase, and all the rest of the unseemly gimmicks they employed, opponents of Obamacare didn’t claim that the reason why the health-care overhaul would be bad was because it wouldn’t hit the coverage numbers the CBO projected. (If anything, opponents argued that Obamacare would surpass those numbers, as employers would dump people into the exchanges against their will, thereby costing American taxpayers even more than the CBO was projecting.)

    No, Obamacare isn’t bad because it didn’t hit 9 million in Obamacare-compliant exchange purchases, nor because it didn’t include 39 percent young adults among its purchasers. It’s bad—horrible, actually—because it requires private citizens to buy a product of the federal government’s choosing for the first time in our nation’s entire history; because it funnels unprecedented amounts of power and money to Washington, D.C. and away from everyday Americans; because it incentivizes employers not to hire people and to cut hours for millions of people they’ve already employed; because it bans millions of people’s health insurance policies (except when Obama lawlessly un-bans them); because it causes people who like their doctors not to be able to keep their doctors; because it raises health costs; because it requires young people to subsidize maternity coverage and pediatric dental care for 60-year-olds who have no need or desire for such coverage; because it effectively bans doctors from expanding existing doctor-owned hospitals or building new ones, makes it difficult for doctors to stay in private practice, and tries to corral them into hospitals where they can more easily be controlled; because it will raise federal spending by a projected $2 trillion over its real first decade; because it will cut projected Medicare funding by a whopping 10 percent over that same decade, siphoning that money out of Medicare to (partially) pay for Obamacare; because it particularly goes after Medicare Advantage funding; because it stifles medical innovation; because it disrespects religious freedom; and because it mandates communal funding of abortion.

    In short, it’s bad because it raises health costs, undermines liberty, costs jobs, and seeks to put American medicine under the control of the same folks who brought you healthcare.gov.

    It might seem surprising, therefore, that Obama would have chosen to declare victory yesterday, imperiously proclaiming that “the repeal debate is and should be over.” In reality, however, his words might actually be true—just not in the way he intended. The American people hated Obamacare even before the Democrats willfully passed it, they hate it now, and they never stopped hating it in between. There’s strong evidence that the debate is, indeed, over—and that Obama and his allies have lost.

    According to Real Clear Politics, since July 4, 2009, 458 polls have been taken on Obamacare. Twenty have shown Americans liking it, five have shown ties, and 433 (95 percent) have shown them disliking it. Perhaps even more strikingly, 299 (65 percent)—including the five most recent polls—have shown Americans opposing Obamacare by double-digits.

    Imagine if Republicans were so stubbornly pushing something that was so evidently unpopular—and then had the gall to declare the debate over (in their favor). Do you think the mainstream press would let that fly?

    Alas, the press doesn’t have the final say on Obamacare, and neither does Obama. The American people have the final say—and that’s why Obamacare will be repealed and replaced with a conservative alternative within days of Obama’s departure from the White House.

  5. Admin: your analysis above is superb. I believe it reflects Hillary’s thinking, and the thinking of Maggie Williams as well.

    If I were advising Hillary, the one I would be most concerned with would not be George Bush. He cannot attract the base–and the name which goes back to the vultures of Wall Street who rose to prominence in the aftermath of the Civil War, and has produced people like poppy, W, and a queen mother who famously said that the people who lost everything in Katrina should not worry because they had nothing to begin with is unworthy of being president, or controlling the Republican Party.

    The one I would be afraid of if they could talk him into running is John Kasic. Son of a postman, governor who has turned the Ohio economy around, co architect of welfare reform, proven job creator—I guess me and Soros have that much in common. He is the one we fear most, if he decides to run. Like I said before, I met him briefly at the Congressional Dining Room and his concentration has a laser intensity to it, and I do not see him making mistakes in a campaign–no dirty linen etc. But the truth is I doubt he will run except as a compromise to a candidate to a Bush or Christie, who the base will not support, or a Ted Cruz or Ron Paul who scare the billy be jiggereds out of the elites. I do not think he wants to run.

  6. Brooks: “.. whether deservedly or not the president has a bit of a .. manhood problem, in terms of the Middle East”. He stammers around trying to avoid saying anything that might even suggest Barack has been weak, ineffective, incompetent – in other words- the truth. Not only did Brooks look like a stammering child, trying to make excuses for bad behavior, he appears as weak as Barack actually is. And as if his apologist attitude were not bad enough, his statement was sexist. If America had a female president who had handled the Middle East situation (and every situation) as Barack has done, showing absolutely no strength, would SHE have a “manhood problem” it’s not about gender, period. It’s about strength, intelligence, and as Admin noted in a previous post – American values.

    Brooks has a manhood problem, in that when it comes to speaking the truth about Barack, he’s lacking a couple of cajones.

    Admin, when the dust of 2008 settled, Big Pink was one of a few Hillary sites that was still standing on principle – not party. Once we knew who Barack was and what he stood for (or didn’t), as well as the absolute corruption, deception, and lack of substance that characterized his entire campaign, and indeed, his life, supporting him in the general election was simply not an option from some of us. I’m proud of Big Pink and the handful of other blogs that refused to ignore the truth and said to hell with the party that has said to hell with democracy.

  7. Who (Still) Loves Obama?

    1. first and foremost Obama himself. Being a narcissist it cannot be otherwise.

    2. second, big media. Being uber corrupt, it cannot be otherwise.

    3. third, his supporters who are like the Jonestown acolytes

    4. fourth, terrorist, his merry band of men. They failed to get the memo that they are supposed to have surrendered to the cosmic wisdom of Obama.
    ————–

    Obama deliberately emboldening America’s enemies

    By Tammy Bruce
    ·Published April 18, 2014

    Facebook

    All Americans should be aware of some very disturbing events that speak to the state of terrorism, the strength of al Qaeda and our nation’s security. In light of the danger unfolding around us, we also need to question whether or not President Obama’s administration is serious about confronting what is clearly a gathering storm, or whether, in fact, his policies are encouraging those who wish to harm us.

    One of the more shocking events illustrating the growing strength of al Qaeda is the release of a video this week showing what CNN reports as “the largest and most dangerous gathering of al Qaeda in years.” It’s what experts think is a recent gathering of the terrorist group’s leadership and more than 100 fighters in Yemen.

    The American president does have power, including the sort that signals to the world’s beasts that they can do as they please.

    For an administration that does not hide its eagerness to use drones to kill terrorists, experts and journalists alike were wondering whether our intelligence community knew about this meeting, and if so, why didn’t they take the opportunity to kill the most dangerous of them with one drone strike?

    The terrorists on the video seem strangely unconcerned with their safety, as though there was no need for them to feel at risk. When asked about the brazenness of the gathering, Rep. Mike Rogers, Michigan Republican and chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, noted on CNN: “We think that they’re feeling empowered. The less pressure you put on them, the more they take that as a victory … .”

    It now appears al Qaeda was “on the run” in the same way you were able to keep your doctor and hospital.

    Whether we didn’t know about the gathering, or did and chose to do nothing, it’s another signal to the beasts around the world that no one is home in Washington, D.C.

    The dangerous circus created by the Obama regime’s rules doesn’t stop there.

    Sept. 11 victims’ families are asserting they think the Obama administration is deliberately sabotaging the trials at Guantanamo, and insist the FBI is meddling in the cases, according to reports in the Free Beacon.

    Unfortunately, both Mr. Obama and Attorney General Eric H. Holder have a history with the American people that not only doesn’t engender trust, but suggests efforts that are directly harming the nation and the American people, while pushing an agenda benefiting the terrorists.

    In the article, two Sept. 11 victims’ family members told reporters of their suspicion regarding an FBI investigation into defense lawyers: “They had to know this would have some effect on the proceedings here,” one family member said. “Were I a very suspicious person, some could even say that was done purposely to derail these hearing and force it back into federal court,” said another. “It looks like a well-orchestrated snafu.”

    Debra Burlingame is the sister of Charles F. “Chic” Burlingame III, pilot of American Airlines flight 77, which crashed into the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001. She came to the public’s attention after becoming a passionate and determined advocate on behalf of all Americans in the aftermath of the attacks, which took her brother’s life and 2,976 others.

    With the continuing bizarre decisions by Mr. Obama and the Holder Department of Justice, I asked Ms. Burlingame what she thought of the growing suspicion and concern by the families and the possibility that the Obama administration was deliberately sabotaging the process. Here’s what she told me:

    “Someone, in violation of a D.C. District Court Protective Order, smuggled Khalid Shaikh Mohammed’s 34-page jihadi diatribe against America out of Gitmo and into the possession of the Huffington Post and BBC-TV.

    “Smuggling this out of Gitmo is a criminal act. I find it repulsive that the attorneys defending the men who murdered 3,000 people are now trying to leverage an FBI investigation of what may be their own legal misconduct into an advantage for their clients,” said Ms. Burlingame.

    Moreover, Ms. Burlingame didn’t mince any words about Mr. Holder and his involvement in the ongoing sham: “These defense attorneys are doing everything possible to delay this trial, to turn the proceedings into a sham, so that Eric Holder, their ideological soulmate, can tell the American people that military commissions are inferior courts,” continued Ms. Burlingame

    “I would like to remind the public that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and his co-conspirators told a lawfully convened military tribunal in December 2008 that they wished to plead guilty and be executed. Barack Obama’s first act as president in 2009 was to shut down that proceeding and put these cases into legal limbo for another 2 years.

    “It finally reconvened in 2011, and in the time since then, an army of defense lawyers has stalled this trial with hundreds of frivolous motions, all aimed at making a mockery of the court,” she said.

    Regarding where things stand now, I asked Ms. Burlingame if it is reasonable to think Mr. Holder is deliberately undermining our efforts to get justice at Gitmo.

    “Our own attorney general has repeatedly made public statements expressly undermining the court’s authority . His statements have been disgraceful. So, it is perfectly understandable that 9/11 family members would suspect that Eric Holder is colluding to sabotage this trial.”

    It is a horrible thing when Americans have to consider the possibility that the leadership of this country is purposefully acting in a manner that benefits our nation’s enemies. Yet, when we look around the world, those feeling and acting empowered are the bullies, tyrants and terrorists.

    The American president does have power, including the sort that signals to the world’s beasts that they can do as they please.

    Tammy Bruce is a radio talk-show host, New York Times best-selling author and Fox News political contributor.

  8. Another knocking at the 3rd party door. [Viguerie: Since 1965, owner of direct marketing/advertising companies such as American Target Advertising. Political/campaign strategist, activist and conservative spokesman and writer.]

    We’re Coming for You, John Boehner
    I’ve been a GOP insurgent for 50 years. And I’m not done yet.
    By RICHARD A. VIGUERIE. April 17, 2014
    Snip. I’ll admit that, in the aftermath of the disappointments of the 2012 elections, conservatives like me are angry.
    We are angry at being blamed for Mitt Romney’s defeat, when we argued from the beginning that he was a Big Government establishment politician and that if he ran a content-free campaign, he would lose.
    We are angry at the disrespect shown to limited-government constitutional conservatives who were delegates to the 2012 Republican National Convention. We are angrier still when members of Congress, whom we elected, and who want to use the democratic process to push policies based on conservative principles, are told to “get their ass in line” by Speaker of the House John Boehner, and to go along with the Republican Party leadership’s betrayal of conservative principles—or else.
    It’s time for conservatives to channel that anger. It’s time to take our party back.
    Snip.
    http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/04/were-coming-for-you-john-boehner-105781.html

  9. In an appearance on Met the Press yesterday, Schultz demonstrated that people can remain dumb and deluded if they put their minds to it, denied that dissatisfaction with Obama would be the cause, if Dems lose the senate. If the Dem candidates lose, it will be their own faults.

