TWITTER

Visit us on TWITTER.

The Future

November 2014
M T W T F S S
« Oct   Dec »
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

The Funnies

See Our Funnies Archive.

February 17, 2009 - David Letterman - Top Ten Things Hillary Clinton Wants To Accomplish On Her Trip Overseas

10 Exchange U.S. dollars for currency that's worth something

9 Win respect defeating Japan's top-ranked sumo wrestler

8 Shift world's perception of America from "hated" to "extremely disliked"

7 Personally thank all of her illegal campaign donors

6 Three words: stylish Indonesian pantsuits

5 Visit burial site of revered Chinese military leader, General Tso

4 Get drunk with that Japanese finance minister guy

3 Convince China to switch from lead-tainted products to mercury-tainted products

2 Catch Chinese screening of Benjamin Button entitled "The Strange Adventures of Freaky Grandpa Baby"

1 Pick up carton of duty-free smokes for Obama

February 16, 2009 - David Letterman - Top Ten Things Abraham lincoln Would Say If He Were Alive Today

10 "Sup?"

9 "I see Madonna's still a slut"

8 "Who's that handsome sumbitch on the five?"

7 "Is that free Grand Slam deal still going on at Denny's?"

6 "I just changed my Facebook status update to, Tthe 'ol rail splitter is chillaxing'"

5 "How do I get on 'Dancing with the Stars'?"

4 "Okay, Obama, you're from Illinois, too. We get it!"

3 "Hey Phelps, don't Bogart the weed!"

2 "What's the deal with Joaquin Phoenix?"

1 "A Broadway play? Uhhh, no thanks. I'm good."

January 28, 2009 - David Letterman - Top Ten Things Overheard at the Meeting Between Barack Obama and the Republicans

10 "I miss the Clinton administration when we'd meet at Hooters"

9 "Can we wrap this up? I've got tickets to the 4:30 'Paul Blart: Mall Cop"

8 "Smoke break!"

7 "You fellas really need to take it easy on the Old Spice"

6 "Mr. President: don't misunderestimate the Republicans"

5 "Another smoke break!"

4 "What was the deal with Aretha Franklin's hat?"

3 "About that tax the rich stuff -- you were joking, right?"

2 "Sir, it's refreshing to have a Chief Executive who speaks in complete sentences"

1 "Senator Craig's offering his stimulus package in the men's room"

January 27, 2009 - David Letterman - Top Ten Ways Rod Blagojevich Can Improve His Image

10 Star in new television series, "America's Funniest Haircuts"

9 Quit politics and become a fat, lovable mall cop

8 Start pronouncing last name with Jerry Lewis-like "BLAGOOOYYYJEVICH"

7 Offer a senate seat with no money down, zero percent interest

6 Team up with John Malkovich and Erin Brockovich for hot Malkovich-Brockovich-Blagojevich sex tape

5 Change his name to Barod Obamavich

4 Safely land an Airbus on the Hudson River

3 I don't know...how about showing up for his impeachment trial?

2 Wear sexy dresses, high heels and say, "You Betcha!"

1 Uhhh...resign?

January 16, 2000 - David Letterman - Top Ten Signs Obama's Getting Nervious

10 New slogan: "Yes we can... or maybe not, it's hard to say"

9 In moment of confusion, requested a $300 billion bailout from the bailout industry

8 He's up to not smoking three packs a day

7 Friends say he's looking frail, shaky and...no, that's McCain

6 He's so stressed, doctors say he's developing a Sanjay in his Gupta

5 Been walking around muttering, "What the hell have I gotten myself into?"

4 Offered Governor of Illinois, Rod Blagojevich, $100,000 to buy his old Senate seat back

3 Standing on White House roof screaming, "Save us, Superman!"

2 Sweating like Bill Clinton when Hillary comes home early

1 He demanded a recount

January 8, 2000 - David Letterman - Top Ten Barack Obama Plans To Fix The Economy

10 Encourage tourists to throw spare change in the Grand Canyon

9 End our dependence on foreign owls

8 Sell New Mexico to Mexico

7 Put a little of that bailout money on the Ravens plus 3 at Tennessee. Come on! It's a mortal lock!

6 Rent out the moon for weddings and Bar Mitzvahs

5 Lotto our way out of this son-of-a-bitch

4 Appear on "Deal or No Deal" and hope to choose the right briefcase

3 Bail out the adult film industry -- not sure how it helps, but it can't hurt

2 Release O.J. from prison, have him steal America's money from China

1 Stop talkin' and start Obama-natin'!

January 7, 2000 - David Letterman - Top Ten Things Overheard At The Presidents' Lunch

10 "Sorry, you're not on the list, Mr. Gore"

9 "If Hillary calls, I've been here since Monday"

8 "Laura! More Mountain Dew!"

7 "You guys wanna see, 'Paul Blart: Mall Cop'?"

6 "Call the nurse -- George swallowed a napkin ring!"

5 "Hey Barack, wanna go with us to Cabo in March? Oh that's right, you have to work!"

4 "Kissey kissey"

3 "Obama? I think he's downstairs smoking a butt"

2 "Did you ever see a monkey sneezing?"

1 "I hope Clinton's unbuckling his belt because he's full"

The Shield Maiden Of Chappaqua

Big Media finally caught up with us. On one very important issue (that being on how to build and grow a political party) one Big Media – ceaselessly pro-Obama – outlet has finally caught up with us.

For years we explained (see, “Mistake In ’08” Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV, Part V, Part VI, Part VII, and Part VIII, and the “Barack Obama Situation Comedy” Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV) that to build and grow a political party you first gather a core constituency then slowly grow the party by the addition of like-minded individuals and groups which share those interests of the core constituency.

The modern Democratic Party built by Franklin Delano Roosevelt had as a core constituency the white working class. This working class provided the party of FDR with guideposts on policy and guided the party in everything it did. The working class core of the party was white because it reflected the same characteristics as the general population.

Over the years groups were added to the FDR coalition. Senior citizens joined in on the coalition attracted by promises such as “Social Security”. In the 1960s John Fitzgerald Kennedy, a Boston Brahmin added black Americans into the Democratic Party fold with some deft politicking (and his father’s vast wealth) which smudged away the racist past of the party. JFK grew the Democratic Party by addition not subtraction.

In 2008, Barack Obama and assorted kooks decided to purposefully destroy the Democratic Party of FDR. Barack Obama and these kooks willfully embraced the idea of the new “coalition of the ascendant”. This “coalition of the ascendant” and their interests – which conflicted with the interests of the FDR coalition – made it necessary to kick out core Democratic Party constituencies such as senior citizens and the white working class.

The Barack Obama coalition slogan was a variation of the race riot 1960s slogan “burn, baby, burn”. The new Barack Obama Dimocratic Party was to be built on the embers of the burnt down FDR Democratic Party. The new Obama Dimocratic Party was to be guided by the vanguard of the proletariat which vaingloriously named itself the “creative class”.

The “creative class” leaders of the new Dimocratic Party “coalition of the ascendant” and their supreme leader Barack Obama resembled cartoonish Marxism-Leninism faculty lounge players of a bygone era. They railed against the “unitary executive” and promised a democratic revolution wherein the “masses” would have control and their new future would be filled with freedom and the fulfillment of all their desires.

The new Barack Obama Dimocratic Party achieved success on the basis of much of the successes of their old time bygone era communist parties and mass movement follies predecessors. The most important reason was their control of the organs of propaganda. Big Media helped propagandize the “masses” in this Mickey Mouse buffoon opera.

Next, the “creative class” utilized a variant of “agit-prop” from the same left/Marxist playbook. The agitation-propaganda in this case was to race-bait the culture artfully. Anyone who opposed the “leader” was a “racist”. It was the “Führerprinzip” come to America (so no surprise that self-hating Jews aided the Jew haters who are barely veiled as mere Israel haters).

It was a success. The buffoon “leader” appeared midst Greek columns in a city that itself was situated in the thin air mists associated with Olympus. High up above the teeming “masses” the “creative class” overlords were ready to adore the new leader of the future. But the “creative class” clowns forgot the past they so wanted to cast off. The pages of the book the “creative class” wanted so much to turn kept history alive.

The more pages these art school clowns turned the more history asserted itself.

Untethered to the white working class and their interests the Obama Dimocratic Party is desperately attempting to bolster its own numbers by importing new members of the “coalition of the ascendant”. Because of the massive electoral defeats of 2010 and 2014 the Obama Dimocratic Party realizes it must import new voters if it is to continue to control the levers of state power. That’s what the Obama “immigration reform” is all about. The people are revolting so the Führer will import new masses to worship him and keep alive his thousand year Reich.

Today the New York Times, catches up to us as it tries to explain, from a pro-Obama pro-illegal immigration amnesty viewpoint, why the Obama Dimocratic Party is bound for a place called “failure”, not Hope:

The Democrats’ Immigration Problem

SAN DIEGO — PRESIDENT OBAMA’S executive order eliminating the threat of deportation for millions of undocumented immigrants is good policy. It is the right thing to do. But it is a dangerous move for the Democratic Party.

