Good Days For A Blood Feud – Hillary Clinton v. Barack Obama, Rangel v Espaillat, Tea Party McDaniels v GOP Establishment Thad Cochran, Part II

There are blood feuds which already disgorged the majority of their scarlet corpuscles. Then there are blood feuds just beginning to gush their essence. Yup, it’s time to discuss Edward Klein’s book “Blood Feud: The Clintons v. the Obamas.”


Jut Jaw

Edward Klein’s long history of imagined Hillary Clinton conversations with Bill, imagined conversations about Hillary and Bill, imagined conversations about imagined conversations, are so comic and badly rendered they more properly belong in a Nelson Eddy/Jeanette McDonald operetta or an early Joan Collins melodrama. Some of Edward Klein’s “facts” are equally comic.

Did you know Hillary has “a right transverse venous thrombosis“? Her thyroid is shot as is her heart. In short, Hillary Clinton is falling apart according to Edward Klein. If Hillary Clinton decides to run for president in 2016 her medical records will be revealed and Klein’s reportage on Hillary’s health will be confirmed or repudiated – so we won’t worry about Klein’s reports as to Hillary’s health.

Less likely to be settled, ever, are other Edward Klein “revelations” about Hillary. Did you know Hillary did not shave her legs during her university years which to Klein is indicative of lesbianism? Did you even know that Hillary is a lesbian having affairs with other lesbians – although we never can figure out how she made time for lesbianism what with all her wild sexual cavorting with the murdered Vince Foster? Did you also know that lesbian Hillary refused Bill Clinton access to her lesbian parts so Bill raped her and that is how Chelsea was produced?

For all that rubbish, Edward Klein is still more believable in his latest book than most of Big Media.

Edward Klein is possibly performing a public service with his latest book. Perhaps, because of Klein, some on the right will consider that they fail to beat Hillary and Bill Clinton because their basic premises about Hillary and Bill Clinton are wrong. Some on the right want to prevent a lucid analysis of Hillary and Bill Clinton and are afraid of Edward Klein’s new book:

However, the broader purpose of the book is to show that there is a heated battle going on — dating back to the brutal primary contest between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama during the 2008 presidential election cycle — that continues to manifest itself in various ways as we move towards the 2016 presidential election. [snip]

Word of caution to readers: “Blood Feud” according to Klein is based on dozens and dozens of interviews with those close to the Clinton and Obama camps, none of which of course are sourced. Further worth noting is that the book almost universally portrays the Obamas in a negative light, which by comparison makes the Clintons, despite their ruthlessness and apparent lust for political power, seem almost universally sympathetic.

The facts, as reported by Hillary Hater Edward Klein, portray Hillary and Bill Clinton as “almost universally sympathetic” so ‘ignore the facts’ advise the thought leaders on the right.

As deranged as the Sunni Right is, the Shiitty Left is even worse. Both extremes have been denying facts and distorting reality. Those on the Right have an imperative interest to tie Hillary to Barack Obama. Tie Hillary Clinton 2016 to the despised, distrusted, disgusting, Barack Obama and Republicans win in 2016,

Those on the Left likewise have a survival instinct to tie Hillary to Barack Obama. Indeed, The New Republic claims that Hillary Clinton 2016 is invincible because Hillary wooed and has won the crackpot left of the party. However what explains the loony left’s new found support of Hillary Clinton is that Hillary can save Barack Obama from becoming only an historical pimple on the body politic. If Barack Obama gets a third term called Hillary Clinton 2016 then the loony left won’t feel as defeated and stupid for their elevation of Obama.

Democratic Party Slogan 2008

On both sides of the political spectrum there is an interest to tie Hillary Clinton to that loser who currently occupies the White House. But for a long time we have been reporting what Edward Klein is reporting in his new book:

Any doubts about the accuracy of our many reports (list of links HERE) on the secret and sometimes not so secret war by Barack Obama against Hillary Clinton should have been completely dispelled this week.

We wrote that in 2011. We’ve been writing about the war Barack Obama has waged against Hillary Clinton well before Edward Klein. In article after article we’ve documented the secret war:

“Kerry’s moves are part of the long war Barack Obama is secretly waging against Hillary Clinton which we have outlined (See, Barack Obama At War With Hillary Clinton (And Thank You Andrew Breitbart), and Mark Halperin’s Book – Harry Reid’s Negro Macaca, Barack Obama’s War On Hillary Clinton, Part I, and Mark Halperin’s Book – Harry Reid’s Negro Macaca, Barack Obama’s War On Hillary Clinton, Part II, and Mark Halperin’s Book – Harry Reid’s Negro Macaca, Barack Obama’s War On Hillary Clinton, Part III, and Obama At War With Hillary Clinton And General McChrystal (The New Shinseki), and Going… Going… Gone).”

All the while Big Media and blowhard drunks kept assuring us that Hillary loves Barack and Barack loves Hillary. But we reported what we were told.

On Benghazi we repeatedly declared that not only were Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton at war but we also stated that Benghazi was an issue that deserves great scrutiny and a select committee. We also asserted repeatedly and without evidence we could discuss, that yes, indeed, Hillary Clinton would come out “smelling like a rose” from the entire Benghazi mess.

On September 30th of 2012 we wrote before anyone else “People Died, Obama Lied”. We stated we want a full and complete investigation of all these matters – NOW – before the election even as we declared Hillary Clinton would come out “smelling like a rose.”

In Where’s Benghazi Now? we noted that the main question on Benghazi is still why there was no special alarm around the world for any and all American facilities on the anniversary of 9/11? We explained why Susan Rice, not Hillary Clinton went on the Sunday talk shows and we again asserted that Hillary Clinton would come out “smelling like a rose.”

Indeed, Republicans have been in “clover” watching Hillary versus Barack on Benghazi. We still insisted that Hillary would come out of all this “smelling like a rose.”

Little did we know that a renown Hillary Hater par excellance would confirm much of our reporting even as he put a spin on the reasons for what Hillary and Bill did:

Bill and Hillary then apparently played out various scenarios, including Hillary potentially resigning over what had occurred. They ruled this out however in part because her State Department was providing cover for the CIA in terms of what operations were taking place in Benghazi, in addition to the fact that her resignation could hurt Obama’s chances for reelection which might destroy Hillary’s own political future.

Edward Klein who edited the New York Times Magazine for many years as well as the foreign affairs section of Newsweek is spraying rose scented perfume all over Hillary:

A new book claims President Obama instructed then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to blame the Benghazi terror attack on a protest over an anti-Islam film, over Clinton’s objections.

The anecdote is included in the book “Blood Feud: The Clintons vs. the Obamas,” by Edward Klein. An excerpt was published Sunday in The New York Post. Klein reported that, according to an unnamed Clinton legal adviser, Obama called the secretary of State late on the night of Sept. 11, 2012.

Hillary was stunned when she heard the president talk about the Benghazi attack,” the source reportedly said. “Obama wanted her to say that the attack had been a spontaneous demonstration triggered by an obscure video on the Internet that demeaned the Prophet Mohammed.”

According to Klein, Clinton advised Obama that the story “isn’t credible,” but Obama nevertheless told Clinton to put out a State Department release. According to Klein, Bill Clinton also told his wife “that story won’t hold up.”

The State Department did put out a statement the night of Sept. 11 that cited “inflammatory material posted on the Internet.”

Clinton herself never has publicly claimed she was pressured into citing the faulty video explanation.

Author Ken Timmerman, who reported on the same phone call in his book “Dark Forces: The Truth About What Happened in Benghazi,” on Monday cast doubt on the latest version of events — he called this account a “desperate ploy to defend her presidential aspirations.

Timmerman claimed the “story” about the video was not “created” on the Obama-Clinton phone call. Rather, he said, “I think that’s where they agreed on the story between the two of them.”

In an interview with Fox News last week, however, Clinton did indicate she had personal doubts about that narrative at the time. [snip]

My own assessment careened from the video had something to do with it, the video had nothing to do with it — it may have affected some people, it didn’t affect other people,” she said in the interview with Fox News’ Bret Baier and Greta Van Susteren.

Clinton added: “There’s no doubt terrorists were involved.”

Who to believe? Right wing Ken Timmerman or right wing Edward Klein? It’s an important question and one we have stated is key to understanding what happened post Benghazi. Our reports before Edward Klein’s book are congruent with what Edward Klein reports.

Bret Baier asked Hillary the question we think is so important and that so much depends on. Hillary seemingly implicated herself in the interview.



Unfortunately, the answer as to when the State Department release blaming the video went out, is not definitive and Bret Baier did not follow up with the necessary questions about who wrote the release and whether anyone from the Obama White House instructed as to what the release should say. Trey Gowdy will no doubt ask the right follow-up questions.

On September 11 2012 Hillary Clinton was on the phone to all the top military and intelligence officials. Then Obama late at night called Hillary. When was the call?

WH: Obama Called Hillary on Night of Benghazi Attack–More Than Six Hours After It Started

(CNSNews.com) – President Barack Obama called Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at approximately 10 p.m. on the night of the terrorist attacks on the U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Libya, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told CNSNews.com.

That was more than six hours after the attacks started, more than an hour before Tryone Woods and Glen Doherty were killed–and about the time that Clinton first released a statement linking the attacks to “inflammatory material posted on the Internet,” a reference to an anti-Muslim video on YouTube. [snip]

Outgoing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, told the Senate Armed Services Committee they first notified the president of the attack during a Sept. 11, 2012 meeting that began at 5 p.m. and ran for about 30 minutes. They also told the committee they did not talk to Obama or anyone else at the White House after that meeting.

But when was the call? Was the call before the State Department press statement? Or was the call after the State Department press release? Was the State Department forced by the White House to concoct an improbable story? Did Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama conjure a pack of lies together in order to protect the C.I.A. or to protect the Obama presidential campaign? Did Barack Obama call Hillary Clinton in order to force her to release a statement she did not want to release? Trey Gowdy may borrow our list of questions.

There have been many attempts by many to get these questions answered with precision. According to ace reporter Sharyl Attkisson the State Department immediately knew that Benghazi was a terrorist attack and not a Rotten Tomatoes critical film review:

Internal Emails: State Dept. Immediately Attributed Benghazi Attacks to Terrorist Group

A newly-released government email indicates that within hours of the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks on Americans in Benghazi, Libya; the State Department had already concluded with certainty that the Islamic militia terrorist group Ansar al Sharia was to blame. [snip]

The email is entitled “Libya update from Beth Jones. ” Jones was then-Assistant Secretary of State to Hillary Clinton. According to the email, Jones spoke to Libya’s Ambassador at
9:45am on Sept. 12, 2012 following the attacks.

“When [the Libyan Ambassador] said his government suspected that former Qaddafi regime elements carried out the attacks, I told him the group that conducted the attacks—Ansar Al Sharia—is affiliated with Islamic extremists,” Jones reports in the email.

There is no uncertainty assigned to the assessment, which does not mention a video or a protest. [snip]

Another State Department email sent at 5:55pm on Tues. Sept. 11, 2012, while the attacks were underway, includes a report that “the extremist group Ansar Al Sharia has taken credit for the attack in Benghazi” and that U.S. officials asked the offices of the [Libyan] President and [Prime Minister] to pursue Ansar al Sharia.”

So the State Deparmtnt knew immediately, as any sensible person informed of an attack on an American installation on any September 11 would, that Benghazi was a terrorist attack but then issued a statement blaming a video. Who does this benefit? Does it benefit Hillary Clinton in any way? Quite the contrary. Does it benefit Barack Obama two months before the election? You bet your sweet ass it does:

Clinton bristled at Benghazi deception [snip]

She had no doubt that a terrorist attack had been launched against America on the anniversary of 9/11. However, when Hillary picked up the phone and heard Obama’s voice, she learned the president had other ideas in mind. With less than two months before Election Day, he was still boasting that he had al Qaeda on the run.

If the truth about Benghazi became known, it would blow that argument out of the water.

“Hillary was stunned when she heard the president talk about the Benghazi attack,” one of her top legal advisers said in an interview. “Obama wanted her to say that the attack had been a spontaneous demonstration triggered by an obscure video on the Internet that demeaned the Prophet Mohammed.

This adviser continued: “Hillary told Obama, ‘Mr. President, that story isn’t credible. Among other things, it ignores the fact that the attack occurred on 9/11.’ But the president was adamant. He said, ‘Hillary, I need you to put out a State Department release as soon as possible.’”

After her conversation with the president, Hillary called Bill Clinton, who was at his penthouse apartment in the William J. Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock, and told him what Obama wanted her to do.

I’m sick about it,” she said, according to the legal adviser, who was filled in on the conversation.

That story won’t hold up,” Bill said. “I know,” Hillary said. “I told the president that.” “It’s an impossible story,” Bill said. “I can’t believe the president is claiming it wasn’t terrorism. Then again, maybe I can. It looks like Obama isn’t going to allow anyone to say that terrorism has occurred on his watch.”

Hillary’s legal adviser provided further detail: “During their phone call, Bill started playing with various doomsday scenarios, up to and including the idea that Hillary consider resigning as secretary of state over the issue. But both he and Hillary quickly agreed that resigning wasn’t a realistic option.

Mocking clowns will no doubt rage that Hillary Clinton did not resign in protest. But laughing clowns do not have to consider what it would mean to the country to have Obama unfettered without any responsible power centers challenging him at every turn. Belay that. We now know what is is like to have an Obama unfettered by Hillary Clinton and/or Leon Panetta. Have you noticed what has happened to the country now that those two are no longer restraints on Obama’s treacheries and booberies?

Now do you see why we wrote:

That’s it baby. That’s what Gowdy must focus on and filter out the noise. The Benghazi attack was a terrorist attack on September 11 for which Barack Obama was completely unprepared. Focus on why the White House did not anticipate and prepare for September 11 attacks. Focus on why there was no special phone number for at risk embassies or American installations to call if and when trouble arose on September 11.

Police detectives know that in any crime search for a motive. Who had the motive to lie? Whose election was two months away? Of course for those who ain’t buying the obvious, for those who chose to ignore all our reports well before the Edward Klein book published there’s this for them to explain away too:

The feud between the Obamas and ‘Hildebeest’

In his new book, “Blood Feud,” journalist Edward Klein gets inside the dysfunctional, jealous relationship between Bill and Hillary Clinton and Barack and Michelle Obama — and how it could explode in 2016.

Outwardly, they put on a show of unity — but privately, the Obamas and Clintons, the two power couples of the Democrat Party, loathe each other.

I hate that man Obama more than any man I’ve ever met, more than any man who ever lived,” Bill Clinton said to friends on one occasion, adding he would never forgive Obama for suggesting he was a racist during the 2008 campaign.

The feeling is mutual. Obama made ­excuses not to talk to Bill, while the first lady privately sniped about Hillary.

On most evenings, Michelle Obama and her trusted adviser, Valerie Jarrett, met in a quiet corner of the White House residence. [snip]

Their favorite bête noire was Hillary Clinton, whom they nicknamed “Hildebeest,” after the menacing and shaggy-maned gnu that roams the Serengeti.

The animosity came to a head in the run-up to the 2012 election, when Obama’s inner circle insisted he needed the former president’s support to win. Obama finally telephoned Bill Clinton in September 2011 and invited him out for a round of golf. [snip]

I really can’t stand the way Obama ­always seems to be hectoring when he talks to me,” Clinton added, according to someone who was present at the gathering and spoke on the condition of anonymity. [snip]

“Bill got into it right away,” said a Clinton family friend. “He told Obama, ‘Hillary and I are gearing up for a run in 2016.’ He said Hillary would be ‘the most qualified, most experienced candidate, perhaps in history.’ His reference to Hillary’s experience made Obama wince, since it was clearly a shot at his lack of experience when he ran for president.

“And so Bill continued to talk about Hillary’s qualifications . . . and the coming campaign in 2016. But Barack didn’t bite. He changed the subject several times. Then suddenly, Barack said something that took Bill by complete surprise. He said, ‘You know, Michelle would make a great presidential candidate, too.’

“Bill was speechless.” [snip]

Bill Clinton would go on to campaign for Obama in 2012, but he felt betrayed when the president seemed to waver when it came to a 2016 endorsement of Hillary. Obama attempted to smooth things over with a joint “60 Minutes” interview with Hillary, and later a private dinner for the two couples at the White House. [snip]

Lately, Bill Clinton has become convinced that Obama won’t endorse Hillary in 2016. During a gathering at Whitehaven, guests overheard Bill talking to his daughter Chelsea about whether the president would back Joe Biden.

“Recently, I’ve been hearing a different scenario from state committeemen,” Clinton said. “They say he’s looking for a candidate who’s just like him. Someone relatively unknown. Someone with a fresh face.

“He’s convinced himself he’s been a brilliant president, and wants to clone himself — to find his Mini-Me.

“He’s hunting for someone to succeed him, and he believes the American people don’t want to vote for someone who’s been around for a long time. He thinks that your mother and I are what he calls ‘so 20th century.’ He’s looking for ­another Barack Obama.”

For a long time Big Media has been selling the story that Bill and Michelle and Barack and Hillary are just great pals. Mostly alone we laughed and declared that alliance as believable as the Michael Jackson Lisa Marie Presley kiss.



You can believe Big Media narratives about Hillary Clinton and the Team of Rivals friendship palsy walsy nonsense. Or, you can believe there is a blood feud between the Clintons and the dastard Obamas. We’ll side with our reports and if that means for now we are on the side of Edward Klein, so be it.

Share

295 thoughts on “Good Days For A Blood Feud – Hillary Clinton v. Barack Obama, Rangel v Espaillat, Tea Party McDaniels v GOP Establishment Thad Cochran, Part II

  1. Admin! This one is really off the chain! Excellent.

    I wonder if Big Dawg is right about that little titmouse looking for a candidate like him. Who the hell would vote for an Obama clone? Plus, I’m not sure Obama’s ego could stand the idea of an “unknown” someone like him being POTUS – not unless he maintained control. Admin has said all along that O wouldn’t support Hillary, and I think most of us here agreed with her assessment. Bill should have known not to trust him. What has Obama got to lose if he fails to live up to his end of the bargain. Bill already campaigned for him. He got what he wanted and now will not pay what he owes.

    You have to wonder though, just how much good his support would actually do a candidate. I guess in a Dim Primary his influence might be worth something. The progs will support an Obama double if he tells them to. But, they want Warren. The DU kiddies love them some Warren. The Kooks too.

    You called it, Admin. Hillary will come out of this rose scented, and Obama so called legacy will take another hit.

    On Meechelle and the Jar calling Hillary “Hildebeast” – It takes a lot of nerve or ignorance if you are Meechelle Obama, who has done not one damn thing positive for this country, and wouldn’t know how if given the opportunity – nor would she want to – to call anyone names, let alone Hillary, who has worked tirelessly to improve conditions worldwide. WTF has Meechelle done? And the Jar -not even worth discussing- that lightweight, egomaniacal, freak owes this country big time for the crap she has perpetrated on America through her little titmouse in the White House.

  2. Great post Admin!!!

    I keep remembering a snippet that came out weeks after the Benghazi attack about some emails Hillary received…how Bill supposedly got his legal friends together to decide Hillary’s legal rights in the situation.

    Were they emails that claim that the State Department knew the idea of the movie causing the attack what was not real.

    Was it also another reason Hillary refused to go on the talk shows and Rice got on her knees to Obama because she thought she would be the next Sec. of State when Hillary resigned in 2012?

  3. I just received an audit on my tax return for 2013 back from the IRS. It puzzles me!!!

    They are questioning how many dependents I claimed.

    I guess it was because of my response to the question: “List all dependents?”

    I replied: 12 million illegal immigrants; 3 million crack heads;
    42 million unemployed people on food stamps,
    2 million people in over 243 prisons;
    Half of Mexico ; and 535 persons in the U.S. House and Senate.”
    1 useless President.

    Evidently, this was NOT an acceptable answer.
    I KEEP ASKING MYSELF, WHO The Hell DID I MISS?

  4. Turkey is screwed…What a sorrowful low day for Turkey’s future with the news of Erdogan basically going to install himself as dictator now.

    BREAKING: PM Recep Tayyip Erdoğan becomes AK Party’s presidential candidate.

    and there goes the country into his pocket and his personal private family playground just like Azerbaijan…God help Turkey.

  5. Good post, it fills me with hope except when I realize that nobody is going to read the Klein account because it’s fictional at best.

    Plus, if Gowdy does continue your questioning line, all it will do will be to clear up the cover-up business and no one will take notice because they don’t care to clear HRC of this business. Their sole aim is to sully her more.

    Plus, Gowdy isn’t even concerned with the cover-up. His first question is: “What was Stevens doing in Benghazi?” which is a question I would like answered too.

  6. “Klein account … is fictional at best”

    which is not to say that there is no truth in fiction nor that some people don’t get their best wisdom from mythology: witness the long-lived popularity of the Bible and Greek mythology.

    So, who knows? Maybe this Klein bullshit will gain some traction. Already, admin, Mormaer and wbboei seem to see the comic side of it whereas I am “too serious” as wbboei and others claim. I’m open to many forms of humor, though, and don’t see any here.

  7. This is not a distraction. It is an opportunity. This is how Republicans win elections in the south, at least in Mississippi. This is an anatomy of a crime, and the thing I now wonder is whether when/if Cochrane is removed–spittle and all, the Barbour/Rove machine will attempt to shoe horn in one of their stooges to the vacant position. I suspect the law would not allow it, but that all depends on who is interpreting the law. If it is a weak judge like Roberts, who knows what he will decide. It all depends on who squeezes him the hardest. And in a venue like Mississippi history shows they are inclined to squeeze.

    (Note: contrary to media consensus, the recent supreme court decisions against Obama on vacancies, contraceptives, etc. are a nawthing. They are so narrowly drawn, and so fail to confront the major constitutional defect of the entire legislation that the most you can say about them is that they tinker around the edges of a major assault on the separation of powers, and federalism. So Roberts does not get a pass for taking this country into hell). But here is the crime–Mississippi Burning chapter 2. Or to quote that liar for all seasons, the toxic Vulf Blitze, why wouldn’t the conservatives in Mississippi be thrilled that a good conservative like Thad won? Well, you dumb elitist prick, here’s why:
    ——————
    BREAKING: New Allegations Point to Cochran Campaign in Mississippi Senate Vote Buying Scandal

    By: Aaron Gardner (Diary) | June 30th, 2014 at 09:15 PM | 61

    Thad Cochran Awaits Election Results After Close Run-Off ElectionAn audio interview has surfaced in which the interviewee claims that he was to be paid by the Cochran camp to grease voters in the Mississippi GOP Senate runoff election. The audio interview, which coincides with a separate audio recording and batch of evidence produced by the newly launched GotNews.com, a project by Charles C. Johnson, alleges that the Cochran campaign conspired with a Mississippi Reverend to buy the votes of African American voters, who happen to be democrats.

    Before I get into the weeds of what is in the audio interview and transcript, which are both below, let me set up the stage a bit. What is alleged to have occurred is illegal and very serious business. Under Mississippi law the alleged crimes could lead to Thad Cochran being removed from the Senate. Everything that follows comes from sources either on the ground in Mississippi, or those working closely with them.

    Reverend Fielder has claimed to have evidence that would prove illegal activity took place in the Mississippi GOP Senate run off election. Furthermore, the evidence he claims he has would implicate the BARBOUR MACHINE and a staffer to COCHRANE’S SENATE CAMPAIGN. The motivations of the Reverend are not those of a saint. As is made clear throughout the interview and in the transcript, this Reverend is looking to get paid to provide information, just as he sought to get paid to deliver votes by illegal means. Reverend Fielder claims that Cochran’s people were supposed to pay him approximately $15,000 for his efforts, but failed to do so after the incumbent Senator had achieved victory in the run off.

    With all of that said, if the evidence is produced and validated, I don’t know how much longer Thad Cochran will be a Senator.

    Let’s go straight to the tape.

    Reverend Fielder begins with a small biography about how he was raised in the Democratic Machine by his father. After that he starts to talk about his motives and what he did.

    I was like this now you know, I worked very hard for Thad, and I got close to some people that in trouble in the loop and were doing some things that I witnessed and know about and threw money to people for it, that I know that’s against ethics and all of that, and ah, I’m supposed to get paid on the back end and I didn’t and then I said how many times do I have to get burned by people in politics that um you know say after the votes counted say “hey” and it don’t come, this is what they do, so, You all had your reasons for not liking what happened, I had my reason that was the pay, and um, like

    Knowing what it would take to hand the district to him because he couldn’t stand up behind the allegations of proof that I would put out, um he would have to turn the district loose. I mean That’s all there is to it. You know I mean you don’t just throwin things out there that I don’t think nobody would frown if a person paid black people 15 dollars a vote to vote, you know what I’m saying. You know I, you let me know what you feel about it as we discuss it.

    INTERVIEWER: you said you DON’T think that anybody would frown on it?

    FIELDER: I said I DO think.

    INTERVIEWER : I do too. I don’t think that that’s right.

    Reverend Fielder admits that he “worked very hard for Thad” and that he witnessed and participated in throwing “money to people for it”, while also admitting what he participated in was unethical and he knew so at the time.

    Next Fielder apparently shows the interviewer a text from Saleem Baird, who I will get to in a moment.

    INTERVIEWER: So when you say 15 dollars per person to vote, how does that happen? What does that look like?

    (Fielder shows interviewer text received from Saleem Baird)

    Fielder : That’s just a text from one of the workers to me. Just scroll down now. Have to go through some things. ____ back up. And that was carried out numerous times. That’s basically 20 people times 15, that’s 300 dollars, a small scale they needed 10,000 votes, black votes, to make sure, that ah, that they would have enough to beat, ah, Chris.

    Reverend Fielder then goes on to ask again about being taken care of if he provides all of the evidence he has.

    But I’m not you know I know you know once I do it and turn it over and chris gets his chair, you know, I know where that leaves me. You know, It’s either I get something, or I’m a good Samaritan, you know, and I don’t think in these days and times too many people work in the good Samaritan thing, so I want to meet face to face, that I have proof, you know I have definitely did what is highly illegal for him to do. They put us in that situation. And so um, The thing is if chris want his seat, and if he want to deal with me for it for whatever I need to do, I don’t mind doin it, so the problem is you know if he think, if he think what I got will benefit him, then long as I done did it, and not out there stuck out high,

    INTERVIEWER – so you need to be protected.

    Fielder : Yeah that and you know taken care of. Cause see they beat me out of like 15,000 dollars for work that I did. I was supposed to get paid right at 2,000 a day from Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday and Tuesday. So these names like that he’s askin for was done over and over and over and over until Chris McDaniel didn’t have a chance.

    After a brief mention of Saleem Baird, who we still need to get to, Reverend Fielder then details the process of buying votes.

    INTERVIEWER: So what, there would um, he said he would have cash divided up into envelopes?

    FIELDER: That was for the people.

    INTERVIEWER: Can you describe the process for me? Like how does that work?

    FIELDER: Well I mean you know, it’s a give and take. I don’t want to just go all the way. If y’all are offering something, then I’m offering something. You know, let’s just be realistic. If y’all are offering something then I’m offering something. The process is easy to describe. It’s basically just what it says. If a person wanted to do that, he would just have the 20 envelopes already ready with each one, he just catch the people goin into the polls, folks that you know and folks that you don’t know. And you know 15 dollars that’s what they vote worth, and that’s what y’all got tangled up at the very end, he was scared. And there was some unprofessional things done.

    INTERVIEWER: At what point do they make the recommendation about who to vote for? Like how do they know who’s going to vote for who when they walk into the polling place?

    FIELDER:: Well I mean you know, they a lot of time ain’t nobody with em, but you just gave ‘em 15 dollars, and telling them “hey, this is the guy to vote,” it looks like to me by the numbers that they did pretty much did what they were supposed to do. You know, So I don’t think I think for 15 dollars that for us to go on in there, if somebody wanted help, they got help, but pretty much people went in and did what they said they was gonna do.