    ______________

    April 20, 2014, 11:51 am

    DNC head: Midterms not about Obama

    By Erik Wasson

    The midterm elections will not be a referendum on President Obama’s performance in the White House, the Democratic National Committee chairwoman said Sunday.

    “No, absolutely not,” Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) told NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “These elections, particularly the Senate elections, are referendums on the candidates running.”

    Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/senate-races/203935-midterms-not-about-obama-dnc-head#ixzz2zWjj9dM1
    Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

  10. Apparently, in a who’s-the-biggest-idiot contest with DNC head, Schultz, Harry Reid declared that to him, illegal immigrants are “already Americans”.
    He also believes in the Easter Bunny, and is of the opinion that Obama and he have been great assets to the Dem Party and to the country. Joe’s batting a thousand, as usual.

    _________

    March 27, 2014, 03:30 pm

    Biden: Illegal immigrants are ‘already Americans’

    By Mike Lillis

    Nearly 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States are already citizens, as far as Vice President Biden is concerned.

    Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/201972-biden-illegal-immigrants-already-americans#ixzz2zWnrp9Iw
    Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

  11. oops, obviously first sentence should have been Biden, not Reid. I had just been reading about Reid, and apparently, had him on the brain. I’ll spare you the details in the story on Harry. Basically, he’s still a conniving little twit. No change.

  12. Victor Davis Hanson is the Thucydides of our era–marking the slow steady decline of civility, liberty, prosperity and western civilization brought about by an uber corrupt media and a civilian population unwilling to fight the Leviathan, who care only for bread and circuses. Senatus Publicus Que Romanus –SPQR The contradictions here are mindbending, yet the majority of the public does not give a damned. I shall not scruple to call them what they are–pathetic–and traitors to a posterity which has no vote for not rising to this challenge. Lonely Are The Brave.
    ———————————————-
    So Mr. Bundy must realize that in about 1990 we decided to focus on the misdemeanor of the law-abiding citizen and to ignore the felony of the lawbreaker. The former gave law enforcement respect; the latter ignored their authority. The first made or at least did not cost enforcers money; arresting the second began a money-losing odyssey of incarceration, trials, lawyers, appeals, and all the rest.

    Mr. Bundy knows that the bullies of the BLM would much rather send a SWAT team after him than after 50 illegal aliens being smuggled by a gun-toting cartel across the southwestern desert. How strange, then, at this late postmodern date, for someone like Bundy on his horse still to be playing the law-breaking maverick Jack Burns (Kirk Douglas) in (the David Miller, Dalton Trumbo, Edward Abbey effort) Lonely Are the Brave.

    http://pjmedia.com/victordavishanson/cliven-bundy-and-the-rural-way/

  13. freespirit April 21, 2014 at 9:39 am
    “No, absolutely not,” Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) told NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “These elections, particularly the Senate elections, are referendums on the candidates running.”

    That is even better. It is about the idiots who VOTED yes Obamacare without reading it and have twiddled their thumbs since.

  14. A gangster government shakedown for a flim flam scam:

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/21/white-house-involved-in-seeking-for-pro-obamacare-group-watchdog-says/

    The White House allegedly was involved in seeking financial support for a pro-ObamaCare group, according to a new report issued in response to Republican concerns about the administration’s fundraising efforts.

    Until now, outgoing Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius was the only official known to have solicited financial support for Enroll America, a nonprofit that promoted enrollment for the Affordable Care Act. But a Government Accountability Office report released Monday detailed not only the secretary’s involvement but that of a White House adviser.

    According to the report, though HHS officials said they were “not aware” of any federal government officials outside the agency soliciting funds for Enroll America, a representative of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation told GAO “about a discussion” in 2012 between one of their staffers and the “Deputy Assistant to the President for Health Policy.”

    Though not named in the report, this would have been Jeanne Lambrew. The GAO said they were told the official nudged the foundation to give a “significant” contribution.

    The report said: “According to RWJF, this official estimated that Enroll America or other similar national enrollment organizations would likely need about $30 million to finance a national outreach effort. RWJF told us that the official also indicated a hope that RWJF would provide a significant financial contribution to support such efforts, but did not make a specific funding request on behalf of Enroll America or any other outside entity.” [snip]

    The report detailed Sebelius’ involvement, saying she reached out to the CEOs of five organizations to “solicit support” for Enroll America. One of them was the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, which made a $3 million grant and a $10 million grant after the call with Sebelius. The foundation, though, reported that the decision to award the money was “not made in response to the Secretary’s call.”

    H&R Block was also solicited for funds, though did not end up making a contribution.

    Further, Sebelius reached out to three groups that HHS regulates — Kaiser, Ascension Health and Johnson & Johnson. However, she reportedly did not seek financial support from them. Rather, she sought “nonfinancial support such as technical assistance.”

    Kaiser and Ascension Health gave money to Enroll America anyway.

    According to the GAO, Sebelius sought guidance from the agency’s Office of the General Counsel, which apparently said HHS officials could seek support for outside groups.

    It’s like a Mafia boss making you an offer you can’t refuse. Top government officials asking for “significant” donations bring to the “donor’s” mind two things: IRS and regulators.

  15. An aberration or the same everywhere?:

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/04/21/Less-Than-Half-of-GA-Obamacare-Enrollees-Have-Paid-For-Plans

    Over half of the 221,604 Georgia Obamacare “enrollees” the Obama administration claims as enrollments have not paid for their plans, thereby leaving them still uninsured.

    Georgia Insurance Commissioner Ralph Hudgens says only 107,581 Georgians have paid for coverage.

    “Many Georgians completed their application process by the deadline, but have yet to pay for the coverage,” Hudgens said in a statement.

    Hudgens also said that insurance department estimates that 400,000 Georgians may lose their current health insurance coverage because of Obamacare.

    According to the New York Times, 20% of the individuals whom the Obama administration claims among its eight million Obamacare enrollees have not activated coverage by paying their premiums.

    Back of the envelope estimate: thus far it is acknowledged by most that 20% of ObamaCare enrollees have not paid. Insurance companies acknowledge that usually about 30% of those that buy insurance stop paying. Add 20% and 30% and you get the Georgia numbers. Of course in Georgia the no-pay rate is 50% so if the eventual drop off is 30% we’re talking 80%. It’s probably that that 30% dropoff is included in the Georgia 50% non pay number. If not….

  16. Cliven Bundy, Terrorist? Harry Reid, Fucking Moron!

    By Larry Johnson on April 20, 2014 at 11:58 PM in Current Affairs

    If there was ever any doubt that Senator Harry Reid is a dangerous, twisted person, he removed any doubt with this bit of demagoguery:

    Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) intensified his criticism of armed militia members supporting rancher Cliven Bundy, calling them “domestic terrorists.”

    “They’re nothing more than domestic terrorists,” Reid said Thursday at an event hosted by the Las Vegas Review-Journal, according to the newspaper. “I repeat: what happened there was domestic terrorism.”

    Reid specifically criticized Bundy supporters for bringing guns and their children to the ranch to defend him against the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). BLM officials and contractors started rounding up Bundy’s cattle last week because of his refusal to pay $1 million in grazing fees, but they backed down Saturday due to safety concerns.

    This is an affront to every American. Reid has spent too much time in Washington and needs to go back to Nevada.

    I am not enjoying the irony of our media and pundits decrying Russia for its abuse of human rights and spying on its citizens while blithely ignoring those same occurrences in the United States. The assault on the Bundy family is but the tip of the iceberg. Obama and his thugs also are going after reporters who dare report actual news that challenges the lies of Obama and team. Obama chooses wily nily to enforce laws he likes and ignores ones he doesn’t.

    Let’s face it–Obama is what Putin would be like if Putin were incompetent and lacking in testosterone.

  17. Wbboei:

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/376128/increasing-desperation-democrats-john-fund

    Harry Reid isn’t backing down from his claim that rancher Cliven Bundy’s supporters are “domestic terrorists.”

    It’s astonishing rhetoric given the White House’s characterization of the mass shooting by a genuine terrorist, Major Nidal Hasan, who killed 13 Americans at the Fort Hood Army base after yelling “Allahu Akbar!” (God is great.) Rather than labeling Hasan’s actions “domestic terrorism,” the Obama administration is prosecuting him for having committed “workplace violence.”

  18. admin

    April 21, 2014 at 2:00 pm
    ————–
    Yes, there is a profound contradiction between calling a man who is grazing his cattle on public land and his supporters domestic terrorists, and calling another man who slaughters soldiers on US soil and screaming Allah Akar a mere perpetrator of workplace violence and concomitant efforts by big media to highlight the actions of the rancher while censoring a full account of the killer.

    There is only one explanation for this–only one. And it is 100% political. The rancher represents the great reservoir of political opposition by the American People to the ruling class in this country, in particular the permanent political class, big media, Wall Street and leftist billionaires who care nothing for the American People–as flies to wanton boys are we to gods–they kill us for their sport. Any politician who can run the gauntlet and tap into that great awakening can hitch his/her wagon to a star. He or she can put a dent in the universe.

  19. Biden to Ukraine to solve the problem?

    Be still my heart.

    Biden is Baron Von Munchausen.

    His itinerary looks like this:

  20. Vice President Joe Biden arrived in Ukraine today amid renewed violence (because, you know, the White House wouldn’t want to risk sending someone important to a hotbed of militant hostage-takers).

    One hot topic will be Ukraine’s presidential election, which is set for next month. Biden is set to meet tomorrow with the interim president, interim prime minister, members of parliament, and activists.

    http://reason.com/blog/2014/04/21/biden-in-ukraine-as-violence-and-hostage

  21. foxyladi14
    April 21, 2014 at 4:39 pm
    Wbboei we can rest now Old Joe will fix this problem.

    ————-
    If they arrest him when he gets off the plane and hold him for randsom and no one antes up maybe then he will figure out that we do not place much value on him. At that point, Obama will call on Jessee Jackson to give his abductors anything they want just as long as they promise Obama a headline like Obama Masterfully Circumvents a Real Crisis and Brings Home The Bacon, even when he is no where to be found. Big Media is itching for another opportunity to lie through their teeth, betray the standards of journalism and proclaim the messiah. But like I saw we all see through them now, and the game they are playing–class warfare.

  22. No one can convince me that Megan Kelly on FOX News is not a class A witch. She keeps hammering away all the time with little tired old tidbits against the Clintons. Tonight she had clips of back when Hillary said there was a vast right wing conspiracy. Hillary was RIGHT. There was and has been for 20 years. But Kelly had on some fruitcake who was one of the “diggers” who went to Arkansas to dredge up anything, didn’t matter if it were true or not, back in the early 1990’s against the Clintons. He just spewed nothing of value or facts…just pure hatred of the Clintons while little Miss Megan smirked.

    Can’t stand that gal! FOX is gearing up that’s for sure to do all that right wing crud again. I have no patience for those died in the wool Dems or Reps who run on pure emotion of my team right or wrong. Blind fools.

  23. Interesting how far back House Rep Allyson Schwartz dipped to find good leadership in her party that was safe enough to align herself with. Bill Clinton and the late PA Governor Robert Casey Sr.

  24. More “racism” has come Holder’s way. Gonna need a second Al Sharpton convention to rant some more.
    US govt must provide details to justify drone killing of American – judge
    Published time: April 22, 2014 03:36
    The US Department of Justice must turn over important details from a key memo which the government has used to justify targeted killings across the Middle East – including the drone strike that killed an American who joined Al-Qaeda, a US judge has ruled. The three-judge 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a previous ruling that would have allowed the federal government to keep the rationale behind drone killings classified. The New York Times – two reporters in particular, Charlie Savage and Scott Shane – fought for the release of a Justice Department “White Paper” that contains a detailed explanation of why the controversial killings were legal. Snip
    http://rt.com/usa/judge-anwar-aalaki-drone-disclosure-916/

    Meantime Preezy to visit State of Washington mudslide site. Probably a bunch of California fundraisers later today. Getty and all.