Yes, immigration is an important issue for most Latinos and Asian-Americans. And yes, 63 percent of Latinos and 66 percent of Asian- Americans voted for Democratic candidates for Congress in the midterms. The executive order could solidify and expand that support for years to come.

But Latinos and Asian-Americans made up only 11 percent of the electorate. Even if immigration were the only issue driving their vote — and it most certainly was not — it could have shifted the national partisan balance of power by only a few percentage points.

That is the best spin the New York Times can muster for Obama’s dangerous usurpation of constitutional order. The desperate violation of the rule of law by a unitary executive ignores reality and history:

Whites, meanwhile, accounted for 75 percent of the electorate. Far more than any other group, whites will decide the fate of the parties in the years to come. Unfortunately for the Democratic Party, the data suggest that immigration very much matters for whites. [snip]

Polls indicate that an overwhelming majority of white Americans view illegal immigration as a serious problem. A third think immigration over all is bad for the country.

This anxiety is coupled with an increasingly clear partisan divide on immigration. [snip]

Put it all together: Many white Americans see that America is changing, believe that immigration is driving many of the negative changes and know that one party stands largely on the side of immigrants while the other party stands largely in opposition. For many whites, this is a powerful motivation to vote Republican.

As to be expected, the New York Times bathes its analysis in race-bait innuendo and flat out screeches of racism. There is no accounting for the fact that many Latinos and even Americans that support Barack Obama’s policy aims on immigration resist the constitutional usurpation of the Führer.

Having to a great extent given birth to a “black party” that once was the Democratic Party of FDR, Barack Obama seeks to preserve that “black party” with an infusion of imported voters. This “black party” will end in desolation row:

As a result there is now a tight relationship between views on immigration and the vote. In the midterms, 75 percent of Americans who felt that most illegal immigrants should be deported voted Republican. In contrast, only 35 percent of those who favored a chance for undocumented immigrants to apply for legal status supported Republican candidates. Of those who saw immigration as the nation’s most important problem, 74 percent went Republican.

For the Democrats, the consequences are severe. Only 38 percent of white voters in the midterm elections sided with Democratic candidates. Almost two-thirds of whites without a college degree voted for Republicans in the midterms; as recently as 1990, these voters overwhelmingly favored Democrats.

There was a solution to this problem for the once party of FDR now the Obama Dimocrat Party. The solution was to get a leader that would lead the Obama Dimocrat Party back to the party of FDR. This leader should have denounced Barack Obama’s unitary executive diktat as an abuse against Constitutional order. This leader could have brought back the white working class into the Democratic Party fold. This leader would have denounced the fact that Despite highest poverty numbers in 50 years, Obama okays illegals to compete for jobs in US . But the New York Times fails to see that as an obvious solution:

There are no easy solutions for the Democrats. Shifting to the right is not possible, given the party’s strong pro-immigration constituencies. Half of the Latino and Asian-American populations profess no allegiance to any party. Shifting to the right on immigration might cost more minority votes than it gains white votes.

The Democrats could simply hold tight and wait until changing demographics give them an edge. That might be an effective long-term strategy, but it is likely to give Republicans control of the levers of power for decades.

The next president of the United States will have a Republican controlled House of Representatives. Republicans will continue to control most state houses as well and in addition will continue exclusive control of both legislature and governors’ mansions in the majority of states. Because of Barack Obama’s illegal usurpations of constitutional order it is now also likely that the next president will also have a Republican Senate (especially if the Senators from South Dakota and West Virginia bolt from the lawless Obama Dimocrat Party).

The illegal illegal immigration amnesty ploy by Barack Obama is not the first gift to the next Republican president nor is it the first time the hypocrite left has sold out principle to protect their dear leader. In 2008 the hypocrite kooks attacked opponents of Barack Obama on issues such as the “unitary executive” which now they full embrace.

Those of us who respect constitutional law are not entirely alone. Even a few of those who agree with Obama on his policy goals understand the threat:

The Unilateral Presidency

Obama may be right on the substance of immigration reform, but he’s setting a dangerous precedent. [snip]

Those cheering his decision should imagine a GOP president exercising similar authority in 2017 or 2021, but on a different issue. It’s immigration now, but, as commentators as disparate as New York Magazine’s
Jonathan Chait and George W. Bush administration executive power maven John Yoo have pointed out, for a future president it could be taxes, environmental laws, workplace safety protections or elements of Obamacare that get nonlegislative overhauls when an administration uses its prosecutorial discretion (the executive tool of the moment) to curb enforcement of those laws. [snip]

But one problem eclipses the substance: The president is redirecting our national immigration policy by himself. As the New York Times noted this week, no less an authority than Obama has in recent years said that what he’s doing was beyond his authority. “The problem is that, you know, I’m the president of the United States, I’m not the emperor of the United States,” he said on a Google Hangout last year. “My job is to execute laws that are passed.” And execute them faithfully, at that, and with care – not simply as is convenient or even compassionate.

Recently we warned against the attempts by Barack Obama henchmen to use a Palestinian-style human shield to protect Barack Obama. With ears now attuned to the worm tongues of Obama protection squads the human shield has decided not to wear armor but to nakedly intercept arrows that target Barack Obama.

In Chappaqua a human shield is born.



It didn’t have to be this way. There was no need for a shield maiden in a cage.



135 comments to The Shield Maiden Of Chappaqua

  • Lu4PUMA

    I sure hope Hillary wises up.

  • Shadowfax

    Wow admin, what a post. And the LOTRs touch at the end…

    Bravo!!!

  • Shadowfax

    Come on Hillary, we need you to fight for us!

  • Lu4PUMA

    You can see the response on her twitter page
    https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton

    It is a mixed bag.

    The reply I liked best:

    Steve Carlson ‏@SteveWCarlson Nov 20

    @HillaryClinton You’re not saying his action is lawful, right?

  • jbstonesfan

    (so no surprise that self-hating Jews aided the Jew haters who are barely veiled as mere Israel haters).

    ==============

    ain’t that the truth…

  • S

    Thank you Admin…you get to the essence…

    this is what I am also voicing…I am very disturbed by the direction Hillary is going so far…she sounds like O’s puppet…

    she has time…in the new year if/when she launches her campaign to set her own course but she is acting very submissive right now…

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

    yesterday I posted a few things all at once and they went into moderation at I think 5:12 pm never to be seen or read again…

    but one of the articles I linked to was a recent interview Ben Carson did on Newsmax…in his measured, logical way he stated that we have so many Americans, minorities and Appalacia that are in such dire need of help…and why don’t we help them first…sort of a ‘take care of our own’ and then be better able to help others…he gave the analogy of being on a plane and when the oxygen mask goes down the airline instructs you to help yourself first so then you will be in a position to help others……that you cannot help others from a position of weakness…he uttered basic common sense…

    common sense that Americans are yearning for…instead we have our Hillary going out of her way to tweet and state publically that she supports O and his Executive order and again, freaking praising him…this is not good…

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

    in regards to immigration and the idea that “Americans won’t do those jobs” so much of that is another big lie…

    when I was growing up and still in high school and we went on summer vacation I remember all the guys looking for construction jobs and landscaping jobs because they paid great for teenagers and young guys…$15-20/hr…big money for them at that time

    and the girls and guys would all look for part time restaurant jobs, etc…still good pay and tips…growing up in New England the kids would get jobs picking apples, etc and make a good hourly rate…or maybe work in one of the factories and earn a paycheck…those factories are now mainly out of business because we let the Chinese ruin a market and bankrupted factories that put many New England kids through college…

    now we have all the illegal immigrants taking most of those jobs for much less…and the result is those American teenagers and young kids are shut off from what used to be good paying jogs for them…all the landscapers use immigrants, they don’t speak english and they have driven what could have been a good job for some American kid at a good rate down to a low paying, usually under the table, job some illegal immigrant gets…

    this is what is happening first and the hardest to the young black kids…their options seem very limited…some fast food restaurant or join the military…or go deal drugs…of course, they are out of work when illegals are getting jobs they could do…same goes for the young white kids and seniors…I mentioned a senior who called into washington journal and said there are many seniors who would take part time jobs to supplement but those jobs also are going to cheap illegal labor…

    I do not care what the politicians say…the illegal immigrants are competing for and getting jobs young americans could do…and they are driving down the pay rate for those jobs…period…

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

    Hillary better wake the hell up and start thinking about who brought her and Bill to the dance…hard working americans…the middle class who wants sanity brought back to our once great nation…

    I know some here do not like the bitter truth said but we have been taken advantage of since O took office, he has destroyed the Democratic party and now I seriously fear he could destroy Hillary…and her chances…

    I cannot understand how Bill and Hill, who are so smart, are walking into this trap…I can only fear that it is the powers behind the scenes that are forcing this…

    …if you get a non threatening, calm intelligent person like a Ben Carson suddenly speaking for and on behalf of Americans…and making sense to the majority…Hillary could easily blow the space…the position…the policies…she should be making…

    I am concerned…I hope after the New Year rolls around things will change but right now I do not like what I hear coming out of Bill or Hill

  • dot48

    She has become the Obama cheerleader. I expect Jim Webb could carry lunch bucket American’s, I am reading up on him right now. I expect America will be ready to vote for someone who is a Military man because we sure don’t have anyone right now catching our backs.