    INTERVIEWER: Who tells them who to vote for?

    FIELDER: Well I think whoever they give the money to. If it gave me, if it was me had the thousands of dollars at a time 20 or 15 dollars at a person, so I go out and get these people, and hey, I’m doing what I’m told. You know the camp say this, and I realized that’s a ____ of mind. They just used a mean tactic. I remember years ago, in government they used to talk about a dollar a vote in the old days, years ago, they would have a thing already made out. But they want to make sure that, I don’t know how they put the price at 15 dollars, but ah it worked. And and all I know is he sent me you know that text among others to make sure that uh this how we do it, and this is how you pick it up. And he just give me the envelopes, and they go on, and that’s what’s in the envelope, 15 dollars, and all that, as you see it said all names addresses and all, I think they assumed ah, they’re not worried about that, they just had the envelope, just a plain white envelope.

    Ok, that is a pretty detailed picture that was painted by the Reverend. His motives are clearly suspect, but it sounds like he knows what he is talking about when it comes to vote buying schemes.

    Now we get to the naming of names.

    INTERVIEWER: And so you would give him the names and addresses?

    FIELDER: That’s what they was wantin. And I gave em supplied em yeah one time to this guy here.

    INTERVIEWER: Saleem?

    FIELDER: Uh huh. And he was high up in there. A guy high up into the thing.

    INTERVIEWER: So saleem worked for thad Cochran?

    FIELDER: YEAH!

    INTERVIEWER: And what’s saleem’s last name? do you know?

    FIELDER: B-A-I-R-D.

    INTERVIEWER: Saleem Baird

    FIELDER: Yeah. [shows me text again]

    INTERVIEWER: Saleem O. Baird. OK. Um. So um, and they would give you the envelopes, and who would drive around and pick ‘em up at the addresses, you would do that?

    FIELDER: Well, like I said now, I wanted you to come and let you see I had what we needed, and I know it would help you, but now I think it’s you all, you know it’s Chris’s turn, now that I done showed you that I got something that would help, and I know it would help you, I’m not stupid.

    The Reverend balked on verbal confirmation of Saleem Baird as the Cochran staffer who facilitated the vote buying scheme, but if the text he referenced, featured at the GotNews site, is validated, that changes the game in many ways.

    Reverend Fielder goes on to mention that he is on a timetable to sell this information because the Cochran camp wants to meet with him and delete all of the evidence from his phone.

    They want me to erase everything, and they want to pay me, you know he called last night two three times, and they want to try to get together this evening and all of this, but I had talked to you all, I live up to my word. If it’s nothing that you all want to do with it, fine, I’ll just deal with em and be through. But if you all, I’m still giving you the chance, because I called you. And and and it’s gonna look bad, a guy helping the tea party, but I don’t care cuz the bottom line it was there’s some wrong that’s done. And ah if he’s, willing to ah, you know negotiate with me, I’m fine with helping him get his seat, cuz he I mean, he he was defeated by black people that was allegedly, I’ll say at this point until we deal, paid.

    Now if you can see where that would help you fine, if you don’t? Just tell me now.

    Well I mean, you know I told you, I brought some information to the table. And he don’t have a big window, cuz I know at 5, I’m supposed to meet ah, them, some of em was claiming from out of town some kind of way. I don’t know a johnny barbour, some barbour guy, you know em?

    The interview then ends with a series of appeals from the Reverend to get paid.

    Saleem Omar Baird is/was a staffer for Mississippi Senator Roger Wicker. You may remember Saleem Baird from an incident in 2011 which involved a strip club and the legislative aide being put on leave.

    As implied in the interview, and confirmed by the text messages, Baird now works for the Cochran campaign and allegedly participated in a vote buying scheme to secure victory in the Mississippi.

    As I said at the beginning, these allegations are no joke. Under MS Code § 23-15-561 (2013) which is a subsection of the Article on the Conduct of Elections, it is unlawful for both the Cochran campaign or outside supporters to “publicly or privately put up or in any way offer any prize, cash award or other item of value to be raffled, drawn for, played for or contested for in order to encourage persons to vote or to refrain from voting in any election.”

    Is doesn’t take a genius to figure out that $15 in an envelope with a flier telling you who to vote for might fit into the definitions laid out in MS Code § 23-15-561 (2013).

    The statute goes on to note a fine of $5000 and a prescription for candidates found guilty of engaging in any of the above schemes.

    (3) Any candidate who shall violate the provisions of subsection (1) of this section shall, upon conviction thereof, in addition to the fine prescribed above, be punished by:
    (a) Disqualification as a candidate in the race for the elective office; or
    (b) Removal from the elective office, if the offender has been elected thereto.

    As more information comes to light, Thad Cochran, heck, the entire Mississippi, might want to look into who the best lawyers are, both elections and criminal

  8. Maybe this Klein bullshit will gain some traction. Already, admin, Mormaer and wbboei seem to see the comic side of it whereas I am “too serious” as wbboei and others claim. I’m open to many forms of humor, though, and don’t see any here
    —————
    I do not doubt you are serious on this issue and so am I. You don’t like to hear it, but all my instincts as a litigator, and experiences in politics persuade me that the theory I advanced is worth considering. Not every theory is correct, not everyone plays out, but if you think this guy just sits in a room and dreams all this up, I say that is not credible. Someone is giving him information, and that information appears to come from inside the campaign. Personally, I think it is sound strategy, indeed the very thing I might suggest to a candidate in her position. Hillary is not a quitter, but she needs to change the current tenor of press coverage, and this is the sort of prod that could do it. In sum, the theory is sound. Whether or not it is true is a different matter. But if you believe this guy just sits in a room and dreams this stuff up, that is a bridge too far. If that were his stock and trade, he would not have survived in the media hothouse for as long as he has.

  9. ah…yes…those pesky millions of problems with O’care that will be coming back to bite those enrolled and the american taxpayers on the hook for the bills…

    http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/US-Health-Overhaul-Data/2014/07/01/id/580244/

    Report: Millions May Be Hurt by Obamacare Data Flaws

    The Obama administration has been struggling to clear up data discrepancies that could potentially jeopardize coverage for millions under the health overhaul, the government’s health care fraud watchdog reported Tuesday.

    The Health and Human Services inspector general said the administration was not able to resolve 2.6 million so-called “inconsistencies” out of a total of 2.9 million such problems in the federal insurance exchange from October through December 2013.

    Of the roughly 330,000 cases that could be straightened out, the administration had only actually resolved about 10,000 during the period of the inspector general’s audit. That worked out to less than 1 percent of the total.

    Several states running their own insurance markets also were having problems clearing up data discrepancies.

    Most of the issues dealt with citizenship and income information supplied by consumers that conflicted with what the federal government has on record, the report said.

    It marked the first independent look at a festering behind-the-scenes issue that could turn into another health law headache for the White House.

    President Barack Obama celebrated 8 million sign-ups as proof that technical problems which initially kept many consumers from enrolling had finally been overcome. It now turns out that some of those problems continued out of sight. The inspector general said the efforts of the administration and states to clear up the discrepancies were complicated by lingering computer issues.

    “The federal marketplace was generally incapable of resolving most inconsistencies,” the report said.

    The issue is one of the top challenges facing newly installed HHS Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell.

    The report was requested by congressional Republicans as a condition of ending the budget standoff that shut down the government last fall. Republicans say they are concerned that people who are not legally entitled to the law’s government-subsidized private health insurance could nonetheless be getting it.

    The inspector general stopped short of drawing such conclusions.

    “Inconsistencies do not necessarily indicate that an applicant provided inaccurate information … or is receiving financial assistance through insurance affordability programs inappropriately,” the report said.

    However, the watchdog office called on the administration to publicly explain how and by what date it will resolve the data problems in the 36 states where Washington is operating new insurance markets.

    In a written response to the report, Medicare chief Marilyn Tavenner said the administration concurs with the recommendations and is working on a plan. Tavenner also said that some of the computer issues that were getting in the way of resolving the problems have now been overcome.

    “It is not surprising that there are inconsistencies between some information provided by application filers and the (government’s) electronic data sources,” she said.

    The law provides the administration with the option of extending an initial 90-day period for clearing up discrepancies.

    The inspector general also found that:

    — Early on, the government’s eligibility system was “not fully operational.” As a consequence, even if a consumer supplied the appropriate documentation, officials were not able to close the case.

    —States running their own insurance markets had a mixed record of dealing with eligibility problems. Of the 15 — including Washington, D.C. — seven said they cleared up problems without delay. Four said they were unable to resolve inconsistencies. Some did not supply any information.

    — Most of the data discrepancies in the federal market had to do with citizenship and immigration status. Only citizens and legal immigrants can receive coverage under the law. More than 40 percent of the problems involved citizenship and immigration information. Income was the next category, accounting for one-third of the problems.

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

    this man has no regard for the monumental damage he is doing to our country…

    the middle class will be below the poverty line by the time he leaves office…just keep staging crisis’ to scam into “opportunities” and abscound with as much taxpayer money …as much as you can…as fast as you can…

  10. They’re really shaking in their boots, now that Obama/Kerry have spoken:

    http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/john-kerry-told-russia-it-had-hours-to-back-off-in-ukraine-that-was-five-days-ago-20140701

    Last week, John Kerry said that Russia needed to pull back in Ukraine in a matter of “hours, literally.”

    But more than 100 hours later, Russia has done no such thing.

    The secretary of State delivered the order to de-escalate within hours, paired with a warning of future U.S. action, on Thursday in Paris, after a meeting with France’s foreign minister. “We are in full agreement that it is critical for Russia to show in the next hours, literally, that they are moving to help disarm the separatists, to encourage them to disarm, to call on them to lay down their weapons and begin to become part of a legitimate political process,” he said.

    In eastern Ukraine, the country’s military has been locked in a bloody battle with pro-Russian separatists, believed to be armed and funded by the Kremlin, for several months. The fighting continued well into the weekend, many hours after Kerry’s statement.

  11. Bit late…Billings Gazette retracts Obama endorsement from 2008….

    http://dailycaller.com/2014/07/01/billings-gazette-on-08-obama-endorsement-sorry-about-that/

    Gazette opinion: Obama earned the low ratings

    Sometimes, you have to admit you’re wrong.

    And, we were wrong.

    We said that things couldn’t get much worse after the sub par presidency of George W. Bush.

    But, President Barack Obama’s administration has us yearning for the good ol’ days when we were at least winning battles in Iraq.

  12. Here’s an article by Paul Begala (for CNN) about Americans’ image of HRC’s personal wealth. It is exactly my opinion and coincides with what I know about… FDR, JFK and even the little traitor Ted Kennedy. That’s why I quote it in full:

    Does America like its candidates poor?

    By Paul Begala

    There’s a great story about Democratic icon Ted Kennedy. When he was first running to succeed his brother John in the Senate, he was attacked for being a child of privilege. It was true. Kennedy had nannies and nursemaids and private schools. He’d hobnobbed with ambassadors and princes and popes.

    So the story — perhaps not even true, but what the heck — is that young Teddy was campaigning outside a factory in the predawn chill. As he shook hands with the working men, one stopped him and said, “So you’re young Kennedy? They say you haven’t worked a day in your life.” To which Kennedy shrugged and answered, “I suppose that’s true.” And the man replied, “You ain’t missed a thing.”

    Democrats have a tradition of electing aristocratic populists. Franklin Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy were patricians. And one of the senior Democrats in the Senate today is as rich as a Rockefeller. His name is Jay Rockefeller. Since 1977, first as governor of West Virginia, then senator, he has been elected and re-elected by the coal miners and farm families of West Virginia.

    So the current hyperventilation over Hillary Clinton’s comments about her relative wealth and her lucrative book and speaking deals misses the point. Voters want to know what’s in her heart and what’s on her mind, not what’s in her wallet.
    Clinton was already wealthy when she ran for president in 2008. Yet in the primary in Pennsylvania — a bastion of blue-collar voters — she bested Barack Obama by 12 points among voters earning between $30,000 and $50,000 a year, according to CNN exit polls.

    FDR, JFK, Jay Rockefeller and all the other wealthy Democrats were seen as champions of working people. Same with Clinton. All her life, she has been a tireless advocate for the middle class and those struggling to get into the middle class. From her days at the Children’s Defense Fund to her advocacy for the rights of women and girls around the world, Clinton has a consistent record of fighting for middle-class economics and middle-class values.

    As an adviser to the super PAC that hammered Mitt Romney’s business record, let me explain why Clinton’s case is different. The issue was never how much money Romney had; it was how he made that money:

    When you amass a megafortune in part by taking over companies, loading them with debt, plunging them into bankruptcy while paying yourself millions — well, folks don’t like that. And when Romney combined that Gordon Gekko image with an agenda that included cutting taxes for the rich and making Medicare a voucher program, voters got the sense that he was not on their side.

    There is a dichotomy of elitism. Republicans’ downfall is economic elitism. For generations they’ve been seen as the party of the rich. Democrats don’t have that problem. Their Achilles’ heel is cultural elitism: the sense that they value highfalutin’ Ivy League degrees more than practical experience; that they look down their noses at folks who go to church, hunt and fish, and salute the flag.

    Both are caricatures, to be sure. But as a Democratic strategist I am always more worried about cultural elitism than a Democrat’s wealth. And remember: George W. Bush had degrees from both Harvard and Yale but was seen as a down-home guy you could have a beer with.

    There’s no doubt that this is a populist moment. Americans worry about the collapse of the American Dream and the shrinking of the middle class. If Clinton runs on an agenda of empowering working people — with an increase in the minimum wage, equal pay for women, student debt relief, increased availability of child care, prekindergarten, and an end to tax breaks for corporations that ship jobs overseas — few voters will care how fat her bank account is.

    There are two interesting videos alongside the article at the link:

    http://edition.cnn.com/2014/06/24/opinion/begala-hillary-clinton/

  13. Wbb

    Evidently, this was NOT an acceptable answer.
    I KEEP ASKING MYSELF, WHO The Hell DID I MISS?


    Guess they really do read your tax replies.

    Maybe you forgot MO and all her friends expenses when she travels like a rock star.

  14. Turley’s latest on the case we are watching most closely:

    http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0701-turley-obamacare-subsidy-halbig-20140701-story.html

    Now that the Supreme Court has issued its ruling in the Hobby Lobby case, the legal fight over the Affordable Care Act will shift a few blocks away to another Washington courtroom, where a far more fundamental challenge to Obamacare is about to be decided by the powerful U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Indeed, if Hobby Lobby will create complications for Obamacare, Halbig vs. Burwell could trigger a full cardiac arrest.

    The Halbig case challenges the massive federal subsidies in the form of tax credits made available to people with financial need who enroll in the program. In crafting the act, Congress created incentives for states to set up health insurance exchanges and disincentives for them to opt out. The law, for example, made the subsidies available only to those enrolled in insurance plans through exchanges “established by the state.”

    But despite that carrot — and to the great surprise of the administration — some 34 states opted not to establish their own exchanges, leaving it to the federal government to do so. This left the White House with a dilemma: If only those enrollees in states that created exchanges were eligible for subsidies, a huge pool of people would be unable to afford coverage, and the entire program would be in danger of collapse.

    Indeed, the Halbig plaintiffs — individuals and small businesses in six states that didn’t establish state exchanges — objected that, without the tax credits, they could have claimed exemption from the individual mandate penalty because they would be deemed unable to pay for the coverage. If the courts agree with them, the costs would go up in all 34 states that didn’t establish state exchanges, and the resulting exemptions could lead to a mass exodus from Obamacare.

    The administration attempted to solve the problem by simply declaring that even residents of states without their own exchanges were eligible for subsidies, even though the law seemed to specifically say they were not. The administration argues that although the statute’s language does limit subsidies to residents of places with exchanges “established by the state,” that wording actually referred to any exchange, including those established by the federal government. In January, a district court judge upheld that interpretation, allowing the subsidies to continue.

    But the D.C. Circuit Court may see things quite differently, especially in light of recent Supreme Court opinions holding that the Obama administration has exceeded its authority and violated separation of powers.

    In Michigan vs. Bay Mills Indian Community, for example, Justice Elena Kagan noted that “this court does not revise legislation … just because the text as written creates an apparent anomaly as to some subject it does not address.” In Utility Air Regulatory Group vs. EPA, Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, stressed that “an agency has no power to tailor legislation to bureaucratic policy goals by rewriting unambiguous statutory terms.” And a third strike came last week in National Labor Relations Board vs. Canning, when the Supreme Court unanimously found that President Obama had violated the Constitution in circumventing Congress through his use of recess appointments.

    The D.C. Circuit Court is expected to rule any day now on the Halbig case, and supporters of the Affordable Care Act are growing nervous. In January, an Obamacare advocate described the Halbig case to a reporter for the Hill as “probably the most significant existential threat to the Affordable Care Act. All the other lawsuits that have been filed really don’t go to the heart of the ACA, and this one would have.” And in a fraught oral argument before the D.C. Circuit Court, the administration seemed to struggle to defend its interpretation.

    If the ruling goes against the White House, it’s hard to overstate the impact. Without subsidies, consumers in 34 states would face huge additional costs and, because of those costs, potential exemptions from the law. And voters — a substantial percentage of whom have never liked Obamacare — would be further alienated from the Democratic Party just in time for midterm elections.

    Moreover, a ruling against the administration would mean that Obama has been responsible for ordering what could amount to billions of dollars to be paid from the federal Treasury without authority. And it would mean the administration has committed yet another violation of the separation of powers.

    The administration’s loss in the Hobby Lobby case is a bitter pill to swallow, but it is not a lethal threat to Obamacare. For critics of the law, Halbig is everything that Hobby Lobby is not. Where Hobby Lobby exempts only closely held corporations from a portion of the ACA rules, Halbig could allow an mass exodus from the program. And like all insurance programs, it only works if large numbers are insured so that the risks are widely spread. Halbig could leave Obamacare on life support — and lead to another showdown in the Supreme Court.

    ObamaCare should be aborted.

  15. Stop the information! Stop telling the truth! Stop reality!!!

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/07/01/medical-staff-warned-keep-quiet-about-illegal-immigrants-or-face-arrest/

    A government-contracted security force threatened to arrest doctors and nurses if they divulged any information about the contagion threat at a refugee camp housing illegal alien children at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, Texas, sources say.

    In spite of the threat, several former camp workers broke their confidentiality agreements and shared exclusive details with me about the dangerous conditions at the camp. They said taxpayers deserve to know about the contagious diseases and the risks the children pose to Americans. I have agreed to not to disclose their identities because they fear retaliation and prosecution.

    “There were several of us who wanted to talk about the camps, but the agents made it clear we would be arrested,” a psychiatric counselor told me. “We were under orders not to say anything.”

    The sources said workers were guarded by a security force from the Baptist Family & Children’s Services, which the Department of Health and Human Services hired to run the Lackland Camp.

    The sources say security forces called themselves the “Brown Shirts.”

    “It was a very submissive atmosphere,” the counselor said. “Once you stepped onto the grounds, you abided by their laws – the Brown Shirt laws.”

    She said the workers were stripped of their cellphones and other communication devices. Anyone caught with a phone was immediately fired.

    “Everyone was paranoid,” she said. “The children had more rights than the workers.”

    She said children in the camp had measles, scabies, chicken pox and strep throat as well as mental and emotional issues.

    “It was not a good atmosphere in terms of health,” she said. “I would be talking to children and lice would just be climbing down their hair.

    A former nurse at the camp told me she was horrified by what she saw.

    “We have so many kids coming in that there was no way to control all of the sickness – all this stuff coming into the country,” she said. “We were very concerned at one point about strep going around the base.”

    Both the counselor and the nurse said their superiors tried to cover up the extent of the illnesses.

    “When they found out the kids had scabies, the charge nurse was adamant – ‘Don’t mention that. Don’t say scabies,’” the nurse recounted. “But everybody knew they had scabies. Some of the workers were very concerned about touching things and picking things up. They asked if they should be concerned, but they were told don’t worry about it.”

    The nurse said the lice issue was epidemic – but everything was kept “hush-hush.”

    “You could see the bugs crawling through their hair,” she said. “After we would rinse out their hair, the sink would be loaded with black bugs.”

    Wbboei will have company on the tax audit line.

  16. Call me nuts, but this whole story about children that are infected, sick and with mental health issues pouring across the borders. How perfect for their countries.

    You have a poor country or town with children that are sick and have no way to pay for medical help…

    Send them across the border to the US. There are no fences, it’s a rich country that pays for illegals, gives them a paid education. The fu@king Dream Act.

    What next, how about those countries busing their critical patients with infectious diseases across our borders?

  17. OH, for Heaven’s sake. The vile Hannity has on Edward Klein. Klein is one creepy dude. Whew. It was bash, bash Hillary and BILL and not in any “good” way as you could imagine with Hannity asking the hate questions and offering Clinton Derangement Syndrome garbage.

    Tell me again…why is Hannity still on TV? I seldom watch him but just happened to be flipping channels and saw the creepy Klein. FOX is hypocritical when they bash MSNBC and CNN. They are just the Republican version.

  18. Evening all. A bit off topic, but an achievement worth celebrating

    Navy Gets Its First Female Four-Star Admiral

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/01/michelle-howard-navy-admiral_n_5547632.html

    WASHINGTON — The Navy has promoted Michelle Howard from vice admiral to admiral, making her the first female four-star admiral in its 236-year history and the service’s new vice chief of naval operations.

    Howard paid tribute to the nation’s service members Tuesday morning at her promotion ceremony, held at the Women in Military Service for America Memorial at Arlington National Cemetery. In her brief remarks, she said that the “willingness to step up and contribute to a noble cause in your life is a sign of true selflessness.”

    “Our sailors and Marines are this legacy. They are volunteers,” she said. “And with every mission, they demonstrate our core values, values our founders would have understood — courage, honor, commitment.”

    Howard graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy in 1982, and she was the first black woman to command a ship.

    She recently told the Navy Times that there are many more opportunities for women in the military than there were when she first joined.

    “Now I think about it all these years later, the combat exclusion law was repealed and women can serve on all classes of ships, all types of aircraft. And then the last couple of years, opening up the submarines to women — it’s significant,” she said.

    But she has still encountered obstacles. “There were individuals who didn’t want me there or wanted to undermine what I was trying to do,” Howard told WJLA-TV in Washington, D.C.

    That sort of skepticism has followed Howard. In 2013, a Navy report found that one of her peers told others that he believed Howard’s promotion to vice admiral was sped up because of her race and gender, and she “may not have had to cross as many hurdles in the same fashion to get where she was at.”

    In an interview with the Navy Times in January, retired Rear Adm. Sonny Masso took issue with that characterization.

    “Do I think she’s a token female, a token African-American, or anything like that? I would say absolutely and emphatically not,” Masso said. “[With] her performance and critical jobs across the spectrum … she has brought an extraordinary amount of experience that is equal to any of her peers.”

    Hillary 2016

  19. The American Aristocracy is decadent and is running our nation into the ground. The comments by Richard Rodgriguez capture the zeitgeist of our time:

    Question: What happens when the long-rich go broke?

    Answer: They become worse than bust, they become ridiculous.

    A modern example is John Kerry, who is making a beggar’s tour of the Middle East. He still acts like King of the World, but his latest stop was Kurdistan, where he pleaded with those tribesmen to save Obama’s foreign policy from collapse. “Kerry urges Kurds to save Iraq from collapse.” The plea may have fallen on deaf ears, as the Kurds seem determined to have their way:

    Some senior Kurdish officials suggest in private they are no longer committed to Iraq and are biding their time for an opportunity to seek independence. In an interview with CNN, Barzani repeated a threat to hold a referendum on independence, saying it was time for Kurds to decide their own fate.

    But at least they received Kerry courteously. They could afford as the coming men to grant Kerry and his boss the former trappings of equality. The subtle change in power relations was evident in Poland. “Poland’s president says US still an important ally,” something he probably said out of politeness and sentiment more than hard calculation. It was at least an improvement on the judgment of the Polish foreign minister, who declared his country’s alliance with America as worthless:

    A Polish magazine said Sunday, June 22, 2014, it has obtained recordings of a private conversation in which Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski says the country’s strong alliance with the U.S. “isn’t worth anything” and is “even harmful because it creates a false sense of security.”

    Being SOS ain’t what it used to be. If Kerry were more perceptive, he’d notice what every aristocrat in decline might perceive: the increasing reluctance of tradesmen to take credit; the ever more frequent absence of his favorite tailor at Savile Row when he comes to order another suit on installment; the growing insistence of cash on the nail. Perhaps the most telling story of our aristocracy’s reduced circumstances comes from Alabama, which is eagerly anticipating jobs the Chinese are outsourcing to America. “Ni hao, y’all”:

  20. The rule of law:

    http://theweek.com/article/index/264014/why-boehner-is-right-to-sue-obama

    Obama’s promise of executive action is bad news — even for supporters of immigration reform (and that includes me). Because even though I support immigration reform, I support the separation of powers even more. And this president has gone too far in flexing his executive ordering muscles.

    That’s why I’m applauding Boehner’s decision to sue over Obama’s executive orders. And you should, too — no matter which party you’re in. (Whether Boehner has the legal standing to actually sue remains something of an open question — but the principle behind his push is dead on.)

    “On matters ranging from health care and energy to foreign policy and education, President Obama has repeatedly run an end-around on the American people and their elected legislators, straining the boundaries of the solemn oath he took on Inauguration Day,” a recent memo from Boehner said.

    In pushing back, Obama’s supporters have pointed to intransigence from congressional Republicans forcing Obama’s hand, and to the fact that the president has still issued relatively few executive orders (fewer than any president since FDR, in fact). This is true, but also misleading. It’s not the number of executive orders the president issues, but how consequential — or controversial — they are. And, coupled with recess appointments (the Supreme Court just unanimously ruled he overreached there), signing statements, and unilateral delays on ObamaCare’s implementation (including the employer mandate and enrollment deadlines), it seems like Obama has cobbled together a patchwork of creative methods to circumvent the legislative branch.

    We have a lame-duck president who already lost one one house of Congress, and may be on the brink of losing another. If Obama is to have any second-term domestic agenda, including a legacy item like immigration reform, his only path may be via executive order. But that doesn’t make it right — or constitutional. [snip]

    But instead of taking it seriously, President Obama and his team have mocked this suit as a mere “stunt.” Their dismissiveness, coupled with the arguments they’ve chosen to wield, present a worldview arguably more frightening than the original overreach. Obama, for example, has cited the fact that Congress failed to address these issues as reason why he has felt compelled to act. “I’m not going to apologize for trying to do something while they’re doing nothing,” he said.

    That a misleading non sequitur. A constitutional law professor should knows better. Dysfunction or stasis are not invitations for executive overreach. I can’t find anything in the Constitution that says: “Should Congress become bogged down in gridlock, the President may then assume legislative responsibilities.” Congressional incompetence or inaction is not an invitation for an imperial presidency.

    Backers of Obama’s executive orders rarely argue the Constitution, but instead, the crux of their arguments usually boil down to the morality of his actions. But that’s not really relevant. I’m for immigration reform and a supporter of the DREAM Act, but the notion that a president would simply decide which laws to enforce or ignore is a far more fundamental concern. Our founders intentionally created a balance of powers, and pit ambition against ambition. Just because you agree with the president today doesn’t mean you’ll agree with the next president’s executive orders. Many executive orders, constitutional, or not, are good policy. But this power can be abused. Let’s not forget that FDR’s executive order 9066 paved the way for Japanese internment camps.

    Be careful what you wish for. Because granting the president the power to ignore or overrule Congress is not a right that only applies to presidents you agree with.

    What goes around comes around. That’s also true for despicable political tactics.

  21. As hypocritical and treacherous as Obama is, those that support him on his lies are more hypocritical, more treacherous, worse in many ways and will suffer worse when the worm turns.