  25. Southern, I’m right there with you on Megan K. She has a major case of CDS. Her credibility has sunk as low as Soledad Obrien’s, IMO.

    Hold’em, is it not amazing just how “racist” this country became both before and after we (they) elected a half-black president?! Any thinking person would recognize these claims of racism as BS. Yet, the Left seems to be clueless. Last night as I was traveling home from work, I caught a minute of Ed Schultz radio show. A few minutes was all I cold stand. Mark somebody, ( just some generic progressive race baiting white guy) was sub hosting. Another lefty, who had all the prog talking points down pat, called in. This man was really worked up, stating that the far righters were using the Bundy case to support anarchy, disguised as individual rights. He went on to proclaim the importance of the rule of law, the constitution, and the founders’ vision, condemning in strong terms the right wingers for upholding the lawlessness of Bundy. The caller was just appalled that the Bundy people and the Right, in general, would refuse to respect the laws of the land, while claiming to be so patriotic.

    Of course Mark, the generic leftie, was practically yelling his agreement that the Right wingers were no patriots. True patriots respected the constitutions. He and the caller agreed that thee only reason the Right was so critical of Obama and refused to fall in line with government commands was because they were …… wait for it …….. RACIST.

    I was so outraged at that point, I almost had a damn wreck, and had to turn the s**t off. Regardless of whether the Bundy supporters are right or wrong is beside the point. If the concern is refusal to comply with the law, a quick glance toward the WH would reveal lawlessness run amok. The fact that these knee-jerk progs would refuse to recognize the refusal of O’s admin to comply with the law and function within the constitution was just mind boggling. Not one mention of Lois Lerner, of Obama’s changing the law regarding ACA multiple times, or any or the other violations that have occurred during this admin. How can any group be so stupid as to totally overlook the violations of their own side, while condemning the violations of the other? The right and the left are equally guilty.

    And, to continue to play that race card is beyond absurd. If the progs really believe that the only reason people oppose Obama’s (and Holder’s) positions and policies is because they’re racist, they’re too stupid and deluded to participate in the political process.

  26. The Crawdad Hole has complied excerpts from articles from various sources, including Media Matters, leveling all sorts of accusations at the CBS anchor, Sharyl Attkisson, who courageously exposed the network and the media, in general, for its liberal bias. Obviously, this will surprise no one. Anyone who speaks the truth about media’s pro-Progressive, pro-Obama bias becomes a target. Anyone, especially someone who is in a position to know the truth and has a platform from which to expose it must be discredited. Dis Obama and his media groupies at your own peril. I hope someone in media has the ethical standards and the intestinal fortitude to do the right thing, and stand up for Attkisson.

    http://crayfisher.wordpress.com/2014/04/22/burn-the-witch/

  27. Admin asks: is it still 2007?

    My answer would be an unequivocal yes.

    Where the American electorate is concerned, they are like the Bourbon dynasty, as Talleyrand described them:

    “They have learned nothing and they have forgotten nothing.”

    To this day, and notwithstanding all that has occurred, they have missed the most essential point, which is that our politics is controlled by an uber-corrupt mainstream media who have functioned at all times as the propaganda wing of the party of Obama, and have reduced our politics to cheap street theater to cover up a vast scheme of crony capitalism and self enrichment by the political class.

    I think it was Milton who said truth comes like a bastard into the world bringing ill fame to him who wrought her. And if we can conclude anything at all about the attacks by the self loathing head of Media Matters it is that Sharyl is a fearless purveyor of a truth in an industry characterized by cowardice at best and treason at worst.

    The latest example of the dysfunctionality of mainstream media is the decision by big media super star David Gregory to hire a shrink to find out why he is not more well liked and more popular. Isn’t it interesting how assholes like him claw, lie, backstab and sleep their way to the top of the pyramid, and once they get there develop a profound case of vertigo and reach out for a shrink, a life counselor etc.

    Yet for millions of Americans he is someone worth listening to. Which tells you that there is no hope for the country, unless divine providence favors us with a leader who is willing to overturn a few tables and decry the money makers in the temple of the American People and a posterity that has no vote. Better to be thought a fool than go along with an agenda which will lead only to despair and from which no one ever returns.

  28. If the Republican Party takes the Senate, they will be expected to do everything possible to rein in Obama. Unfortunately, they do not want to make waves, therefore I am highly skeptical that if that should occur, they will do much more than scratch themselves–Heller, Houven, Corbett, Flake, Collins, McConnell—complete invertebrates wedded to crony capitalism.

    But assume, for the sake of argument, that the views of people like Cruz, Lee and Sessions prevail over those of the Quislings noted above, what should they do to castrate Obama? Part of the answer lies here, in the suggestion that Congress defund agencies that go rogue like the IRS did. But again, experience has shown the RINO will not go there. He takes his marching orders not from his constituents but from his contributors, and if you listen closely you may even hear him say–the public be damned. That is the essence of the RINO cowardice, collapse and show me the money.
    —————–

    The We Do Whatever We Want Administration

    In the late-1970s, after a Rolling Stone review skewered his band’s latest album, Paul Kantner of the rock band Jefferson Starship fired off a nastygram the magazine printed which read (profanity removed): “We do what we want. Bleeeeeep you.”

    Although even then it was becoming obvious that a more generic version of Kantner’s attitude was systematically permeating the culture at an alarming rate, who could have guessed that 30 years later, his reaction would become the operating theme of a U.S. presidential administration?

    No one can argue that even before his 2008 electoral victory, Barack Obama and his cadre of collectivists were bent on “fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” Obama said so himself. We now know that it was far more than a clever rhetorical flourish.

    What remains unappreciated by far too many, particularly Republicans and conservatives in Washington who years ago should have recognized the need to more proactively and more aggressively resist, is that Obama, his White House, and his regulatory leviathan intend to impose that transformation by any means necessary: constitutional or unconstitutional, legal or illegal, civil or hostile — and now, as seen earlier this month in Nevada, nonviolent or violent. There are no rules, only constant tests of limits.

    No aspect of this administration’s performance exemplifies its “bleep you” approach more than Obamacare.

    Even in 2008, Team Obama instinctively knew that the American people would never accept the kind of state-dictated healthcare regime it wished to impose. Thus, the collection of guarantees they knew would not and could not be honored were born: “If you like your healthcare plan, doctor, medical provider, and prescription drug regimen, you can keep them, period.” False, false, false, and false — and delivered unilaterally with deductibles and out-of-pocket costs which would cause many workers in the public sector and at large private firms to begin planning their exit strategies. Too bad, so sad, suckers.

    The administration took two important lessons away from the ferocious opposition which nearly derailed Obamacare’s passage in March 2010.

    The first was that it would have to modify the law gradually and implement it invisibly. Thus, we have seen, as of earlier this month, 40 changes, almost all calibrated to minimize electoral damage while slowly strengthening the greedy hand’s grip on the nation’s medical delivery system. Collectively, these changes have fundamentally altered and even directly contradicted the law Congress passed, to the point where it is a deception to call today’s resulting contraption “the Affordable Care Act.” It’s Obamacare, meaning that it’s whatever Obama, the White House, the now-departed Kathleen Sebelius and her nominated successor Sylvia Burwell want it to be.

    As to the disastrous rollout of HealthCare.gov, as I asserted in December, “nobody’s this stupid and incompetent.” Events in the subsequent four months have only confirmed that assessment. What has become clear in the interim is the botched execution’s immediate purpose: to make quantifiable accountability impossible (longer-term, it’s about foisting single-payer on a resistant populace). Thus, we’re forced to accept the absurd, made-up metric of 8 million Americans “enrolled.” But we can’t determine how many of those who signed up have actually paid their first premium (which buys them 90 days of coverage, even if they stiff the system after cutting just one check), or how many of them are newly insured. Now the Census Bureau tells us that, gosh, we really want to, but we won’t have reliable or consistent year-over-year comparisons of health insurance coverage until after this fall’s House and Senate elections. How obviously convenient.

    Meanwhile, insurers are relying on government-estimated lump-sum subsidy payments because HealthCare.gov’s back end has not been built. In some states, doctors and other providers are treating many who they can only hope are covered. “Specialty treatment” hospitals which have been arbitrarily shoved out of Obamacare plan networks are providing untold amounts of unsustainable free care to child and adult patients.

    The second lesson the administration learned was that it must do everything it can to make opponents’ lives miserable and to water down their efforts. This is where the Internal Revenue Service comes in. The agency’s selective targeting of tea party, Republican, and certain conservative groups — some of it “coinciding” with visits from other regulatory and law enforcement agencies — was once thought to be solely about neutralizing their effectiveness during the 2010 and 2012 election cycles. We now know that it was about even more than that, specifically “to make an example of at least one group” by subjecting their leaders to criminal prosecution. Given the laundry list of otherwise unaffiliated federal agencies involved in the targeting effort, as PJ Media’s Bryan Preston wrote on Wednesday:

    … it takes an entity above all of those agencies to coordinate their actions. That entity can only be the White House.

    Other “bleep you” examples abound, far too many to completely chronicle here. Just a few of them have included: Hillary Clinton’s “What difference does it make?” reaction to the avoidable deaths of American ambassador Christopher Stevens and three others in Benghazi on her watch; Attorney General Eric Holder’s statement that he has a “vast amount” of discretion in deciding which laws his Justice Department will and won’t enforce; illegal-immigrant amnesty-light executive orders; and the stimulus-driven, state legislature-avoiding implementation of the Common Core curriculum.

    The government’s “bleep you” brazenness was on full display in Nevada earlier this month. But this time, hundreds of resisters essentially shouted “Bleep you back” to the wannabe tyrants at the Bureau of Land Management, which is on a single-minded mission to drive Cliven Bundy from his ranch — if not financially, then physically.

    The resistance was successful only because the Constitution has guaranteed citizens’ right to bear arms. As I asked a week ago Saturday: “Does anyone still believe that the Constitution’s Second Amendment isn’t as much about citizens defending themselves against an out-of-control government as it is about the natural-law right of self-defense?”

    Washington’s go-along Republican and conservative culture should take a lesson from Nevada. They don’t need guns. All they need is the will to defund any and all federal agencies which have overstepped their constitutional or legislated bounds.

  29. If you think about the full implications of the article immediately above you begin to see what no one seems to want to see. The Obama campaign and administration are in many ways the mirror image of the Nazis domestically.

    This can also be seen in the entire res gestae of the showdown with rancher Bundy. Paat Buchanan correctly points out that (1) the Obama Administration overreacted to the problem by sending in the Seventh Cavalry to collect grazing fees, and (2) the statement by Harry Reid who has been slow to condemn real terrorists, calling this rancher and those who came in to stand with him, in the wake of prior massacres by the FBI and ATF at Waco and Ruby Ridge, domestic terrorist is appalling.

    What strikes me about the incident itself and Pat’s interpretation of it, is the failure to grasp what is really going on here. The article above however provides the context for this entire reaction. This is political, in the same way that the destruction of the Warsaw Ghetto was political. It was couched in terms of security, but the underlying purpose was political. It is imperative to see that, because that is what we are dealing with.

  30. free @ 9:03
    Glad you managed to keep your vehicle under control! There IS renewed vigor against the anti-Obamites, yet something I might recall predates the current tilt to prop up teh won one more time. Does anyone recall hearing Murdoch within the last 6 months or so, announce that Fox would no longer be tilting right? I can’t recall where or who, though. It IS crushing for him (Murdoch) to bestow the “honor” to Megyn whom we at Big Pink have lauded frequently.
    It just goes right back to wbb’s longstanding conclusion that none of the regular media is interested in journalism.