    Hillary sure IS NOT Bill. She is trying to be the female version of Bambi and it does not wear well.

    I don’t have full access to her twitter but I was able to google a few of the replies….her support did not go over well.

    At this point, Hillary is not capable of being her own person. I think that concussion did cause long term health problems.

  • Shadowfax

    Lu4PUMA
    November 22, 2014 at 7:15 pm

    ——-
    I tweeted Hillary, but couldn’t see any replies from people. Not sure why.

  • Shadowfax

    I just wish I knew when the date was that Hillary will go public with her decision to run, or not run.

    If she doesn’t run, she had better put down the cupcake roll for the Dim party, or I will go nuts.

    If she decides to run, she had better load both guns, and let the shit fly. I want tables turned, heads to roll and see her swing to the middle. She knows she will be working with a Repub Congress and she has to start being her own woman…again.

  • Shadowfax

    cupcake ROLE, not a piece of pastry.

  • Lu4PUMA

    Try this link:

    https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/535605199705239552

    I tweeted – O’s failure is no excuse for the overreach.

  • dot48

    Running as an extension of Obama is simply CRAZY

    Agreeing with his policies when they are not what American’s want is StUPID

    Talking about the coopt of the party by Obama … he has lassoed Hillary into it now as well

    I am gearing up for her defeat, I will of course follow her journey but I am well past the emotional investment of 08, and actually disconnecting is much easier with each statement she makes that backs up this turd who has inserted himself inside our White House.

    It’s actually pretty easy now to say NO to Hillary Clinton.

    When I find a Democrat who is one of the FDR Democrats I might come back.

  • Shadowfax

    Thanks Lu

  • Shadowfax

    My tweet isn’t on that page, but she is really getting a good picture that people are mad about it. Sure, some minorities think it’s great. Good for them.

  • wbboei

    Shadow, I admire a lot of people who are better human beings than I am. But the point I was making with those two is they are not owned by big money, they are devoted to the welfare of the American People, and they have achieved positions of trust outside government. I think either one of them could unify the country and put us on a more hopeful path than we have been on for years.

  • wbboei

    Running as an extension of Obama is simply CRAZY
    ————–
    Ya think?

    1. her strategy is to woo progressives. If the recent poll by progressives shows her coming in 3d behind Warren and Sanders, logic suggest it is not working.

    2. her blind support of Obama is not logical either. Obama was just rejected overwhelmingly by voters, and that alone would be reason enough to pull away.

  • Shadowfax

    wbboei
    November 22, 2014 at 9:26 pm

    ——
    I fully understood what you were saying Wbb, I also said that I didn’t think anyone could become Pres. under our current setup and rules. The R’s and D’s won’t let it happen.

  • Shadowfax

    Sorry, my sentence did not clarify that a person couldn’t run as an independent and win…under the current setup and rules.

  • Shadowfax

    Wbb, from what I have seen, you seem like a darn good person to me…then again, I haven’t seen you in court. 😉

  • Shadowfax

    Seems as though we don’t have a two party system any longer, we have:

    Old school Republican Party
    Tea People Republican Party
    White working class FDR Democratic Party
    The Obama Minority Dimocrat Party
    Independent Party that isn’t taken seriously by the media

  • Tony Stark

    Frankly, if HRC keeps saying stuff that indicates that she supports Obama’s illegal policies instead of opposing them, I’m going to sit out the 2016 elections. I don’t see the Repugs choosing someone who is both a moderate and puts the interests of ordinary American citizens first, and I’m so done with the Dimwit party and its leaders.

  • wbboei

    Latest Obamacare ‘Tweak’ a Doozy

    Americans are inveterate tinkerers — a trait commented on by observers from de Tocqueville to Winston Churchill.

    That’s why it’s not surprising that the bureaucrats at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services would want to keep tweaking Obamacare. Mind you, it’s not so much because they think they can perfect the law. Rather, they keep tweaking the law in order to keep the American people from brandishing pitchforks and coming to Washington to tar and feather them and ride them out of town on a rail.

    Self-preservation can be a marvelous motivating factor.

    The geniuses who brought us the dysfunctional website healthcare.gov are in a panic because just about every Obamacare policy is going up in price. So rather than having American citizens deal with such unpleasantness, our intrepid bureaucrats have hit upon a brilliant scheme: why not change the auto-renewal rules of Obamacare premiums by automatically shifting a consumer from a policy that went up in price over to a cheaper policy? Of course, the cheaper policy will have fewer benefits and a larger deductible. And some people may actually like the policy they have now.

    But what does that matter to the jamokes at HHS? They know what’s best for you. Just ask them.

    Peter Suderman writes:

    In a 300-page regulatory proposal released late this afternoon, the Department of Health and Human Services announced that it is considering changing Obamacare’s auto-renewal rules so that, within the health law’s exchanges, instead of being automatically renewed into your current health plan, you’d be moved into the lowest cost plan from the same service tier.

    From the attached fact sheet:

    Under current rules, consumers who do not take action during the openenrollment window are re-enrolled in the same plan they were in the previous year, even if that plan experienced significant premium increases. We are considering alternative options for re-enrollment, under which consumers who take no action might be defaulted into a lower cost plan rather than their current plan.

    (Fact sheet via Adrianna McIntyre; proposal first noted by Politico.)

    States running their own exchanges could start doing this in 2016, and federal exchanges could start in 2017.

    It’s not just auto-reenrollment. It’s auto-reassignment, at least for those who pick that option. Basically, if you like your plan, but don’t go out of your way to intentionally re-enroll, the kind and wise folks at HHS or state health exchanges might just pick a new plan—perhaps with different doctors, clinics, cost structures, and benefit options—for you. And if you want to switch back? Good luck once open enrollment is closed. There’s always next year.

    A hassle? Maybe. But have faith: They know what’s best.

    Presumably the idea came up because, even though by some measures premiums aren’t rising by large amounts this year, premiums for many of the lowest cost and most popular plans from last year are rising quite a bit. And since HHS decided over the summer to institute auto-renewal, and since the majority of Obamacare enrollees are expected to take no action and thus stay in their current plans, the reality is that under the current system a lot of enrollees are likely to see large premium hikes, just because they didn’t shop around for a new plan.

    Bless their nanny state hearts. The thoughtfulness of liberals is neverending, isn’t it? As we are constantly reminded by many on the left, Americans are just too stupid to realize what their best interests are, so why not make it easy on us and take decisions on our health insurance out of our hands and place the responsibility with our all-knowing betters in government?

    I guess they think we’re too dumb to notice a 20% monthly increase in our premiums. Otherwise, I can’t think of a logical reason why CMS would want to make this tweak. Most of us would be upset to realize that a plan we were reasonably satisfied with was going up in price — something that the president promised wouldn’t happen. So, I guess one way to avoid that is to automatically switch a consumer to a lower-priced alternative.

    There’s a reason the new policy is cheaper: fewer benefits and probably a higher deductible. If one way to define a loss of freedom under Obamacare is a narrowing of choices for Americans and their health insurance, then this latest tweak represents another effort to chip away at our personal liberty.

    http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2014/11/22/latest-obamacare-tweak-a-doozy/

  • wbboei

    The Big Media Castadre, who sings in Obama’s celestial choir, and fails to help a colleague when she is under attack by this tyrannical and oppressive adminstration for reporting the truth–something which they themselves refuse to do because they want to keep their jobs. These big media hacks are the modern equivalent of “Good Germans” who lived on the outskirts of Treblinka and never saw anything amiss.
    ————-

    There’s another troubling aspect to this, too. The DoJ and White House seemed to be surprised that no one other than Attkisson ran with the documents that got leaked (other than Fox, of course). Why wouldn’t they report on leaked documents from Fast & Furious? It’s certainly not because DC reporters suddenly got ethical reservations about using leaks. John’s point is well worth considering, not just because of the media bias it demonstrates, but also because that media bias allowed the Obama administration to focus its sights on just one journalist. It’s not just that the White House went after a reporter, but also that the failure by most of Attkisson’s colleagues in the industry to “speak truth to power,” “afflict the comfortable,” or whatever tiresome cliché they routinely use to describe their work in heroic terms, when it counted. They left Attkisson isolated, an easy target for the power they claim to challenge.

    Maybe some of them like being stenographers. Or maybe some of them didn’t want to end up without a job.

    Attkisson herself describes what happened to her work after her initial reports on Operation Fast and Furious, and especially the next year when she began reporting on Benghazi. If a DoJ flack felt perfectly at home calling a CBS editor and then a news anchor to tell Attkisson to back off — and have the White House deputy press secretary offer an approving response to the idea — it’s not outside the realm of possibility that another White House official could have called a relative to make the same demand. Ben Rhodes, one of Obama’s national-security team, has a brother at CBS News, who just got promoted to its top position. Coincidence? Unrelated? Perhaps, but if the White House was having Schmaler call CBS News editors on the carpet, it’s a little difficult to imagine that they left this path to the top untrodden.