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/07/01/kristen-powers-obama-imperial-overreach-executive-orders-column/11934197/

    Once upon a time, Barack Obama’s harsh and deserved criticism of President George W. Bush’s executive overreach was a popular campaign applause line at Democratic rallies. Now, he is facing down a threatened lawsuit from House Speaker John Boehner challenging the president’s abuse of executive power.

    Obama has dismissed the suit as a “stunt,” which is partly true. [snip]

    Notice that the former constitutional law professor did not make a substantive legal case in defense of his executive power grabs. He merely stated that what he did was popular, ergo his extra-constitutional actions are fine. A more reassuring answer would include explaining how his actions are consistent with the Constitution.

    The Supreme Court has seemed less than impressed with Obama’s constitutional claims. Last Thursday, the justices tossed his attempt to unilaterally declare the Senate in recess so he could appoint officials to the National Labor Relations Board. Another of the administration’s constitutional arguments was rebuked the same day when a unanimous Supreme Court ruled against a Massachusetts law creating 35-foot-limited-speech-buffer zones outside abortion clinics. The Obama administration had argued in support of this government-created zone where abortion supporters were allowed to speak but anti-abortion activists were not.

    So it is with executive power. Obama says he has executive power to invade Libya without congressional approval. Obama acts as judge, jury and executioner in assassinating American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen, and declares it constitutional. Considering his track record before the Supreme Court, all these claims should be viewed with extreme suspicion.

    Liberals who obsessed over President Bush’s abuses of executive power are suspiciously silent now, or worse, defend the same behavior they found abhorrent in a Republican.

    It’s up to debate as to whether Boehner has standing for this lawsuit. If he does, count me as an unlikely supporter.

    Like a handful of liberal voices, at the same time I support most of Obama’s domestic policy initiatives, including those he accomplished through executive action, I can’t support the way he has put them in place. We elected Obama president, not emperor.

  22. wbboei July 1, 2014 at 11:35 am

    … if you believe this guy just sits in a room and dreams this stuff up, that is a bridge too far. If that were his stock and trade, he would not have survived in the media hothouse for as long as he has.

    A good writer can make up believable stuff. Even admin admits that the Klein stories are “imagined conversations” (see article). In my view, at one point, he lets his imagination get the best of him when he asserts:

    “I hate that man Obama more than any man I’ve ever met, more than any man who ever lived,” Bill Clinton said to friends on one occasion.

    I can’t imagine WJC making the above statement because WJC is not big on “hate”. But even if it were true, badly paraphrased, or taken out of context, that doesn’t include HRC in the mix. HRC is big on forgiveness, not hate.

    Also, if MO & Jarrett ever did refer to HRC as “Hildebeest” it was a long time ago – maybe during the ’08 campaign, about the time when Power called her a “monster.” As far as HRC is concerned, that’s water passed under the bridge. And as far as Jarrett is concerned, she used to be an HRC supporter — a long time ago to be sure, but I’m sure Jarrett has a pretty good image in her mind of HRC as an Obama team member. MO too.

    All of this stuff is taken out of its time context and dredged up from a long time ago.

    Once again, though, I concede that fiction makes for good reading and often contains truths that may be concealed by the dull, bare facts.

    As for your assertion that Klein could never have “survived in the media hothouse” by dreaming up “facts,” you seem to have forgone your rants about the “stock and trade” of the media.

  23. admin July 1, 2014 at 2:08 pm

    They’re really shaking in their boots, now that Obama/Kerry have spoken

    Oh yeah, that’s showin’ ’em John, Barry’s got your back!

  24. jeswezey
    July 2, 2014 at 4:25 am
    ————————
    “I do not doubt that someone is giving Klein this story (that Obama ordered Hillary to say the video caused the attack), but the story is wrong. (snip) The only thing we can conclude from the Klein book is that there are people close to Hillary eager to put distance between her and Obama. This conflict is likely to grow in the coming months. But take the claims with a grain of salt. Klein’s stuff is pretty sketchy from a fact standpoint”.—Larry Johnson.

    You can assume that this too is a lie, by someone other than Klein appears to not like Hillary. But in his case, as with Klein, in order to do that, you must ignore their past history–Johnson was a top CIA analyst who was once a big Hillary supporter, Klein a well known reporter. In addition, you must also assume that they have no regard for the truth, and are simply pathological liars.

    If you refuse to re-examine your assumptions, you will miss what is really going on here. Much as you do not wish to accept it, there is a blood feud going on between Obama and the Clintons, and what I would add to that is that there is something even more important as well, since it concerns the very future of this nation, and that is there is also a blood feud between Obama and this nation, which is difficult to appreciate from 10,000 miles away. . Also, there is a difference in perspective, i.e. your sympathy to socialism. Together, they make it difficult for you to realize what his really occurring today in this country.

  25. Attention Shadowfax — the following two releases are from “Kaiser Health News”, which, I assume, means your health insurer:

    … a tea party challenger to Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander, the Republican incumbent, is focusing on his posture to the health care law, and House Speaker John Boehner said he plans to sue the president for misuse of executive powers on issues including health care.

    and:

    Hillary Clinton Wants 2014 Democrats To Run On Obamacare

    Hillary Clinton… in an interview that aired Wednesday, outlined how she would run in favor of Obamacare “if [she] were a Democrat running for reelection in 2014.” Clinton, who in the past has said she is both supportive of Obamacare and of fixes to change the law, told PBS NewsHour’s Gwen Ifill in an interview taped Tuesday that Democrats “need to” run on President Barack Obama’s sweeping healthcare law (Merica, 6/25).

    WJC has already said the same thing.

  26. Call me nuts, but this whole story about children that are infected, sick and with mental health issues pouring across the borders. How perfect for their countries.
    ——————
    Obama has generated this crisis through the policies he has enacted over the strenuous objections of Congress and in defiance of the Constitution. And now he intends to double down by saying that he will act on the immigration unilaterally, which means amnesty for all illegals, putting them to the front of the line, and opening our borders to the sick and dependent of the third world, in short to submerge the American People in the misery and despair of the third world, and to lose their entitlements. All of them. Why? Because it is a proven fact that you cannot have open immigration and welfare programs–they are mutually exclusive. Nor can you ignore a mega humanitarian crisis which he has generated on our southern border–those children need medical attention but not citizenship. What is most amazing to me however, is here you have a wonderful country and here you have a man in a position of power who is hell bent on destroying it in every possible way, and no one lifts a finger to stop him–not an effective one. And for lack of that I fear this country is going down, and everyone with it. The elites are confident that whatever happens to the nation they will survive and prosper. They fail to understand that you cannot have small oases of wealth amid deserts of poverty without generating storms that eventually engulf those oases. But they are too narcissistic, and too consumed with material gain to begin to understand that. Remember, they are the ones who voted for Obama.

  27. wbboei July 2, 2014 at 6:56 am

    If you refuse to re-examine your assumptions, you will miss what is really going on here.

    Please, you should know I’m not stubborn and am constantly re-examining my assumptions and conclusions. It’s just that you haven’t convinced me… yet.

    … there is a blood feud going on between Obama and the Clintons…

    I’ve already said that fiction at times contains truths that may be obscured by an analysis of the raw data. That’s my way of conceding the above point to you. I just think that, at this point in time, calling it a “blood feud” or “war”

    … there is also a blood feud between Obama and this nation, which is difficult to appreciate from 10,000 miles away.

    No, it actually becomes more visible at arm’s length (4K away from home). I’ll admit that I don’t get as emotionally embroiled in the issue, though.

    Also, there is a difference in perspective, i.e. your sympathy to socialism. Together, they make it difficult for you to realize what his really occurring today in this country.

    You can leave my socialism out of it: I voted for Romney. That’s how far I was willing to steer away from my socialism in what I saw as the better interests of the country.

    Also, I’m very much interested in the developments around Boehner’s law suit against Barry; but Barry’s over-extension of executive orders was foreseeable just before the 2012 election, when Jarrett went to Chicago and bragged that, after the election, they wouldn’t need Congress any more.
    *******

    In sum, I concede that there is probably no love to lose between WJC and BHO. It’s just the magnitude of the war at the present time that is being exaggerated.

    WJC will not win any feud with Obama because his ethics prevent him from playing chess with a sitting president. The feud will not play out on the ground or in public. So, quite aside from their truth or current relevance, I doubt the Klein assertions will lead to anything.

    Furthermore, it is hard for me to see why HRC’s inner circle would want to float stories about her ill health – that’s what’s got the right wing talking about Klein’s book. Klein throws around a couple of phony medical terms and phony history and the right wing loves it, and ignores all this crap about a blood feud.

  28. Correction:

    “I just think that, at this point in time, calling it a “blood feud” or “war” is an exaggeration.

  29. WJC will not win any feud with Obama because his ethics prevent him from playing chess with a sitting president. The feud will not play out on the ground or in public. So, quite aside from their truth or current relevance, I doubt the Klein assertions will lead to anything.
    ————–
    Nothing leads to anything good any more.

    The system is so corrupt that it is collapsing before our eyes.

    I saw an old friend of mine when I was in Texas a couple months back. He was high up in the Teamsters Union. We were talking about the Federal Government Trusteeship which was imposed on that union, which became a $100 million gravy train for a succession of retired US Attorneys appointed by friendly judges, and a mountainous legal bureaucracy set up to monitor every missing paper clip and monitor how often each union official uses the bathroom. He recalled a meeting he and other senior members of the union had with their new masters and listened to those bureaucrats explain what their new heaven and new earth would look like. The good ones, those who cared about the union, and the fate of working people were aghast. They sat there in stony silence contemplating their fate. Then one of them broke the ice, saying that after this hiccup, things would return to the status quo ante. He glared back at this rube as only he could and told him no, there is no going back.

    Now that is where the American People are today, thanks to Messiah Obama, the corruption of those who installed him, and the ignorance of those who elected him. Only they think this is only a hiccup. I read a book by a French Jew twenty years ago which predicted this very outcome. The only thing it did not disclose was the name Obama.

  30. I wish I still had that book. He admired the United States, but foresaw the very events we are seeing now, and was cautioned privately that they would not be good for the American People, Israel, or the Jews in this country. He scared me with his analysis, because I had a vague sense that he was right. At that time, however, I failed to realize the full extent of the corruption–and the decadence we see now in our elite class. Rome burns while Kerry worries that we do not have enough gay and lesbian Ambassadors. That article by Rodriguez draws this all into high relief, as does the article by Roger Simon decrying the corruption of big media–they have created the big lie for fun and profit, and now it is their tar baby. After this, they have no legitimate role in the public debate on the future of this nation.

  31. “Like a handful of liberal voices, at the same time I support most of Obama’s domestic policy initiatives, including those he accomplished through executive action, I can’t support the way he has put them in place. We elected Obama president, not emperor.”

    __________________

    The Obama Dimocrats and MSM have been embarrassingly quiet about Obama’s power grabbing, and circumventing of the checks and balances system, as he continues to govern by decree. The hard core Obama supporters believe that he knows what’s best, and should be allowed to continue with his plan to transform the country as he sees fit. He should not be subjected to the system of checks on the executive branch, considered to be necessary by the founders of this country. Yet, as they have done in the past, if a Republican or a moderate Dem were in office and governing by executive order, the progressives would be singing a very different tune.

    The progressives are raising some hell about the Supreme Court decision regarding Hobby Lobby. And once again, women and women’s groups have come to the support and defense of this president who has been no friend to women. If this were not obvious to them in 2008, I guess it never will be. Some women’s groups condemned the decision as another targeted blow against and women’s rights.

    That just makes no sense. The decision was about the rights of a privately owned business to function autonomously, without government being allowed to deny constitutionally endowed rights and freedoms. Whether or not you agree with the beliefs of the Green family, owners of Hobby Lobby, which I don’t, they obviously have the right to their religious beliefs, and the freedom to act according to those beliefs without government interference . No one who cares about the rights of Americans, women’s rights included, should have objected to the courts ruling.

    The fact that the government took this case to the Supreme Court was absurd, especially since the government already has programs in place to help women purchase the contraceptive pills and devices to which Hobby Lobby objected on religious grounds. Obama thought he would receive a ruling that would strengthen the power of ACA now and in the future. Thankfully, that didn’t happen.

    The women who have completely bought into Obama’s agenda need to step back and look at the issues closely before running blindly to his defense. He damn sure hasn’t run blindly to theirs.

  32. wbboei July 2, 2014 at 8:04 am

    i’m unfamiliar with this story of trusteeship of the Teamsters Union. I sounds awful; and if that is the way you see things going all over the US now, I really don’t see any options available except for the pitchforks and Tea Party approach.

    I feel I have to defend my socialism since you mentioned it above, because socialists generally do not believe in a hands-off laisser-faire approach to things economic in general.

    You probably view Obama as socialist; but nothing could be further than the truth.

    Take Obamacare, for example. Half the Affordable Care Act is about insurance — an attempt at regulating the unwieldy horde of 1600 private insurers who now milk the entire population for profits.

    The socialist approach is to put those insurers out of business or merge them all into a unified national system that can negotiate with the pharmaceutical companies and healthcare providers. This goes against the grain of “free enterprise” thinking in the United States. Insurers would cry out “What about the 100,000 people who work for insurers?” and Republicans would wimpier over the loss of profits for shareholders. “What about free enterprise,” they would say, or “What about free market principles?”

    The socialist counter-argument is, “What about people’s freedom from fear?” — fear of going broke if illness strikes, fear of losing one’s job if you get sick, fear of not getting good treatment, and so on. Socialists would respond that the “free” market as interpreted by Republicans means a free hand for Robber Barons both at the level of insurance, pharmaceuticals and healthcare provision. This Robber Baron sector can only be truly “free” by applying some sensible rules to it. And sensible rules can only be determined and implemented by people in the know (including some of the 100,000 current insurance employees), under the supervision of the government as an objective, disinterested bystander.

    This global approach could have been instituted by creating a public option — and without any additional bureaucracy, using Medicare or Medicaid as a springboard. A public option was essential. But what did the supposedly socialist Obama do? He said “I didn’t campaign on a public option plank!” — which was a lie. But so the public option died, at the hands of the supposedly socialist Obama.

    It can be argued that socialists are for aggressive, and perhaps big, government. But Obama is no socialist.

  33. “Say it ain’t so Joe”. (Damned Yankees)

    According to Quinnepak Polling, our first black president is also our worst president since World War II. (Note: if the survey had looked back to the beginning of our country, there is no reason to believe that the result would be any different.)

    What are we to make of that, kind sir?

    According to Holder this is all because this nation has failed to have an honest discussion about race. If we are going to do that, we should put Holder on the stand and ask him why his justice department exonerates black pathers who menace white voters at voting booths, and take it from there.

    The only other possibility is that his presidency is a prime example of affirmative action run riot. He is too corrupt and too incompetent to tend to the affairs of this nation and as a result this nation is crashing. Blame big media.

  34. freespirit
    July 2, 2014 at 9:34 am

    “Like a handful of liberal voices, at the same time I support most of Obama’s domestic policy initiatives, including those he accomplished through executive action, I can’t support the way he has put them in place. We elected Obama president, not emperor.”

    ____________________________

    Or King!!! 🙁

  35. You probably view Obama as socialist;
    ————-
    Like Soros he is a socialist poseur. Socialism presupposes a concern for people, and that is not Obama’s thing. He could give a damned about the welfare of the people, but he will pretend to. He favors socialist policies only to the extent that those policies benefit him and his contributors, e.g. Obama care, Climate Change.

    An apple does not fall far from the tree. Obama is a denizen of the pay to play schemes of Chicago–part con man and part crony capitalist. But he was a good enough actor to convince a majority of the American Public that ‘OBAMA CARES’ about them.

  36. I recall vividly what it was like in the final stages of our 2008 primary campaign, when because of poor planning (Penn’s misunderstanding of the electoral rules in California and disregard of the caucuses),betrayals (Doyle, Schumer, Soros, et. al.) and more than any other single factor big media corruption, things fell apart, and every direction we turned disaster was met with disaster.

    Well, an ironic deity has placed Mr. Obama and is big media cronies in the exact same position now, in the salad days of his second term when he should be pondering his legacy, his legacy is being written for him by enfolding events and will mark him as the most incompetent president in our history, and our most corrupt. Some will say it was Nixon, but the scope of self dealing and the betrayal of this nation by Obama stands in a league of its own.

  37. And the disaster he leaves in his wake, including the demise of this country, that will be the true legacy of Barack Hussein Obama, and his handlers. He has created a debacle which no one can be expected to clean up. It is a bridge too far. Thus, for the good of the country he and his big media enablers must be held accountable. Let us hope that Sharyl Attkission’s new book will achieve the latter objective.

  38. jeswezey

    July 2, 2014 at 9:54 am

    wbboei July 2, 2014 at 8:04 am

    i’m unfamiliar with this story of trusteeship of the Teamsters Union. I sounds awful; and if that is the way you see things going all over the US now, I really don’t see any options available except for the pitchforks and Tea Party approach.
    ————-
    Yes, the Tea Party approach with better messengers. The welfare of the American People rather than the welfare of donors and the well connected–that needs to be the objective of government. I seriously doubt that can be accomplished under the duopoly we have today. A third party is the answer.

  39. wbb
    “Some will say it was Nixon, but the scope of self dealing and the betrayal of this nation by Obama stands in a league of its own.”
    _____________________

    Even Nixon would have been appalled by Obama’s reign as an entitled, self-important ruler, who believes the constitution is merely a guide book, a compilation of suggestions from now dead white men, whose enormous, enlightened accomplishment is irrelevant in today’s America. Barack’s desired transformation would ignore the constitution. What matters in his world is an unrestrained executive branch, writing and executing law that will promote his warped sense of social justice.

  40. TheRock
    July 2, 2014 at 12:35 am

    …an achievement worth celebrating

    Navy Gets Its First Female Four-Star Admiral

    ——–
    That’s awesome, thanks for posting.

    You couldn’t drag me into the military, but I applaud the brave women that have to courage to defend us!

  41. foxyladi14
    July 2, 2014 at 12:29 pm
    Will he go?? 🙁
    ——————
    I’m hoping he doesn’t because his fix would be more outrageous than what we have now. I would like to see MO and the girls spend summer down there tending to the weary, the ill. He was just shown on local ABC and the overall theme is that current laws are causing this and GOP won’t fix. Same very old shit.

  42. jeswezey

    I saw your comments at 7:05

    ———
    If Hillary decides that ObamaCare is fine as it is, I will be in opposition to her 100%. She doesn’t say that. You seem to miss the part where she says it needs to be fixed, and this doesn’t just mean the website needs to be fixed or she would have said it.

    As much as I admire the Clinton’s, when they are off base…I don’t follow their lead.

    Could Hillary come up with a real fix that would take insurance companies and Big Pharma out of the massive profit margins they get with ObamaCare? I doubt it.

    I want to hear what she says and supports, but for vague statement that all is well, I will not fall for it.

  43. Here is an article from The New Republic that supports and fully explains an idea I’ve been toying with for several years: Why wouldn’t a couple of women challenge Hillary and, even if they lose out, make a national name for themselves and perhaps even get the VP nod? A two-woman ticket would be a major statement and a strategic victory far beyond that of “first woman President.” Also, Traister makes points for Gillibrand and Klobuchar, who would be my favorites as VP or POTUS candidates if HRC doesn’t get the nomination.

    I quote it in full because (i) I can’t figure out which parts to snip and (ii) the full article may not be available at the link, http://www.newrepublic.com/article/118389/hillary-clinton-needs-female-primary-opponent-2016

    A Woman Should Run for President Against Hillary Clinton. Or Many Women.

    By Rebecca Traister

    I spent a lot of 2008 feeling crushed. It was exhilarating covering Hillary Clinton’s historic run for the presidency, but there was so much about the race that was backward and retro, more 1958 than 2008. It wasn’t just the media’s goggle-eyed questions about whether the country was “ready” for a female president or the inane things that spilled out of people’s mouths on cable television—though let’s remember that Christopher Hitchens called Clinton “soppy and bitchy,” Mike Barnicle compared her to “everyone’s first wife standing outside a probate court,” and Keith Olbermann suggested that the Democratic Party needed “somebody who can take her into a room and only he comes out.” All of that was grim. But it was symptomatic of a far bigger problem: that in the first decade of the twenty-first century, the nation still had difficulty imagining a female president as anything other than an exception, a somewhat threatening anomaly.

    Should she run, as she almost certainly will, people will be idiots about Clinton this election, too. They’ll call her a bitch and express their distaste for her through fantasies of misogynistic violence. But when I consider the distance we have traveled since 2008, I find myself strangely hopeful about what’s ahead. The degree to which our cultural attitudes about women in politics have matured is astonishing.

    Most print and online political publications now employ writers who cover politics and media from an explicitly feminist perspective. Cable news features far more women, as both anchors and pundits, as well as more men who are as likely to engage in spirited gendered critiques as they are to unspool freaky-deaky gendered nightmares. And all over social media, there dwell armies of unpaid but widely read commentators, ready to launch hashtag campaigns and circulate change.org petitions in response to the slightest of identity-politics missteps.

    But we haven’t come far enough. Instead, we’re in a tricky, potentially explosive stage: bursting with ideas about how to normalize the concept of women in power, but still constrained by a system that politically, economically, and culturally remains dominated by white men. We are tweens, caught between an awareness of the injustices of our past, yet not grown up enough to seize control and right them.

    So how do we catapult out of this cusp period? Having a woman in the White House would certainly help. But in advance of that, and perhaps just as crucially, other women in the Democratic Party need to do what they’ve so far shown no stomach for: They need to challenge Hillary Clinton for the nomination.

    For the very first time, there are four Democratic women who could plausibly run for president, four women whose names get mentioned on short lists and in wishful-thinking conversations among party faithful. Of course, only one is ready for the job today. Nobody of any gender has more 
experience, name recognition, fund-raising capabilities, or real-world preparation for what awaits in partisan-riven Washington than Hillary Clinton.
    But the other three aren’t laughable candidates. Massachusetts Senator
    Elizabeth Warren is the troubadour of the populist left and the one challenger Team Clinton legitimately fears. Kirsten Gillibrand, who sits in Clinton’s old Senate seat, has built a reputation as a savvy strategist by moving from center to left and makes no secret of her presidential ambitions. There’s also Amy Klobuchar, the two-term Minnesota senator who’s popular in her state and in her party, and who has already made a couple of exploratory trips to Iowa.
    The imperfections of these potential contenders—inexperience, lefty politics, lack of name recognition—certainly hurt their chances. It’s also worth pointing out that presidential campaigns cost time and money; they’re not to be entered lightly. But think about all of the men who have run for high office before they were “ready” in the way Clinton is: Steve Forbes, Gary Bauer, Mike Gravel, and Herman Cain all stared in the mirror and decided they looked presidential. Far more analogous here are the under-seasoned but serious politicians who run all the time. Lots of them—from Jerry Brown to John Edwards to Rick Santorum—don’t make it the distance; but they make an impact on their party. And sometimes unlikely candidates can get pretty far—as far as a young Bill Clinton in 1992 or Barack Obama in 2008.

    Interestingly, the issue right now isn’t that the party establishment is disqualifying women other than Clinton from running for president. It’s that the women are disqualifying themselves, seemingly on behalf of Clinton.

    Warren, Gillibrand, and Klobuchar reportedly signed a letter to Clinton—along with every other Democratic woman in the Senate—urging her to run and pledging their support if she did. In June, Klobuchar attached her name to a fund-raising invitation for the group Minnesotans Ready for Hillary. And in 
a recent interview coinciding with the release of her book, Off the Sidelines, which she described as “a call to action, asking women to participate in politics,” Gillibrand said that she’ll consider running for president “someday, I’m sure, but not any time in the near future.” Instead, she predicted that “Hillary Clinton will be our first woman president.” According to some close to Gillibrand, she is plotting a long game for 2024, but if Clinton weren’t to run in 2016, she almost certainly would. So if she can do it, why not do it? Partly out of fear of that storied Clinton political machine, sure, but also as a sign of the esteem for Clinton that Democratic women seem determined to put on display.

    On some level, that’s terrific; good for them. Clinton has not always enjoyed the support of the women in her party, and given some of the challenges she faced in her last go-round, it’s refreshing to see her poised to enter a race backed by a bunch of smart, tough broads.

    Except that this is a presidential election, not a trust fall. And the sisterly deference being shown to Clinton by her colleagues—while intended as a sign of respect—is doing far more harm than good.

    The last thing any woman in politics needs is the appearance of having won only because her would-be opponents gave her a pass. This perhaps goes double for Clinton, whose years in the spotlight have demonstrated again and again that she is at her most appealing when she is fighting and scrappy, and at her most loathed when she is self-assuredly coasting. Clinton and her party require arresting, attention-drawing competition. She needs to be duking it out, and not just with a bunch of white guys. How many people are salivating at the thought of a Martin O’Malley candidacy? 19? 20?

    A predictable primary is a boring primary, and a boring primary leads to a disinterested Democratic Party—a major hindrance going into a general election. Part of what hooked voters in the mesmerizing 2008 race was the thrum of newness, the frisson of history-making every time a woman and a black man stood on a debate stage together. And while we could reproduce that thrill in a variety of ways—there is, after all, a shameful abundance of racial, ethnic, religious, and gendered history to be made before presidential politics become remotely inclusive—one of the most realistic, ready-to-roll scenarios of 2016 is the one in which multiple women show up to debate each other.

    But there’s more at stake here than the health of the party in one presidential election. Viewing women as adversaries—ideologically and also within their own parties—is an urgent next step in helping the nation adjust to the idea that female politicians are just like, you know, regular politicians. That means we have to swiftly abandon the processional model, in which one diligent woman takes her hard-earned turn, while the next waits patiently in the wings.

    Ambitious men don’t behave that way. They realize that, in politics, very few (legal) acts get you the attention that running for president does. Primaries can bolster fund-raising capabilities and help politicians gain more influence within their party, sometimes setting them up for vice-presidential and Cabinet slots. Driven candidates also run for president in years when they don’t have much of a shot in order to become better known to voters and position themselves for the next round. Ronald Reagan ran for, and lost, the Republican nomination in both 1968 and 1976 before winning in 1980. Al Gore lost his 1988 bid for the Democratic nomination before being elected vice president in 1992 and then winning/losing the general in 2000.

    Besides, if more women don’t run this cycle, next time could be a long way off. Should Clinton remain the only Democratic woman on the ballot and win the nomination and the presidency, that’s good for her and perhaps good for the country. It’s not necessarily good, however, for the other female prospects in her party, who would have a decade sucked from their presidential timelines. There are surely other ways for these women to build their profiles, and it’s true that Clinton has a strong record of hiring and promoting women, which would help lots of future leaders. But it’s clearly not the same.

    By getting over their impulse to defer to Clinton and instead show her the real presidential respect of taking her on, Warren, Gillibrand, and Klobuchar would dramatically improve the tenor and content of political discourse on the left. Because here’s another benefit of women challenging each other, in presidential and other races: It alleviates the pressure of only-ness.

    When a single avatar stands in for womankind, womankind projects onto that avatar its own varied ideas and priorities and standards. Clinton suffered from this last time, metaphysically unable to satisfy a million divergent hopes. She couldn’t be progressive enough, authentic enough, strong enough, stoic enough, or well-dressed enough for everyone. That’s part of why it’s dangerous for one woman to mean so much to so many.

    Being The Woman Candidate also means donning a straitjacket when it comes to policy issues that make a direct impact on women. Just as Obama has been limited in his ability to directly address racial injustices out of fear of being tagged The Race Guy, a lone Clinton would find herself hamstrung in debates over reproductive rights and social policy. On her book tour, she has already sounded too hesitant in talking about paid family leave, a wildly important issue she should be all over, having claimed credit for pushing the Family and Medical Leave Act during her husband’s administration. But now, hanging out there all alone in her lady-ness, Clinton is behaving like someone who is (not unreasonably) worried about being feminized.