    I’m looking for a small bit of joy to end with. ICYMI. 1,200 HS students sign petition to Block Michelle Obama graduation speech because it would overshadow the students’ big day
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2607817/Kansas-speech-Michelle-Obama-draws-complaints.html

  31. “But assume, for the sake of argument, that the views of people like Cruz, Lee and Sessions prevail over those of the Quislings noted above, what should they do to castrate Obama?”

    Well who knew? There is something there to castrate? Oh, wait, you must mean his programs. 😉

  32. Pig Oprah’s real angel network:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2607910/EXCLUSIVE-Negroes-house-Negroes-house-Oprah-shouted-father-wife-arrived-She-reminding-low-class-says-Oprahs-bitter-stepmother-explosive-interview.html

    “EXCLUSIVE: ‘Negroes in the house! Negroes in the house!’ Oprah shouted as her father and his wife arrived. ‘She was reminding us of our low class,’ says Oprah’s bitter stepmother in an explosive first-ever interview

    After 14 years of marriage to Oprah’s father Vernon, Barbara Winfrey is being forced out of her marital home by Oprah, leaving her homeless
    Barbara refused to sign a confidentiality agreement with Oprah
    ‘You say I never talk to you,’ Oprah told Barbara in a birthday phone call. ‘I’m talking to you now. You have until Monday to get out of MY house’
    When Oprah threw her Legends’ Ball, Vernon and Barbara weren’t on the main floor with the A-listers but tucked in a corner on the second floor. ‘We weren’t allowed to mingle with the celebrities,’ says Barbara
    ‘It wasn’t unusual for Oprah to fly to her house in Hawaii, call Gayle (King) and say, “Fire so and so and so and so.” Oprah and Gayle’s relationship is “bizarre”,’ says Barbara
    Oprah was never willing to take a DNA test to prove Vernon is her real dad. ‘She can’t believe such a silly man would make such a magnificent creature’
    ‘Oprah complained that my sheets didn’t have 1000 thread and the bath towels and coffee cups weren’t big enough,’ Barbara says

    This is the first of a two-part world exclusive interview with Barbara Winfrey, the ex-wife of Oprah’s father Vernon. In Part 2, to be published tomorrow, Mrs. Winfrey will reveal the shocking details of the big blowup between Oprah and her boyfriend Stedman Graham, the truth about her relationship with Gayle King and how she really feels about being in her own skin.

    Lots more at the link. More to come tomorrow.

  33. Oprah must not have taken the Obamas’ rejection very well…. Lookin’ forward to tomorrow’s chapter.
    ————————-
    Amazing TV stats. Pub 4/22/14.
    In All Primetime, Univision Ranked No. 3 or Higher on Five Nights Out-performing ABC, CBS, NBC or FOX Among Adults 18-34 http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2014/04/22/in-all-primetime-univision-ranked-no-3-or-higher-on-five-nights-out-performing-abc-cbs-nbc-or-fox-among-adults-18-34/256639/

    Looks like English-speaking young adults are now way out-numbered although I’d like to hope there’s a better explanation than that.

  34. Massachusetts Democrat Representative Stephen Lynch discusses ObamaCare:

    http://www.mediaite.com/online/democratic-rep-warns-that-obamacares-worst-about-to-hit-the-fan/

    Democratic Rep Warns That Obamacare’s Worst About to ‘Hit the Fan’

    “There are parts of Obamacare, or the Affordable Care Act, that were postponed because they are unpalatable,” Lynch observed. “As these provisions come into effect, the administration thus far is saying, ‘Gee, we really can’t handle this right now so we’re going to delay it.’”

    “These obligations keep piling up,” he continued. “Any individual with an individual healthcare plan that exceeds $10,200 is in a Cadillac plan situation. They’re going to have to pay — that employer, if they provide that, and many do today let alone in 2018 — will have to pay a 40 percent tax on the amount over the minimum established — excuse me, the maximum established under the Affordable Care Act.”

    That is a huge tax. It’s the first time in this country’s history that we have actually taxed health care,” Lynch said. “We used to treat it like food, that people would die without it. Well, we’re in a new day now.”

    Here, Lynch implies that Republicans could — if they were so unscrupulous — turn the liberal strategy of accusing those Republican-led states that refused to expand Medicaid of murder on its head.

    We will lose seats in the House,” the Bay State congressman confessed when pressed on the likely political impact of the ACA. “I am fairly certain of that based on the poll numbers that are coming out from the more experienced pollsters down there. And I think we may lose the Senate.”

    Lynch did not mince words when he said that the Democrats’ dire political straits are “primarily because of health care.”

    The elements of the law that Lynch cited which have yet to kick in are only some of the more onerous aspects of the law that continues to tick ominously like the economic time-bombs they are. Many analysts believe that the flood of cancelled individual insurance plans that characterized the law’s early implementation period was merely a prelude to when (or, as former White House Press Sec. Robert Gibbs said, if) the ACA’s employer mandate is enacted.

  35. admin

    April 22, 2014 at 4:29 pm
    ————
    A friend of mine is a below scratch golfer. He does no go looking for trouble, but invariably it finds him. He was put in with three other golfers who were playing a money game, of $20 per hole per man, ties carry over to the next hole where it becomes $40 per hole, etc. There were also presses which means on any given hole a player can declare a press, and the bet doubles. Also skins–first on, closest to the hole, sandies, etc. As Senator Everett Dirksen (D-IL) once remarked a million here and a million there an pretty soon you are talking real money.

    These guys were not good golfers but like many not good golfers they assumed they were–9 handicap etc. What they lacked in golfing ability they made up for in hubris. They also thought my friend was an easy mark. They were dressed like Arnie, whereas he was wearing a college sweatshirt, cut offs and tennis shoes. An easy mark so they assumed. So they made the above bet with him and it was good for the entire round–the only way out was to buy your weigh out.

    The first hole was a par 5 dog leg left. They hit their drives in the 200 yard range just short of the dog leg. He stepped up and hit a 400 yard drive which left him a short pitch shot to the green. (Note: you may think 400 yards is not believeable but I have seen him on a launch monitor and his swing speed clocks in at 120 now and before he was injured it was 130–which is higher than the tour players–in the long drive champion arena.) He got an eagle and there best score was a double. He won the first hole, plus the kp, plus first on green, plus eagle. For the next seven holes, he outclassed them on every hole, and then purposely missed 2 foot putts so the bet would carry over and double. By the end of the round he won $6000 from each of them.

    When spring comes round golfers dust off their clubs and fixate on The Masters which is the most tradition based tournament outside the British Isles. It is suffused with history, which dates back to the greatest amateur golfer in history Bobby Jones, who designed the course, lived there, and died there from a terrible disease. As a young player he was a head case and he walked off the course at the British Open in the 1920s and was pilloried for it in the press. In time he became a model of decorum, a friend of Ike and the 1920s belonged to him. He was a Harvard man and an attorney.

    But behind that exterior which everyone sees and the talking heads prattle about, there is an underground of golf which consists of the greatest golfers you have never heard of and never will outside Las Vegas. If you ask most people who the greatest golfer to come out of my area is they would say Fred Couples. But there was a guy who dominated the amateur ranks and won everything in sight, and had a golf swing, competitive mind and killer instinct second to none. By day, he was a dealer at the old Desert Inn Casino–and later a pit boss and by day, he was called out to play against whales and hustler and sometimes the bets got as high as a million dollars. The winner of the US Open, Orville Moodie came in to play him and lost to him three consecutive days in a row, gave up and went home. But of course you never hear about these things from mass media. But things like this really happen.

    What got me on this tangent is the comments by Lynch about the escalating cost of Obamacare, produced by all these carry-overs. At some point, the piper must be played.

  36. O, the IRS and the Totalitarian Left…they know no bounds…this is what the Left does not understand about the slippery slope they are sliding on…when there is no recognition of the law…they or their family can be next…

    http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Texas/2014/04/22/Exclusive-Greg-Abbott-to-BLM-Come-and-Take-It

    After Breitbart Texas reported on the U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) intent to seize 90,000 acres belonging to Texas landholders along the Texas/Oklahoma line, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott questioned the BLM’s authority to take such action.

    “I am about ready,” General Abbott told Breitbart Texas, “to go to go to the Red River and raise a ‘Come and Take It’ flag to tell the feds to stay out of Texas.”

    Gen. Abbott sent a strongly-worded letter to BLM Director Neil Kornze, asking for answers to a series of questions related to the potential land grab.

    “I am deeply concerned about the notion that the Bureau of Land Management believes the federal government has the authority to swoop in and take land that has been owned and cultivated by Texas landowners for generations,” General Abbott wrote. “The BLM’s newly asserted claims to land along the Red River threaten to upset long-settled private property rights and undermine fundamental principles—including the rule of law—that form the foundation of our democracy. Yet, the BLM has failed to disclose either its full intentions or the legal justification for its proposed actions. Decisions of this magnitude must not be made inside a bureaucratic black box.”

    In an exclusive interview with Breitbart Texas, General Abbott said, “This is the latest line of attack by the Obama Administration where it seems like they have a complete disregard for the rule of law in this country …And now they’ve crossed the line quite literally by coming into the State of Texas and trying to claim Texas land as federal land. And, as the Attorney General of Texas I am not going to allow this.”

    Abbott challenged the BLM director directly stating in his letter, “Nearly a century ago, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the gradient line of the south bank of the Red River—subject to the doctrines of accretion and avulsion—was the boundary between Texas and Oklahoma. Oklahoma v. Texas, 260 U.S. 606 (1923). More recently, in 1994, the BLM stated that the Red River area was “[a] unique situation” and stated that ‘[t]he area itself cannot be defined until action by the U.S. Congress establishes the permanent state boundary between Oklahoma and Texas.’ Further, the BLM determined that one possible scenario was legislation that established the ‘south geologic cut bank as the boundary,’ which could have resulted ‘in up to 90,000 acres’ of newly delineated federal land. But no such legislation was ever enacted.”

    As to what kind of standoff might Texas might be facing with the BLM on this matter, Abbott said, “I think that we should be able to resolve this from a legal standpoint because, I believe, what the BLM is doing clearly violates the law. They don’t have any legal standing whatsoever to do this and that’s why I have issued this letter today.”

    In the letter, Gen. Abbott details five issues for the BLM to address:
    1.Please delineate with specificity each of the steps for the RMP/EIS process for property along the Red River.
    2.Please describe the procedural due process the BLM will afford to Texans whose property may be claimed by the federal government.
    3.Please confirm whether the BLM agrees that, from 1923 until the ratification of the Red River Boundary Compact, the boundary between Texas and Oklahoma was the gradient line of the south bank of the Red River. To the extent the BLM does not agree, please provide legal analysis supporting the BLM’s position.
    4.Please confirm whether the BLM still considers Congress’ ratification of the Red River Boundary Compact as determinative of its interest in land along the Red River? To the extent the BLM does not agree, please provide legal analysis supporting the BLM’s new position.
    5.Please delineate with specificity the amount of Texas territory that would be impacted by the BLM’s decision to claim this private land as the property of the federal government.

    “The letter today,” Abbott explained, “is the first shot in the legal process. We expect answers from them and based upon their answers we will decide what legal action to take.”

    “What Barack Obama’s BLM is doing,” Abbott continued, “is so out of bounds and so offensive that we should have quick and successful legal action if they dare attempt to tread on Texas land and take it from private property owners in this state.”

    As to the timeline of how this matter moves forward Abbott explained that it is hard to tell how quickly or slowly the BLM might move on this matter. “One of the problems is, we can’t tell what they’re doing other than trying to operate in very suspicious ways. We want to make sure they are going to be open and transparent about what they are doing and that constitutional due process rights are going to be protected.”