    Ed Driscoll drily quips, “I’m sure CBS will want to blow the lid off this story.” Right after checking in with Schmaler and Shultz, of course.

  • wbboei

    Charles Krauthammer is a smart guy but it is all just words. After he lambasted Obama for his unconstitutional action and suggested what the Republicans should do even though he knows as well as we do they will not do it, O’Reilly says if what he is saying is correct then Krauthammer must believe that Obama is a threat to the Republic etc. Whereupon Krauthammer backs off and says no he is a skillful politician, which hit me like the downfall of a Wagnerian Opera. If he is nothing worse than a skillful politician then all that he said before becomes immaterial. That was not his finest moment.

  • VotingHillary

    Admin, I think I can summarize your latest entry in one sentence:

    Hillary’s campaign has nothing to fear….but Hillary.

    She is not going to be able to walk this all back in the new year because if she tries she will “Pelosized” with videos of “here is what she said in 2014, here is what she is saying now.”

    She is trying to out-left Warren and it just not believable or working. If anything, it just makes her seem an opportunist trying to win at any cost.

    Will the real Hillary please stand up…for all our sanity?

  • VotingHillary

    “will be Pelosized”…sorry.

  • Shadowfax

    Off topic, a great movie about Stephen Hawking is out called ‘The Theory of Everything’. Amazing man.

  • wbboei

    Our political system is broken.

    It is rife with corruption.

    And it succeeds through deception.

    After promising to fight Obama on his assault on the constitution.

    They are in the process of breaking that promise and rolling over.

    The reason is they–or rather their donors want an endless supply of cheap labor.

    In addition, notice how they just got done passing an enormous farm bill on behalf of their donors.

    Ergo, rather than attacking the illegal policy, they have elected to shoot spit wads at Obama.

    And they say we will not get down in the mud with Obama. He is irrelevant.

    We stand for jobs and a healthy economy—which is why they have given companies tax incentives to outsource.

    And, John Q Public, who bought Obama’s bullshit for six years will now say the Republicans will save us.

    In sum, our political system is one big Potemkin Village.

    It is based on two over arching principles: managed democracy and inverted totalitarianism.

    Those are the twin gods which big media serves.

    The parties, the media, would have us believe that the game is about us.

    In fact, it is about them, and we are the ones who are screwed.

    In a parallel universe where human beings were smarter, perhaps they would grasp the essence of what is happening, i.e.

    1. first, the two political parties are controlled by big business.

    2. second, they are two wings of the same bird.

    3. third, the platforms they have are simply to unite their base.

    4. fourth, the promises they make at election time are a sham.

    5. fifth, once the election is over, the politicians ignore their promises and serve their donors.

    6. sixth, big media masquerades as an honest broker, and a check on corruption. This is a total deception.

    7. seventh, in fact, big media is controlled by a New York cabal which prints only those stories that fit its narrative.

    8. eighth, the nation is the victim of a huge ponzi scheme which is certain to crash and it is later than you think.

    9. ninth, the Republican evasion will be seen for what it is and will break apart the party.

    10.tenth, all it takes is a credible third party candidate–which would attract conservatives and independents.

    11.eleventh, as difficult as that may seem, the larger truth is there is a vacuum between the parties and the people

    12.twelfth, and nature abhors a vacuum.

  • wbboei

    If you do the math, you will find that in the last several elections, the Democrats have won states that have 242 electoral votes, which means they only need 28 more to win. That is the presidential election. On the congressional side, the situation is the opposite. Because of redistricting at the national and state level democrat voters have been crammed into newly created safe districts, leaving the rest, and especially rural areas to Republicans, which means they have an institutional advantage. This end result is a more polarized electorate, and candidates running in those districts tend to be more extremist than before. This is where a credible third party candidate could shake up the system. Credible, and funded.

  • WE could hopefully have a third party winner in 2016> 🙂

  • SHV

    “Whereupon Krauthammer backs off and says no he is a skillful politician, which hit me like the downfall of a Wagnerian Opera. If he is nothing worse than a skillful politician then all that he said before becomes immaterial. That was not his finest moment.”
    *****
    Typical Krauthammer. Five/six years ago, if he criticized Obama, he would preface with “How smart, intelligent, educated, etc. Obama is”; I assume he did this as an immunization against being called a racist. I haven’t paid any attention to him since then.

  • Lu4PUMA

    wbboei,

    I wish we could restore the Republic with a third party candidate. But part of the current system is to suck the wealth out of the country and use it to control the governance system. The wheels that are turning are not productive, but channeled through the elite and the governance. I suspect that the destruction of the middle class is not an inadvertent consequence but is done with intent to disempower the populous and control the masses.

    This means we will get no relief until their financial system fails. I think they know it will eventually fail and are intent in getting what they can until it does.

    The housing market is an interesting wild card. With the Chinese populous finding out about their elites taking vast sums of money out of the country into the high end American real estate market, that market could go. Otherwise, the banks hold the more affordable housing, that the average American cannot afford. Our local market is a revolving auction of foreclosure homes. The banks fix the prices and sell to speculators who are really not qualified buyers, who let alot of them go back in to foreclosure. Alot of the buyers are LLC’s. It is weird. I need to buy something next year but I am afraid.

    Next door, there are two families living in a two bedroom house. It is generally a rental, although it has been in foreclosure and empty about half the time I have lived here. I think we are going to see alot of families packing them in. So maybe they will not have room to buy so much Chinese junk.

  • Lu4PUMA

    You know, that really chaps my a$$. The banks are using taxpayer funded corporate welfare to buy up homes and price fix them at prices the average taxpayer cannot afford. Of course, the taxpayer cannot afford the corporate welfare so it is going into the National Debt. Then it is the National Debt that is the source of the “wealth” that is creating the new Uber-Wealthy. How crazy is this? The financial markets are actually being funded by National Debt. This is Obolanomics.

  • S

    …I want to view this big picture…I will cut Hillary and Bill some slack…when I reflect on both of their personalities and what they have had to deal with in a myriad of situations the one thing that has always struck me is how both of them are very good at ‘turning the cheek’…and very gracious…they don’t play victims…(for very long)

    ‘forgiving’ and being more gracious than I think many of us might have been…call it being great at ‘coy/smart politics’ or just having an inate ability to be gracious and move on…(even to the extent of working with people that impeached your husband, dragged you to testify as First Lady, or Bill becoming friends with his enemies, etc…a la ‘frenemies’…

    we have seen that over and over again with them…towards the Bushes, gingrich, lindsey graham, charlie crist, etc…the Clintons seem to be able to rise above the mess to get to the next point they want to go…that is a strength and takes courage and guts…that is who they are…survivors…and winners…

    …so imo I will cut Hill some slack as being gracious to O as the year comes to an end…knowing full well that she has a republican congress for the last year of his presidency and he will be a lame duck and on his way out…from her POV she has not much to lose by being nice or ‘gracious’ to O at this point…while lining up some support behind the scenes…now is not the time to start a inter-party fight, even though I wish she tone down her praise…

    she knows the attention will turn to her full time…particulary when she announces…so I hope…as I know Shadow does also…that Hillary is putting her “thing” together and when the time is right she will have HER say and do it HER way…and let the chips fall where they may…

    …so we await to hear what will be ‘Hillary’s Agenda’

    that is my hope…for change…

  • admin

    This is how Obama treats Hillary:

    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/president-obama-american-people-car-smell-2016-campaign/story?id=27108324

    President Obama: American People Want ‘New Car Smell’ in 2016 Campaign

    President Obama, acknowledging he’s taken some political “dings” during his time in the White House, said in an exclusive interview with ABC News that the American people will want that “new car smell” when it comes to the 2016 presidential campaign, suggesting he may not have a prominent role on the campaign trail as the country prepares to select his replacement.

    “I think the American people, you know, they’re going to want — you know, that new car smell. You know, their own — they want to drive something off the lot that doesn’t have as much mileage as me,” Obama told ABC News Chief anchor George Stephanopoulos.

    During the interview conducted in Las Vegas on Friday, Stephanopoulos asked the president how he would navigate a potential White House bid by his former secretary of state, Hillary Clinton.

    The president, who said he talks regularly with Clinton, called her a friend and seemed prepared for Clinton to differentiate herself politically should she choose to pursue the presidency, which appears likely.

    “She’s not going to agree with me on everything. And, you know, one of the benefits of running for president is you can stake out your own positions,” Obama said.

    Earlier in the conversation he’d said he thought she’d make a “formidable candidate” and a “great” president.

    The president, who said there were “a number” of potential Democratic candidates who would make great presidents, said he would do everything he could to ensure that a member of his own party succeeded him.

    “I am very interested in making sure that I’ve got a Democratic successor,” he said. “So I’m going do everything I can, obviously, to make sure that whoever the nominee is is successful.”

    Are we being too sensitive? Are we reading too much into Obama’s remarks? It seems to us that Obama with his “new car smell” talk is taking a swipe at Hillary.