    But what if there were other women out there to shoulder some of that weight and contextualize these crucial conversations? Whether or not Warren, Gillibrand, or Klobuchar could topple Clinton, they could make sure that certain issues got talked about. John Edwards, before melting into the oil slick of his own loathsomeness, performed a real service, nudging Democrats in a direction they badly needed to go on poverty and the class divide (in advance of the Occupy movement, Dodd-Frank, and Warren’s rabble-rousing, no less). And he did most of that work as a candidate who in neither his 2004 nor his 2008 bids ever had a strong shot of winning the nomination. This time around, the Democratic Party would become a stronger party if it got to listen to Clinton argue paid sick days, reproductive rights, day care, and equal-pay protections with a few other women who know how serious and far-reaching these policy questions are.

    Democrats would also be able to hear those arguments more clearly, since they wouldn’t be filtered through the inevitable scrim of either over-solicitousness or condescension that comes when a bunch of guys take Clinton on. Remember “You’re likeable enough, Hillary”? Remember Edwards telling her he didn’t like her jacket? Yeah, that was ear-splitting. We don’t need two years of that, and if Democrats had more women around, there’d be less of it.

    Relatedly, getting a bunch of women into the race would help us power through this irritating stage in which the media obsesses over likeability and pantsuits, cankles and hair and heels, and speculation over whether a candidate’s electoral support derives from some moony ovarian affiliation. That’s all clutter, and it lingers as the surest sign that female leadership remains exotic and weird.

    I’m obviously aware that a primary with multiple women would make certain parts of the process worse before they got better. This cycle, we’d be presented with a whole new fetishized motif for presidential elections—the catfight. But this, too, is a developmental hurdle we must clear. If withstanding a season of hair-pulling jokes and “meeeow!”-ing New York Post headlines helps us get used to it and move forward, then by all means, let’s do it now, when the possibility is in front of us, instead of simply postponing it for next time. Ambitious, promising young politicians including Tulsi Gabbard, Nina Turner, Grace Meng, Kamala Harris, Kathleen Kane, and Stacey Abrams will be so much better off as a result.

    Let me be clear: Very little of the blame for the tentativeness of other female pols should be laid at the feet of Clinton, who at the moment is the only woman—and the only Democrat—behaving like a future president. That she lugs around such a huge symbolic burden is the structural reality in a nation that has historically and uniformly excluded women from executive power. Clinton is a trailblazer, capable, tough, and strong. She damn well should take advantage of her position of power entering the election. But her individual fate shouldn’t have to carry so much overwrought meaning. Which is why I’m pleading with the talented and well-positioned women of the Democratic Party:

    Run. Run right now. Run for yourselves. Run because the country, the party, and Hillary need you to. Just run already.

    I think I’ll mail an edited version of this article to Klobuchar and Gillibrand in their Senate offices. The reasoning is impeccable. Maybe I can help convince them to run, and maybe one of them will be VP.

  44. Shadowfax July 2, 2014 at 12:58 pm

    ObamaCare … You seem to miss the part where she says it needs to be fixed, and this doesn’t just mean the website needs to be fixed or she would have said it.

    Yes, I know. She never said anything about the website and never said Obamacare was AOK. But she did say, and so did WJC, that Democrats should run on Obamacare this year… presumably proposing changes to it, but defending it from repeal. The polls bear her out: 55% apparently disapprove, but they disapprove because they want changes. 38% of the 55% want repeal, which is definitely a minority beyond the range of uncertainties.

    Only 25% wholly approve of Obamacare; but if you add to this 25%

    (i) those who approve of Obamacare but would like to see XX changes

    to

    (ii) those who disapprove of Obamacare because they would like to see XX changes,

    Then you get a solid 61% who do not want to repeal Obamacare but just have some criticisms of it.

    This is why the Clintons are both advising Democrats to run on Obamacare this year.

  45. Wonder what would happen to all the Obots if Barry had vitiligo and his skin turned white overnight?

    How many of the idiots that still support him would protect his ineptness and corruption?

  46. jeswezey

    This is why the Clintons are both advising Democrats to run on Obamacare this year.

    ——
    So does this mean you think I should support ObamaCare too, just from the quote you pointed out?

    Just like Hillary saying her supporters should support Obama when she left the primary in 2008?

    Seriously, is this what you think I should do if I support Hillary?

    This horse is dead, quit beating it to a bloody pulp.

  47. Fourth of July style good news/fireworks:

    http://washingtonexaminer.com/another-federal-judge-tells-irs-to-explain-itself-on-lost-emails/article/2550394

    IRS attorneys will be even busier than normal next week, because another federal judge has told them to show up in court July 11 to defend the federal tax agency.

    They will have to explain to U.S. District Court Judge Reggie Walton why the IRS shouldn’t be required to let an outside expert evaluate whether emails on the computer hard drives of former IRS official Lois Lerner and six colleagues really are lost forever, as the agency recently told Congress.

    Responding to a motion filed Monday by True the Vote, a Houston-based conservative nonprofit at the center of IRS targeting during the 2010 and 2012 campaigns, Walton issued an order Tuesday to hear arguments next week. [snip]

    But True the Vote wants a digital forensics expert from outside the IRS to assess the evidence.

    “Even if the ill-timed hard drive ‘crash’ was truly an accident, and even if the IRS genuinely believes that the emails are ‘unrecoverable,’ the circumstances of the spoliation at issue cry out for a second opinion,” True the Vote’s attorneys told Walton in the motion filed late Monday.

    “It may well prove to be the case that a computer forensics expert could recover evidence that the IRS has been unable to retrieve.

    “At the very least, such an expert could preserve whatever evidence has not already been wiped clean from the IRS’s computers along with whatever is stored on the Individual Defendants’ home computers, cell phones, and other PDAs.”

    IRS attorneys will be in the federal District Court on July 10 to explain why the government failed to tell Judicial Watch about the lost emails for months despite their being evidence in the nonprofit’s Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.

    Judicial Watch, a government watchdog nonprofit, filed its lawsuit last October after IRS officials failed to respond adequately to a May 2013 FOIA request for the Lerner emails.

    The government asked Walton on Monday night to dismiss the motion for an outside digital forensics expert. But True the Vote argued that merely asking for the dismissal “does not give them carte blanche to destroy or permit the destruction of documents and discoverable information that are relevant to the IRS Targeting Scheme in general and the application of True the Vote for exempt status.

    “If the IRS’s public statements about ‘recycling’ Ms. Lerner’s hard drive are true, that alone establishes spoliation of evidence that violates federal statutes and regulations, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and professional ethics and responsibility.

    “These statements, coupled with the refusal of Defendants’ counsel, to provide any assurances about what has been and will be done to preserve evidence underscore the need for the relief that True the Vote seeks.”

    This country is desperately in need of a Judge John Sirica who fought Nixon and the government to uncover what was behind the Watergate break-in.

  48. They will have to explain to U.S. District Court Judge Reggie Walton why the IRS shouldn’t be required to let an outside expert evaluate whether emails on the computer hard drives of former IRS official Lois Lerner and six colleagues really are lost forever

    ——-

    Hell YES, call in the Geek experts.

    Enough of this Mickey Mouse, dimwit analysis of how emails are lost forever.

  49. That news about IRS is worth celebrating. Maybe there is a bit of justice left in this country. Maybe people are beginning to remember that its the United States of America – Not Barack’s country to do with as he pleases.

  50. It’s a start, but the IRS controversy will not be resolved until a special prosecutor is appointed and one who is not afraid of Obama nor his goons.

  51. “The last thing any woman in politics needs is the appearance of having won only because her would-be opponents gave her a pass”

    _______

    Jes, I didn’t have time to closely read this article. Have to get to work. But on the surface, it appears to be another large serving of bull shit in an ice cream sundae dish. When in the history of politics this country has Hillary been given a “pass” ? She had to fight like hell in 2008, and had the votes she earned taken away and awarded to the Fraud.

    I’ll re-read it when i get off work, but it sounds like anti-Hillary forces trying to find a way to get Warren in the door. Regardless. it’s an absurd notion. I didn’t hear them calling for another black man to run against Barack. Hell, he didn’t even get elected as nominee, and they still legitimatized him as if he had every effing vote in America.

    WTF do they mean implying that a woman would not appear as legitimate without a female opponent. That’s a damn insult.

  52. admin
    July 2, 2014 at 2:15 pm

    Fourth of July style good news/fireworks:
    http://washingtonexaminer.com/another-federal-judge-tells-irs-to-explain-itself-on-lost-emails/article/2550394
    IRS attorneys will be even busier than normal next week, because another federal judge has told them to show up in court July 11 to defend the federal tax agency.

    They will have to explain to U.S. District Court Judge Reggie Walton why the IRS shouldn’t be required to let an outside expert evaluate whether emails on the computer hard drives of former IRS official Lois Lerner and six colleagues really are lost forever, as the agency recently told Congress.

    ———————–

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reggie_Walton

  53. Free

    Maybe people are beginning to remember that its the United States of America –

    Yuppers Free!

  54. Free

    WTF do they mean implying that a woman would not appear as legitimate without a female opponent. That’s a damn insult.

    ——–
    Indeed it is.

    If Hillary runs again, she will win on her own damn merits and not just because she is female.

    I find this degrading to all the hard work Hillary has done.

    Just voting for any female is no damn different than voting for Obama because his father was black.

    It really pisses me off.

  55. https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=qu9Jao2EjGE

    Are We Strangers in Our Own Land?

    Wednesday, July 2nd, 2014 by Daniel Horowitz and is filed under Blog, Immigration

    As we celebrate the 238th anniversary of our Independence, many Americans are wondering if we are indeed an independent nation with sovereign borders. Have we become strangers in our own land?

    Yesterday, two very disturbing stories concerning our border crisis surfaced in the news. These stories should put goose bumps on all Americans.

    Fox News’ Todd Starnes broke the news yesterday that a private security force contracted by the government had threatened doctors working at a refugee camp from disclosing information about the rampant illness among the illegal immigrants.

    “There were several of us who wanted to talk about the camps, but the agents made it clear we would be arrested,” a psychiatric counselor told [Starnes]. “We were under orders not to say anything.”

    The sources said workers were guarded by a security force from the Baptist Family & Children’s Services, which the Department of Health and Human Services hired to run the Lackland Camp.

    The sources say security forces called themselves the “Brown Shirts.”

    “It was a very submissive atmosphere,” the counselor said. “Once you stepped onto the grounds, you abided by their laws – the Brown Shirt laws.”

    She said the workers were stripped of their cellphones and other communication devices. Anyone caught with a phone was immediately fired.

    So now we have the HHS hiring a charity group, which somehow has access to its own security force?

    What is the government hiding and why don’t they want the public to know about the contagious diseases that were let through our porous borders?

    With this in mind, let’s move onto the second story from yesterday. Congressman Jim Bridenstine (R-OK) attempted to visit the HHS refugee camp set up at Ft. Sill, Oklahoma and was completely rebuffed by agents of the department.

    “I approached a security guard and asked to speak with the manager of the facility. The guard called his supervisor who said no visitors were allowed. I asked if they were aware that I am a Member of Congress. Eventually the manager came out and said that I would have to go through HHS legislative affairs and that the first chance to visit would be July 21st.

    What are they trying to hide? Do they not want the children to speak with Members of Congress? As a Navy pilot, I have been involved in operations countering illicit human trafficking. I would like to know to whom these children are being released,” said Bridenstine in a press release.

    We now have a situation in which the Obama administration’s policies engendered a new wave of illegal immigration, they clearly knew about the wave for months, and are in complete control over how taxpayer dollars are spent dealing with this man-made crisis. There is something wrong with this picture. Why is Congress being shut out of the process? Is this what our Founder’s envisioned when they declared independence from a king in 1776?

    Thankfully, the American people are fighting back. On Tuesday, a group of patriotic Americans blocked the path of a bus attempting to drop off 140 illegal aliens in Murrieta, California. Now it’s time for Congress to fight back and reassert its constitutional mandate against an imperial president who has already promised to exacerbate his open border policy.

    Here are some immediate steps Republicans in the House can take:
    •Pass Rep. Randy Weber’s (R-TX) bill, the Illegal Entry Accountability Act of 2014, which would suspend aid to Mexico, Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador until Congress determines that sufficient action is taken to keep their citizens from flooding out country.
    •Change the statutes regarding children of illegal immigrants from Central America and treat them like migrants from Mexico who must be returned to their country of origin within 48 hours. Congress should bar DHS from transferring them to HHS and instead proceed immediately to repatriation.
    •Bar DHS or HHS from using commercial transportation to transport illegals to reduce risk of spread of contagious diseases. Congress should also demand an immediate report from CDC on the public health threat posed by the new influx of illegals over the border.
    •Most importantly, Congress must reassert control over the power of the purse and use the budget process, particularly the bills appropriating funds for DHS and the HHS, to stop Obama’s lawlessness. They should cut salaries of top DHS officials until the double-layered fence is complete, pursuant to the Secure Fence Act of 2006.

    It’s high time for ‘We the People’ to take back our government and our sovereignty from a small group of elites in Washington. It is these elites and their unconstitutional ideas that should feel foreign in this great land, not law-abiding Americans. What better way to celebrate Independence Day?

  56. Excellent post, wbb. The primary issue here, as you eloquently noted, is is the fact that again, Obama controls the information and effectively shuts congress out. In the process, American people are kept in the dark about potential risks to their health and wellbeing. Too often, following one of Barack’s maverick “initiatives”, we learn that employees and other affiliates involved are forced st to remain silent.

    This whole situation is beyond belief. Americans threatened with arrest if they speak about this?!
    An elected official – a US Congressman – denied access?!

    We need to declare ourselves free and independent citizens of this country – Not Barack’s subjects.

  57. Thanks to all for the ongoing priceless information gathered here. And happy Fourth!

    TOP NEWS. Exclusive: U.S. discloses secret Somalia military presence, up to 120 troops. Wed, Jul 02 16:26 PM EDT. WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. military advisors have secretly operated in Somalia since around 2007 and Washington plans to deepen its security assistance to help the country fend off threats by Islamist militant group al Shabaab, U.S. officials said. The comments are the first detailed public acknowledgement of a U.S. military presence in Somalia dating back since the U.S. administration of George W. Bush and add to other signs of a deepening U.S. commitment to Somalia’s government, which the Obama administration recognized last year. The deployments, consisting of up to 120 troops on the ground, go beyond the Pentagon’s January announcement that it had sent a handful of advisors in October. That was seen at the time as the first assignment of U.S. troops to Somalia since 1993 when two U.S. helicopters were shot down and 18 American troops killed in the “Black Hawk Down” disaster. snip
    http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN0F72A820140702?irpc=932

  58. Shadowfax July 2, 2014 at 1:31 pm

    So does this mean you think I should support ObamaCare too, just from the quote you pointed out?

    No, please understand that I am just quoting the Clintons and explaining why they will help the Dems run on Obamacare this year. It’s not just ideological for them: With the 61% support for Obamacare, it’s good politics to embrace the issue while offering to make some changes to it.

    Just like Hillary saying her supporters should support Obama when she left the primary in 2008?

    We have always owned our vote. I don’t know what your fine-point stand is on this issue or if you are willing to withhold your support of HRC for this reason alone. I would like to talk it over some more, but you still own your vote. You don’t have to support or vote for HRC or with the 61% for that matter.

  59. freespirit July 2, 2014 at 4:20 pm

    I didn’t have time to closely read this article. Have to get to work…. I’ll re-read it when i get off work, but it sounds like anti-Hillary forces trying to find a way to get Warren in the door….

    Judging from the comments downstream, it doesn’t look like you went back and read the article.

    Please, please do so, because you seem to have missed the point entirely. Traister is transparently an HRC supporter and doesn’t have much respect for “lefty” Warren. The whole thesis based on the premise that competition is healthy in politics as it is in business. That is the “Re” of my letter to HRC.

  60. Shadowfax July 2, 2014 at 4:46 pm

    If Hillary runs again, she will win on her own damn merits and not just because she is female.

    Jeez, I guess I’m still the hothead feminist here!

    IMO, you and freespirit are both missing the larger point of the article: the value of competition both for the loser and the winner.

    I think you’re turned off by the mention of Warren. But Warren has said repeatedly that she won’t run, and she would be defeated anyway as many have already pointed out.

    What I liked most is that both Klobuchar and Gillibrand would be centrist candidates, would get national attention and thus name recognition by running, and Klobuchar could be picked as VP (not Gillibrand because she is from the same state as HRC) to make a two-woman ticket.

    Plus, both Klobuchar and Gillibrand have announced presidential aspirations “in the future” — but why not now?

  61. jeswezey

    July 3, 2014 at 6:58 am
    ———-

    Help me understand what you are saying, i.e.

    “With the 61% support for Obamacare, it’s good politics to embrace the issue while offering to make some changes to it.”

    Today only 39% support Obama care.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html

    And it is reasonable to assume that by 2016 the number will be even less after employers get done dumping their employees on the exchanges which are fraught with problems which are reporting on every day

    And the insurance companies apply for the massive taxpayer bail out which Obama promised them in the 8 foot high stack of papers that comprise this legislation.

    If these numbers are accurate, and if those assumptions play out then the political consequences of supporting Obamacare become starkly obvious and predictable. Yes?

  62. Plus, both Klobuchar and Gillibrand have announced presidential aspirations “in the future” — but why not now?
    ————
    I too have presidential nominations. Some people say they are only in my mind, but I insist they are real. Better yet, I have a plan. Inasmuch as Obamacare provides for transgender operations I want one, and then I can put my presidential plans into action. I doubt the democrats will have me because they value experience and competence, as we saw in the case of Obama. Ditto big media. I believe I have a better shot going with the Karl Rove/Haley Barbour machine, that wants to embrace the mantra of victimhood in order to win, as Arlen Spectre put it. But for the life of me–Guillibrand or the other woman who I have no idea of, to quote Nanny Poopie–are you serious?

  63. jeswezey

    Do you live in NY?. I do and I met Gillibrand when she was being introduced to big money in East Hampton. I was only invited to the “party” after I commented that it was another pay to play event and that she was not appearing at any other public venues. As a result Gillibrand also appeared at a local supermarket and farmstand to meet with those less wealthy.
    I am so sorry that I voted for her then or offered any help.
    Gillibrand is a political whore. As soon as she became Senator her politics copmpletely changed. She did what Schumer told her to do. If you like Schumer you will love Gillibrand. Numbers USA gives her an F or D- grade. She mails out her campaign literature in Spanish and English.
    why do you possibly support her?
    If Hillary runs and campaigns on supporting Obamacare I will not vote for her.

  64. The free public appearances by Gillibrand were added to her donor party schedule. I spoke with her at a small private gathering. What a disappointment she is!

  65. I did read it again, Jes, and checked out Traister’s background. You’re right about her being a former supporter of Hillary.

    I still don’t agree with the main promise of it, and am not sure it would be advantageous either to Hillary or other female candidates. They would be pressed to go after each other in order to avoid appearing being soft on their fellow female candidates, or giving them a pass. And as the author said, the sophomoric “cat fight” characterization would become the focus.

    I’m not sure having other women run against Hillary would necessarily have the desired effect of preparing and positioning them for a future run.

    Jes, just because someone doesn’t agree with you does not necessarily mean that they “missed the larger point”. Maybe they just disagreed with you about that larger point.

  66. Shadowfax
    July 2, 2014 at 1:25 pm
    _________________________________

    😆 I can see it now an All white instead of half.EVEN mooch would hate him. 😀

  67. In the dark, twisted world of Obama and his big media enablers, the arch villain is not al Qaeda affiliated groups. He is perfectly willing to arm them to the teeth, even though the arms he gives them today will be used against us in the fulsomeness of time. Not to worry about that however. By then, he will be sitting on a Hawaiian beach with reckless Reggie Love guzzling pina colatas. It is the school bullies, and alleged school bullies, that he is determined to stop, cold in their tracks. He has devoted half a billion of tax payer money to a program which he claims will do exactly that. It is tempting to say that he and his media enablers hate this nation, and this tour de force is merely one more example.

  68. wbboei July 3, 2014 at 8:00 am
    (Re: jeswezey July 3, 2014 at 6:58 am)
    Help me understand what you are saying, i.e.
    “With the 61% support for Obamacare, it’s good politics to embrace the issue while offering to make some changes to it.”
    Today only 39% support Obama care.

    Fair enough. Your 39% figure is way off. Let me explain:

    I was referencing the Fox News poll of early June, which is listed in the polls you link to and is pretty much replicated by the Quinnipiac poll of late June.

    At your link, the polls are not broken down at all – just aggregate figures with no analysis of the questions or answers.

    The Fox News poll as reported in early June had enough analysis for me to come to the following conclusions:

    The analysis said that 25% of the population approved, period. Clear enough.

    It also said that 38% wanted repeal, period. Also clear enough.

    It also said that 55% of the population “disapproved”.

    This latter figure is also clear, but there is a hitch: 55% + 38% = 93%, i.e. not the entire population.

    Explanation: It can be assumed that the 38% who want repeal disapprove of Obamacare, so that these sub-populations (55% and 38%) overlap completely.

    Therefore: 55% – 38% = 17% disapprove of Obamacare because they want (unspecified) XX changes to it.

    But that 17% does not want repeal. In fact, they should be amalgamated rather with those who approve of Obamacare BUT want some (unspecified) XX changes. The Fox poll analysis indicated this group at 19%.

    So, we now have 17% who disapprove because they want XX changes, plus 19% who approve but want XX changes, equals 36% who want XX changes, whether or not they “approve”, but in any event they are not calling for repeal.

    Take this 36% with “qualified approval” and add it to the 25% who give their “unqualified approval” and you get 61% who approve….

    which perfectly complements the 38% who want repeal because 61% + 38% = 99%, i.e. the total population (considering that polls are never expressed in decimals and because of the uncertainties, we can say that 99% = 100%).

    That is, we thereby account for the entire population without overlap.

    No analysis is provided for the Quinnipiac poll; but since the overall results are the same, I would say that these polls confirm each other.

    I analyzed the Fox poll when it was published, and posted my analysis here to show freespirit among others that the poll results were being twisted to read “bad news for Obamacare.” In fact, you in particular will not be surprised that the media are capable of reading the polls any way they wish. It just a matter of getting the spin across to the public.

    In any event, I repeat that the Clintons are not dupes of the spinmasters. They will support Democrats and encourage them to support Obamacare… with changes.

  69. President Obama and first lady Michelle Obama have called on Americans to make anti-bullying a “national priority.” And in the past six years alone, Obama has pledged nearly half a billion dollars for anti-bullying campaigns.
    ————
    Well bully for him. What a gas bag he is.

  70. jeswezey

    July 3, 2014 at 11:28 am
    ———
    Generally, when we look at polling data, we look to an average. That is what the 39% favorability figure is–the Real Clear Politics average. But assume for the sake of argument that if you break down the figures differently, the public loves Obamacare. Do you really believe that love will withstand the political winds which lie ahead as millions get dumped on these dysfunctional exchanges, half of whom have not even been set up, and others have been scuttled? Speaking of winds, I think Obamacare will make Hurricane Arthur which now threatens the Cape Hatteras area with destruction look like a mere tropical depression. I would say this is a problem for Hillary, not an advantage, and the best she can do, once employers pull out en masse is to say there is no alternative now, we have got to make this thing work. And by then, you may get your 61% figure, driven by desperation felt by those who once had insurance programs they liked and could afford, before Barcrack Banana sunk his teeth into them like a vampire from Transylvania.

  71. Jeswezey

    Shadowfax – Just like Hillary saying her supporters should support Obama when she left the primary in 2008?

    You – We have always owned our vote. I don’t know what your fine-point stand is on this issue or if you are willing to withhold your support of HRC for this reason alone. I would like to talk it over some more, but you still own your vote. You don’t have to support or vote for HRC or with the 61% for that matter.

    ——–
    I do support Hillary on most issues, but I already do not support ANY Democrats idea of the Dream Act nor amnesty.

    Hillary runs more to the left than I do, so I can’t think of how she could be so far left I wouldn’t vote for her.

    I want to hear the details, if she runs, on how she would try to ‘fix’ ObamaCare before I judge her.

    Before I would vote for someone other than her, she would have to turn into a totally different person than what she is…I don’t see that happening.

    I do not believe in all she does, I also do not know of anyone in politics I trust more than Hillary. PERIOD!!!

  72. I have to agree with crazy Joe Gallo Biden when he says that the middle east if Obama’s greatest achievement. But only when it is compared to all the other things he has touched that has turned to shit. Nice photo ops, fine speeches, and a precipitous decline in American power and influence punctuated by stage whispers from former allies saying America is irrelevant. Yes indeedy, quite a legacy for our first black president. That intelligent man in an intelligent house in an intelligent city that his black flack washpo admireer Eugenie Robinson wrote about only six years ago. Now, it is a case of run Bambi run–run away from the fires you (and big media) started/
    —————————

    Obama Seeks Escape From The Middle East

    by Victor Davis Hanson

    In his first term, Barack Obama all but declared victory in America’s Middle East struggles.

    As he precipitously pulled out all U.S. peacekeepers from Iraq, the president had his own “Mission Accomplished” moment when declaring the country “stable,” “self-reliant” and an “extraordinary achievement.”

    Those claims echoed Vice President Joe Biden’s earlier boast that Iraq somehow would prove Obama’s “greatest achievement.”

    After the death of Osama bin Laden, and during Obama’s re-election campaign, the president also proclaimed that al-Qaeda was a spent force and “on the run.”

    But what exactly was the new Obama strategy that supposedly had all but achieved a victory in the larger war on terror amid Middle East hostility?

    Fuzzy euphemisms replaced supposedly hurtful terms like “terrorism,” “jihadist” and “Islamist.” The administration gave well-meaning speeches exaggerating Islamic achievement while citing past American culpability.

    We tilted toward Turkey and the Palestinians while sternly lecturing Israel. Military victory was caricatured as an obsolete concept. Leading from behind was a clever substitute.

    Middle Easterners gathered that a bruised America would limp away from the region and pivot its forces elsewhere, saving billions of dollars to be better spent at home. The new soft-power rhetorical approach sought to win over the hearts and minds of the Arab Street, and thereby deny terrorists popular support.

    To grade that policy, survey the current Middle East, or what is left of it: Egypt, the Gulf monarchies, Iraq, Iran, Israel and the Palestinians, Libya, Syria and Turkey. It is fair to say that America has somehow managed to alienate friends, embolden enemies and multiply radical Islamic terrorists.

    So what happened?

    In short, the Obama administration put politics and ideology ahead of a disinterested and nonpartisan examination of the actual status of the 2009 Middle East.

    The more Obama campaigned in 2008 on a failed war in Iraq, a neglected war in Afghanistan, an ill-considered war on terror and an alienated Middle East, the more those talking points were outdated and eclipsed by fast-moving events on the ground.

    By Inauguration Day in January 2009, the hard-power surge had largely defeated al-Qaeda in Iraq. It had won over many of the Sunnis and had led to a U.S.-enforced coalition government, monitored by American troops.

    But there remained one caveat: What had been won on the ground could be just as easily lost if the U.S. did not leave behind peacekeepers in the manner that it had in all its past successful interventions — the Balkans, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Philippines, South Korea.

    Likewise, the once-derided “war on terror” measures — Guantanamo, the Patriot Act, military tribunals, preventative detentions, renditions and drones — by 2009 had largely worked. Since 9/11, America had foiled dozens of terrorist plots against our homeland and neutralized terrorists abroad, killing tens of thousands in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

    Obama for a while privately accepted that truth and thereby continued many of the very protocols that he had once derided.

    But there was again one problem. Obama kept posturing to the world that he would close Guantanamo and substitute civilian trials for military tribunals. He continued to say that he did not enjoy using renditions or drones — even as he upped the latter’s deadly missions tenfold.