    Abbott told Breitbart Texas he wants to make sure the BLM understands that what they appear to be attempting to do is completely illegal. “This is Texas land. It belongs to Texas and the private property owners here,” Abbott firmly stated. “If we have to, we will assert quick and effective legal action to put a stop to it.”

    Abbott said the next step now is for the BLM to respond to his letter and the five points detailed above. “The way these things work is,” Abbott explained, “what they say in response will lead to more questions. I anticipate another round of questions will follow in response to their answers.”

    At that point, Abbott said it should be clear that either Texas will be taking legal action to stop them or the BLM will be backing off because they have no legal basis to support “their wrongful attempt to take Texas land.”

    The BLM currently maintains roughly 40,000 acres of land in Collin County around Lake Lavon. When asked about this land, Abbott responded, “We’re looking at anything and everything BLM either has or is considering doing across the State of Texas. Anytime we see land grabs like this by federal authorities, it raises red flags that cause us to look into the full extent of their operations.”

    Abbott said this issue comes down to a fundamental principle and that is, “private property rights and the rule of law are the foundation of democracy. Repeatedly we see the Obama Administration erode that foundation of democracy. As Attorney General, I will be restoring that bedrock foundation by restoring and protecting private property rights and the rule of law in Texas.”

    Abbott summarized his position thusly, “If I have to, I will make this our 31st lawsuit against the Obama Administration.”

    Abbott Letter to BLM by BreitbartTexas below:

  37. The Dems are flipping out tonight. I just received two emails from the DSCC asking for a donation to stop McConnell from defeating Grimes. They cite a poll indicating that Grimes is one point ahead of McConnell, who has outspent her enormously. In spite of this, however, they declare that it’s imperative to ratchet up the effort to defeat McConnell. Then, they try a fear tactic claiming that a McConnell win would very possibly lead to a Cruz or Ryan presidential win in 2016. Like that’s going to scare anyone.

    When you have had to live with the devil for six years, why would the possibility of Cruz or Ryan moving in frighten you?

    Admin, the Oprah article is quite an interesting read. Sounds like Oprah is putting out some pretty bad vibes into the universe, even as she holds herself up to be a spiritual adept. She knows just how everyone should live their lives in order to get in touch with their higher selves from whom they will receive divine guidance. With enough spiritual work, Oprah has asserted, one will encounter his/her inner child, and gain greater self-awareness.

    I’m not attempting to cast aspersions on anyone’s true spiritual beliefs or practices. IMHO that’s a deeply personal matter, and each one of us must seek his or her own way. But I am saying that once we find it, or think we have, we don’t have the right to declare that others must follow our paths in order to achieve peace, enlightenment, or whatever they are seeking.

    I’m also saying that in the words of The Eagles, I’d like to find her inner child and kick its little ass.

  38. admin
    April 22, 2014 at 4:04 pm

    Ofra seems to have a very ugly side, sounds like Moo and her Ma. Barry lets his relatives live on the street too.

    Nice.

  39. S
    April 22, 2014 at 8:47 pm
    —————
    There are states like Idaho where 70% of the land is owned by the federal government and there are others where this is not the case. The logic for this is more historical than logical, and I would be happy to explain in going all the way back to the meeting in Newberg New York by the officers of the Continental Army to abandon the colonies because Congress reneged in its promises to give them land in recognition of their services to the nation, and that was only prevented by the intervention of George Washington who talked them out of it and talked congress into giving them land grants in the Ohio Valley and elsewhere on what was federal land. By the Texas situation was different in that when Texas joined the union it was already a republic and as a state it retained its property rights and therefore the federal government did not acquire those rights except in limited areas–which are the ones the Obama Administration is going after. They treat Texas the same way that Stalin treated the Kulaks in Russia in the 1930s.

  40. Congress gave George Washington the right to claim any land he wanted in recognition of his services to the nation. He chose the area around Charleston West Virginia. In 2008, I campaigned for Hillary there met Terry McAuliffe, Mary Steemburgen, Ted Danzen and others who were big Hillary supporters. The morning of the election Terry asked me how it looked and I told him it looked very good. But West Virginia is so spread out that we did not do neighborhood canvassing but merely worked the phones, same as Texas. That night we won 67% to 26% which was impressive. I also lost my dad’s dogtags from world war II. But back to the real point here, seeing the area around Charleston in the late afternoon with the green hillshides and the sun bouncing off purple black and blue mountains you can understand why Washington selected that place to lay down his well earned claim.

  41. Something in your legal bailiwick Wbboei:

    http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2014/04/22/obama-hire-top-criminal-attorney-wh-counsel/

    Which brings us to the strange case of President Obama’s decision to hire Neil Eggleston to be his new White House Counsel.

    Eggleston is the kind of guy you go to when someone tells you, “time to lawyer up.” He’s a veteran at cleaning up ethics messes for politicians, most notably Bill Clinton, whom he aided during the Whitewater probes and the Monica Lewinsky affair, double entendre intended.

    But that’s not nearly all. He represented Rahm Emanuel during the scandal surrounding former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, as well as Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) and George W. Bush political director Sara Taylor when scandals touched them, Clinton Cabinet members Federico Pena and Alexis Herman during corruption probes, and various business people involved in “complex criminal investigations” according to the New York Times.

    Which begs and pleads the question, is Obama looking for more protection for the White House from the various GOP congressional probes, or is he aware of the possibility that something much, much worse could break?

  42. admin
    April 23, 2014 at 1:59 am

    I would guess that it is a defensive move in anticipation of the Senate flipping. Rather than one scandal or criminal activity connected with the White House it is a doubling of investigative resources with the Senate going to Republican control to investigate all of them. It isolates the administration and makes informers more comfortable ratting them out. The House flipping to Republicans in 2010 was an unmitigated disaster for Obama and put the skids on a lot of their plans. This looks like ass covering.

  43. Curt Clawson won the special GOP primary in Florida’s 19th District on Tuesday, becoming the favorite in the general vote in June to replace former GOP Rep. Trey Radel in southwest Florida for the rest of this year.
    The manufacturing executive and former Purdue basketball player swept past three other Republicans, fueled by $3.4 million of his own money and tea party support, as well as an endorsement from Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky. Clawson led with 38.1 percent of the vote when the Associated Press called the race around 7:50 p.m., less than an hour after polls closed. Ninety-five percent of precincts were reporting. http://www.politico.com/story/2014/04/curt-clawson-florida-house-primary-2014-elections-105931.html

  44. The Citizens Commission on Benghazi, a self-selected group of former top military officers, CIA insiders and think-tankers, declared Tuesday in Washington that a seven-month review of the deadly 2012 terrorist attack has determined that it could have been prevented – if the U.S. hadn’t been helping to arm al-Qaeda militias throughout Libya a year earlier.
    ‘The United States switched sides in the war on terror with what we did in Libya knowingly facilitating the provision of weapons to known al-Qaeda militias and figures,’ Clare Lopez, a member of the commission and a former CIA officer, told MailOnline.
    She blamed the Obama administration for failing to stop half of a $1 billion United Arab Emirates arms shipment from reaching al-Qaeda-linked militants.
    ‘Remember, these weapons that came into Benghazi were permitted to enter by our armed forces who were blockading the approaches from air and sea,’ Lopez claimed. ‘They were permitted to come in. … [They] knew these weapons were coming in, and that was allowed..snip
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2610598/Group-US-switched-sides-War-Terror-facilitating-500-MILLION-weapons-deliveries-Libyan-al-Qaeda-militias-leading-Benghazi-attack.html

    This is one of those copy-resistant articles, so I tried the FB button to get the title, and that brought two disappointments: the headline was abbreviated and a photo of Hillary came with it. 🙁

  45. admin
    April 23, 2014 at 1:59 am
    ————–
    This move has the smell of blood to it, it is a defensive move to a Repuoblican take over, and the ultimate object they are seeking to protect are Obama, Holder and Bauer. However, this joker may soon find himself with the problem of the horses of the Aegean Stable. Leaks are inevitable in the waning days of this presidency, and that is where they are most vulnerable–not to mainstream media, but to other sources like the informal group convened to investigate Benghazi. We must assume that big media will remain on its knees until the end of this presidency, and far beyond that because the have a false god to protect, and they do not want their own treason to be exposed to the world, so the world understands who they are–and who controls them. Quite possibly the new book by Sharyl Akisson will begin the great unmasking of that devil/

  46. Well, wouldn’t it be interesting if the GOP actually accomplished something besides talking the talk, but not walking at all…

    Until I see more than hot air from them, I consider them also a has-been party, just like the Dims.

  47. Admin: today, there is enough distrust of the media, and so many black eyes that if you were to publish a thread devoted exclusively to that subject, reminding readers of everything you have said on the subject that they are shamelessly in the tank for Obama and have forfeited any serious pretense of journalistic integrity in the process, it could be impactful in the larger community. It is a big project I know, but you have done most of the spade work already, and certainly the revelations we will soon see from Sharyl will ignite that debate. Also, big media is the implacable enemy of Hillary and the American People. We need to pre-empt their attacks. We cannot count on the other party to do this. They are too damned incompetent. http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2014/04/22/the-republicans-continued-public-relations-disaster/ Here is an interesting piece on Sharyl from the Hollywood Reporter.
    —————————————

    Appearing on CNN, the investigative correspondent (Sharyl At also described a CBS News culture where “ideologically entrenched” managers were hesitant to portray the Obama administration negatively.

    Sharyl Attkisson: CBS News Resistant Toward Criticizing Government, Corporations

    Sharyl Attkisson leveled strong, but carefully worded, criticism on Sunday against her former employer CBS News, describing a pattern where stories that painted the Obama administration or corporate interests in an unflattering way faced resistance at the network.

    CBS News Chief: Faulty Benghazi Report a ‘Black Eye’ for ’60 Minutes’

    “It did get to the point were there was not a lot left for me to do,” Attkisson reiterated about her employment during an interview with Brian Stelter on CNN’s Reliable Sources. The investigative reporter alleged a culture among some sectors at CBS News that was hesitant toward airing a story critical of the government and singled out “the producers that decide what gets on a program during a given day.”

    She also noted that in the past several years stories that were favorable to the Obama administration were likelier to be embraced by CBS News producers. “We had an almost total change in management in the time after Katie Couric left, the top managers who were very into the stories of government waste and government oversight all of them left at one time,” she said.

    “It’s fairly well-discussed inside CBS News that there are some managers recently who’ve been so ideologically entrenched that there’s a feeling and a discussion that some of them — certainly not all of them — have a difficult time viewing a story that may reflect negatively upon government or the administration as a story of value,” Attkisson said.

    Attkisson announced her resignation from CBS News on March 10, ending a career with the network that spanned over two decades. As an investigative correspondent at CBS, she reported aggressively on the Fast and Furious gun-smuggling scandal and the aftermath of the attack on the U.S. embassy in Benghazi, Libya. She was nominated for a 2013 Emmy in the investigative journalism in a newscast category for her work on a report titled “Libya: Dying for Security.”

    Attkisson has been critical of CBS since her departure, expressing similar displeasure in an interview with Howard Kurtz during his Fox News media show on April 13. “There seems to be a visceral reaction to doing stories that could ruffle feathers, whether it is certain people in the political spectrum or even corporate interests,” she told Kurtz. “I think there has come to be a narrowing universe of stories that are desired by the broadcasts, and it leaves us sometimes I think with newscasts that don’t dig very deep.”

    http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/sharyl-attkisson-cbs-news-resistant-697765

  48. WTH is going on? Is anyone watching or supervising this place? where is DOJ?

    this place needs a full investigation from top to bottom regarding what they are doing with taxpayer money and how they are getting it…

    http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-irs-taxes-bonuses-20140423,0,876215.story#axzz2zjA70dqD

    IRS paid 1,100 of its employees bonuses although they owed back taxes

    WASHINGTON — Failure to pay taxes usually is bad news for most Americans, but apparently not for some employees of the Internal Revenue Service –- they received performance bonuses from the agency despite failing to submit what they owed.