    In 2008 Obama and his thugs smeared Hillary as a has-been and old. Now he talks about “new car smell”. This is the guy Hillary and Bill help???

    [There’s an autoplay video at the link which if you watch it will remind you why you don’t watch the Sunday talk shows anymore.]

  • S

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/it-was-a-big-day-in-the-big-apple-for-hillary-clinton/2014/11/22/3ef252f8-725d-11e4-a2c2-478179fd0489_story.html?tid=hpModule_f8335a3c-868c-11e2-9d71-f0feafdd1394&hpid=z12

    Lots of people prepping for Hillary…but it will be up to her

    snip

    What Clinton hasn’t yet done for herself, however, remains the key to her real hopes of winning the White House. One is to organize a campaign that is more disciplined and more strategic than her campaign of 2008. She cannot afford another messy campaign operation, and how she avoids that will take considerable thinking.

    Still, machinery doesn’t win elections, which means the second and more important step for her is to know exactly why she wants to run for president again and how she is alike and different from her husband and Obama, and then to be able to articulate those reasons in a compelling and forward-looking message.

    Clinton is nibbled from all sides as she thinks through the rationale for a campaign. On the left are rising demands for a populist economic message of the kind associated with Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts. She has edged toward that, but sometimes awkwardly, as when she said last month, “businesses don’t create jobs,” a shorthand that baffled nearly everyone by its inarticulateness.

    For Bill Clinton, opportunity — not class warfare — long has been at the core of his message. Hillary Clinton, however, runs in different times than did her husband, a time of greater inequality and underlying frustration. The balancing act is more challenging today than it was for him.

    snip

    At the Ready For Hillary meeting, one person, who did not want to be identified in order to speak more candidly, said she should run for president not as Hillary Clinton but as “Hillary Smith,” shorn of accolades and awards that have come at her for so many years. It was good advice, not exactly starting over, but starting fresh.

    What Friday reinforced is what many in her party recognize. Democrats may be ready for Hillary. The bigger question is: When will Hillary be ready

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

    everyone will be listening and analyzing every word she says…she cannot afford of the cuff comments that drag her down…

  • Lu4PUMA

    I found out that Hillary Clinton and I share the same Briggs Meyers personality type. And I am a terrible politician. So I hope that is not characteristic of the type. The type is INTJ, the most rare of the 16 types, being held by only 3% of the population and rarer in woman at 1%. Based on this and what I have seen, Hillary still has a very F.U. attitude towards running for POTUS. Even looking at her recent Twitter and that page, her mind is elsewhere.

    Her response to the immigration issue appears to be an emotional one based on Dimocratic hype. (Can I say Bobot?). It is entirely devoid of constitutional integrity and empathy for the middle class. (Can I say Elitist?) Who is she? Where is Hillary?

    The 2016 position of POTUS is very different form the 2008 position with the House and Senate. And I am suspecting that she would not go there except on her own terms. Forgiving is not forgetting and it would be foolish to stand against executive overreach when she will likely need that big stick to beat Republicans with if she attains the office. Is it possible this position was taken with that in mind? A transition from the position of integrity that is the luxury of a POTUS in control of the House and Senate to one of usurped power that will be needed by one who does not.

    The Republicans tried to impeach Bill for a blow job and now will not stand against O’s corrupt ass because theirs is not much different.

    We have another impending financial crisis that many now welcome. Let it crash.

    We are losing the War on Terror.

    Civil rights are a thing of the past and our basic human rights are in jeopardy.

    The middle class that made this country free, strong and great is becoming a thing of the past.

    Where is Hillary?

  • Lu4PUMA

    admin
    November 23, 2014 at 12:04 pm
    —————————————–

    Obola is a offensive, malignant narcissist and offends a whole lot of people. Loser! The sooner people stop listening to him, the better. Sure he is snarking Hillary. And still trying to tie himself to the Party his has been destroying. He is like a leper chasing a crowd that is running away. His words are all lies and fewer and fewer will want to listen.

    Run Hillary, RUN!!!!!

  • S

    Lu4PUMA

    November 23, 2014 at 12:35 pm

    well said Lu4PUMA

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

    btw…i caught a segment on CNN – State of the Union this morning…could not watch most of the usual bla, bla, bla…

    but one thing stood out,there was a discussion going on about race and Ferguson with a panel including Cornell West CNN’s LZ Ganderson(https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=lz+granderson)

    and West and Ganderson got into it abit about comparing O to the black activist mayor, Marion Barry, who just died…

    …and then Ganderson starts talking about O’s life before the presidency and how he was the Marion Barry before he became prez…as O was the selfless community organizer who could have become rich but instead worked with the poor, etc

    …and no one thought to ask, if he decided not to work for making lots of money but for the community…well how did he afford a home worth half a million dollars working as a community organizer?

    *************************************
    SNL video clip/skit about O and his Executive order

    http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/23/politics/schoolhouse-rock-bill-snl-obama/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

  • dot48

    Under the bus again for Hillary … Obammy says the public will want “New Car Smell in 2016” .. how effin blunt can he be? Make room for Warren, she’ s the new darlin.

  • pm317

    I don’t think we are being sensitive when Obama says new car smell — everything this man does and says is politically calculated and it is disseminated as such — code words, dog whistle or whatever.

    Lot of people have started asking me if I am excited about Hillary in 2016. I tell them I am no longer interested in politics. That is only half true. I want a good republican to run and win. I don’t want Hillary to run and in fact, I want her to say a big Fuck You to the Democrats.

    Let them nominate Sanders or Warren (what a joke!) and lose. But then again they may not lose — they have found the magic (and toxic for others) potion with Obama on how to ‘Gruber’ the country. They will ‘Gruber’ it again if the majority of the population and the Republican party (the only credible opposition) don’t get their act together.

    If you do a survey, majority of Hillary blogs and people who supported her there and walked away from Obama are INTJs, (I am one), I will bet on that. It is the innate quality for seeking justice that sets them apart and there was no justice in the way 2008 happened.

  • wbboei

    It was a serious political mistake for Hillary to come right out and embrace the illegal executive order by Obama with respect to amnesty. Perhaps she is thinking we are too stupid to connect the dots. Whoever is advising her is not very smart. Her improvident statement wreaks of hypocrisy and opens her up to the charge that she was against the imperial presidency before she was in favor of it. The Republican party did not wait long to pounce on her for it, after she excoriated Bush for similar acts which were never this serious. But that is not warrant supporting the Republicans. What this also shows is that the Republican Party is more concerned with cheap theater than serious opposition to this program, and Obamacare, after promising their constituents that they would stop Obama on both of these issues. Behind the scenes however their two largest contributors–big agra and big pharma want these programs, even though both of them hurt the American People. Perhaps they too are thinking we are too stupid to connect the dots. Let this be a warning–the answer to Obama is not the RINO. The answer is a 3d party.
    ————-

    An Imperial Presidency

    A new video released by the GOP on Friday calls out former Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton for her hypocrisy on the issue of executive action.

    In 2008, Clinton said the George W. Bush administration was transforming the executive branch into an “imperial presidency.” In 2014, Clinton said she supported President Obama’s decision to grant citizenship to more than four million illegal immigrants.

    Clinton unknowingly provided the narration for the GOP’s newest video.

    “Unfortunately our current president does not seem to understand the basic character of the office he holds,” Clinton said of Bush in April 2008. “Rather than faithfully execute the laws, he has rewritten them through signing statements, ignored them through secret legal opinions, undermined them by elevating ideology over facts. Rather than defending the constitution, he has defied its principles and traditions.”

    Check it out:

    “This administration’s unbridled ambition to transform the executive into an imperial presidency in an attempt to strengthen the office has weakened our nation.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=US_Vq2FZXog

  • wbboei

    My name is Jebediah Bush III. Feel free to call me Jeb. What’s a little informality among friends.

    Contrary to popular lore, I came from humble beginnings, grew up in a log cabin, read the Bible by candle light, got an eighth grade education, served with General Burnside in the Civil War, received a chest full of medals which I had to pawn off to raise money for a sick cousin, have an engaging personality, and wish to present myself as a candidate for president in the 2016.

    There is only one problem:

    There is this silver spooned Pillsbury doughboy dull as paint and dumb as a post never worked a day in his life no account politico with the same name as me who plans to run for president as well. I hope the public does not confuse the two of us, because he would put this nation right back in the same ditch as his brother did, whereas I am determined to forge a new path. I cannot pay you walk around money and play the race card like his people did in Mississippi. But I will represent your interests honestly, faithfully and tirelessly, whereas my namesake will not.

  • Lu4PUMA

    wbboei
    November 23, 2014 at 2:10 pm
    —————————————-

    That’s bad. She sure set herself up for it.

    I am sure this is not going to be the end of it. She will be confronted with her changing standard and it will be interesting what she has to say.

  • Shadowfax

    admin
    November 23, 2014 at 12:04 pm
    This is how Obama treats Hillary:

    ———
    As always, Obama never tells the truth.