    The results were contradictory messages that encouraged radical Islamists. The conclusion radical Islamists drew was that even the Obama administration had admitted its anti-terrorism protocols were either morally questionable or ineffective.

    Blaming a video maker instead of immediately taking out the known jihadists who had murdered Americans in Benghazi only reinforced that mixed message. So did exchanging five terrorist kingpins in Guantanamo for an alleged American military deserter in Afghanistan.

    A series of empty Middle East red lines, deadlines and withdrawal dates likewise reinforced the idea of American abdication.

    We warned Syria of air strikes and then backed down. We surged in Afghanistan only to simultaneously announce a withdrawal date for our troops. We issued Iran lots of deadlines to stop enriching uranium, only to forget them and end sanctions in hope of negotiations.

    As was the case with Russia, at first there were few consequences to such reset diplomacy and promises of easy victory. Al-Qaeda had been nearly wiped out in Anbar province in 2007-08 and was still regrouping. Iran had been crippled by sanctions and was wary of U.S. intentions. Terrorists did not wish to end up at Guantanamo or in a military tribunal.

    But newly emboldened terrorists gambled that the old deterrence was stale and now existed mostly as Obama’s reset rhetoric. They gambled that it was a great time to go on the offensive. They may have been right.

    Once more in the Middle East, Barack Obama is looking to blame others for a mess that has grown since 2009. But mostly he just wants out of the lose-lose region at any cost and wishes that someone would just make all the bad things go away.

  73. wbboei
    July 3, 2014 at 11:40 am

    President Obama and first lady Michelle Obama have called on Americans to make anti-bullying a “national priority.” And in the past six years alone, Obama has pledged nearly half a billion dollars for anti-bullying campaigns.
    ————
    Well bully for him. What a gas bag he is.
    ______________________________

    Wbboei they could start with themselves. Both big Bully’s. 😡

  74. foxyladi14
    July 3, 2014 at 12:06 pm
    ———–
    For sure. Bullying is an abuse of power, and the two of them are guilty of that in spades.

  75. It also said that 55% of the population “disapproved”.

    ——-
    To my eye, this is when the fuzzy math comes in.

    “What the meaning of ‘is’, is.”

    What were people voting for when the clicked in the box, ‘Disapproved’.

    This term is too vague and therefore is not worth it’s weight in beans.

  76. Surprise! The New York Times published a rather sensible op-ed on Hobby Lobby:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/02/opinion/for-the-supreme-court-hobby-lobby-is-only-the-beginning.html?_r=0

    By a 5-to-4 vote, the court on Monday held that the mandate, which requires employers to provide health insurance coverage for contraception, could not be applied to closely held for-profit corporations with religious objections to some forms of contraception. Religious groups described the mandate as part of a war on religious freedom. Supporters of the mandate countered that a victory for the plaintiffs would allow large corporations, under the cover of religious freedom, not just to impede women’s exercise of their reproductive rights but also to defy civil rights statutes with impunity.

    Amid this heated talk, it was easy to lose sight of the fact that this was a statutory case, not a case decided under the First Amendment’s protection of freedom of religion. The statute in question, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, states that the government “shall not substantially burden” the exercise of religion without satisfying a demanding legal test.

    It is worth noting that the act was championed by President Bill Clinton and passed in 1993, with near unanimity, by a Democrat-controlled Congress. The act was drafted in response to a controversial 1990 Supreme Court decision that made it easier — far too easy, according to critics of all political stripes — for the government to burden the exercise of religion.

    The decision in Hobby Lobby was no shock to anyone familiar with the heavy weight that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act places on religious accommodation. The fate of the case was sealed 21 years ago — not by a slim majority of the court, but by virtually every member of Congress. In a dissenting opinion on Monday, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg argued that the court’s ruling in Hobby Lobby was one of “startling breadth,” but the statute itself is deliberately broad.

    So why all the shouting? If the Religious Freedom Restoration Act is clearly written, and the product of a democratic process, what explains the apocalyptic rhetoric surrounding this case? In truth, the sources of the controversy lie outside the issue of the contraceptive mandate itself. And that should be great cause for concern — to both sides of the debate.

    The first source of controversy is the collapse of a national consensus on a key element of religious liberty: accommodation. Throughout American history, there has been widespread agreement that in our religiously diverse and widely devout country, it is good for the government to accommodate religious exercise. We have disagreed about particular accommodations (may a Muslim police officer wear a beard, despite police department policy?), and especially about whether religious accommodations should be ordered by judges or crafted by legislators. But we have generally agreed that our nation benefits when we help rather than burden those with religious obligations. That consensus seems, quite suddenly, to have evaporated.

    A second source of controversy is that many people view the Hobby Lobby case as concerning not just reproductive rights but also, indirectly, rights for gays and lesbians. Advocates for same-sex marriage have long insisted that their own marriages need not threaten anyone else’s, but citizens with religious objections to same-sex marriage wonder whether that is entirely true: Will a small-business owner be sued, for instance, for declining to provide services to a same-sex couple? Conversely, and understandably, gay and lesbian couples wonder why they do not deserve the same protections from discrimination granted to racial and other minorities. For both sides, Hobby Lobby was merely a prelude to this dawning conflict.

    The third source of controversy is a change in our views of the marketplace itself. The marketplace was once seen as place to put aside our culture wars and engage in the great American tradition of buying and selling. The shopping mall has even been called the “American agora.” But today the market itself has become a site of cultural conflict. Hobby Lobby is one of many companies that seek to express faith commitments at work as well as at home and that don’t see the workplace as a thing apart from religion. Many companies preach and practice values, religious and otherwise, that are unrelated to market considerations. CVS, for example, recently announced that it would stop selling tobacco products, regardless of how that decision might affect its bottom line.

    A country that cannot even agree on the idea of religious accommodation, let alone on what terms, is unlikely to agree on what to do next. A country in which many states cannot manage to pass basic anti-discrimination laws covering sexual orientation is one whose culture wars may be beyond the point of compromise. And a nation whose marketplace itself is viewed, for better or worse, as a place to fight both those battles rather than to escape from them is still less likely to find surcease from struggle.

    Expect many more Hobby Lobbies.

  77. He’s making a list, checking it twice, gonna give benies naughty and nice, ssa judge is coming to town.

    And so is Gowdy:

  78. This blog is running on premium. 🙂 🙂

    Here’s a recent tweet of mine which nicks Obama. Pennsylvania Cable Network’s official twitter act PCNTV has responded by favoriting it:

    pcntv favorited your Tweet 2h:
    Watching #Gettysburg tour 2011 via @pcntv. 151 yrs ago men carried out dream to free those enslaved. Today POTUS uses drones & foreign kids.

    YES I’m reading something into it because PCN acknowledged a similar earlier one in the same way. The 140 char limit did not allow room for me properly to express my outrage that thousands of men worked and sacrificed and died 151 years ago to allow for freeing the slaves here at that time.

    And now we have this black guy sitting in our Oval Office seemingly singlehandedly satisfying his personal dreams at great cost to everyone else.

  79. Gosar joins Cruz in calling for impeachment of Holder
    Popular Congressman: Impeach Eric Holder for “Human Smuggling”
    Snip Federal law prohibits the transportation of individuals who are in the country illegally, but that’s exactly what Homeland Security officials are doing. As illegal immigrants cross the border, DHS officials transport them by bus or airplane to sites around the country for processing.
    Thus far, Attorney General Eric Holder has done nothing to stop what appear to be repeated blatantly criminal acts by DHS. Representative Paul Gosar of Arizona, one of the states most effected by the surge in illegal immigrants, says Holder should be impeached for his failure to uphold the law.
    http://conservativetribune.com/impeach-holder-for-smuggling/

    Not to be neglected is this: Issa has written Obama a letter saying send the kids back. 31 other GOP House mbrs have signed it. Signed copy at his dot gov site.

  80. Obama: what, me worry. If you don’t like it sue me. I am going to do what is right for the middle class.

    Ya, sure, youbetcha, you petulant race baiting child.

    Earth to Bambi:

    “Your presidency is crumbling. The economy contracted by 2.9% in the first quarter of 2014. ObamaCare is even more unpopular (disapproval is 55% according to the June 30 Quinnipiac poll). Children from Central American countries illegally pour across the border. Iraq is disintegrating as Islamist terrorists work to establish a caliphate. And Americans’ confidence in the presidency according to the June 8 Gallup poll is 29%—lower at this point than for any of his predecessors. The Supreme Court has slapped him down in four rulings over the last two weeks.

    When Mr. Obama gets hit and his numbers fall, he becomes brittle and defensive. “So sue me,” he said Tuesday, mocking Republicans who want to stop his (unconstitutional) executive actions. Criticizing the House for not acting on his highway-funding proposal, he said, “It’s not crazy, it’s not socialism. It’s not the imperial presidency—no laws are broken.” It’s generally not a good idea for a president to issue playground taunts.”

  81. Shadowfax July 3, 2014 at 12:08 pm

    (It also said that 55% of the population “disapproved”.)

    What were people voting for when the clicked in the box, ‘Disapproved’.
    This term is too vague and therefore is not worth it’s weight in beans.

    That’s pretty much the point I was making about that and other polls: At best, the journalists don’t know how to read statistics. At worst, they spin the statistics. Either way, the reader gets the wrong idea.

    Even in the Fox poll report where some analysis was provided, I still had to do some algebraic stunts to figure out what the basic components of the population were and how they fit together. The key point was:

    Some people “approved” BUT wanted XX changes

    Others “disapproved” BECAUSE they wanted XX changes

    What would have been really telling is if there was some way of knowing what the XX changes were and if they were the same in each group, in which case it didn’t matter at all whether the people approved or not.

    In any event, all that mattered was what those changes are and apparently the polls didn’t go into that.

  82. Wbb
    And so is Gowdy:

    —-

    This is the highlight of my day, so far.

    Rip on Gowdy!!!! Love to hear him legally go for the throat.

  83. Unfortunately, the drop in unemployment to 6.1% and “war on woman” may very well help the dems make some gains in 2014 midterms.

  84. Jes
    In any event, all that mattered was what those changes are and apparently the polls didn’t go into that.


    We may or may not agree on the following:

    Polls only have value as a snapshot, but a very small sampling group of people, for less than 1 minute of time in history.

    Unless the questions are explicit, they are worthless…by any survey taken. Also, these type of questions are only a valid sample of American voters if, there is a ‘true’ cross sample of people with varying political views.

    I usually only place value on the trend of polls. For example, since 2012 the reek of Obama has increased by American voters, across party lines.

    One more thing, ObamaCare is not a fully working health care plan, that being said, only a very small group of people are actually covered on it, so how many of the people covered are actually accounted for by these polls?

    IMH:lol:O

  85. MAP: Where feds are trying to relocate illegal border surgers

    Since the border surge gained coverage from the mainstream media last month, the Obama Administration has tried to relocate tens of thousands of newly-arrived illegal aliens to communities across the country.

    >>Sign the petition to asking your three members of congress to fight the relocation!

    Click on the symbols on the map for name of each location and what is happening there. Below the map is the KEY for the symbols.

    https://www.numbersusa.com/news/not-my-backyard-feds-efforts-relocate-illegal-aliens-border

    Of course, I clicked on S. Calif to see what bs was going on down there and:

    1- Amid rising concern over a surge of young immigrants crossing the border illegally, flag-waving protesters blocked three busloads of detainees in Riverside County on Tuesday, preventing them from reaching a Border Patrol processing station in Murrieta.

    The buses, carrying about 140 detainees, turned around and headed back to a San Diego-area Border Patrol facility.

    2- Proposed shelter for undocumented children in Escondido denied

    ESCONDIDO, Calif. – The Escondido Planning Commission rejected a proposal to turn an old nursing home into a shelter to house undocumented children.

    On Tuesday night, nearly 500 people packed into Escondido City Hall to voice their concerns. Police were there in case the crowd got too rowdy.

    The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services wanted to open a 96-bed facility on Avenida Del Diablo, which is currently the site of a nursing home once operated by Palomar Pomerado Health Services.

    Escondido’s mayor, anti-immigration activists and people who live near the site all opposed it. Ly Lykou came to this country 30 years ago from Asia.

    “We did it the right way. We waited in line. We had our lungs X-rayed. If they want to do it the right way, let’s do that, but I feel like this is being forced on us. This is not a temporary situation,” said Lykou.

    One hundred people submitted cards to speak.

    “There’s a six-foot fence that’s going to go around this. There’s a 27-foot fence at our border and we can’t keep kids out,” said one resident.

    Another man said, “Rather than shipping these people all across America, send them back to their countries of origin.”

    Southwest Key would have run the facility. Alexis Rodriguez is with the nonprofit, which currently operates 22 other shelters in California, Texas and Arizona.

    “These children are coming from extreme impoverished backgrounds. They are grateful for things that most of us take for granted such as three meals a day and an opportunity to get an education while they are with us,” said Rodriguez.

    Rodriguez said most kids are transported to a family member in the United States after spending roughly 22 days at the center.

    “We think we can be a benefit to the city of Escondido. We are offering 150 jobs to the local community. We would be infusing $8.5 million a year every year into the local economy,” said Rodriguez.

    Supporters said this was a chance for Escondido to side with humanity.

    “I think we have enough space and enough heart to take in kids that are escaping from violence and have no hope,” said Nina Deerfield.

  86. Ron Paul: Nation’s Hospitals ‘Under Siege’ in Immigration Crisis

    [snip]

    “And with these thousands, tens of thousands, who knows how many [children] . . . you’re going to see some very serious health problems . . . We’ve already overburdened many hospitals.

    “In the 19th century, when we had a massive influx of immigrants, we were still cautious about diseases . . . Today, under these conditions, it just is essentially impossible to do this.”

    Paul added that it appears the Obama administration is more concerned with other borders around the world than with U.S. borders.

    “We spend way too much money worrying about the borders between Syria and Iraq and Afghanistan,” he said. “And we don’t seem to have any concern or policies that would be more sensible here at home.”

    “We already have many problems in Texas and Arizona where individuals come over,” he said.

    Paul said the nation is too quick to heap benefits on those who cross the borders.

    “One of my arguments for trying to stem the tide would be remove the incentives and not to get free everything, free medical care and free education,” he said.

    http://www.newsmax.com/Newsmax-Tv/Ron-Paul-health-crisis-border/2014/07/02/id/580602/

  87. so much for the laughable “Affordable Ocare”…

    Hillary…and Bill…would be out of their minds to run on Ocare…the worst…the very worst…is yet to come…

    the Middle class is going to get soaked…Hillary better run as fast as she can…

    http://nypost.com/2014/07/03/insurers-seeking-double-digit-increase-in-obamacare-premiums-in-ny/

    Insurance firms participating in New York’s ObamaCare health exchange are seeking double-digit hikes for patient medical premiums in 2015, new figures reviewed by The Post reveal.

    The average hike sought by insurers for individual plans is 12 percent—but a number of firms serving large numbers of patients want to boost individual premiums by nearly 20 percent.

    Leading the charge is Excellus Health Plan, which is seeking to sock more than 24,000 customers with a 19.7 percent hike.

    The even larger MVP Health Plan, with nearly 33,000 customers, is seeking a 19 percent boost.

    While a number of smaller plans put in for lesser increases or, in a number of cases, decreases, Health Republic Insurance of New York — the largest on the exchange with more than 68,000 members — requested a 15.2 percent increase for individual plans.

    The proposed rate increases call into question one of the goals of the Affordable Care Act — curbing runaway health-care costs.

    In some letters to customers, insurers cited requirements in ObamaCare as contributing to the proposed rate increases.

    “Our goal in pricing is to match expected medical spending — including medical costs, utilization and mandated coverage — with premiums. Other factors include plan design and new taxes and fees,” said Maria Gordon Shydlo, a spokeswoman at UnitedHealthCare.

    The Rye-based health insurer wants a 12.5 percent increase for small group plans, but a decrease of 2.4 percent for individual plans.

    The overall rate hike sought by insurers, which includes those both on and off New York’s health exchange and those serving either small groups or individuals, was 13.2 percent, according to officials at the state Department of Financial Services, which regulates the insurance industry.

    They noted that the agency has final say over what the rate hikes will actually be in 2015, the second year of the exchange.

    Officials said the submissions are under review and a final decision is expected to be made by the end of August.

    “We are going to scrutinize these rate requests very closely in order to protect New Yorkers and ensure they are not subject to any unjustified rate increases,” said DFS Superintendent Ben Lawsky.

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

    every rat around is going to try to milk Ocare for every cent they can get out of the poor suckers…the American taxpayers…

    btw…did any of you see the article that said people working on the Vets health cases were taken off to work on Ocare so they could boost the numbers…

    O is not only the worst Prez…he is the most corrupt of all of them…

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

    where are all these “humanitarian crisis” illegals going to live, how are they going eat? who is going to buy their clothes…where are they going to go to school?…who is going to pay for the medical services they need…and need now…with the lice and diseases they are carrying into the USA…

    who will be paying for all of that…as more and more truckloads just come in and board planes to fly around the USA…who is paying for the planes?

    …that’s right…the american taxpayer…we can’t take care of our own Vets or our own middle class…but we can take in limitless amounts of people with no good plan for them or us…

    O’s legacy will be turning the USA into a Third World Country…that no one respects…and everyone takes advantage of…

  88. If the D.C. Circuit, which is set to rule any day now on the appeal of the earlier ruling, sides with the challengers against O, consumers will be forced to either come up with the money for their premiums themselves or drop their coverage. And if most of them choose to drop coverage, leading to a mass exodus of healthy people from various insurance risk pools, suddenly the White House is facing a death-spiral problem where hiking premiums on the remaining enrollees is the only way to pay for all the sick people still in the pool. That’ll lead to more dropped coverage, which means even higher premiums, and then it’s spiralmania.

    It’s a magic bullet, aimed right at the heart of ObamaCare. What will the D.C. Circuit do? TPM wonders:

    http://hotair.com/archives/2014/07/02/by-the-way-the-d-c-circuit-might-nuke-obamacare-tomorrow/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=fbpage&utm_campaign=thupda

  89. It seems to me that Hillary is embracing every leftist position of Obama, including praising the tainted and illegal Cochrane victory in Mississippi. Maybe she believes all this, but more likely she does not want Warren, or a name I heard mentioned the other day Gore to get to the left of her, while she is lining up Wall Street money. If she stays the course, she will get the nomination, but not the general election. The sentient portion of the public is not looking for Obama III. At this point, with more and more evidence of corruption emerging on Cochrane and Barbour, it is madness to compliment Cochrane for his bipartisanship, which consists of paying $15 walk around money to blacks to corrupt the Republican election. It is tantamount to endorsing corruption. And not even Democratic corruption, but Republican corruption from the very man who despises her personally Karl Rove. She should be deploring and attacking Cochrane, Rove, Barbour and the rest of their corrupt gang.

  90. foxyladi14
    July 3, 2014 at 5:19 pm
    If the D.C. Circuit, which is set to rule any day now on the appeal of the earlier ruling, sides with the challengers against O, consumers will be forced to either come up with the money for their premiums themselves or drop their coverage. And if most of them choose to drop coverage, leading to a mass exodus of healthy people from various insurance risk pools, suddenly the White House is facing a death-spiral problem where hiking premiums on the remaining enrollees is the only way to pay for all the sick people still in the pool. That’ll lead to more dropped coverage, which means even higher premiums, and then it’s spiralmania.

    It’s a magic bullet, aimed right at the heart of ObamaCare. What will the D.C. Circuit do?
    —————–
    IT IS NOT THE JOB OF THE COURTS TO SAVE OBAMACARE. PERIOD.

  91. When the ACLU takes a case, it does not worry about that the legal position it adopts will be harmful to society. Its only concern is its interpretation of the provisions of the bill of rights which are consistent with its Leninist leanings. Indeed, its founder Roger Baldwin was a friend of Lenin. The courts need to adopt that same view of Obamacare. It is not their job to save it, to fix it, or to worry about the impact of their decision, i.e. higher premiums, etc. That is for congress and the executive to sort out. The court has neither the power of the purse or the power of the sword. Their role is to interpret the law, and let the other branches do their job. I say that because I just know in my gut that the foremost consideration of four justices on the Supreme Court, and that cowardly lion Roberts will be to temper their decision in light of its impact on Obamacare, after having previously declare it constitutional on the flimsiest of logic and pure sophistry. To repeat, it is not the job of the courts to save Obamacare.

  92. I do not believe in all she does, I also do not know of anyone in politics I trust more than Hillary. PERIOD!!!

    __________

    Well said, Shadow. My feelings exactly.

  93. Here’s an HRC-friendly bit of advice from Tomasky at The Daily Beast claiming that HRC would do well to embrace Paid Family Leave in her upcoming campaign:

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/07/03/hillary-clinton-s-golden-ticket-paid-family-medical-leave.html

    From the middle of the article:

    The laws that exist are modest. New Jersey’s, for example, is structured to give a person taking such leave at most two-thirds of his or her pay for six weeks. In California, it’s 55 percent for six weeks. In Rhode Island, it’s about the same percentage, but for four weeks. These aren’t what you’d call overly generous proposals. In France, it’s 100 percent for 16 weeks. Mon dieu, you say, that’s France. But in Germany, which even American conservatives respect a little more in economic terms, it’s 100 percent pay for 14 weeks, and 65 percent for an astonishing 12 to 14 months.

    The above article references a second article by Noam Scheiber in The New Republic, describing “How Hillary won over the skeptical left.”

    http://www.newrepublic.com/article/118432/hillary-clinton-2016-how-she-won-over-left-become-invincible

    This is a pretty good article that I recommend because it claims that the “left” exemplified by Elizabeth Warren is not as enamored of Warren as it may seem, and is actually more and more in HRC’s bandwagon. The article gives examples and explains why this movement is occurring, along with some of the pitfalls awaiting HRC. Scheiber’s thesis is that income inequality (as opposed to paid family leave) is the most important topic of the campaign and that HRC is “uniquely positioned to talk about” it. From the middle of the article:

    While just about all of the liberals I spoke with admire Warren, and still want to see the Washington establishment upended, Obama has soured most of them on the idea that a politician can pull it off. “I will tell you, as much of a dreamer as I had been, I’m now somewhat jaded about Obama…. Clinton has impressed me with her tenacity and capacity for compromise.”

    …. “In some ways, the Clinton mode of grind something out, don’t promise transformative change you can’t possibly deliver—that strategy looks a lot sounder six years later,”

    But there is also a liberal prognosis of how an HRC presidency would turn out: a de facto Wall Street coup in the executive branch, followed by tough negotiations with liberals in Congress.

  94. totally disgusted July 3, 2014 at 8:19 am

    Do you live in NY?

    I’ve answered this question before — I spent my first 25 years in the northern NJ suburbs of NYC and vote in NJ — but I don’t understand its relevance of the matter here.

    I met Gillibrand…. I am so sorry that I voted for her then or offered any help.
Gillibrand is a political whore. As soon as she became Senator her politics completely changed.

    Your coarse description of Gillibrand is not justified by the political reality of first representing 600,000 upstate citizens and then representing a constituency of 20 million, 40% of which is located in New York City. Plus, there are the constitutional differences between the House and the Senate that mean that a Representative does not have the same concerns or outlook as a Senator.

    She did what Schumer told her to do. If you like Schumer you will love Gillibrand.

    Schumer is the senior senator and from the same party. There is no fundamental reason for antipathy between them. HRC got along with him too.

    In Gillibrand’s 2010 election, she got 67% of the vote, which was better than HRC’s results, and in 2012 she got a record 72% of the vote, which gives her national standing.

    She mails out her campaign literature in Spanish and English.


    That’s supposed to be bad? She knows Mandarin and there are a lot of Chinese in NYC, so maybe you could fault her for not sending out her emails in Mandarin too?

    Why do you possibly support her?


    Among other things, she has been shepherding a bill through Congress to take cases of rape in the military out of the chain of command and perhaps into civilian court. I think this is an enlightened way of approaching the matter.

    The bill has not been adopted yet, but it’s not dead and she’s still fighting for it. She’s showing some really savvy there — and the ability to work across the aisle.

    If Hillary runs and campaigns on supporting Obamacare I will not vote for her.

    That’s another matter, of course. But I can assume from this statement that you will not vote for HRC. So be it.

  95. Shadowfax: I do not believe in all she does, I also do not know of anyone in politics I trust more than Hillary. PERIOD!!!

    freespirit July 3, 2014 at 11:33 pm

    Well said, Shadow. My feelings exactly.

    My feelings too. But just remember, on this matter of ‘trust’, half of Americans are diametrically opposed to us. I can’t figure out why….

  96. jeswezey
    July 4, 2014 at 7:42 am

    I would like to vote for Hillary. However, if she campaigns supporting every destructive policy of the fool Obama then I will not be able to do that. She has not announced yet and set out a platform so we will have to see. I am uncreasingly concerned about her statements on a variety of issues. As for Obamacare. I don’t think it can be fixed. I think it needs to be removed from the IRS involovement and handled completely differently.

    AS for Gillibrand, she campaigned as having certain beliefs and political positions. Then she changed them overnight. As for the bilingual campaign literature, I thought we were an English speaking country. Anyone here long enough to become a citizen should be able to read Engliush. I don’t recall voting to make Spanish an official language here….do you? Illegal immigration is an insult to every American and immigrant who followed the rules when coming to America. Illegal immigration is destroying the social and financial stability of my home town and tearing down my hopes of a stable retirement. GIllibrand celebrates and encourages these unlawfull changes. She can go to hell.

  97. HRC the Methodist once again talking about Forgiveness (here about Bill and Monica):

    “Forgiveness is a choice and I fully respect those who don’t make that choice, for whatever reason,” Hillary Clinton told BBC Radio. “But for me it was absolutely the right choice… “I have counseled others to see if, in their own hearts, they can also do that. If they can’t fine, but even if they do and then choose a different path, fine as well,” she told BBC Radio.

    There’s also a telling quote about forgiveness, without using the word, from Lewinsky’s Vanity Fair article, at:

    http://washington.cbslocal.com/2014/07/03/hillary-clinton-it-was-absolutely-the-right-choice-to-forgive-bill-for-lewinsky-affair/

  98. While just about all of the liberals I spoke with admire Warren, and still want to see the Washington establishment upended,
    ——–
    I am sure you are right, but what possible justification can they possibly have for supporting her. She is as much of a fraud to what they profess to believe in as Obama. Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice, shame on me. Rather than assuming that a woman who lives in a multi million home which she will not let the press see, and games the affirmative action spoils system by professing to be an Indian, and a former professor (shall I go on?) is on the level when she says she will upend the Washington establishment and by implication Wall Street and serve the American People, why not put her to one simple test: sign a written statement to the effect that she will accept no campaign contributions from Wall Street. Dare her to do that and when she refuses you will know what we are dealing with, namely one more false flag operation of the uniparty. If you hope to redeem yourself, liberal, then do not make the same mistake twice. The establishment has set up many false flag operations across the county, meaning public officials who claim to stand for a certain set of values, and appeal to their constituents on that basis, and then betray their constituents in order to serve their donors. Thaddeus Cochrane in Mississippi, and it is a mistake for Hillary to condone the kind of fraud we saw in that election.,

  99. jeswezey
    July 4, 2014 at 9:01 am
    ———–
    A bit of a soap opera don’t you think. I know it has its audience–like Rand Paul. But who else gives a damned. And I certainly do not hear about that Methodist Minister. I wonder how a Mullah would interpret the issue, since in the Age of Obama, Mullahs and Sharia law are all the rage. Conversely, Methodist ministers are, how shall I put it, passe.

  100. On the other hand, perhaps I am missing the point. When I say Methodist Ministers preaching forgiveness not from the pulpit but from the left wing studios of CNN which makes you wonder whether they are priest or pawn broker, I must not overlook the possibility that they are passe to the point of being campy because if that is the case they may attract an entire new audience, like Tony Bennett entertaining twenty somethings.