    The IRS paid a total of about $1.1 million in bonuses over approximately a two-year period to more than 1,100 employees who had been disciplined for “substantiated federal tax compliance problems,” according to an inspector general’s report.

    Those employees also received awards of more than 10,000 hours of extra time off and 69 faster-than-normal pay grade increases. They were among more than 2,800 IRS employees during that period who got performance awards within one year of disciplinary action, such as suspensions or written reprimands, the report found.

    PHOTOS: World’s most expensive cities

    The performance awards did not violate the law, said J. Russell George, the Treasury inspector general for tax administration.

    But he said that “providing awards to employees who have been disciplined for failing to pay federal taxes appears to create a conflict with the IRS’ charge of ensuring the integrity of the system of tax administration.”

    The IRS’ contract with the National Treasury Employees Union says disciplinary action or investigations do not preclude an employee receiving a bonus or other performance award unless it would damage the integrity of the agency.

    The inspector general’s report, released Tuesday, found that the more than two-thirds of IRS employees received performance awards in the 2011 and 2012 fiscal years.

    The audit was done because new federal guidelines in 2011 required agencies to reduce spending on bonuses and other awards.

    The audit was done because new federal guidelines in 2011 required agencies to reduce spending on bonuses and other awards.

    IRS spending on bonuses went down in 2012 compared to 2011.

    In 2011, the IRS paid $91.6 million in bonuses and granted almost 520,000 hours of extra time off to a total of 70,500 of the agency’s approximately 104,400 employees, the report said. That amounted to awards for 67.5% of employees.

    The following year, spending on cash bonuses dropped to $86.3 million and time off awards fell to about 490,000 hours. But the percentage of employees receiving performance awards increased. The agency gave awards to 67,870 of its 98,000 employees in 2012 — or 69.3%.

    Throughout that time, many employees who had been the subject of disciplinary action received performance awards.

    From Oct. 1, 2010, to the end of 2012, more than 2,800 employees who had been disciplined received more than $2.8 million in cash bonuses and more than 27,000 extra hours of time off, the report said.

    Those included 1,146 employees with tax problems, the report said.

    The inspector general recommended the IRS consider a policy requiring managers to consider disciplinary actions, especially those for failure to pay taxes, before deciding on bonuses and other performance awards.

    The agency issued a statement saying that it already is making changes to its bonus policy.

    “The IRS takes seriously our unique role as the nation’s tax administrator. We strive to protect the integrity of the tax system, and we recognize the need for proper personnel policies,” the agency said.

    The IRS said it had developed a policy linking conduct to performance awards for executives and senior-level employees.

    Even without such a policy, during the previous four years “the IRS has not issued awards to any executives that were subject to a disciplinary action,” the agency said.

    The IRS said it is considering a similar policy for the rest of the agency’s workforce, but that would have to be negotiated with the National Treasury Employees Union.

    A spokesman for the union did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

  49. some comments from the above LA Times IRS article

    plainsarcher Guest
    Rank 53
    The beat goes on. Here is both the entitlement mentality of government employees and the corrosive effect of “other people’s money” being so easy to spend on display together. You, on the other hand, had better pay on time or there will be penalties and interest. The IRS laws, like so much of our governance, rely very heavily upon voluntary compliance, as enforcement capability is small. Does this make you feel like complying?

    nathanrobert3939 Guest
    Rank 0
    This is like a drug counselor getting high on the same drugs they are trying to get people off of and then given a raise for it.

    borkin007 Guest
    Rank 246
    Do as I say, not what I do.

    rjc1978 Guest
    Rank 881
    The IRS – which is nothing more than a collection of gov’t employees – ripping off the taxpayers by not paying their taxes and their $$ for bonuses. Corrupt SCUM!

    Bobnoir Guest
    Rank 1806
    Actually, it’s a good plan by the IRS. Raises will generate more tax due. When I owe back taxes, my next refund goes to pay those taxes first.

    I challenge any one to walk in the average IRS worker’s shoes. It must be one of the more difficult careers going, dealing with all aspects of the tax code. I have always had good experiences with the IRS (50 years) — they are efficient, knowledgeable, admit errors, and refund promptly.

    No, I am not nor ever been an employ of the IRS.

    ted7441 Guest
    Rank 1227
    This was left out of the LA Times Article!!!A report from the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration shows that between Oct. 1, 2010, and Dec. 31, 2012, the IRS paid $2.8 million in bonuses to employees cited in the past year for such things as drug use, making violent threats, fraudulently claiming unemployment benefits, misusing government credit cards and — get this — failing to pay their taxes./b

  50. “Self-selected group of former top military officials” ?

    Well, no room for potential for bias in a “self-appointed, self-selected Citizen’s Commission” ? !

    Is this the equivalent of a self-appointed commission to study Obama’s competence, if the group members included: Soledad, Tingles, His Kookness, David Brooks, and Candy Crowley ?

  51. Well, I lost the only person here in unicorn land, that I have been able to talk to about oBama. This person KNOWS I am and have supported Hillary, (and the Big Dawg) for decades.

    Last night when we met for a few minutes, he seemed to be ranting about problems in his job, then in a instant, unleashed his haterid for the Clinton’s, calling Hillary ‘evil’ and saying they did commit murder.

    Since this person manages my apartment, it was even more uncomfortable than under normal circumstances.

    This person is as on top of Obama’s corruption and flaws as most of us are, but I will continue to shut him down on political discussions in the future, unless he regains his civility when talking to me about politics.

    Whata bummer, this is probably a sign that the GOP is ramping up their hatred of Hillary in the media before 2016. I stopped watching Fox, and tv news since the election on 2012 because I saw the ‘fair and balanced’ bullshit, hit the fan…but the comments on this blog seem to prove that Hillary has to fight for her life if she runs again.

    I would be disappointed if she decided, enough is enough already, and didn’t run…but I would sure understand her reasoning.

    She might just prefer to continue the good life she has now and speak from the sidelines and CGI, enjoying her years with her Big Dawg, family and new grandchild. Who could blame her?

  52. Yep. Hatred and ignorance. But you don’t hear Hillary screaming “Sexism” every time she is slammed. Even though she chooses not to follow the example of Barack and the race baiting, gender bias is at the root of a significant amount of the criticism leveled at her, IMHO, especially when the right wingers are railing on her. Even though the particular criticism may not appear to be sexist in nature, very often at the root of the attitude is the lack of regard for women.

    Sounds like you had to play it safe and smart with the anti-Hillary friend, in view of his position, Shadow. Just shutting the discussion down seems to be the best way to go. As you know, CDS is not easily treated, primarily because those who have it like the disease. Gives them someone to vent their pent up rage on.

  53. The court’s ruling didn’t alter the ability of universities in states without bans to consider race as one factor among others in admissions. Instead, the court chipped away at affirmative action by giving its blessing to one path for foes to challenge admissions policies: ballot initiatives. Opponents have also gone to courts and state legislatures to end affirmative-action practices in a decadeslong battle over university policies.

    Eight states, including California, have ended affirmative action since 1996. Practices vary widely among institutions. The higher-education establishment generally favors the use of racial preferences to promote diversity in the student body. Many of the nation’s most selective universities—including the Ivy League, the U.S. military academies and flagship public institutions such as the University of Texas at Austin and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill—employ affirmative action.

    http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304049904579517521606356770?mg=reno64-wsj

  54. free

    Yes indeed Free, you’re right on all accounts. This person’s rant towards Hillary, in my face, was quite a shock. At first I thought he was just being rude and teasing me, but at a point that his conversation went off into the right-wing whackadoodle weeds, I had to let him know he was getting ridiculous and I was not going to listen to him any longer.

    Trying to defend Hillary to someone this angry, isn’t worth my time nor breath.

    I actually dread hearing all the lies and sexist attacks Hillary will have to stand up to over the next two or more years. Those cracks in the ceiling will be dripping with blood. I really hate to see Hillary go though this, but she will not be alone.

  55. Of course they do…

    Interfaith Panel Denounces a 9/11 Museum Exhibit’s Portrayal of Islam

    Past the towering tridents that survived the World Trade Center collapse, adjacent to a gallery with photographs of the 19 hijackers, a brief film at the soon-to-open National September 11 Memorial Museum will seek to explain to visitors the historical roots of the attacks.

    The film, “The Rise of Al Qaeda,” refers to the terrorists as Islamists who viewed their mission as a jihad. The NBC News anchor Brian Williams, who narrates the film, speaks over images of terrorist training camps and Qaeda attacks spanning decades. Interspersed with his voice are explanations of the ideology of the terrorists, rendered in foreign-accented English translations.

    The documentary is not even seven minutes long, the exhibit just a small part of the museum. But it has suddenly become over the last few weeks a flash point in what has long been one of the most highly charged issues at the museum: how it should talk about Islam and Muslims.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/nyregion/interfaith-panel-denounces-a-9-11-museum-exhibits-portrayal-of-islam.html?hp&_r=0

  56. Yes Why???? 😯

    If I suddenly told you I was hiring Johnny Cochran to be my attorney, you’d think – well, first of all, you’d think it was peculiar, since Johnny Cochran is dead. Maybe I’m looking to save some money. But, assuming I mean the metaphorical Johnny Cochran, you’d be pretty sure I’m in some kind of really serious trouble.

    Or if your wife mentioned she had hired a lawyer, and you found out the attorney specializes in . . . divorce. You’d probably start checking some apartment listings.

    Which brings us to the strange case of President Obama’s decision to hire Neil Eggleston to be his new White House Counsel.

    http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2014/04/22/obama-hire-top-criminal-attorney-wh-counsel/

  57. Admin: new book out. Title is HRC. The authors are from Politico and the Hill, two publications not known for their objectivity. It purports to be based on insights of Hillary insiders. I do not know how many Hillary insiders would feel comfortable conversing with the two authors who appear to me to be bottom feeders. But who knows? It appears to be a sympathetic treatment, but I have so little respect for the two publications in question that I have no intention of wading through it. The other reason I will not is because if these former Obama supporters are now turning to Hillary, it cannot be good for the American People. In 2008 she stood up to them, just as she stood up to the venture capitalists just as she stood up to the NAFTA outsourcers. No candidate who swears to protect their interests can possibly represent the interests of the American People. Case in point: Barack Insane Obama.

  58. Can anyone give me the short version of why the far wrong right, think the Clinton’s are murders? I only have a very vague memory of some guy they knew, had some papers that could cast them in a bad light, so they think the Clinton’s bumped him off…or something. Was that Whitewater or something??

  59. Well, it is like I said the other day, i.e. Texas was a republic before it joined the union, and it never ceded to the federal government the land within its boundaries, except for military facilities like Witchita Falls, Fort Hood etc. The concern that the bureau of land management would do to Texans what it is doing to Bundy in Nevada where it is mostly federal land is an apples to oranges comparison in a strict legal sense of the word. The reason it is a concern is because Obama has shown no respect for the law, claims he can do anything he wants, and Texas has been an obstacle to his stated goal to transform this nation, etc. If he orders the BLM/FBI to act–and he just might, you are looking at another Waco. He may want that just like Hitler wanted a Reichstag fire. Let us hope not. In days gone by, the FBI was not the political animal it is today, even J Edgar Hoover at his worst is not what we see now. Also, in days of old their jurisdiction stopped at the waters edge, which is where Wild Bill Donovan’s OSS/CIA took over. Today, they behave in the same manner depicted in the Hollywood movie Day of the Condor. Thus, it is not wrong for Perry to issue the warning, whereas in other situations, I would dismiss it as a political stunt.
    ————–
    It’s unclear how seriously BLM might be looking at laying claim to additional boundary land.