    Is the ‘new car smell’:

    – Literal? Did he stink up the Dim party so much that even he can’t stand being in it?

    – It could be a swipe at Hillary, like “she is nice enough”, and his ego can’t handle her competence.

    – What ran though my mind is that he has been hammered by someone that 2014 loss of the senate is his fault, and he is trying to put his own spin on how Hillary may NOT AGREE WITH EVERYTHING HE HAS DONE and may propose (fixes) to his turd covered actions.

    – He may see the writing on the wall and trying to paint a cute picture of how he will further have his ass kicked by a good President in 2016.

    – Maybe the little boy is having a difficult time saying anything nice to a smarter and more competent Hillary.

  • wbboei

    CBS: The Corrupt Broadcasting System

    by Andrew Klaven

    There are very few things that are actually as dishonest, wicked and corrupt as conservatives think they are. But CBS News is one of them.

    I’ve just finished reading Sharyl Atkisson’s book Stonewalled: My Fight for Truth Against the Forces of Obstruction, Intimidation, and Harassment in Obama’s Washington. It’s an excellent book by a terrific and non-partisan investigative reporter who was as hard on the Bush administration as she tried to be on Obama. Every thinking person, left and right, should read what she has to say about the news business in general and CBS News in particular.

    Much of the reporting about the book has been centered on the government’s intrusion into Attkisson’s life and work: their apparent attempts to stop her investigations by stealing and erasing her computer files, bugging her through her phones, harassing network executives and starting whisper campaigns against her character. News venues have either reported these appalling abuses of power or have tried to discredit Attkisson with personal slanders — including the charge that she might be, gasp, conservative (which, by the way, my sources say she’s not). I don’t know Attkisson personally but I’m familar with her work. I’d believe her long before I’d believe the people trying to smear her.

    But to me, who already knows that government is always and everywhere the single greatest threat to a nation’s freedom, the most shocking sections of the book are not those exposing the thugs of the Obama administration, they’re the sections where Attkisson discusses the cowardice, stupidity and ideological corruption of CBS News. And in this regard, I have no doubt that CBS stands in for all three network news operations.

    Attkisson details how the network repeatedly obstructed and killed her reports about Fast and Furious, Benghazi, misuse of Green Energy funds and any other story that might reflect badly on the Obama administration in particular or big government in general. Bias to the point of dishonesty and corruption, plus incestuous media-Washington relations — including the fact that Obama advisor Ben Rhodes is the brother of CBS News President David Rhodes — led the network to distort, lie, cover up and silence stories that might be damaging to the Washington leftists who represented their points of view.

    Some of the CBS corruption involved (and no doubt continues to involve) simple, though inexcusable, bias:

    We do stories on food stamps but only to the extent that we prove the case that they’re needed, without also examining the well-established fraud and abuse. We look at unemployment but only to the extent that we present sympathetic characters showing that benefits should be extended rather than examining, also, the escalating cost and instances of fraud. We cover minimum wage but only to the extent that we help make the case for raising it…

    But then there were repeated instances of Obama corruption stories being killed, ruined or edited to protect the administration — especially on the CBS Evening News with Scott Pelley. “A number of well-regarded veteran correspondents” became “so disgusted with the state of the Evening News under Pelley and his executive producer [Pat] Shevlin” that they sought contracts “under which they wouldn’t have to appear on the broadcast.”

    You know there’s a problem when reporters are trying to stay off your flagship news program rather than get on it.

    By the 2012 presidential campaign, CBS had sunk so low, they actually mis-represented a 60 Minutes Obama interview to make it seem that Obama had called the Benghazi disaster terrorism long before he had (trying to prop up Candy Crowley’s infamous rescue of the dishonest president during the second Obama-Romney debate). They then tried to cover up the real contents of the interview — the part that exposed Obama’s debate lie — until they were shamed into releasing it.

    Given the fact that ABC and NBC’s main news programs have blacked out the recent explosive revelations of Jon Gruber about Obamacare — while CBS has given it minimal coverage — it seems wrong to single CBS out for the shame all three network news operations clearly deserve. Attkisson was one of CBS’s best reporters and Stonewalled is her story so it’s CBS News that got caught.

    But there’s plenty of disgrace to go around.

    http://pjmedia.com/andrewklavan/2014/11/23/cbs-the-corrupt-broadcasting-system/

  • wbboei

    Pelley is a disaster waiting to happen. He and his former executive producer Pat Shevlin (recently canned–and refuses to give interviews about it) are the ones who gave Sharyl’s critical investigative journalist probes into Obama scandals the deep six, because they are Obama lovers, and did not like where her stories were going.
    ——————–

    Anchor animal Scott Pelley was dispatched to CBS News’ Washington, DC, bureau last week by CBS brass to apologize for rubbing staffers there the wrong way, sources said. One insider told us dissension over pugnacious Pelley’s brusque treatment of them “had been building up for a long time. Scott was ordered to go to the DC bureau on Thursday to offer an apology. It had gotten really bad in the past few weeks, and he was told by management to get his ass to DC.” Page Six previously reported Pelley blew his stack at CBS News employees when colleague John Miller’s scoop about the recent State Department sex scandal broke on “CBS This Morning” with Charlie Rose and Gayle King rather than on Pelley’s “CBS Evening News.” While insisting to us he didn’t have a meltdown at the time, Pelley had a meltdown, telling us: “You wouldn’t last 10 seconds at CBS News. This is not how reporters do their job. You called my publicist but not me in my office?” But when we called Pelley’s office last night about his recent DC trip, we were told all calls must be transferred to a publicist. His rep explained: “Scott is often in Washington, was a correspondent there for many years, and talks all the time with members of the team.” A friend added, “Scott just went to DC to visit with the staff and speak to them.” Pelley was also recently called out by Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly after he played down Fox News Channel’s ratings and exaggerated his own network’s figures.

  • wbboei

    Hillary Clinton ✔ @HillaryClinton
    Follow

    Thanks to POTUS for taking action on immigration in the face of inaction.

    Now let’s turn to permanent bipartisan reform. #ImmigrationAction

    —————
    1. HILLARY PRAISES HER LIGHT OF LOVE OBAMA FOR–

    a. violating the constitution

    b. dismissing the will of the American People (as expressed in the recent election) and-

    c. kicking the other party in the balls.

    2. AND THEN SHE TELLS THE OTHER PARTY–AND US-

    a. they should pretend it never happened

    b. work with the people who kicked them in the balls in a bi partisan manner

    c. and fuck the American People–they don’t count.

    3. CONCLUSION:

    a. something aint right about her now

    b. it could very well have been that fall and the concussion she sustained

  • Shadowfax

    Come on Wbb, blaming the things that Hillary has said on brain injury from a fall…

  • wbboei

    She knows she can kick the RINO in the balls and he will do nothing to hold Obama responsible. It is a free kick. But the American People will not be nearly as forgiving, if she decides to run for president.

  • wbboei

    Shadowfax
    November 23, 2014 at 5:16 pm
    Come on Wbb, blaming the things that Hillary has said on brain injury from a fall…

    ————–
    That is the rumor. Frankly, that is giving her the benefit of the doubt.

  • Shadowfax

    That is a a rumor that has been around since Hillary was in the hospital. It’s one thing to be angry, disappointed in her that she isn’t a Ragun type of Democrat, but this is really more slander than than anything else.

    Is she in campaign mode, is she as disgusted at Obama as we are…no.

  • wbboei

    At this point, I believe Hillary is an Obama clone in all respects but two:

    1. IRS scandal: she would have taken that issue more seriously, because she is smart enough to realize that the if people stopped paying their taxes because that agency is destroying their liberty, then the leviathan of big government would shrivel and die. Therefore, you have to at least go through the motions of looking like you are serious, which Obama refuses to do. His last word on the subject was there is not a smidgeon of corruption. She would express concern, appoint a committee of pro IRS people, and wait for them to say there is not a smidgeon of corruption, while the DOJ goes after Sharyl or Judicial Watch for continuing to dig at the corruption.

    2. Race Card: she would be more judicious in terms of the race card, but the gender card might well be played. The purpose is to put the institutions on trial—just like the story in Law and Order.

    http://www.bestofbeck.com/wp/activism/saul-alinskys-12-rules-for-radicals

    (Note: I seriously doubt there would be much difference on the treatment of Israel)

  • Shadowfax

    My guess is, if she runs and get’s in campaign mode…she will go after her opponents, not the sitting Dim prez, Obama.

    She will give her plans to fix his mistakes without directly blaming him. She will define her own solutions and not attack the GOP directly since they are the majority in congress.

    That’s my guess based her past history.

    I am often wrong, so time will tell.

  • Shadowfax

    Gotta go for the day, I am sure the blog will be interesting when I get back.

  • wbboei

    Shadowfax
    November 23, 2014 at 5:27 pm
    ——-
    Shadow: if it is true, then it is not slander. Go back and read what I said about this the other day. That information was current and it came from insiders–some of whom do not want her to run.

  • wbboei

    Shadowfax
    November 23, 2014 at 5:39 pm
    ———-
    Maybe I am bi polar.