  101. Stupid juvenile whining by Barack Obama about House Republicans. His lies and strawmen on the immigration issue are so delusional that one begins to question the mental competence of the President. Obama tries to maintain that the immigration crisis on the Mexican border is a direct consequence of the House of Representatives not passing so-called immigration reform. He completely ignores his own responsibility for creating this crisis by his prior public statements intimating that children from other countries will be allowed to stay if only they set foot on American soil. That idiotic promise did not fall from the lips of John Boehner’s mouth. That was Obama.–LJ
    —————
    And the reaction?

    The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows that 46% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Obama’s job performance

    Whatever these people have achieved in other aspects of their life, when it comes to politics, they are not just stupid, but pathetic. Bear in mind, this is roughly half of the electorate.

  102. And that is what big media is doing to this nation. Blinding it to the very forces that are bent on destroying it. How is that any different from the role of the media in Nazi Germany? Echo answereth not.

  103. The handling of the illnesses of the immigrant children is reminiscent of the blackout on the horrors in the Gulf of Mexico after the BP disaster. Another fascist horror in America.

    Happy 4th of July.

  104. Let us be friends. 🙂

    MOSCOW (AP) — Russian President Vladimir Putin has told Barack Obama in an Independence Day message that he hopes the countries can improve relations.

    In a statement published on the Kremlin website on Friday, Putin said “regardless of difficulties and disagreements” he hoped that Russia and the U.S. could “successfully develop relations on pragmatic and equal grounds.”

    Relations between Russia and the U.S. have deteriorated as the two countries have struggled to find common ground in Ukraine, where Russia annexed the Black Sea region of Crimea in March and a conflict in the east of the country has claimed over 400 lives.

    The United States reacted by imposing sanctions on some of Putin’s associates, and has threatened to take further action.

    http://www.aol.com/article/2014/07/04/putin-tells-obama-he-wants-better-relations/20925219/?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D497170

  105. The self professed wise latina is more than a little stupider than the rest of them. She does not understand what the Court is doing, even though she finds herself in the midst of it. This is what happens when the Chief Justice tries to accommodate all justices politically at the expense of Constitutional history. He is a pawn broker, not a priest. The wise Latina is something of a joke.

    http://hotair.com/archives/2014/07/04/fireworks-at-supreme-court-on-emergency-injunction-applied-against-accommodation/

  106. I can’t figure out why….

    —-
    Of course you know why JESWEZEY, because America is damn afraid of an intelligent, experienced and competent female leader.

    Men are afraid of not being the top dog leaders, and to see Hillary do a better job, without spending her time on the golf course, taking outrageous vacations and being treated like a freakin’ rockstar to feed their egos…how could she not raise the bar so high as to intimidate others that run after her?

    Most candidates are a one trick pony, with a rant against something. Hillary sees and works on the big picture, and she will make things better for 51% of the planet’s population.

    Now those are some darn big shoes to fill.

    I started to go into the age thing…but we already know how America sees women over 50, as far as men’s fantasies go.

  107. jeswezey
    July 4, 2014 at 9:01 am
    HRC the Methodist once again talking about Forgivenes————-

    Jeeze jeswezey…

    I am pretty sure you have more than covered this topic.

  108. In re. Sacajawea Warren:

    Like General Custer’s operational plan at Little Big Horn, there are times when Senator Warren’s intellect can fail spectacularly. Yet, amidst the demagoguery and autobiographical chicanery*, it is possible that Lieawatha could even have a point. Speaking as a person who based her entire career on manipulating gender and race-based quotas to reach a position where she could run for higher office and never have to work an honest day in her life again, she tells us the game is rigged. We should check our privilege sayeth the affirmative action hire in The Harvard Yard. Elizabeth Warren may be to the Cherokee Nation what the Reverend Joel Osteen is to sincere Evangelical Christianity; but that doesn’t mean she can’t accidentally say something that’s at least truthy if not factually accurate.** So just because Joe Walsh’s Rocky Mountain Way is now legal, we’ll examine the possible accidental validity of Elizabeth Warren’s central idea. Maybe the economy and the government really are rigged.

    Well, are they? As Sarah Palin would undoubtedly say, “You Betcha’!” Everything in life is less than perfect – including economic competition for status. Yet, if anything, judging from the current crop of leadership in both Washington and Wall Street; the game isn’t quite rigged enough. To see what I mean, examine if you will, the deep thoughts of Valerie Jarrett, as expressed in 140 characters or less.

    Don’t worry friends, it was a gag gift. Us strong women don’t need worship — just an economy for the 21st century. #WomenSucceed

    This is the woman some people refer to as Barack Obama’s Rasputin. I’m relieved to hear she doesn’t need worship. If the game were properly rigged, she would need luck just to find gainful employment. If the game were properly rigged, a la Elizabeth Warren, Valerie Jarrett would have had to present a resume that could go toe-to-toe with Condoleezza Rice’s, Dean Acheson’s or Paul Volker’s before she got to give a US President the time of day – much less frequent advice. Valerie Jarrett would have had to have climbed a long and arduous Cursus Honorem before she would be in a position to tweet about not needing to be a god to feel fulfilled.

    The Iron Duke was correct when he said that the Battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eaton and Harrow. People who do well at difficult tasks have been prepared to succeed at them. Either they, or someone who cares for them, have truly rigged the game. They rigged the game by working and preparing more diligently than the opposition. With a proper Cursus Honorem, intelligent and dedicated people would be making the hard decisions about America’s future. The idiots would have had a short and unpleasant HR meeting with Charles Darwin long before they dispensed any CO2 pollution masquerading as policy advice to any US President.

    Instead, we get intellectually unqualified Law Professors from Harvard who can’t grasp the economics behind why the minimum wage isn’t $33/Hr. Instead of philosopher kings, we get Timothy “I don’t have a plan, but I know we don’t like yours” Geithner. But that, unfortunately, is what you get when everything we do is fair rather than just. We’ve done away with meritocracy and in the process we’ve pretty much leeched out most of the merit. So pace Elizabeth Warren, the game really is totally rigged. It’s just been rigged so that people who play it properly with all of their hearts and souls are prevented from claiming the victories that they deserve.

    The Z-Blog shows us exactly who gets favored in this rigged game that Elizabeth Warren gripes about when she’s out on the warpath against anything that smacks of competence or meritocracy:

    Fake Indian’s faux populism is the sort you see in the faculty lounge or the coffee shop at Whole Foods. It’s overly credentialed bobos bitching about the rich guys who sign their paycheck. They may have it good, but someone with fewer diplomas has it better and that’s just unfair. It’s why Fake Indian sounds so weird to working class types. If you are a part-time teacher at your kid’s Montessori school, hearing a rich white woman complain about inequality sounds inspiring. If you’re working two jobs so your kid can go to the local state college one day, hearing an old rich woman talk like that sounds phony. But, the Democrat party is the party of Montessori school parents, not plumbers with two jobs.

    So yes, Elizabeth Warren, the game is rigged. If it were not, you wouldn’t even be in contention for a Certificate of Meritorious Participation. The game has been increasingly rigged in favor of people who are part of a wealthy, liberal symbolic class and who know more and more about less and less until they know everything about absolutely nothing. It’s exactly the sort of rigged game that put Louis XV and Madame du Pompadour in charge of France. It’s after this rigged game Elizabeth Warren owes her professional success to that you’d better have your ark constructed. It’s going to be one righteous (expletive) deluge.—-Repairman Jack.

  109. The game has been increasingly rigged in favor of people who are part of a wealthy, liberal symbolic class and who know more and more about less and less until they know everything about absolutely nothing. It’s exactly the sort of rigged game that put Louis XV and Madame du Pompadour in charge of France. It’s after this rigged game Elizabeth Warren owes her professional success to that you’d better have your ark constructed. It’s going to be one righteous deluge.
    —————-
    That observation bears repeating. It is at the center of everything that is wrong with the nation at this point in our history. The ranks of the limousine liberals have swelled to the point, that they control the fate of the nation. And they are a contemptible, self absorbed, and incompetent lot. This young turd Zuckerberg is a perfect case in point.

  110. A glimmer of hope from the estimable Madison Project, in this winter of our discontent when corruption and more corruption reigns supreme, from Washington to Mississippi . . .
    ——————–
    Time to Reclaim our Independence

    Thursday, July 3rd, 2014 by Daniel Horowitz and is filed under Blog, Immigration

    On this day 238 years ago, the Continental Congress adopted the 1338-word Declaration of Independence in which we declared, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

    11 years later, as Benjamin Franklin left Independence Hall after the Constitutional Convention crafted the new constitution, he was reportedly asked by a lady, “well doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” He famously replied, “a republic, if you can keep it.”

    Sadly, many of us are spending this 4th of July wondering if our Founders would recognize that republic – that beacon of freedom built upon a strong civil society and ordered liberty. So many ordinary Americans feel our republic is long lost to a foreign socialist utopia centrally managed by an elitist oligarchy in the form of two corrupt political parties.

    This small minority of radicals has completely vitiated our most fundamental characteristic as a republic – our sovereign borders. We are now languishing from the flood of over 100,000 illegal immigrants teaming over our southern border, adding to the millions of illegals already here. At stake is nothing less than the preservation of our civil society, sovereignty, and solvency as a nation and as a stable economy. They drain our resources, health care, education, and criminal justice system.

    Our veterans are suffering waiting for care under single-payer health care, while private health care providers are being forced to provide immediate treatment to illegal aliens and are being threatened with arrest for speaking out against the threat of diseases. Border agents protecting our republic are now being sued by illegal immigrants for doing their jobs.

    We feel like strangers in our own country.

    Even without the illegal invasion, our republic is hanging on by a thread.

    Almost every American is involuntarily subservient to the federal government for his or her retirement security and healthcare. Over 46 million people, and one-in-four children, rely upon government for food stamps. Under the new Obamacare mandates, an estimated 79 million Americans will be enrolled in Medicaid and CHIP. This culture of dependency, an anathema to our spirit of independence, has saddled us with over $1 million in debt and unfunded obligations for every American taxpayer.

    Meanwhile, ordered liberty in a constitutional republic needs a strong civil society and strong families in order to thrive, much like fish in water. Yet, the cultural degeneration, promulgated and encouraged by this small societal elite, has permeated every aspect of American life – to the extent that those of us who adhere to traditional family values are now ostracized and castigated. We have reached the point where we need a group of unelected judges to grant us small morsels of religious liberty from their high benches in Washington. The small minority who push this invidious anti-family agenda now seek to eradicate the very existence of gender to the degree that private individuals and businesses are now being forces to accommodate bizarre and licentious practices.

    The “Republican” Party was supposed to serve as the bulwark against attempts to supplant our republican form of government, yet they have become part and parcel of the problem. Decades’ worth of treachery directed towards the party faithful from its leadership has finally culminated with the Mississippi election last week. A long-serving Republican, with the blessing of the entire party establishment, engaged in fraud and race-baiting to repudiate his own party base and steal the election.

    We are now living through the worst consequences of elective despotism that James Madison warned about in Federalist 48. Indeed we are strangers in our own country and in our own party.

    But thankfully, as we celebrate another Independence Day, there are signs that the original zeal for constitutional governance and freedom still runs through the veins and DNA of so many Americans. We have witnessed ordinary citizens risking their careers and reputation to challenge the entrenched political class with almost no funding and very little resources. Most of them came up short on the first try, but so many of them came close and have succeeded in exposing the duplicitous career politicians.

    This revolution culminated with an ordinary college teacher knocking off the sitting House majority leader in a primary while being outspent 42 to 1. Even amidst the darkness of Mississippi, we see the light of the massive conservative majority that turned out to vote for Chris McDaniel, rising up against the state bosses who very well might have stolen the election.

    These are some of the darkest days for our Republic, but that darkness has rekindled the burning light for freedom that has been our inheritance since 1776. We must harness this time of despair and use it as an opportunity to rise up in another non-violent revolution to restore our republic.

    Let’s party like it’s 1776.

  111. Unfortunately the Cochran comments reflect her fear of losing the black vote in the primary! Remember what happened last time.

  112. I dont think Hillary is running so much to the left. I believe she is running as to not upset black voters. Obama, unfortunately, will always be popular with blacks. In the primary, Hillary needs them to win. I wish things were different but this is the reality!

  113. I dont think Hillary is running so much to the left. I believe she is running as to not upset black voters. Obama, unfortunately, will always be popular with blacks. In the primary, Hillary needs them to win. I wish things were different but this is the reality!
    —————–
    Whoaaa! Let me get this straight. She supports Cochrane even though he bought black votes at $15 per head. If she feels she cannot condemn this voter fraud for fear of losing the black vote, then:

    a. is it worth having the black vote, if it depends on supporting fraud

    b. if she must have the black vote, but does not wish to support fraud, why take any position on this.

    This is bad medicine.

  114. I dont think Hillary is running so much to the left.
    ————–
    No. She is too tied in to Wall Street to run to the left. We know what happens to true leftists like Dean. Wall Street gives the word and big media takes them down.

  115. What happened in Mississippi is an absolute disgrace. At one time, the cost of buying the black vote was $1 per head, but like everything else, inflation has upped the ante. Buying the vote corrupts the entire concept of representative government. It is a stain on the Republican Party.

  116. wbb

    “But, the Democrat party is the party of Montessori school parents, not plumbers with two jobs”
    ___________________

    Absolutely!!

    Regarding Cochran
    I heard a pro-Cochran guy from Mississippi interviewed of radio. He was attempted to deflect the accusations that the Cochran people paid black Dem voters to vote for him in the Pub primary. He suggested that one reason black voters might have chosen to cross over and vote for him was the Tea Party had a reputation for being racist,

  117. Oops, typos above. My bad.

    My comment above is not to defend Cochran, just to share one of the explanations being offered

  118. He suggested that one reason black voters might have chosen to cross over and vote for him was the Tea Party had a reputation for being racist,
    ———————
    The black community has a strong belief in bogey men. Presenting a bogey man to them triggers their fears, and makes them controllable. Race baiters like Reverend Al have done this repeatedly. Big media has done this repeatedly. The democratic party has done this repeatedly. And now the Republican party is guilty of the same sin. And in each case, the goal was to beat back a challenge to the status quo and protect the political class. Very little evidence has been presented that a loosely configured organization that is committed to the constitution and demands accountability from the political class is a front organization for the KKK. But to a weak mind correlation trumps causation and perception is more important than proof. And that is why when the tea party first appeared CNN sent a reporter into a rally looking for a scintilla of evidence of racism. And, at the same time, they systemically ignored assaults on black members of the tea party by white thugs dispatched by jim messina who worked for Obama, was a campaign whore, later a deputy chief of staff under Emanuel, and is now working for Hillary’s organization.

  119. Many of us have been frustrated by the efforts by big media to distort the facts and censor the truth. We cannot understand why those who claim to speak truth to power systematically deny the truth. The answer is simple. They have no interest whatsoever in the truth. The only thing they are interested in is stories which advance their narrative the purpose of which is to exercise their own power and to protect their privilege. As such, they should be seen for what they are, namely pathological liars. Hillary needs to separate herself from them and be a truth teller. I wince when she defends Cochrane. The man is corrupt.

  120. Surprisingly, I was impressed by James Risen, an investigative reporter for NYT, who challenged Professor Tubesteak on his assertion that on the one hand Snowden should be fried for disclosing sensitive information, and on the other hand insisting that he welcomes to debate over government surveillance. Obviously, the two statements cannot live together under one roof. It is the kind of shallow thinking and hypocrisy one would expect from a vaunted CNN legal expert. Then Greenwald delivered the sucker punch and it was lights out for the professor.

  121. wbboei July 5, 2014 at 2:00 am

    Many of us have been frustrated by the efforts by big media to distort the facts and censor the truth. We cannot understand why those who claim to speak truth to power systematically deny the truth. The answer is simple. They have no interest whatsoever in the truth. The only thing they are interested in is stories which advance their narrative the purpose of which is to exercise their own power and to protect their privilege.

    Well, I guess there’s something to be said for habits developed over time, leftist elites, groupthink in the newsroom and things like that; but I still think the beginning and end of the big media game is money. That’s what the media owners are in it for, and that’s what the advertisers are in it for.

    When I dropped out of the media world 42 years ago, the basic reason was that I was spending up to a third of my time in front of the TV watching commercials. The show itself, whether entertainment or news, took up only two-thirds of the time. Plus, when the show came back on after the commercials, there had to be a recap of 30 sec or a minute to get the viewer back into the show at hand.

    This situation — spending a third of one’s time watching commercials — has worsened:

    In 2003-5 in an old people’s home in Florida, I occasionally dropped in on the TV room where about 20 people were watching the same TV program together. I was never able to detect what the actual program was because so much time was spent on commercials. I was sure the proportion was more than half by 2005.

    This was confirmed in 2012 when I found (on Youtube) a funny show called “Just Shoot Me” (from the early 1990s) where you could watch the whole show without commercials. An entire episode took 20 minutes or less but the show on TV took 1 hour. So, by the early 1990s, the commercial/show time ratio had reached TWO FUCKING THIRDS !!

    Add to this the fact that, somewhere in the intervening years since 1972, media owners realized that viewers prefer to be entertained rather than informed. Their formula became “infotainment” — that is, constructing and editing the news so that it will entertain people, essentially by telling them what they want to hear and filling in with wisecracks and popular wisdom.

    Over the past 5 years or so, I’ve sensed that this Infotainment cash cow cannot be milked any more. The audience has caught on and is evaporating; ratings are declining; and advertisers are turning to other media.

    Some of those “other media” are actually other TV outlets such as Fox and Al Jazeera, BBC and so forth, which never went the infotainment route. So, in the medium term, there is still hope for TV I guess. But the “liberal” news producers will soon be a thing of the past, imo.

  122. Me: HRC the Methodist once again talking about Forgivenes…

    Shadowfax July 4, 2014 at 2:50 pm

    Jeeze I am pretty sure you have more than covered this topic.

    Yeah, sorry for harping on it… It’s just that it was HRC talking about it directly this time.

    But your last comment on the subject riled me; I didn’t want to let it go. You said my religious beliefs may comfort me but not you.

    OK for you, I won’t bug you about that.

    But for me, my Christian beliefs do not comfort me: they challenge me. They are bedrock philosophy for me, but Christianity is incomplete when it comes to facing today’s challenges and hardships.

    It’s pretty hard work sometimes, and never a comfort, to live by Christian principles. Forgiveness is part of that hard work… just sayin’

  123. I still think the beginning and end of the big media game is money. That’s what the media owners are in it for, and that’s what the advertisers are in it for.
    —————–
    Once upon a time, I believed that too. I would have thought that the bottom line was sponsors, ratings etc. I no longer believe that is true. Yes, ratings are important, but in today’s game a billionaire like Soros can drop a boatload of money on a media enterprise and save it from extinction. This began when multi national corporations bought newsrooms, starting with Welch, and saw them as a vehicle to control the public mind and advance their goals. Too much effort has been spent trying to analyze their pereverse support for Obama in terms of exciting an audience with a new product, and too little effort has been spent seeing it for what it really is a vehicle for corporate control. Try thinking about it this way: if big media were driven by ratings and if ratings explain what they do why would they remain in the cul de sac they are in today lying, censoring and advancing an agenda–which has nothing to do with ratings. Why wouldn’t they make some attempt at journalism, if only to prevent their competitor FOX from running circles around them, giving the public the rest of the story and schooling them on what it means to be journalists. That does not make sense in terms of general marketing principles which recognize the value of diversification and understand that branding is for cattle–the test of a brand being experience, not bullshit. No, these people have morphed into defenders of the status quo and their own little heaven. Take another look at the takedown of Professor Tubesteak and you will have your answer. CNN’s ratings are in the tank, but they do not change their tune. If ratings were sine qua non, then they would be more like FOX.

  124. I think this entertainment meme is a diversion. If you think they are willing to give up the power that comes with being a voice in the political debate, and potentially an opinion maker for the sake of entertainment, then I think you are missing the mark. The point is they are using entertainment, which is to say fiction, to exert political power. Freed from the facts, when they are accused of libel they can say, hey, we are in the entertainment business. Beware of facile explanations, and focus upon what is central to everything they do: power, in the Orwellian sense. I make no comment on their motives in the days of Murrow, Cronkite and Sevarid, who cut their teeth during the London Blitz. I am talking about the aging yuppies who run the program today, who went to the best schools and are prigs.

  125. This gets back to the argument I made above about boogey men. For CNN in particular, this has been fertile ground to plow because it can generate anxiety in vulnerable populations. The mature approach is to deal in facts, but they rely on myth and shallow investigation to reach conclusions which confirm what they wanted to find. In doing so, they divide the country, and deserve the rebuke they get from others. The more telling point, is they refuse to deal with the real problems which besets this nation which is the economic divide. That one they hide, because it represents a pound of flesh nearest the heart of the ruling class. Lazy people watch big media. Diligent ones understand where they are coming from and get their news elsewhere. Again, the takedown of David Gregory (NBC) and Jeffrey Tubesteak (CNN) by Glenn Greenwald which left both of them reeling shines a bright light on who and what big media is keen to protect.

  126. holdthemaccountable
    July 5, 2014 at 10:16 am
    The House Republican leadership, with the cooperation of Democratic leaders, quietly attached an amendment to an election law bill last month that would allow the cash-strapped state GOP party to raise unlimited donations to pay for an expensive legal battle with Tea Party gubernatorial candidate Mark Fisher.
    ————–
    The uniparty circles the wagons. They want to protect their power and privilege which comes from preserving the illusion of competition, and if that means propping up a moribund state republican party, then they will do it. Why, why, why should they pass legislation to allow unlimited amounts of money to come into the system to prop up the status quo? Because they want to erect ENTRY BARRIERS TO POLITICAL COMPETITION. This is what monopolies do.

  127. For those who believe that everything in politics revolves around money, there is the story of the hair brained thief who robbed the 7-11 store, but sold his gun back to the clerk for cash in the register. The power of the dollar is always subject to the power of the gun. It is called mega politics. Orwell was clear on this, but we never learn.

  128. Finally, if the motive of big media was simply ratings then they would be sensitive to the decline in public support for Obama, and the belated perception by the electorate at large that he is a loser, then they would respond to that change and tie a can around him, as they did with Nixon, Bush and Republican counterparts. This gets back to the point that the head of MSNBC made to the Young Turk, who then repeated it in public for all to hear. Speaking for himself, his company, and big media in general Jeff Zuckerman chastised the Young Turk for criticizing Obama, and went on to tell him: you are an outsider and you relish it. I agree. Outsiders are cool. They drive motor cycles and wear leather jackets. . . We (big media) are not outsiders. We are INSIDERS in this administration. Stop criticizing it. And when the Young Turk fail to heed that advice he was given demoted, offered a lucrative settlement arrangement to keep his mouth shut. Something he could never do.

    The point of this? It aint about ratings. Their ratings are less than half of FOX. It is about power. Pure power. That is the north star of big media today, and the aging yuppies who call the tune. That is their real game.

  129. wbboei July 5, 2014 at 10:08 am

    OK, Soros can plop a wad of cash into a few pockets and get the storyline he wants out of the newscasters, true enough. And that can go on endlessly, true enough.

    But the declining ratings mean that people aren’t taking that bullshit anymore. They’re seeking out real journalists and don’t care to be entertained anymore. As time goes on, Soros is going to have to dole out more and more cash with less and less effect.

    The end game, if HRC is CEO of the federal government, is that anybody who wants real news is going to listen to Greta. Maybe Joe Scarborough. Maybe Sawyer, maybe Amanpour. There are others… but Tingles will be flushed down the toilet.

  130. Jes, it’s not surprising that Hillary would encourage forgiveness. Most religious and spiritual traditions place much emphasis on the importance of forgiving. Very few public figures, especially those who may run for political office, would publicly encourage grudge holding, getting even, revenge, and the like. Forgiveness is generally considered the path to healing, balance, and well-being, while not forgiving results in the opposite.

    I don’t argue with any of that. I do believe, however, that many people, believing that it’s sinful or wrong to do otherwise, claim to have forgiven when in reality, they have just stuffed those feelings of hurt and anger down as far as possible, and plastered a smile over them. There are, no doubt, a few righteous souls who have been able to genuinely and fully forgive. Personally, I’m not one of them.

    I do think there’s more virtue in being honest about not having forgiven than in pretending to have forgiven or in deceiving oneself about it. In addition to an individual’s personal ability to forgive there is the issue of whether the wrong doer has stopped engaging in the wrongful actions that originally provoked the hurt or anger, has asked for forgiveness, or has repented. If not, then does that person deserve forgiveness? All of these factors have been
    mentioned upthread.

    Maybe it’s a reflection of my own unevolved spiritual side, but forgiveness is not an option for me when it comes to the 2008 primary. Hillary can forgive. You can forgive. Anyone else who wants to can forgive. That’s irrelevant to my own ability and/or desire to forgive.

  131. Thanks foxy. It’s uplifting to celebrate this country’s birth as an independent, sovereign nation. Regardless of the challenges and problems that face this country, most of which have become greater and more troublesome since 2009, a bad day in the USA is better than a good day in any other country on earth.

  132. Amen to the “Tingles flushing” theory, Jes. Let the flushing begin now. Then again, are we being fair to the Tidy Bowl men? Should they have to suffer Tingles’ presence in the toilet bowl and endure his endless talking/spitting on their journey down the drain pipe? In the true Tingles’ tradition of embracing any and every group who has been denied equality, EXCEPT WOMEN, I do think the Tidy Bowl people should be considered. Is it not bad enough that they will end up in the sewer? Should they have to spend eternity with that talking, screaming head? I think the answer has to be – Yes! Someone has to take one for the team. It might as well be them.

  133. http://video.foxnews.com/v/3654267012001/law-enforcement-who-investigated-ayers-react-to-interview/?intcmp=obnetwork#sp=show-clips
    —————
    This vile scumbag Bomber Bill Ayers who was pardoned by Bill and is believed to have been the ghost writer of Dreams of My Father went on FOX and gave the Rikers Island them song, I am innocent! Later, FOX brought on two FBI agents who infiltrated the Weather Underground and a New York City terrorism unit investigator who impeached what Bomber Bill had to say. The goal of that organization was to overthrow the US government by force and violence. Now with their clone in the White House, their goal is to achieve the same result through non violent but no less insidious means. Meanwhile rube nation sits there and watches it all, and never puts two and two together. They are lazy, uninformed idiots who are easily manipulated.

  134. jeswezey

    July 5, 2014 at 11:39 am
    ——–
    Not exactly. Big media is a monopoly with high entry barriers to competition. To a large degree they control the public mind, and sense of well being. CNN may be on the ropes, but their audience simply leaches to NBC, ABC or CBC, who peddle the same tripe. There is no product differentiation between what they say, therefore it is a commodity market. If you look at this from a competitive strategy standpoint, there are too many players in the market place, which sets up a dynamic where the weaker ones fail. But the rubes who watched CNN do not drift to FOX. They end up at one of the other left wing networks, who peddle the same tripe. So the corrective mechanism of rating does not exist. I had this argument five years ago with someone who is steeped in journalism. She argued, as you do, that ratings decline would change to tenor of coverage, and I disagreed, because I saw then as I do now that there is more to this than ratings. This is about lifestyle and keeping what they have. In that sense, they are no different than any other self interested constituent group with power seeking to trick the system to their own advantage. But the one thing they are not is journalists, and nobody who lives in the same world as most of us, and understands their motives will dispute that proposition/

  135. Amazing!!! 🙂

    In the nearly 20 months since Mitt Romney lost the election to President Barack Obama, many of the former Massachusetts governor’s predictions have played out on the world stage.

    For instance, Romney called Russia the nation’s “number one geopolitical foe”; he pledged strong support for Israel amid tense relations with Iran and other neighbors; declared that corporations are “people” — and said that illegal immigration remained a continued threat to the American economy.

    Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/mitt-romney-issues-putin/2014/07/04/id/580907#ixzz36chfn96k
    Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

  136. Spy caught. 😯

    BERLIN — Chancellor Angela Merkel’s spokesman said Friday that she had been informed of the arrest of a German man who, according to media reports, is an intelligence service employee accused of spying for the United States.

    Federal prosecutors said a 31-year-old German man was arrested Wednesday on suspicion of spying for foreign intelligence services. They did not identify the suspect or the intelligence services.

    http://nypost.com/2014/07/04/german-intelligence-worker-arrested-for-spying-for-us/

  137. Admin, what’s your take on this? Since it’s in NYT, possibly could be presented a reason for far left not to support Hillary?

    ______________

    The Next Act of the Neocons
    Are Neocons Getting Ready to Ally With Hillary Clinton?
    By JACOB HEILBRUNNJULY 5, 2014

    WASHINGTON — AFTER nearly a decade in the political wilderness, the neoconservative movement is back, using the turmoil in Iraq and Ukraine to claim that it is President Obama, not the movement’s interventionist foreign policy that dominated early George W. Bush-era Washington, that bears responsibility for the current round of global crises.

    Even as they castigate Mr. Obama, the neocons may be preparing a more brazen feat: aligning themselves with Hillary Rodham Clinton and her nascent presidential campaign, in a bid to return to the driver’s seat of American foreign policy.

    To be sure, the careers and reputations of the older generation of neocons — Paul D. Wolfowitz, L. Paul Bremer III, Douglas J. Feith, Richard N. Perle — are permanently buried in the sands of Iraq. And not all of them are eager to switch parties: In April, William Kristol, the editor of The Weekly Standard, said that as president Mrs. Clinton would “be a dutiful chaperone of further American decline.”

    But others appear to envisage a different direction — one that might allow them to restore the neocon brand, at a time when their erstwhile home in the Republican Party is turning away from its traditional interventionist foreign policy.

    It’s not as outlandish as it may sound. Consider the historian Robert Kagan, the author of a recent, roundly praised article in The New Republic that amounted to a neo-neocon manifesto. He has not only avoided the vitriolic tone that has afflicted some of his intellectual brethren but also co-founded an influential bipartisan advisory group during Mrs. Clinton’s time at the State Department

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/06/opinion/sunday/are-neocons-getting-ready-to-ally-with-hillary-clinton.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

  138. freespirit July 5, 2014 at 12:00 pm

    Very thoughtful. Thank you for it, and I think that puts a final stop to the discussion, especially your phrase

    … many people… claim to have forgiven when in reality, they have just stuffed those feelings of hurt and anger down as far as possible, and plastered a smile over them.

    which underscores my comments to Shadowfax at July 5, 2014 at 9:50 am where I point out that my beliefs are more of a challenge than a comfort to me.

    Thanks again —now we agree and can move on…

  139. freespirit July 5, 2014 at 5:59 pm

    The Next Act of the Neocons

    Actually, supporting HRC makes some sense from the neocon standpoint on foreign policy. HRC is the closest thing to a hawk they can expect among the current array of candidates on both sides of the aisle. She stands ready to use American firepower when it is the best way to deal with a situation, but not needlessly like Dubya. That’s why she has so much support in the military.

  140. freespirit July 5, 2014 at 1:25 pm

    What do you mean by the Tidy Bowl men? Maybe I shouldn’t be asking, but remember, I don’t have a TV.

  141. “President Obama has quietly promised Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren complete support if she runs for president — a stinging rebuke to his nemesis Hillary Clinton, sources tell me.”
    “A former Harvard law professor and administration aide, Warren would energize the left wing of the Democrat Party just as Obama did against Clinton in 2008.”
    “In the past several weeks, Jarrett has held a series of secret meetings with Warren. During these meetings, Jarrett has explained to Warren that Obama is worried that if Hillary succeeds him in the White House, she will undo many of his policies.”
    http://nypost.com/2014/07/06/this-means-warren-obama-backs-challenger-to-hillary/

    Idiots.

  142. Mormaer July 6, 2014 at 8:23 am

    “President Obama has quietly promised Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren complete support if she runs for president

    Consider the source: Ed Klein publishing in the New York Post…

  143. It certainly would not be unlike O to secretly do anything, including offering support to Warren. The progressives are pushing for a Warren run against Hillary.

    __________

    jes, the Tidy Bowl Men – actually it may have been just one Tidy Bowl Man, I’m not sure – were/was a TV commercial for Tidy Bowl toilet cleaner a long time ago – maybe 10 – 15 years ago.

  144. I have expressed great skepticism that Warren is any in any conceivable respect presidential. But now I realize this is not about her. She is merely a vehicle for the left to finish the task of destroying this nation. Thus, her qualifications or lack thereof are of secondary, or tertiary importance to blacks who run the party. But then I ask myself okay fine whether a liar with a resume bare as a goats ass and long as a whore’s dream can win the general election with the support of the corrupt media, if she makes her hands off deal with Wall Street and focuses on the continuing destruction of the middle class. The answer in two words: RUBE NATION. This problem will never be solved so long as big media remains standing. And that is the truth no one wants to admit, because they are not independent thinkers, are highly manipulable and have no sense of direction. The answer is in three words: Barack Hussein Obama.

  145. The only thing that will cause Washington to wake up is major violence on the border. Words fail. That is not what anyone in their right mind wants. But it is the ONLY thing that will change the current dynamic. That will produce an overreaction from Obama, like a massive confiscation of guns from lawful owners, and only then, on the unlikely possibility that the Republicans win the Senate, is there any hope that the real cure to the problem will be implemented–impeachment proceedings against a president who is evil on the one hand and mad as a hatter on the other, who arrogates to himself unlimited power, in derogation of the Constitution and the rule of law. That, I am afraid, is the tragic reality of the situation.

  146. James Davidson and Lord William Reese Mogg wrote a book called the Great Reckoning. One of the central premises of that book, epitomized by the example of the flee brained thief cited above, is that the power of the dollar is always subordinate to the power of the gun. The elites in this nation are comfortable with what Obama is doing to this nation because they expect that it will not affect them. I find this puzzling on the one hand, typical on the other. I am convinced that the destruction to our way of life which we are seeing today will affect everyone. And for the same reason Willie Sutton robbed banks, i.e. because that is where the money is, sooner or later the great unwashed are coming for them. They are betting that they can use the middle class as a human shield, but once they are gone, there will be nothing left between them and the snarling beast. In my view, the only thing that can head this thing off now is impeachment, and that assumes the Republicans take the senate, and the polls change dramatically because people wake up. As I think that one through, and survey rube nation, that seems like a distant possibility. Churchill talked about how democracies muddle on through. Truth to tell, there is no muddling through this mess.

  147. So this amounts to something of a confession, which is okay because it is Sunday. The threat of a Warren candidacy which I deemed absurd is real, for the reasons set forth above. In my own defense, I will say that I was focused on the candidate, and her lack of any qualifications for the job, but if we have learned anything from the past two elections we have learned that experience is irrelevant to the average voter, and all they want is more stuff and feelings of moral superiority. Winning elections is not about the candidate. They are not even about reality. They are all about mass psychology and manipulation.

    I glanced at The Nation which was next to the check out stand, but belongs in the outhouse. In it, a succession of latter day Marxists blather on about the need for a progressive party. My god, those assholes are contemplating a third party as well, even though the democrat party today is firmly in their grip. Evidently, they see what I see with their party and its opposite number, namely that both are controlled by Wall Street. Enter Ralph Nader who says there is hope here that the left and the right will join hands in opposition to the corporate state. I say they may oppose the corporate state on their own, but the prospects of them joining together is absurd. Each one defines itself in opposition to the other. Better dead than red, etc.

  148. BORDER BREAKDOWN:
    300,000 ILLEGALS TO HOMES IN USA…
    RESIDENTS REVOLT: MIGRANT BUSES FACE RESISTANCE…
    TENSE STANDOFF…
    Immigration rallies clash in California…
    Backlash boiling over…
    President pushes amnesty at naturalization ceremony…
    Activist distributes flashlights to border crossers…
    City Leaders Shut Out Of Planning To Shelter Illegals…

  149. A top United States general in charge of protecting the southern border says he’s been unable to combat the steady flow of illegal drugs, weapons and people from Central America, and is looking to Congress for urgent help.

    Marine Corps Gen. John Kelly, commander of U.S. Southern Command, has asked Congress this year for more money, drones and ships for his mission – a request unlikely to be met. Since October, an influx of nearly 100,000 migrants has made the dangerous journey north from Latin America to the United States border. Most are children, and three-quarters of the unaccompanied minors have traveled thousands of miles from El Salvador, Guatemala and

    http://www.defenseone.com/threats/2014/07/top-general-says-mexico-border-security-now-existential-threat-us/87958/

  150. Every issue the Left pushes, it’s “for the children” when in fact, its positions usually worsen the lives of the children.

    To do right by the children, you should not have enticed them here, using them as pawns, to begin with. You’re shipping them to anyone who claims to be related to them, and for all you know, those people could be pedophiles or traffickers. You, the U.S. government, are trafficking these children. Not to mention, that your obligation, as Director of Homeland SECURITY, is to be protecting us, our children and the borders of the United States.

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/homeland-secretary-issue-children-we-gave-do-right-children_796119.html

  151. wbb, I believe your thinking regarding a Warren candidacy is spot on. At first glance, she appears not to be a consenter who merits serious consideration. But, because she’s female, the far left believes she is the perfect anti-Hillary. Her candidacy would serve to fulfill the need for a female candidate for those far lefties who don’t want Hillary, but who fear the fallout of publicly opposing a female candidate.

    Warren has very quickly become the darling of the anti-Hillary Dims. You’re right in assuming that it’s not about her. I would imagine that many of the people calling for her to run know little or nothing about her. They just are following the progressive elites, They want a continuation of Obama’s anti-American agenda, and they don’t trust Hillary to give them what they want. Hillary clearly believes that at this point, she must avoid turning them totally against her, if she has any hope of getting the nomination. The problem with that theory is, as Admin has said, if she moves too close to Obama, she will alienate a large segment of voters who otherwise would have supported her. The progs are not going to support her regardless. They will continue publicly calling for Warren to challenge her. If she refuses they’ll find someone else.

    We learned in 2008 not to put any act, no matter how sleazy and unethical, past the forces that operate on behalf of the the far left. Of course we also learned that MSM is in the pocket of the far left, and against Hillary. No matter who emerges as their presidential hopeful, the deck is already stacked in his/her favor.

    If the Republicans had any sense, they would start to rally behind someone with a decent chance of appealing to both moderate Dems and Republicans. If the Dems did succeed in stealing the nomination again for a far lefty candidate, their chances of winning the GE will be diminished. It would be a perfect time for a smart, moderate Pub to run against an Obama Clone. Obama and the Dims don’t realize how much fear there is in this country about the direction in which Obama has taken and continues to to take this country.

  152. Speaking of Hillary/Obama, this was posted three hours ago at wsj online. It’s good news, hopefully:

    ___________

    POLITICS AND POLICY

    Hillary Clinton Begins to Move Away From Obama Ahead of 2016
    Presumed Presidential Candidate Makes Clear She Won’t Be Running for de Facto Third Obama Term

    By PETER NICHOLAS CONNECT
    July 6, 2014 8:13 p.m. ET

    Hillary Clinton and former President Bill Clinton at a May dedication ceremony for the National September 11 Memorial Museum. Richard Drew/Press Pool

    Hillary Clinton has begun distancing herself from President Barack Obama, suggesting that she would do more to woo Republicans and take a more assertive stance toward global crises, while sounding more downbeat than her former boss about the U.S. economic recovery.

    People are “really, really nervous” about their future, Mrs. Clinton said at an event in Colorado last week that included hints of her emerging strategy to convey that she would be more effective in the pursuit of Democratic policy goals than Mr. Obama has been during his time in office.

    “They don’t think the economy has recovered in a way that has helped them or their families,” Mrs. Clinton said. In contrast, Mr. Obama sounded almost cheery after Thursday’s jobs report, saying the country could make even more progress if Congress were willing to “set politics aside, at least occasionally.”

    Mrs. Clinton hasn’t repudiated Mr. Obama, who made her secretary of state in his first term, and comments aimed at highlighting her differences with Mr. Obama are often implied rather than stated bluntly.

    But in tone and substance, the presumed presidential candidate has made clear in recent public appearances that she wouldn’t be running for a de facto third Obama term in the White House.

    snip

    online.wsj.com

  153. freespirit July 6, 2014 at 11:43 pm

    Hillary Clinton Begins to Move Away From Obama Ahead of 2016

    There you go snipping off articles in the middle again. Could you post the full link please? “online.wsj.com’ doesn’t bring me the goods…

  154. Obama ‘don’t come’ warning belied by reality that illegal kids rarely deported
    ————
    Nobody in the world believes this lying bastard Obama. Not Putin, not the Supreme Leader of Iraq, not the Taliban, not Israel, not the Mexican Government, not Poland, not China, not even the peasants of Central America. Nobody, except for big media. They installed this nation destroying tyrant. Therefore, they are stuck with him. But no one else in the world is. We are not bound the faustian bargain they struck with him to screw this nation. And both parties to that corrupt bargain must be consigned to political and historical oblivion. Shame on the Republican Party if they allow these corrupt media people to moderate future debates. If they do that, they get what they deserve. Truth to tell, this nation needs to move beyond both of these self serving political parties who feed like pigs at the public trough. They are nothing more than factions, which the founding fathers deplored. But never in their wildest imagination could they have foreseen the rise of a corrupt empire known as big media, which would turn representative government on its head, and make it the victim of the worst tactics of mass manipulation. The people who run big media and most of those who draw a paycheck from it have no honor.

  155. But in tone and substance, the presumed presidential candidate has made clear in recent public appearances that she wouldn’t be running for a de facto third Obama term in the White House.
    ————–
    Discrimination so subtle is a feat beyond the compass of ordinary minds. And ordinary minds are what the electorate is made up of–at best. That is reality and the implication is clear. If she is to separate herself from Obama, she must do so in bright colors. Pale pastels will not be perceived, much less believed.

  156. Came across an interesting article today: http://www.nationaljournal.com/political-connections/why-democrats-are-so-confident-20140702 .

    As most of us are well aware, there are two visions of the Democratic party. There’s the Democratic party which Admin advocates, a concept based on a long-standing traditional coalition first created under FDR, of Southerners, blue-collar workers, people of color, middle-class voters, etc. etc. In this coalition, the Democratic party was competitive in some states south of the Mason-Dixon line (like Georgia, Arkansas and so on). Among other things, typical of this coalition are some divisions on social issues, issues which the Clinton wing of the Democratic party, so successful during the 90s, largely soft-pedaled. In addition, in this coalition it was not unusual to encounter Democrats who were not hesitant to openly tie their political and social beliefs to religious faith; this was particularly true of pro-life Democrats.

    Then there’s the Coalition of the Ascendant, the Rising Electorate (as referred to by pollster Stan Greenberg), where the difference between a Democratic and a Republican presidential victory is made by support for the Democrats among people under 30, single women, people of color and higher-educateds. In this vision, Admin has concluded that blue-collar folks and the more conservative and traditional elements of the Democratic party need not apply (what Admin frequently refers to as the Brazile-Pelosi Dimocratic coalition that defeated Hillary Clinton in 08 and nominated Barack Obama as the Dems presidential nominee). In this concept, the party has little or no presidential viability south of the Mason-Dixon line beyond occasional swing states, like North Carolina and Florida, but finds itself in an abnormally strong position in states like Colorado and Virginia, where the traditional Clinton Democratic party had little viability. In this coalition, traditional religiously-based views of social issues tend to have given way to a less specifically devout or theistic approach.

    Well, here’s a quote from this article: “Democrats in turn are championing a younger, more urbanized, diverse, and secular “Coalition of Transformation” that welcomes the evolution in America’s racial composition and cultural mores.”

    My question is this: Will a Hillary Clinton presidential candidacy be based on the Obama Coalition or the Clinton Coalition? If the former, is that the end of the more traditional Clinton Coalition? Will a Hillary victory based on the Rising Electorate pretty much destroy the Democratic coalition that won in the 90s?

    Alternately, will a Hillary presidential victory be based on the traditional Democratic coalition, the one where Dems could win in Southern states, and had broad support among blue-collar workers and union workers? If the latter, will that spell the end of the Rising Electorate, with higher-educateds returning to the GOP and with Latinos once again split between Democrats and Republicans? And if that happens, particularly if Hillary remains steadfast in running as a centrist rather than a progressive, will we see a return to a nation where socially progressive juggernauts, like the move toward gay marriage and pot legalization, will slow down and even tread water for a decade or so?

  157. If big media is to be widely discredited, then we must identify a tipping point, where their bad faith became crystal clear. There are thousands of little incidents–tells if you will, and some fairly major ones, which jointly and severally make the case for someone who has the time and patience to plow through them. It is not just what they have done, like the Travon Martin case, it is just as much what they have failed to do, like report on Benghazi. Sadly, these incidents will not persuade the American voter, who has the attention span of a flea. We need one bright and shining incident which will illuminate their treachery once and for all. I think the Crowley’s actions in the presidential debate, prejudicing Romney and aiding/abetting Obama, seal the deal. No one who looks at that crass incident will have any doubt about the corruption of big media. The perverse act of one media star for one perverse network can be fairly imputed to all of them.

  158. Sorry, left out part of the specific topic I’m offering for discussion: In the quote from the article I referenced above (“urbanized, diverse, and secular coalition”), the author is clearly concluding that the Obama Coalition, or Rising Electorate, is the future of the Democratic party. So part of my question is whether or not this is true, or whether the author has erred: Will a successful Hillary run for presidency resurrect the previous Democratic coalition, the one originally crafted by FDR?

  159. “Democrats in turn are championing a younger, more urbanized, diverse, and secular “Coalition of Transformation” that welcomes the evolution in America’s racial composition and cultural mores.”
    —————
    There proper word for this is not evolution—it is DEVOLUTION. It spells multi culturalism, government dependency, the loss of world leadership, the decline of the dollar, the end of the rule of law, and the emergence of a have and have not society. Look at the formerly middle class neighborhoods of the five burroughs of New York before block busting and look at the drug infested crime ridden slums you see today. If you like what you see, then I invite you to stand on a street corner of the South Bronx at midnight and it will disabuse you of your illusions. Or, better yet, just look at what has happened to the nation these past six years under a jackass who is both the agent and the epitome of this toxic marxist dream.

  160. The author of that article is Brownstein, who is a leftist with the National Journal. He has been an Obama flack from the beginning. To me this whole thing revolves around economics, and during the depression there was much talk similar to this. When 2 out of 5 people of working age are not working, the suggestion that the unemployment rate has dropped to 6% under this jackass, is either proof that the economy is immune to the predations of the left, or that the numbers coming out of this adminstration are simply lies. But this Brownstein character has always had his head in the clouds. Take away his money and privilege, and believe me he would be singing an entirely different tune.

  161. The picture Brownstein paints is symptomatic of a lack of leadership and a failure to articulate the continuing relevance of capitalism and the constitutional order. There are too many people in key positions like Roberts who care more about their own vanity than the system. If you walk into a ship or any military unit where discipline is lacking, human nature sinks to its lowest level. And when the economic system is so weighted in favor of the elites, it is hard to defend. Still, the evolution that Brownstein sees is the sure path for national decline. At some point, national decline is inevitable. But now is too soon, and if it is to happen the elites need to go down with the rest of us. Especially the billionaires who trick the system for their own gain.

  162. When will Obama be cuffed and thrown out of the Whitehouse???

    Our borders have been overrun with sick illegals, bussed, flown in from TX to CA, and nothing is being done to stop Obama.

    Will this be the beginning of a border war?
    When will terrorists sneak in with these kids????

    Militia group heading to Texas border

    A group that identifies itself as a coalition of “Patriots” has put out a call for people to go to the Texas-Mexico border and help with a citizen militia operation called “Secure our Border – Laredo.”

    A spokeswoman for the group, Denice Freeman, said the operation is a call for civilian militia members — both armed and unarmed — to voluntarily guard private property in the Laredo area and other Texas locations where owners feel threatened by “drug cartels and from gangs, particularly the MS-13 gangs,” a Salvadoran-based gang that is considered among the most dangerous in this country by law enforcement.

    Freeman said she expected militia members to become visible in border communities, including the Rio Grande Valley, in the coming weeks but she wanted to stress that the operation’s commander — Chris Davis — is warning members against using any violent means.

    “This is not a ‘go-in-guns-blazing’ kind of thing,” Freeman said. “This will be handled with the utmost professionalism and security and safety for everyone involved.”

    http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/article_8088bca8-04b6-11e4-be69-0017a43b2370.html?mode=jqm

  163. I firmly believe if they dare try and put Warren forward it will just self destruct the Dem party…Warren would lose in an absolute landslide.

  164. If the Middle East had not become chaotic, Warren might have had a chance. But now with it burning, Warren would be destroyed by any Republican save Rand Paul. Any woman who runs, fair or unfair, will have to project an image that she would be willing to kill if necessary to protect this country! Do you believe Elizabeth Warren would use military force if it were necessary to protect this country? Do you believe Warren would give an order to kill one of our enemies? I don’t and neither does majority of Americans, male or female. Hillary is the only woman that any man would take seriously!

  165. Henry J, I agree with wbb that the article was a spin piece. The far left is hell-bent to convince itself and the rest of America that the country is moving to the left of left. I wouldn’t place too much stock in that article.

    According to Real Clear Politics, average poll numbers for the month of June, 2014 , indicate that 63.3 % of Americans believe that the country is moving in the wrong direction, while only 26.5 % believe the country is moving in the right direction. Possibly, among those who thought the country was moving in the wrong direction some of those could be liberals who want the country to be even more liberal. However, it seems safe to assume that was not the case for a significant number of the “wrong direction” group.

    In terms of the changes in the population, which will impact policy and politics, there are several variables to consider. These would include (but not be limited to) – changing demographics due to the increase in Hispanic immigrants and the increase in the number of older Americans. Additionally, schools and universities, as well as media will continue teaching and encouraging young people to believe that social justice (as it is defined by the progressives) must be achieved,

  166. Perhaps this reaction by immigrants in Philly will tip something.
    Monday, July 07, 2014
    SOUTHWEST PHILADELPHIA (WPVI) —
    Police were called in to break up a group of nearly 200 people protesting outside a nearby fire station and the scene of a blaze that claimed the lives of four young children in Southwest Philadelphia.
    Riots broke out late Monday afternoon at Ladder 4 Engine 40, shortly after a community meeting at Christ International Baptist Church.
    The protests shut down Woodland Avenue near 65th Street and even blocked fire crews as they tried to leave and respond to a call.
    There were reports of multiple arrests.snip Demonstrators, many of whom are from Liberia, Africa, made race allegations and were furious over what they call a delayed response to the fire. Snip
    http://6abc.com/news/protests-near-scene-of-deadly-sw-phila-blaze/158251/

    [Evidently the stated and affirmed 3 minute response time was not fast enough for these ingrates.]

  167. 7/7/14. Benghazi panel ramps up. snip While there isn’t much happening publicly, the House select committee investigating the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks on the U.S. facility in Benghazi, Libya, is busy behind the scenes. The panel is examining subpoenas from committees that previously investigated the Benghazi attacks to develop a list of unanswered questions from the Obama administration. There is also outreach to agencies that received requests for information. Meanwhile, Gowdy is planning a series of closed-door meetings this month that could include a screening of a classified video from the Benghazi compound. He’s also checking with the 11 other lawmakers on the panel about working through the August recess. Snip http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/benghazi-trey-gowdy-108625.html

  168. HenryJohnson: I’m another one that agrees with wbboei and freespirit, that Brownstein is an Obama blowhard unloading a lot of crap on the reader.

    Which is not to say that there is not a modicum of truth in all of it, just as there may be some truth in Ed Klein’s fiction.

    For example, no progress can be expected from the GOP on any of the issues Brownstein talks about. The GOP is indeed the party of “NO to the future,” so no one with progressive ideas is going to be tempted to support Republicans.

    On the same level and point, Brownstein doesn’t seem to understand that the idea of going backward in time is strongly embraced by a large share of the electorate: so all the GOP has to do, really, is to sit around and let people get fed up with Obama.

    But none of the issues Brownstein talks about is worth anything because:

    The overriding issues of 2014 – and 2016 too – will not be Benghazi or Obamacare. They will be the economy and jobs.

    Just by being different from Obama, the Republicans stand a chance of winning on those issues even though they have no plan of their own to re-start the economy.

    It will be HRC’s job to find ways to re-start the economy and if she finds the right formulas, she will win in 2016. I’m pretty confident that she’ll find a compelling approach to the economy and jobs. The GOP is too steeped in laissez-faire “free” market de-regulation dogma to come up with anything convincing.

  169. moononpluto
    July 7, 2014 at 2:57 pm
    I firmly believe if they dare try and put Warren forward it will just self destruct the Dem party…Warren would lose in an absolute landslide.
    _________

    I agree. I think it would be possible, although not probable, for the ObamaDims to steal the nomination for her, but they would be absolute fools to do so. She would lose the general election. Voters are too nervous about the direction in which Obama has taken the country allow an Obama 2 presidency.

    I’m not sure the far left wing of the party currently gets that, however. The are pretty isolated in their cocoon of superiority and total idealism (which borders on stupidity), and they know MSM, which is in their pocket can sway public opinion in their direction. I don’t think they have a clear understanding of the big picture, tho. They don’t do much interacting with the common folk.

  170. Cleveland, Ohio is officially the site for the 2016 Republican convention………………….

    Maybe they will be looking at someone like Portman…………..

  171. freespirit
    July 8, 2014 at 10:34 am

    moononpluto
    July 7, 2014 at 2:57 pm
    I firmly believe if they dare try and put Warren forward it will just self destruct the Dem party…Warren would lose in an absolute landslide.

    ——–
    Just yesterday an Obama supporter/infrequent ‘friend’ came and said I must be giddy. I looked at her like she had two heads. I asked her why would I be giddy, (I must have missed something really great and didn’t know it?) She said, “Because Hillary will be running for President again”.

    I still looked at her like she was from another planet and instead of saying what I really wanted to say to her, I handed her a line and ended the conversation as quickly as I could.

    How dare Obama supporters even talk to me about Hillary. Like they think I am all giddy that it is finally ‘her time’ to be accepted after their half black, incompetent bozo got into the Oval, two effin’ times and screwed everything up!

    This is a work situation so if we were out in the ‘real world’ I would have given her a piece of my mind.

  172. holdthemaccountable
    July 8, 2014 at 6:30 am

    Thanks for the update Hold’um, I’m glad to hear Trey is hard at work.

  173. Did I read that correctly…Pres. Obama is asking for $4 BILLION to help with the huge influx of illegal kids pouring into the USA now?

  174. moononpluto
    July 7, 2014 at 2:57 pm
    I firmly believe if they dare try and put Warren forward it will just self destruct the Dem party…Warren would lose in an absolute landslide.
    —————–
    Well . . nobody ever went broke (or lost an election) underestimating the intelligence of the American People (or voter). Its not that the questions they ask are per se stupid–questions like what is in it for me. Rather, it is the fact that they fail to understand that this is fundamentally a hiring decision, wherein experience and proven ability count more than utopian tripe. I have called them suckers, and I stand by that statement. Blacks are now the largest faction within the party, and I think we have had a belly full of them in this current administration. The question for them is who will give us more goodies, and what does Al Sharpton tell us to do. No not all of them. There are some very good ones, but as we saw in 2008 they get shouted down by the radicals. I doubt that Warren will appeal to them on a personal level, but if she promises them a free ride that may be enough. At that point the question will turn on whether Bill still can work his magic with them, without matching Warren hand out for hand out.