    BLM said it is merely in the “initial stages of developing options for management of public lands,” as part of a “transparent process with several opportunities for public input.”

    BLM Field Manager Stephen Tryon, in a March 17 letter to Thornberry, said officials would eventually look to “ascertain the boundary” between federal and private land and acknowledged residents’ concerns that new surveys could “create cloud to their private property title.”

    But he said no new surveys are currently planned, and reiterated that there are no federal claims to Texas land “as defined by multiple rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court.”

  60. At the same time the federal government is bent on taking away the guns from law abiding citizens, more and more federal agencies are arming themselves to the teeth. So if we are going to go down the path of gun control, pray tell let us start with the federal government.

  61. The reason why so many have underestimated the evil of Obama is because they have tried to apply the reasonable man standard to his actions. It does not work. The standard that does work is the Chicago thug, whom no one in authority wants to stand up to. If they did stand up to him, I think a feather could knock him over, because his time has passed, and his power recedes by the day. But power is a question of perception and the RINO will not rock the boat. To rock the boat would be good for constituents, but bad for his contributors, and in case of conflict the RINO will always follow the money.

  62. Did anyone else get an ‘Official 2014 Democratic Party Survey’?

    The survey is a bunch of questions, asking which things Obama ‘plans to do’ in the future that you support most. Which things to blame on the Republican’s if they lose seats in congress…on and on.

    I answered every question with an honest answer…they will not be pleased.

    They asked what I would like to do to help out in the 2014 election. I said they would be lucky if I tossed them an unearned vote. I said I will campaign hard, in 2016 if Hillary Clinton runs for President.

    Then the real meaning of the ‘survey’ is to beg for money.

    I wrote across all the lines that are there to fill in your credit card number, address, etc…

    “Forget about it!! Go beg for money from the people that think the Democrats are doing a good job. I don’t.”

    They pay for the postage. I was going to toss in a bunch of blank pages to jack up the postage cost, but it all comes back to us to pay anyway.

  63. “Forget about it!! Go beg for money from the people that think the Democrats are doing a good job. I don’t.”

    _________

    I love it! I noticed a couple more emails from DSCC tonite, but didn’t open them.

  64. Shadow, regarding the murder issue, the only mention I can recall of murder was after Vince Foster committed suicide when Bill was POTUS. Some in the Crazy Right probably led by Newt the reptile, tried to imply that the Clintons had murdered him. They stopped short of actually accusing them, as I recall, because they had nothing on which to base any accusations. They did start some rumors and kept the buzz going for a while. Like the other outrageous claims they made about the Clintons, I don’t believe that those who started the rumors actually believed them, but it didn’t matter to them. The Pubs hated the fact that Bill was as successful and well liked as he was, and set about to destroy him and Hillary. They failed.

    That’s my recollection of the situation. Others may recall in more detail how and by whom it all began.

  65. Isn’t it telling that there was so much talk of murder in connection to the Clintons, when not one shred of evidence existed. Yet, no speculation about the convenient 2008 murder of a Hillary delegate from AR, , head of the Dem Party there who was specifically targeted and shot by a man who was killed before he was questioned? And what about the murders of the choir director of the goddamn America church, as well as several other gay choir members. Did we ever learn the exact cause of death of Stephanie Tubb Jones, another staunch Hillary supporter and committed Super Delegate?

  66. Hillary tells it like it is about MSM.
    _______________

    2 hours ago

    “Hillary Clinton: Today’s media is more entertainment, less facts”

    Posted by
    CNN’s Dan Merica

    Storrs, Connecticut (CNN) – Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton lamented the state of journalism on Wednesday, telling an audience at the University of Connecticut that journalism is now driven more by entertainment than fact based reporting.

    Clinton, who has been the focus of national media attention since the early 1990s, told the 2,300-person audience that “journalism has changed quite a bit in a way that is not good for the country and not good for journalism.”

    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/04/23/hillary-clinton-todays-media-is-more-entertainment-less-facts/

  67. freespirit
    April 23, 2014 at 11:38 pm

    Hell, yea.

    And to Hillary saying that journalism is all about entertaining and little to do with the fact. Hell, yea Hillary!

  68. The Nobel Commission awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to the great Messiah Obama who single handedly lowered the oceans, achieved racial harmony between blacks and whites, and solved the problem of the middle east, with his breakthrough agreement between Fatah and Hamas, two previously divided terrorist groups, now united in the common goal of destroying Israel. And he did all this with one hand tied between his back, the other engaged in a sword fight with Putin which has evoked cries of no mas–from the messiah. As Michelle told us in the beginning, he is really too good for the American People, which begs the meaning of the word good. All hail emperor obama. We who are about to die salute you.
    —————
    Obama Achieves Peace In Middle East … Between Fatah and Hamas

    After Months of Shuttle Diplomacy John Kerry Delivers a Peace Agreement — but not the one he intended

  69. Shadowfax
    April 23, 2014 at 10:26 pm
    —————
    Well shadow, they do not send them to me. But I still get emails from Bill Nelson’s wife asking me to join her in wishing Bill a happy birthday.

    I would rather be on a burning ship at midnight, or have my tonsils extracted without novocaine than wish Bill Nelson a happy birthday. On the other hand, I would be glad to wish him an unhappy birthday.

  70. I agree with Hillary about the media, but I would go one step further. It is about theater and ideology and bitter partisanship, and their reportage is COUNTER factual aka blatant lies and cover-ups. We must learn to dismiss them from the public debate. They are beyond redemption.

  71. When the lion of mainstream media, the great unequalled david gregory seeks the assistance of psychiatrists and sociologist to help him understand why he is not popular, he epitomizes the current state of maninstream media and its overpayed, underloved, dysfunctionals.

  72. Brent Budowsky sings the praises of Elizabeth Warren and her book to the high heavens. He attempts to strike an emotional chord by recounting a story of Warren listening to a saved voicemail from the late Chauffeur of C. when she felt the need for encouragement. There just aren’t enough adjectives for Brent to adequately describe his glowing opinion of Elizabeth and her book.

    We have seen one or two articles from Brent in which he praised the Clintons – of course that was after the Dems figured out that in electing Obama they had screwed the pooch, and needed the Clintons to save the party. Brent’s earlier articles about both Clintons have been scathing, spiteful, small-minded, mean spirited, and inaccurate. Given Brent’s tendency to flip from hot to cold in his writings, it would follow that coming articles about Warren might reflect this. They won’t. Brent loves him some Warren. The “de facto leader of the progressive movement” in his opinion. Like other progs although he hates the Clintons, he knows the Dems have NOBODY who can appeal to Americans like Bill and Hill. And, like other progs, he just can’t stand that fact. Too bad, sucka

    ______________

    Budowsky: Elizabeth Warren’s moment

    By Brent Budowsky – 04/23/14 05:00 PM EDT

    Shortly after she was nominated by Massachusetts Democrats to run for the Senate seat once held by the indescribably missed Edward Kennedy, Elizabeth Warren pulled out her cellphone and listened to a voicemail recording from Kennedy, which she saved for inspiration, about the consumer protection agency they battled together to create.

    To understand why Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) is the fastest-rising new star in the Democratic Party, the de facto leader of the progressive movement in America and a great hope for Democrats to lift their turnout in the coming midterm elections, read her new book, titled A Fighting Chance.

    There are Kennedy stories in A Fighting Chance, and anecdotes about her life and experiences that reveal why Warren’s appeal extends beyond conventional liberals and inspires many in the heartland who seek a fighting chance in a fair economy.
    Warren’s book reads like a family dinner discussion. Her dad was a maintenance man and her mom worked the phones at Sears. One day, while Elizabeth was growing up in Oklahoma City, she noticed that the family station wagon was gone. She asked her mom why the station wagon had disappeared. The answer came: “We couldn’t pay. They took it.”

    Warren knows from experience and writes with warmth that every day in America there are boys and girls asking moms and dads why the family car is gone, why the family home was taken away, why Mom or Dad has lost a job, and why so Americans live from paycheck to paycheck, desperately struggling to make ends meet.

    Read more: http://thehill.com/opinion/brent-budowsky/204183-budowsky-elizabeth-warrens-moment#ixzz2zo6IzYAm
    Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

  73. Found this article from BBC on Sharyl’s website—God is she good:
    ———————
    Study: US is an oligarchy, not a democracyWhat in the world?
    What in the world?

    Pieces of global opinion
    An old man in a suit looks up from his newspaper and brandy. This man does not like to be disturbed while he’s running the US A review of the best commentary on and around the world…

    Today’s must-read

    The US is dominated by a rich and powerful elite.

    So concludes a recent study by Princeton University Prof Martin Gilens and Northwestern University Prof Benjamin I Page.

    This is not news, you say.

    Perhaps, but the two professors have conducted exhaustive research to try to present data-driven support for this conclusion. Here’s how they explain it:

    Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.

    In English: the wealthy few move policy, while the average American has little power.

    The two professors came to this conclusion after reviewing answers to 1,779 survey questions asked between 1981 and 2002 on public policy issues. They broke the responses down by income level, and then determined how often certain income levels and organised interest groups saw their policy preferences enacted.

    “A proposed policy change with low support among economically elite Americans (one-out-of-five in favour) is adopted only about 18% of the time,” they write, “while a proposed change with high support (four-out-of-five in favour) is adopted about 45% of the time.”

    On the other hand:

    When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organised interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the US political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favour policy change, they generally do not get it.

    They conclude:

    Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association and a widespread (if still contested) franchise. But we believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organisations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America’s claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened.

    Eric Zuess, writing in Counterpunch, isn’t surprised by the survey’s results.

    “American democracy is a sham, no matter how much it’s pumped by the oligarchs who run the country (and who control the nation’s “news” media),” he writes. “The US, in other words, is basically similar to Russia or most other dubious ‘electoral’ ‘democratic’ countries. We weren’t formerly, but we clearly are now.”

  74. The above is why the emergence of a third party and the waning influence of mainstream media are inevitable. Both political parties are obsolescent, because they are so controlled by monied interests that they are utterly incapable of responding to the real needs of the critical mass of the population. They know this and it is why they are always looking to exploit wedge issues like race, abortion etc. to divide and conquer. But their machinations are so blatant and their big media tool so corrupt at this point that there will be change of some sort. You can see their fall back position is militarizing the federal agencies, surveiling the population etc. But even a regressive strategy such as that is self defeating in the end. The difficult part will be getting a successful third party off the ground, but the fact is we now have some of the people in place who can do it. But it will require breaking the back of mainstream media, which effort is already underway. I think Sharyl’s new book will leave mainstream media fully exposed.

  75. Freespirit, Warren is the candidate the DailyKooks want. Budowsky is not a full fledged Kook but he now joins the effort to push Hillary to the Kook side. Budowsky and others will try to turn Hillary into the Obama they imagined him to be by dangling or supporting a Warren candidacy (how soon until the Draft Warren websites begin?). They think if Obama had only been angry or more like what they deluded themselves he was the Obama presidency would not be the disaster it is. So now they disguise their disappointments with calls for “passion” and “anger”. That emotional response won’t help them or the party Obama has destroyed.

    Here’s the latest desperate call for anger:

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/23/democrats-you-better-get-angry-or-you-ll-lose-congress.html

    Democrats, You Better Get Angry or You’ll Lose Congress
    The pissed-off party wins midterm elections. Will the image of Ted Cruz chairing a committee or the Affordable Care Act getting gutted make the left show up?

    Attention Democrats: Unless you start getting angry, the midterm elections are going to be a bloodbath.

    The angriest voters win midterm elections and the right is really mad. But in this case, their anger could end up amounting to more than just an unintelligible rant on Twitter. It could result in them taking control of the Senate and thus both chambers of Congress.