    One side of my brain, the optimistic side hopes that her health is fine and she is just as sharp as ever and when the time comes she will be on the side of the people, not the billionaires from whom she currently charges quarter million dollar speaking fees.

    The other side of my brain says forget about your assumptions, wash them in an acid bath of cyncism, examine the evidence in the cold light of day. And, if you have a reliable wire on the inside, do not ignore it–test it.

    2016 will not be a stay the course election. It will be a change election.

  • Tony Stark

    Admin,

    Hillary clearly should have listened to you about running to a minimum safe distance from Obama’s nuclear fallout. Even the WSJ agrees.

    http://online.wsj.com/articles/obama-is-damaging-hillarys-chances-1416780054

  • jbstonesfan

    I think we all have a right to our opinions, both pro and con, on how Hillary is handling things. The blog has become more than just a Hillary cheerleader. Things have changed a lot since 2008. We all came here to support her, but the future of our country transcends any one person. I hope we can all agree to disagree and still remain cordial.

  • wbboei

    Bill said something the other day about his mother in law—that she listened to contrarian opinion on the outside chance it might be right. I am telling you right now Hillary is getting bad advice from her handlers. I would point out to you that this happened before–in 2008. In fact, it was so bad that Patty Solis Doyle was a mole for Axelrod, and the all knowing Mark Penn did not know how primary votes were calculated in California, which caused her to state in error that the election would be over on Super Tuesday. And she had no idea that insiders had decided in February that Obama would be the nominee or that they would meet a race baiting buzz saw in South Carolina as documented in the article about Obama entitled Race Man. Those same advisers are fixated on the micro and missing the macro. It is deja vu all over again, only last time she took the primary for granted and positioned herself for the general election whereas now she is trying to position herself for the primary and forgetting about the general election–which will be a change election–and change is an emotional decision as in off with their heads. When dealing with the electorate subtlety is a waste of time. If she thinks that a tweak here and a tweak there to Obamacare will garner a hail to the chief; if she believes that an imperial presidency will be rewarded; if she thinks that a flood tide of illegals who will take US jobs will be widely appreciated by the people who do not have jobs then she is whistling dixie. Again she is getting bad advice. Where is Bill? Where is Carvelle? And who the fuck is this 34 year old Robbie Mooks? From my perspective, Hillary is getting bad advice and the strategy she is pursuing has got failure written all over it. Just look at that video posted above–its another gotcha—why do this? Why lash yourself to a sinking ship? She may not think it is sinking, she may see what I posted above that 242 electoral votes are safe and all she needs is 270–somebody is telling her that I am sure, and it ain’t Mark Penn, but that assumes an adversary who does not evolve and if the last mid term and the one that preceded it are any indication, the other side is learning how to fight the Obama machine. The other thing is they are not going to get snookered by big media next time around. And the other thing is books like Sharyl Attkisson’s, and investigations into Obama scandals, and the likely gutting of Obamacare spell one thing–the party’s over. Stay the course and tinker around the edges is safe strategy for the primary and bad strategy for the general election. It is so safe that she came in 3d with the progressives, behind that empty suit Warren and crazy Bernie Sander. The test of a good friend is they do not pull their punches. They tell you when they think you are wrong. And it is good to listen on the outside chance they may be right.

  • wbboei

    I will say it one more time:

    the best strategy for Hillary emanates from the Administrator of this blog.

    She ignores that advice at her peril.

  • wbboei

    In vino–

    Veritas.

    In wine (or hard apple cider Prohibition brand–made by Sea Cider, aged in oak barrels) 12.5%

    There’s truth.

    I am not trying to rain on the parade.

    I am trying to make sure that ABM 94’s dream of a Hillary president comes true.

    And, no less, I am hoping that the better angels of her soul come through.

    Please God no more of this Obama worship.

    It is unseemly–as well as wrong.

  • wbboei

    In October 2008 I went to a high dollar fundraiser for Hillary which was held by Stan Barrett at his mansion on Lake Washington. I set next to an actor who was the sheriff in Northern Exposure. His first name was Tom, and I will be god damned if I can remember his last name. But he said something to me about women in general and Hillary in particular: they are better than we are.

    In Hillary’s case, I hope that is true. In the case of Sharyl Attkission, I know it is. If you want to understand what how corrupt this administration–and big media are, and how they are screwing you–YES YOU, then by all means whisper in Santa’s ear that you want a copy of Sharyl’s book Stonewalled. Like that famous line in A Few Good Men: if you can handle the truth.

  • wbboei

    Correction: In October 2007

  • wbboei

    My guess is, if she runs and get’s in campaign mode…she will go after her opponents, not the sitting Dim prez, Obama.
    ——————–
    Shadow: if she is a centrist that we think she is, then the communist Obama IS her biggest opponent.

    And it matters not a farthing that he is a “sitting president”.

  • S

    Tony Stark

    November 23, 2014 at 8:27 pm

    Tony…that WSJ article spells out a lot of what some of us are very concerned about..O is ruining Hillary’s chances and she is walking into his trap…Hill is really setting herself up for questions about how she would behave as a president…re: imperial presidency…the whole immigration vs american workers, etc

    the narrative that is starting to evolve is that Hillary is an echo of O and she doesn’t stand for anything on her own…her ‘forced errors’ that some of us have mentioned are gaining traction and her brand is getting lost…let’s hope she comes out strong after the New Year…

    the article is worth relisting for those that might have missed it

    http://online.wsj.com/articles/obama-is-damaging-hillarys-chances-1416780054

    Obama Is Damaging Hillary’s Chances

    Mrs. Clinton’s popularity has plunged, and she is increasingly trapped by her former boss’s record.

    By
    Douglas E. Schoen And

    Patrick H. Caddell
    Nov. 23, 2014 5:00 p.m. ET

    President Obama ’s high-risk immigration gamble may have severe consequences for Washington, the country and the Democratic Party, most of all Hillary Clinton .

    Mrs. Clinton’s putative bid for the Democratic presidential nomination is already running into trouble. The national exit poll from the recently completed midterm elections showed her with less than a majority of voters (43%) saying she would make a good president. When pitted against an unnamed Republican candidate
    Mrs. Clinton lost 40% to 34%.

    Those grim numbers followed on a September WSJ/NBC poll showing a plunge in Mrs. Clinton’s favorability rating, to 43%, from 59% in 2009.

    And that was before President Obama launched a defiant post-midterm campaign discarding political compromise and unilaterally doubling down on his unpopular policies. As a candidate, Mrs. Clinton would likely inherit a damaged party—and as a former member of his administration, she would struggle with the consequences of Mr. Obama’s go-it-alone governance./b

    The latest indication of the president’s politically damaging approach was his move on Thursday to unilaterally grant amnesty to an estimated five million illegal immigrants. A Rasmussen poll released Nov. 18 found that 53% of likely voters opposed the amnesty without congressional approval, while 34% approved. Moreover, 62%
    of those polled said that the president lacks the legal authority to take the action without congressional approval, and 55% said Congress should challenge the executive order in court.

    That’s a problem for Democrats, who will be asked to defend the president, as they have had to do with other Obama policies, like the Affordable Care Act, that lack the support of most Americans. (me- and the more they defend him and say he had to do it, bla, bla…the more stupid they sound…he only had to wait until after the holidays)

    Another source of trouble for Democrats: The proposed Keystone XL pipeline, which is enormously popular—59% of Americans are in favor, 31% against, according to a Pew poll this month. With the project so heavily favored, the president could score an easy win by backing the pipeline, but instead he has aligned himself with the elitist, environmentalist left led by billionaire environmentalist Tom Steyer.

    Mr. Obama’s willingness to disregard the public’s wishes will hurt Mrs. Clinton in particular. The president’s former secretary of state is already struggling to forge an independent identity without disowning the president. It will be almost impossible for Mrs.Clinton to directly oppose him over the next two years, though she will certainly continue to try to distance herself from Mr. Obama, as she did during her summer book tour. But if the president continues to lose the support of Democrats and moderates—as Mrs. Clinton has—she might have no alternative but to shelve her presidential ambitions. (me- she needs to pull the band aide off fast and rescue her brand…herself)

    If she does run, Mrs. Clinton could face a challenge from liberal populist Sen. Elizabeth Warren. Mrs. Clinton has struggled to adopt a populist mantle. The challenge was nowhere more in evidence than when she appeared in Massachusetts with Ms. Warren in October, awkwardly urging the crowd: “Don’t let anybody tell you that, you know, it’s corporations and businesses that create jobs.” She later explained that the line hadn’t come out right.

    Mrs. Clinton will have to work harder than that to dispel the impression among liberal Democrats that she is, as the line goes, the “candidate from Goldman Sachs , ” having numerous ties to the institution. The threat to a Clinton campaign from a Democratic rival running to her left, as Mr. Obama did in 2008, increased last week when populist former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb announced he is setting up an exploratory committee for a 2016 presidential bid.