  175. …wonder how Detroit and other downtrodden american cities and citizens feel about another $4 BILLION DOLLARS evaporating…

    saw a clip of a teenager who had just crossed the border and he said he was so happy and looking forward to going to work…

    huh? he just walks across our border and now he can just go find a job…one that a citizen won’t get?

    the “rule of law” does not exist for the O admin…they make a mockery out of everything…

    the height and gall of it was when I saw O say so flippantly “so sue me”…so unpresidential…so immature…so reckless and irresponsible…

    and with all the young teenagers looking and listening to O with his bad ol’ self and bad, arrogant attitude…

    what an awful example he sets…must be the ‘crack’ in the pie he likes so much…

  176. The New York Times | BREAKING NEWS ALERT
    NYTimes.com |

    BREAKING NEWS Tuesday, July 8, 2014 11:45 AM EDT

    Obama Seeks Nearly $4 Billion for Immigration Crisis

    President Obama is requesting almost $4 billion in emergency funding from Congress to confront an immigration crisis from a wave of unaccompanied children surging across the southern border of the United States, White House officials said Tuesday.
    The financial request, which is almost twice as much as officials had previously signaled might be necessary, would boost spending on border patrol agents, immigration judges, aerial surveillance, and new detention facilities. Nearly half of the money would be used to improve care for the children while they are moved through the deportation process.
    “We are taking steps to protect due process but also to remove these migrants more efficiently,” a White House official said Tuesday morning. “We are taking an aggressive approach on both sides of the border.”

  177. yes, southern born…WP and news reporting he doubled his request…

    another premediated scam to steal…

  178. Did I read that correctly…Pres. Obama is asking for $4 BILLION to help with the huge influx of illegal kids pouring into the USA now?
    ————–
    How about $1 billion to meet the current crisis in re. medical assistance and shelter, and an additional billion contingent on a viable plan by this Administration for repatriation of those children back to where they came from, and a withdrawal of US aid to Mexico, and the Central American nations from which they came until such time as they come up with viable plans of their own to halt this illegal migration. Given the motives behind this mass exodus, namely a political duck call to them by Messiah Obama, claims of refugee status should be narrowly construed, and denied in the absence of compelling verifiable evidence.

  179. southern born…

    “We are taking steps to protect due process but also to remove these migrants more efficiently,” a White House official said Tuesday morning. “We are taking an aggressive approach on both sides of the border.”

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

    that is so laughable…everyone knows that once the “migrants” are here…they disappear into the day and night…never to be seen again or show up for meetings, etc…

    this is one big premediatated scam…

    and btw…just put that $ 4 BILLION DOLLARS on our bill…the one we have and owe to China…

    no wonder no one respects or fears us…we look so stupid…anyone can take advantage of us…

  180. Although it seems shocking now, we tax payers would probably be happy with the $4 Billion because in reality that $4 will probably double and $8 billion will probably be more like it.

  181. This is a work situation so if we were out in the ‘real world’ I would have given her a piece of my mind.

    _________

    Wouldn’t you love to be able to unload on them, Shadow? I have encountered a few of tees of these comments, but have not been able to be as restrained as I probably should be. i usually say something snotty and inappropriate, but would love to really throw down with a few expletives and insults.

  182. wbboei

    July 8, 2014 at 1:05 pm

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

    wbboei…that would be too ‘logical’…

    O and the dims want double $ 2 BILLION to now $ 4 BILLION….
    plus…to listen to the dims…they also want us increasing the $$$ we give to Honduras and Guatamala to improve their conditions…

    …this while Detroit wants to ask the United Nations to pay for their water bills because they can’t pay for the high cost of their own water bills because of ridiculous taxes that bankrupt democratic city pays…

    …if the repubs don’t get a backbone on this…the country is spiraling out of control…no one is in charge…

    just invite the human smugglers and cartels in at our borders…no questions asked… come on in and set up your business…under the guise of being a young migrant child…

  183. S

    July 8, 2014 at 1:30 pm
    ————
    They are dysfunctional people–O and the dims.

    Dysfunctional people have no place in government.

    Dysfunctional people proposing dysfunctional poliices must be resisted at every turn.

    But in a political system which is rife with corruption dysfunctional consequences are inevitable.

  184. Try walking into the homes of Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and their ilk. When they call the police, call a press conference and demand amnesty. The legal principle is the same. The sanctity of the home and the sanctity of the nation must be protected. If you only protect one, it is only a matter of time before private property rights will yield to humanitarian demands by the world’s teeming masses, yearning to breathe fee and steal your social security check. Lets forget about putting these detention centers in places like Fort Lewis, and send them to the Kennedy Compound. When these dysfunctional policies bite the elites in the ass, the New York Times will change its tune. But at that point, it will no longer matter what lies they tell, and what reversals they may offer. They and the rest of big media are responsible for all this.

  185. oh…I agree Wbboei…and then add the corruption to the mix…

    very discouraging and disappointing…I have not seen such dysfuntion in my lifetime…and as you often state…along with the complicit media that fosters more dsyfunction…literally not only covers the corruption up but actually whines when someone criticizes the reality…

  186. Did I read that correctly…Pres. Obama is asking for $4 BILLION to help with the huge influx of illegal kids pouring into the USA now?

    ——
    A$$wipes, that 4 Bil needs to be used to secure the border!!!!

    Work harder, working class. Pay those damn taxes so our borders can be open and we can pay for illegals and keep our own people, homeless and in poverty.

    Let’s make this a third world country too!!!!!!!!!!!

    F um

  187. Wouldn’t you love to be able to unload on them, Shadow?

    ——

    I would love to wipe that smarty pants look right off of their mug.

    I know they think what they did was right to effin’ “lift the black MAN up”, so that mentality has blinders on and I don’t care to waste my breath on them any longer.

    I was shunned by Obama supporters in 2008 for not drinking the kool-aid, and so now, they think I am giddy because their waste-of-time-in-office is safe from eviction.

    They can go to Hell.

  188. I found this startling:
    snip Latinos are the largest minority segment among farm owners with the greatest concentrations living in Texas, New Mexico and California. They are have become key providers of certain produce. For example, they own two-thirds of the strawberry farms in California. Snip
    http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/money/2014/07/08/something-new-under-sun-latino-owned-farms-in-us-growing-at-healthy-pace/

    Maybe these farms can use ObamaKids. Swallow them right up. Who would know? Would Latinos ‘eat their own’ so to speak? IDK.

  189. Sing it sister Sarah!

    Enough is enough of the years of abuse from this president. His unsecured border crisis is the last straw that makes the battered wife say, “no mas.”

    Without borders, there is no nation. Obama knows this. Opening our borders to a flood of illegal immigrants is deliberate. This is his fundamental transformation of America. It’s the only promise he has kept. Discrediting the price paid for America’s exceptionalism over our history, he’s given false hope and taxpayer’s change to millions of foreign nationals who want to sneak into our country illegally. Because of Obama’s purposeful dereliction of duty an untold number of illegal immigrants will kick off their shoes and come on in, competing against Americans for our jobs and limited public services. There is no end in sight as our president prioritizes parties over doing the job he was hired by voters to do. Securing our borders is obviously fundamental here; it goes without saying that it is his job.

    The federal government is trillions of dollars in debt, many cities are on the verge of insolvency, our overrun healthcare system, police forces, social services, schools, and our unsustainably generous welfare-state programs are stretched to the max. We average Americans know that. So why has this issue been allowed to be turned upside down with our “leader” creating such unsafe conditions while at the same time obstructing any economic recovery by creating more dependents than he allows producers? His friendly wealthy bipartisan elite, who want cheap foreign labor and can afford for themselves the best “border security” money can buy in their own exclusive communities, do not care that Obama tapped us out.

    Have faith that average American workers – native-born and wonderful legal immigrants of all races, backgrounds, and political parties – do care because we’re the ones getting screwed as we’re forced to follow all our government’s rules while others are not required to do so. Many now feel like strangers in their own land. It’s the American worker who is forced to deal with Obama’s latest crisis with our hard-earned tax dollars while middle class wages decrease, sustainable jobs get more scarce, and communities become unrecognizable and bankrupted due to Obama’s flood of illegal immigration.

    Who’s looking out for the American workers? Who has their backs? Who fights for them?

    We should.

    President Obama’s rewarding of lawlessness, including his own, is the foundational problem here. It’s not going to get better, and in fact irreparable harm can be done in this lame-duck term as he continues to make up his own laws as he goes along, and, mark my words, will next meddle in the U.S. Court System with appointments that will forever change the basic interpretation of our Constitution’s role in protecting our rights.

    It’s time to impeach; and on behalf of American workers and legal immigrants of all backgrounds, we should vehemently oppose any politician on the left or right who would hesitate in voting for articles of impeachment.

    The many impeachable offenses of Barack Obama can no longer be ignored. If after all this he’s not impeachable, then no one is.

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/07/08/Exclusive-Sarah-Palin-Time-to-Impeach-President-Obama

  190. Worth reading if you hope that a group may be able to form a new news group where journalists sources are protected, and real stories can get out to the public…

    [snip]

    The Ex-Google Hacker Taking on the World’s Spy Agencies

    [snip]

    Marquis-Boire’s focus turned to protecting journalists in particular earlier this year, when he and other Googlers released research in March showing that 21 out of the 25 top media organizations in the world had been targeted in digital attacks that were likely the work of state-sponsored hackers. The same month, he joined a technical advisory group for the Freedom of the Press Foundation, which counts Glenn Greenwald, Laura Poitras and Edward Snowden as members of its board.

    “If you can’t protect your privacy and that of your sources, it’s debatable whether you can actually practice journalism in the traditional sense,” he says.

    http://www.wired.com/2014/07/morgan-marquis-boire-first-look-media/

  191. An appeals court has blocked Gov. Jan Brewer’s executive order denying driver’s licenses to undocumented immigrants who have work permits through President Barack Obama’s deferred-action program.

    The ruling Monday by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals marks a significant victory for immigration advocates who argued the young immigrants were harmed by unequal treatment by the state.

    The appeals court agreed, adding that the plaintiffs had also shown a likelihood that the immigrants would be harmed by the state’s refusal to grant the young immigrants driver’s licenses.

    In a written statement, Brewer said: “It is outrageous, though not entirely surprising, that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has once again dealt a blow to Arizona’s ability to enforce its laws. With today’s decision, a three judge appellate panel, appointed by Presidents Carter, Clinton and Obama, disregarded judicial precedent and procedure.

    “This continues us down a dangerous path in which the courts and the President – not Congress – make our nation’s laws. The ruling is especially disturbing given the current influx of illegal aliens, a crisis President Obama created and escalated.

    “I am analyzing options for appealing the misguided court decision. The American people are tired and disgusted by what is happening through our federal government today, but they can be assured Arizona will continue to fight for the rule of law.”

    http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/2014/07/07/arizonas-denial-drivers-licenses-immigrants-appeals-court-rules-state/12291683/

  192. ‘Katrina’ of illegal immigrants flooding into border states daily

    Thousands of illegal immigrants from Central America — many of them unaccompanied children — are flooding into Texas and other border states every day, prompting one lawman to compare the deluge to Hurricane Katrina.

    “How do you prepare for that?” Don Ray, the director of the Texas Border Sheriffs Coalition, told CBS News.

    “You can’t have an influx of people like that without having an impact. I think we saw that after Katrina. You have that many people in one place — you have the potential for illnesses that could spread that could have an impact on the local community.”

    The number of minors travelling alone from Central America has soared over 1,000 percent, according to Border Patrol data.

    In fiscal year 2009, border agents stopped 3,304 children from Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala. That number is nearing 50,000 this year and is expected to continue to soar.

    To deal with the deluge, the Obama administration authorized emergency housing at three military bases for kids entering the country without parents or guardians. But conditions at the centers are leaving hundreds sick — mostly due to poor sanitation and overcrowding.

    A top Republican predicted many of the children trying to get to the US would die during the journey — or from disease after arriving.

    “This flood is going to mean children dying trying to get in,” California Rep. Darrell Issa, chairman of the House Oversight Committee, told Fox News Radio.

    “And more important, children coming here with the anticipation that somehow they’re going to be granted citizenship and then they will bring the rest of their family . . . that’s a false narrative,” Issa said.

    http://nypost.com/2014/06/12/illegal-immigrant-increase-overwhelming-emergency-shelters/

    Where are these kids going to live?

    We can’t even take care of our own people and Obama just keeps on golfing and smokin’………

    This has to stop!!!

  193. jeswezey

    July 8, 2014 at 6:37 am
    ————
    The GOP is a lost cause. Part of the reason is they never thing outside the box. On the immigration issue, here is what I would do, to pull the rug out from under Obama, underscore the rule of law, give business the cheap labor it wants, and discourage law breaking.

    1. I would take everyone who has made legitimate application to become a citizen of this nation, and respected our sovereignty by waiting their turn in line and not coming here illegally, instant citizenship. These are the kind of law abiding people we want.

    2. I would take the people who are here illegally, and deny them the right to citizenship for twenty years. These people are law breakers and they must not be allowed to profit from their bad act. Also, I would punish those who employ them.

    3. This offer would be presented as a package. It would remove the race issue, because many of those who have played by the rules come from the third world. It would focus on the issue that ultimately matters, which is sovereignty and the protection of our borders.

  194. wbboei July 8, 2014 at 10:14 pm

    The GOP is a lost cause….

    You can say that again.

    But it’s been a lost cause for a long time now, and they still manage to win elections.

    My guess as to why that is true is that they wait around for the Democrats to fuck things up real bad and then appears their knight in shining armor who will fuck it up even worse.

    This is why a discussion of the issues is pretty much pointless. What we need is people of character in office.

    Hillary 2016

  195. Whistleblower: I Experienced “Harassment” After Contacting Rob Nabors With VA Concerns. 7/8/14.

  196. Sarah says her party left her. Deja vu.
    Sean Hannity Interviews Sarah Palin – Time to Impeach Obama Now ! – Fox News – July 8, 2014

  197. Sarah Palin is right on the money. Impeachment is the ONLY answer. Everything else is bull shit. Those who think liberalism is on full display and is failing, ergo the opposing party should do nothing are out of their mind. They think the electorate than exists today can tell the difference between success and failure? Good luck with that one. Trust me, the electorate at large is too easily seduced by bright shiny objects, and too terrified by things that go bump in the night to behave rationally. And worst of all, they accept the lies of big media as truth. I see no hope here. Unless Obama is impeached. But that will not happen because the Republican Party has succumbed to the disease of Washington. Therefore, I see deep trouble ahead. I used to qualify that statement by saying I hope I am wrong. Now, what is the point. That fond hope is superfluous.

  198. Let me make it even simpler. The Constitution prescribes one remedy when the President goes rogue: impeachment. The opposing party has a legal duty to pursue that remedy when that happens. Establishment republicans are such cowards that they will not fight–they just cave. Words are no substitute for action. Nevertheless, they think they can blather on and the American People will see them as the legitimate alternative. They are as legitimate as Berghdal. Let us not be fooled.

  199. What is most galling to me is the perception and the reality that ner’y a day goes by that big media is not out there celebrating the demise of our country, and hiding the truth from us. May they rot in hell, the entire lot of them.

  200. holdthemaccountable
    July 9, 2014 at 7:34 am

    Sarah says her party left her. Deja vu.

    __________________

    Amen, hold’em. I can relate.

  201. We need to know more about these judges from the Ninth Circuit. They are making conscious choices which are more political than legal. We need to closely examine their underlying political philosophy and their vision for the country. Enough of this bullshit that they are merely following the law. These are politicians in black robes, ergo, let us not be in awe of them. On the contrary, let us worry that we are becoming a nation which is ruled not by the people or by the rule of law, but by what Learned Hand once described as a bevy of Platonic Guardians.

  202. The next time you encounter one of these Obama bots who now claims to be an enthusiastic supporter of Hillary, you owe it to yourself to test that proposition. The question that will strip them naked is this:

    Suppose Warren challenges Hillary and Obama supports Warren. Would you still support Hillary?

    I know the answer to that question, and so do you. And if you have any doubts, watch them hesitate.

  203. jeswezey

    July 9, 2014 at 5:29 am
    ——–
    You say character.

    As I mentioned several years ago, I wrote a book on leadership which was well received by friends, police chiefs and business leaders I sent it to. It was dedicated in part to Hillary and included case study on the Iraq War, where I still believe she made the right call, but in deference to the left she has now conceded that she is wrong. Bill wrote a nice note on that book and said that I was one of the few people who understood what the Iraq Resolution was about, it having been grossly misstated by big media in their fealty to Obama.

    But the point I am getting to is this: Character is not a thing, it is a conclusion. And I took pains to break it down into what I perceived as its constituent parts. As I said in the book, Hillary tests well on those criteria:

    1. vision

    2. tough minded optimism

    3. prudential wisdom

    4. competitive edge

    5. ethics

    6. predisposition to act

    7. political acumen

    I saw Obama as a failure from the beginning. His vision is warped, he is a coward, he lacks wisdom, he would rather cave to Putin that fight, he has the ethics of a pathological liar, he freezes at the moment of decision, and the only political acumen he has is personal at it comes at the expense of the country he is charged with serving and protecting. Simply put, he has the bona fides of a pimp/

  204. Good & copious advice, analysis, wbb.

    Sen Chris McDaniel tagged the following as a must read, & admit I found it interesting, a bit challenging too, but I do recall – as this spectator article brings out – the many many housewives with tons of money to donate (to OFA 2008, and now apparently to Thad 2014.) Other things toom but thhat was the easiest for me to understand.
    DONOR CONTROVERSIES HIT ‘MISSISSIPPI CONSERVATIVES’
    By Jeffrey Lord – 7.8.14
    http://spectator.org/articles/59885/donor-controversies-hit-mississippi-conservatives

  205. wbboei July 9, 2014 at 9:52 am

    Very good breakdown of what I would call “Character + Competence”. It’s true that Character is not a thing plucked out of the air, it can be seen in the record. It’s a conclusion, as you say.

    But that still leaves the “Issues” in third place in my consideration. That was why I was able to justify my support for McCain/Palin and Romney/Ryan. Simply a matter of demonstrated Character and Competence, the Issues be damned.

    A propos the GOP being a lost cause, a very recent poll puts Rand Paul neck-and-neck with Jeb Bush for the GOP nomination.

    As I’ve said before, I hope the GOP names Paul. Against HRC, it would be a shutout like we’ve never seen since George Washington. Even the neocons want HRC (and remember, Dubya and Laura had nice things to say about her).

  206. holdthemaccountable

    July 9, 2014 at 10:18 am
    ——–
    A truly superb article. The stench of the RINO is on full display in that article. And the post mortem is even worse. It confirms what we have all suspected, which is that the political class in Washington is controlled by big business, their platform is theater, and people like Brokaw pretend to be serious by are really nothing more than court jesters who hope to preserve their salary and their position in an uber corrupt pecking order which above all else seek to preserve their social standing within that elite group. Cat got their tongue? Hardly. It is that fear of ostracizion that keeps them repeating the narrative and ignoring the truth. As Milton said, truth comes into the world like a bastard brining ill fame to him who wrought it. Steer clear of that risk, Browkaw, Friedman and the rest of you jamokes. You might get snubbed.

  207. Isn’t this really the problem with Washington? It is all make believe. Politicians make believe they represent the people. Journalists make believe they are journalists. Judges pretend to be objective. And Obama pretends that he is not a pimp. I could go on. But I think you get the point. This is why I dislike people like Jeb, and Rand and so many others. Casper Milquetoasts in the pocket of big money. It is why I do like Hillary, Sarah, Ted Cruz, Mike Lee and Jeff Sessions. It is not just leadership, it is loyalty to this country, which is conspicuous by its absence.

  208. Sometimes, the most impressive thing about someone is not what they succeeded in doing, but what they tried in earnest to do, but failed. Hillary’s efforts to establish government run health care in her days as first lady prove that she is not in the hip pocket of wall street as those on the left have suggested. Obama is clearly in their pocket and this has been obvious from the beginning to the objective viewer. Chris Hedges nailed this in his article Brand Obama. Any politician who seeks higher office is constrained to solicit money. The question is whether they give up their soul to get it. In the case of Obama, the answer is an unequivocal yes. Not even a gigalo, just a pimp.

  209. You may think the word pimp is too harsh. If you do, then consider the fact that every time we face a national crisis, Mr. Obama is MIA in the White House, and is rushing off to yet another fundraiser, unless of course he is on a lavish, gauche taxpayer financed vacation. But I love him, so sayeth the bot. Earth to bot. You need a good psychiatrist. Check your medical plan, and if it is Obamacare, start wading through the 8 foot stack of papers that memorialize that attack on liberty.

  210. In unprecedented criticism of the White House, 38 journalism groups have assailed the president’s team for censoring media coverage, limiting access to top officials and overall “politically-driven suppression of the news.”

    In a letter to President Obama, the 38, led by the Society of Professional Journalists, said efforts by government officials to stifle or block coverage has grown for years and reached a high-point under his administration despite Obama’s 2008 campaign promise to provide transparency.

    Worse, they said: As access for reporters has been cut off, the administration has opened the door to lobbyists, special interests and “people with money.”

    http://washingtonexaminer.com/censorship-38-journalism-groups-slam-obamas-politically-driven-suppression-of-news/article/2550647

  211. wbboei July 9, 2014 at 11:19 am.
    ——————-
    Glad to hear an article Chris McDaniel cites passes muster with you.
    &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
    Perhaps it is premature, but I’m beginning to lighten up.
    Shirley C and I have an eye out for Sarah impeachment sightings on tv channels other than Fox. So far none.
    There’s this twitter graphic: Obama’s America: where the only one unable to cross southern border from Mexico is a US Marine.

    ISTOOK: Flying illegals home would be 99.5 percent cheaper than Obama’s plan
    We taxpayers are expected to house, feed, clothe and care for almost 30,000 illegal aliens for a full year, according to the White House’s official request. That’s a small city. Instead, we could fly all of them home for one-half of 1 percent of the $3.8 billion that President Obama proposes we spend. That’s a savings of 99.5 percent!snip
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/8/istook-flying-illegals-home-would-be-995-percent-c/
    EndOfFun.

  212. Wise move or a Wuss? 😯

    House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) disagrees with Republicans calling for the impeachment of President Obama.

    Former GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin on Tuesday joined a growing chorus of Republicans calling for the impeachment of Obama, writing in an op-ed that the influx of young illegal immigrants over the southern border “is the last straw that makes the battered wife say, ‘no

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/07/09/boehner-disagrees-with-palin-on-impeaching-obama/

  213. I met Congressman Cuellar (D-Tx) when I was campaigning for Hillary in Laredo. He was a strong Hillary supporter, and I have no doubt that he still is. He is a fine man, and he represents the American People. You would like him. Incidentally, notice how Andrea is behaving like a journalist. Or, as the saying goes, never defend the indefensible if you wish to preserve some semblance of credibility.
    ———————
    Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-TX) has become the face of Democratic opposition to President Barack Obama’s lackadaisical approach to the crisis on the southern border. All this week, Cuellar has suggested that the president should, while visiting Texas today and tomorrow, take a break from his fundraising schedule to see the crisis with his own eyes. On Tuesday, he humbly beseeched the president to come to the border. It seems Cuellar has finally lost his patience.

    In a display of contempt for the press, his party, and anyone else demanding Obama observe good “optics” by visiting the border, the president allowed himself to be filmed last night enjoying a beer and playing billiards with Colorado’s Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper. This was the final straw for Cuellar.

    “He can drink a beer, he can play pool but he can’t go 240 miles to visit the border?” Cuellar remarked in an interview with MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell.

    “It just really floored me,” he continued. “The appearance means that he’s not paying attention to this humanitarian crisis.”

    And MSNBC did not lift a finger to protect the president. While a member of Obama’s party was calling him “aloof” and “detached,” they featured a split screen image of the president dismissively entertaining himself in a bar.

    MSNBC optics

    How about them “optics?”

    Minutes later, Mitchell invited Cecilia Muñoz, director of the White House Domestic Policy Council, on her program to defend the president. It was brutal.

    “With all due respect, the reality on the ground is that the administration did not stay ahead of this,” Mitchell observed. “The impression – the reality is – that the White House has been slow to react.” She noted that “optics” is a stand-in phrase synonymous with leadership, and implied that Obama had declined to display any.

    “Leadership does involve showing the concern,” Mitchell later added after playing a portion of Cuellar’s veritable denunciation of Obama.

    “So far, the politics aren’t working and the substance isn’t working,” she concluded. “Somebody’s got to revisit this.”

    Muñoz’s responses were canned and unconvincing. She is doing her best to clean up her boss’s mess, even while he is still making it. She did nothing to satisfy a visibly unsettled Mitchell.

    This is what a crisis of confidence looks like. This is what an imploding presidency looks like.

    http://hotair.com/archives/2014/07/09/andrea-mitchell-displays-a-crisis-of-confidence-in-obama/

  214. If Obama was addressing the issue from the White House, then the optics issue might have been mitigated. Instead, he’s YOLOing across the country while the border gets overwhelmed by what appears to be a modern version of the “children’s crusade.” It presents a stunning picture of bankrupt leadership, and cannot help but to add to the perception of presidential incompetence that has sharply risen over the last eighteen months.

    Even worse, Obama demands that Congress hand over an additional $4 billion to address th

  215. House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) disagrees with Republicans calling for the impeachment of President Obama.
    ———————-
    Trust me. Boehner (R-Oh) is bought and paid for. I can think of no better example than his persistent refusal to appoint a select committee on Benghazi until the Rhoades memo was discovered by Judicial Watch, showing among other things, the contempt this President has for Congress, and how Obama lies to Boehner’s face. I would like to have Andy McCarthy put the playboy Boehner on the witness stand, have him read through the articles of impeachment he McCarthy has crafted and ask Bohener where this is wrong. This is a per se case for impeachment. The only thing lacking is political will, which a mushball like Boehner cannot seem to summon.

  216. holdthemaccountable
    July 9, 2014 at 7:34 am

    Sarah says her party left her.

    ——-

    Yup, goin’ rogue Sarah is feeling the same way many of us have felt for 6.5 years.

    The party we supported all our lives has gone down the toilet. No use flipping to the Rethug side either…they are also circling the drain.

    The ‘third’ party is the party of outsiders that won’t be a member of the pack, but look at different sources and vote for the best offered.

  217. House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) disagrees with Republicans calling for the impeachment of President Obama.

    Aaahhh, pass the tissues. Boner is gonna cry me a river for his BarryCakes.

    Get this putz out too!

  218. wbb

    And MSNBC did not lift a finger to protect the president. While a member of Obama’s party was calling him “aloof” and “detached,” they featured a split screen image of the president dismissively entertaining himself in a bar.

    MSNBC optics

    How about them “optics?”

    Minutes later, Mitchell invited Cecilia Muñoz, director of the White House Domestic Policy Council, on her program to defend the president. It was brutal.

    “With all due respect, the reality on the ground is that the administration did not stay ahead of this,” Mitchell observed. “The impression – the reality is – that the White House has been slow to react.” She noted that “optics” is a stand-in phrase synonymous with leadership, and implied that Obama had declined to display any.

    “Leadership does involve showing the concern,” Mitchell later added after playing a portion of Cuellar’s veritable denunciation of Obama.

    “So far, the politics aren’t working and the substance isn’t working,” she concluded. “Somebody’s got to revisit this.”

    Muñoz’s responses were canned and unconvincing. She is doing her best to clean up her boss’s mess, even while he is still making it. She did nothing to satisfy a visibly unsettled Mitchell.

    This is what a crisis of confidence looks like. This is what an imploding presidency looks like.

    ______________

    I’m speechless. So Hell finally has frozen over. MSNBC …. Andrea, no less, is not sprinkling sugar on the sh** ?. They’re not defending their guy? The snowmobile market in Hell has just gone through the roof.

  219. God, The running sewermouth is off his meds again…..

    Obama’s evolving position:

    Two weeks ago: I will act unilaterally on immigration!
    Now: I can’t do anything without Congress, sorry.

Comments are closed.