    David Axelrod summed it up well over this past weekend: The anti-Obamacare voters are angry and hence more mobilized. Axelrod knows full well the history of our midterm elections and why anger matters. [snip]

    So what can Democrats do to win in 2014 (or at least not lose the Senate?) Some are advocating the, “embrace Obamacare” strategy. A poll released this week, however, found that independent voters would back the anti-Obamacare candidate by a whopping 25 percent point margin. So unless things change, “embrace Obamacare” sounds more like “fall on your sword.”

    For the Democrats to at least retain the Senate, they need to mobilize parts of the coalition that helped Obama win in 2012 when voter turnout was 58 percent. [snip] Bottom line: Democrats need to run a micro-managed campaign to energize (read: piss off) certain key parts of their base so these groups get angry enough to get out of their chairs and vote in November.[snip]

    Latino activist and attorney Raul Reyes said he believes that Latino voters would likely be energized to vote in 2014 if Obama took executive actions this summer that addressed immigration reform. [snip]

    What about the millennial voters? I reached out to some via social media. The best suggestion was to target those on their parents’ health insurance policy because Obamacare extended coverage until they are 26 years old. [snip]

    And for liberals who may have lost enthusiasm for the Obama administration, former Congressman Barney Frank explained to me that Democrats need to let them know about the right-wing people who will be chairing Senate committees if the GOP takes control of that chamber.

    The entire article is confused and ridiculous. The author does not seem to realize he suggests a “fear” campaign, not an “anger” campaign. The author also seems completely unaware that the powerful and genuine anger against ObamaCare trumps all his manufactured issues strategy.

  76. Notice how the left is utterly incapable of meeting Sharyl’s arguments head on and debating them on the merits. Instead, they do what they always do, get in the gutter and use ad hominum attacks. Ironically, these would be attackers are in fact the defenders of a corrupt system, only most of them do not understand this, or have thought it through. People like the toxic Bud Burkowski are a perfect example. A true gutter snipe. But in the end Churchill got it right:

    “The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is.”

  77. The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is.
    ——————–
    I suspect my head is in the clouds on much of this, but the Warren candidacy looks like a shell game to me. It has no financial backing that I am aware of, and I look at it as a pin prick. Actually, it is not a bad thing, because as long as there is a puppet opponent like Warren, whose candidacy is predicated on a lie, Hillary can burnish her credentials as a moderate, and after the toxic Obama, that is probably what the country is looking for. I do not think Warren can move the black vote, which is now the lynch pin of the democrat party. This entire business of using Hillary to continue the Obama fantasy is itself a delusion writ large. No practical thinker would advocate that course of action. The Obama failure must be viewed as a mistake, even if it merely comes across as a new argument based on changed circumstances. I think the core tenets of the Roosevelt liberalism will trump the Karl Marx theories of the left. But the bigger problem, i.e. serving the people as opposed to the monied interests is systemic, and will succeed only if the current system is dismantled over the course of the next twenty years–possibly within my lifetime.

  78. Here’s a bit more on Warren and the left:

    http://www.politico.com/story/2014/04/democrats-democracy-alliance-liberal-donors-105972.html?hp=t1

    The setting is the annual spring meeting of the Democracy Alliance, a secretive club of wealthy liberals that’s the closest thing the left has to the vaunted Koch brothers’ political network.

    The DA, as the liberal group is known to insiders, is increasing its ranks of rich donors for the first time in years and is gearing up to spend huge sums on political data, voter registration, ground organizing and advertising to influence the 2014 midterms and 2016 presidential elections. Potentially more significant, the groups’ donors also could play an important role in determining whether the post-Barack Obama Democratic Party embraces the rising tide of progressive populism or hews to a more cautious, centrist course — in other words, whether the Hillary Clinton wing or Elizabeth Warren wing will seize the reins. [snip]

    Payne called LaMarche “a visionary leader with enormous intellectual and institutional stature, not to mention deep relationships with very serious money people.” Citing income inequality, Wall Street reform and climate change as areas in which DA partners want Democrats to be more aggressive, Payne suggested they would rebel against Clinton if she tapped the same officials who shaped economic policy in her husband’s administration and then again in Obama’s.

    “A lot of this is about whether Bob Rubin and Larry Summers will control the economic policies of the Democratic Party or whether leaders more like Elizabeth Warren will set the agenda,” Payne said. “Democracy Alliance members, broadly speaking, are not Rubinites.”

    The group suffered from the perception that it put its thumb on the scale for Obama during his bitter battle with Clinton in the 2008 Democratic primary, when a few DA donors quietly steered big sums to pre-super PAC outside groups supporting Obama. Some of Clinton’s loyalists left the group in disgust.

    Now, many leading players in the DA are aligned behind Clinton, including Houston trial lawyers Steve and Amber Mostyn, billionaire financier George Soros, as well as David Brock and Harold Ickes, the founders of Media Matters and Catalist, respectively.

    But there are others who are considered likely to support a liberal alternative like Warren. Despite insisting she won’t run, the Massachusetts senator continues to generate 2016 interest from liberals, and was lobbied to reconsider by some DA partners when she attended the group’s November meeting at Washington’s Mandarin Oriental hotel. After Warren firmly rejected their entreaties, the DA members began discussing other liberal alternatives, according to a source with knowledge of the Mandarin meeting. The Progressive Change Campaign Committee, which helped coax Warren into running for the Senate in 2012 and then boosting her campaign, and now is working to raise her profile in2016 presidential primary states, was recently added to a DA roster of suggested grantees. And health care tech entrepreneur Paul Egerman, who was Warren’s national finance director, last year became the DA’s treasurer.

    We’ve had drinks or dinner with many of those mentioned in this article in very small (under 4 people) settings. We know whereof we speak/write and that is why everything in this article we anticipated months if not years ago.

  79. Shadowfax
    April 24, 2014 at 1:02 am

    freespirit
    April 23, 2014 at 11:38 pm

    Hell, yea.

    And to Hillary saying that journalism is all about entertaining and little to do with the fact. Hell, yea Hillary!
    ______________________________

    Amen!!!!!! 😀

  80. Some rag called “Bizpac Review” has dug up some more dirt to throw at HRC about her stint at state. This time, it’s the fact, or let’s say the possibility, that USAID funneled a lot of money to corrupt Afghan officials:

    http://www.bizpacreview.com/2014/04/21/hillary-clinton-blamed-in-usaid-corruption-memos-could-cause-repercussions-for-2016-113880

    If you read the article closely, you’ll note that Hillary went to bat to get the increased funding from Congress, but that actually the use of the funds was not directly in her hands: It was USAID that handled it. The money was put in World Bank accounts from which the 7 Afghan ministries could draw. USAID swears that they looked into all the invoices of things that were bought and saw no corruption.

    Such matters are in the hands of the US bureaucracies and outside auditors that report to USAID, not to HRC. In fact, the only thing the article says is that the 7 Afghan ministries were incompetent or corrupt, with no proof of that.

    This is just the sort of thing the RNC is looking for to slime HRC’s record at State with hints and spin of corruption at an adjacent agency. The article sounds “investigative” but in the final analysis, it’s just disgusting.

  81. I’ve speculated here that Kentucky will be seeing a lot of HRC going into November. It’s starting already:

    Hillary Clinton to speak at United Methodist Women’s Assembly

    LOUISVILLE, Ky. (April 21, 2014)– Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will highlight United Methodist Women’s Assembly on Saturday, April 26 at the Kentucky International Convention Center. The event runs from April 25-27 and is expected to bring more than 7,000 women from around the world to downtown Louisville and generate $2.8 million of economic impact.

    Clinton, a lifelong United Methodist, previously spoke at the 1996 United Methodist General Conference….

    The three-day event will feature speakers, worship and more than 75 workshops covering topics on spiritual growth, leadership development and justice. On April 24, there will be a pre-event Ubuntu Day of Service with groups volunteering in the Louisville community.

  82. Free

    “He attempts to strike an emotional chord by recounting a story of Warren listening to a saved voicemail…”

    —–

    [Pink hankie in hand, sniffle, sniffle…]

    I am so choked up remembering also, how E. Warren claimed to have a drop of real Native American blood, coursing though her veins…

    And how much time she has spent on her knees with her dear leader.

  83. admin
    April 24, 2014 at 10:32 am
    ———–
    yes, I have heard these names before– creepshow La marche for example. This cabal does want to hijack this country and they need a front man. I just wonder whether Warren meets that test. It is one thing to barely win the Kennedy seat in Massachusetts from a milquetoast RINO and quite another to win the entire party. Maybe I have underestimate the situation but it is interesting that for now Soros has positioned himself on the Hillary side. It would be interesting to know what support he is simultaneously giving to Warren or someone else. The prick is always hedging, and what he does publicly is often for show, it is what he does privately that matters.

  84. It is not unthinkable that Soros would position himself at the center of the draft Hillary campaign just to know who is doing what and then turn right around and feed that information to the other side. This tactic was deployed by one of the worst butchers in history–Felix Djerjinsky who was head of the NKPD/Checka, who set up a sham organization called the trust to lure white russians into a place where he could keep eyes on them, and become privy to their plans. It is a better than even bet that this is what Soros is up to.

  85. I have to say it: I find mainstream media to be more depressing than entertaining, when I think about the importance of a legitimate press in a free society, how they have abused it, and the impunity they are given to do so under the First Amendment. Thus, when that statist pig John Paul Stevens formerly of the Supreme Court gives us his pseudo wisdom about how the Constititution should be amended, he fails to deal with this problem and instead focuses on gun control etc. What an ideological fool. Another Nixon mistake.

  86. I’ll take ‘Explicit Media Bias” for $500, Alex.” On the April 23 “Jeopardy,” a reporter for The New York Times actually admitted that it was part of his job to “annoy” Representative Darrell Issa (R-Calif.).
    The admission came as a question under the category “Man of the House” about House Representatives. In the video question, New York Times reporter Eric Lichtblau introduces himself and asks:
    ________________________________________
    “This California Republican who chairs the House Oversight & Government Reform Committee has been called Obama’s Annoyer-In-Chief, & it seems I provide the same service for him.” Continues after the video.
    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kristine-marsh/2014/04/24/jeopardy-ny-times-reporter-eric-lichtblau-admits-bias-against-republ

  87. wbboei
    April 24, 2014 at 1:20 pm

    I have to say it: I find mainstream media to be more depressing than entertaining

    ——
    I think everyone on Big Pink shares your view on this.

    I can’t believe I used to actually watch OberA$$holeman. The first time he hinted that he was going into attack mode on Hillary and up Barry bum, I never watched MSNBC again, never.

    I tried to hang on to CNN for a short time after, but it was like ending up in the Twilight Zone. Then, after awhile, I watched Fox until 2012…now I watch none of the liars on any station. I get all my news on the internet and watch short clips on Pink.

    I will probably start watching something, maybe just Greta if Hillary runs.

  88. The 36-year-old Alson Ernst who threw the shoe at HRC has been arraigned on 2 criminal counts of (1) trespassing and (2) violence against a person, and “could face up to 2 years in federal prison and the possibility that federal authorities would be able to monitor her movements….”

    So, contrary to what I wrote earlier, the feds are in on it. This is apparently because the judge granted the “government’s request to keep Ernst in Federal custody, saying she was a flight risk and a danger to the community.”

    My guess is that they will let her go with one of those things on her ankle to monitor her movements. It would be a mistake to make a real big thing out of this. Sweet Jesus, 2 years in prison for disorderly conduct!… HRC should intervene to prevent that.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/alleged-hillary-clinton-show-thrower-arraigned/2014/04/25/603a3b86-cc97-11e3-b81a-6fff56bc591e_story.html

Comments are closed.