    Mrs. Clinton will also have to contend with her role as the architect of “HillaryCare” in the 1990s, a clear forerunner to the Affordable Care Act, which was not popular with Americans when it was passed and now has the approval of only 37%, according to a recent Gallup poll.(me – is she going to just gloss over how poorly Ocare is working and how prohibitively expensive it is becoming for the middle class??? and the poor services people receive in return?)

    It appears that Mrs. Clinton is trying to have it both ways on immigration by supporting President Obama but saying that the only lasting solution is congressional action. And on Keystone, she has been missing in action. (me – here is the big hole she is digging for herself)

    And if that weren’t enough, foreign policy—which should be a selling point for the former secretary of state—will be a minefield. The president seemingly has no coherent strategy to deal with Islamic State terrorists in Iraq and Syria, no coherent strategy for dealing with Russian President Vladimir Putin ’s bellicosity in Eastern Europe, and no coherent strategy for dealing with the Iranian nuclear program. Regardless of whatever news emerges from the Nov. 24 deadline for a nuclear deal with Iran, this story will drag on for ages, as the mullahs would prefer.

    All of these foreign-policy dead zones have roots in Mrs. Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state, when she logged hundreds of thousands of miles without alighting on any significant successes. The Republican takeover of the Senate may bring fresh attention to her role in the deadly debacle in Benghazi, Libya, with victims that included U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens.

    With President Obama now courting a constitutional crisis over his unilateral action on immigration reform, the Democratic Party is losing popularity by the day. The pressure is on Mrs. Clinton to separate herself from the partisan polarization and dysfunction in Washington while not alienating the liberal Democrats who dominate turnout in presidential primaries. She needs to distance herself from Mr. Obama without alienating his strongest supporters, but she also needs to develop a clear reason and logic for why she should be elected president—a logic that six years after she first declared her candidacy remains more elusive than ever. </b

    Barack Obama could end up beating Hillary Clinton yet again.

    Mr. Schoen, who served as a pollster for President Bill Clinton, is the author, with Melik Kaylan, of “The Russia-China Axis: The New Cold War and America’s Crisis of Leadership” (Encounter Books, 2014). Mr. Caddell served as a pollster for President Jimmy Carter .

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

    the bottom line…Hillary is creating a vacumn regarding who she is and why she wants to be President…no one (including her supporters) know where she stands or what she is going to say next…Who is Hillary in 2014?

    and for the love of all that is good…stop…stop praising him…stop tweeting praise…stop…control that impulse it is hurting HC

  • S

    this is going to be another problem for Hillary…is she going to be glib and give platitudes about this disaster or is she going to be honest and on the side of the American people

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/11/23/obamacare__the_gruber_democrats_124739.html

    Obamacare & the Gruber Democrats

    By Jack Kelly – November 23, 2014

    Only 36 percent of Americans expressed approval of Democrats in a Gallup poll Nov. 12, the lowest in the 22 years Gallup has been asking that question. Republicans were approved of by 42 percent. In Gallup’s poll 13 months ago, 43 percent had approved of Democrats, just 28 percent of the GOP.

    To understand how Democrats could fall so far so fast, consider MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, to whom the Obama administration paid $400,000 to help design Obamacare

    Prof. Gruber thinks he’s very smart, and you aren’t.

    “[Obamacare] was written in a tortured way to make sure CBO did not score the mandate as taxes. If CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies,” he said during a health care conference at the University of Pennsylvania in October of last year.

    “Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage,” Mr. Gruber said. “Call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really really critical for the thing to pass.”

    Since it was comprised of fellow liberal elitists, Mr. Gruber assumed, correctly, that his audience would chuckle appreciatively at his smackdown of the Great Unwashed. But if he were as smart as he thinks he is, he’d have remembered that most cell phones are also recording devices.

    He “spoke inappropriately” and regrets having made those comments, Mr. Gruber said after video of him making them was posted on the Internet.

    Obamacare “is a very clever basic exploitation of the lack of economic understanding of the American voter,” he said at the University of Rhode Island in November 2012.

    The Obamacare tax on high end health plans passed because “the American people are too stupid to understand the difference,” Mr. Gruber said at Washington University in St. Louis in October, 2013.

    If the Supreme Court administers the coup de grace to Obamacare by ruling the language in the statute that says subsidies may be paid only to those who buy insurance on “exchanges established by the State” means subsidies may be paid only to those who buy insurance on state exchanges, Mr. Gruber’s loose lips will be chiefly responsible.

    That provision was put in the law because Obamacare’s authors wanted to bully states to set up exchanges, Mr. Gruber said in a speech in San Francisco in January 2012.

    “What’s important to remember politically about this is if you’re a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits — but your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill,” he said. “I hope that that’s a blatant enough political reality that states will get their act together.”

    That statement undermines the administration argument that Congress intended eligible purchasers on the federal exchange to get subsidies too.

    It was a “speak-o,” Mr. Gruber said after video of those remarks surfaced. Which was a stupid lie, because shortly after he made it, videos emerged of him saying the same thing on two other occasions.

    Mr. Gruber’s contempt is misplaced. Americans were suspicious of Obamacare from the get go. That’s why Democrats had to use a parliamentary maneuver in the middle of the night to pass it.

    I used to think most Democrats in Congress who voted for it really believed they were doing something good for the poor and the middle class. Now I wonder. It’s crystal clear that just about everything President Barack Obama promised about his health plan was false, his deception deliberate. If Democrats really cared for the people harmed by the law, you’d think they’d admit their mistake, try to fix it. They haven’t.

    Perhaps they put party loyalty ahead of the welfare of their constituents, are afraid of crossing the president or are as stupid as Mr. Gruber thinks the American people are.

    I suspect it’s because Truman Democrats have been replaced by Gruber Democrats — self-styled elitists who feed lavishly at the public trough and think government should serve them, not the hoi polloi they disdain and deceive. (hillary might also consider stopping those high paid speeches)

  • gonzotx

    Hillary is a polished politician. I won’t give her the benefit of the doubt for these outrageous statements she has been putting forth.
    These are her words, no one has a gun to her head making her say ridiculous things, so apparently, she believes them.

    As my daughter would say, end of story

  • wbboei

    “It is not difficult to see why many white Americans would perceive illegal immigration as undermining their culture and the rule of law—and see Democrats as opportunists who would trash the constitution to maintain their grasp on power”

    –Peter Morici, Professor of economics and business, university of Maryland.

    Hillary has ratified Obama’s act of betrayal. It will be very hard to support her after this. It will be very easy to conclude that she does not care about the American People as a whole, cannot possibly unify the nation and is only interested in power. After the smoke clears you should expect many of her (white) former supporters to say those things, as she gears up to run and positions herself as the champion of women and minorities only.

    ——————-

    MORICI: WHITES FACE A GOVERNMENT WORKING AGAINST THEIR INTERESTS AND THEIR CHILDREN’S

    by PETER MORICI 23 Nov 2014 1926 POST A COMMENT

    President Obama’s decision to ignore the law by granting de facto amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants brought to America as children and those who are parents of children with legal status was a terribly foolish act. It will only serve to exacerbate racial tensions.

    Polls indicate the overwhelming majority of whites view illegal immigration as threatening. Many see immigrants as taking jobs from native-born Americans, pushing down wages and contributing to cultural decline.
    While many may silently harbor racial bigotry, the adverse economic consequences for whites are real and palpable.
    Illegal immigration increases the supply of low-skilled workers, and that drives down wages for less educated whites and African-Americans.

    Millions of illegals will qualify for work permits and be able to take more visible, better-paying jobs. Native born Americans will face more competition for positions paying significantly above the federal minimum. For example, those paying between the averages for the hospitality and construction industries—$17 and $25 per hour, respectively.

    Exacerbating racial tensions among highly skilled professionals, elite universities, reflecting years of pressure from the Department of Education, divide admissions along informal racial quotas, and that disadvantages white applicants.
    A group called Students for Fair Admissions has brought suit in federal court against Harvard and the University of North Carolina charging that the practice discriminates against Asians, who tend to be the best academically qualified racial group.
    If they prevail, and given the inclinations of the administration to pressure schools to admit African-Americans and Hispanics, even more white applicants would be squeezed out of top universities their antecedents founded and endowed.

    Already many academically qualified children of successful white professionals are denied access to universities of the same status their parents attended, and consequently face much diminished career and lifetime earnings prospects.
    The president’s recent actions will increase the pools of Hispanic and Asian college immigrants and applicants and further exacerbate intergenerational downward economic mobility among whites.

    Last fall, when asked if he had the authority to end the deportation of illegal aliens, Obama responded, “Actually, I don’t,” and he explained that he could not appease immigrant advocates by violating the law.

    Many Hispanics and Asians come from countries with recent histories of authoritarian governments or governments where a single party has maintained control, and national leaders simply do what populist sentiments requires—the law be damned.
    Appeasing Hispanic and Asian voters—that is exactly what president Obama did with his executive order granting de facto amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants.

    It is not difficult to see why many white Americans would perceive illegal immigration as undermining their culture and the rule of law—and see Democrats as opportunists who would trash the constitution to maintain their grasp on power.

    No one should be surprised that large majorities voted for Republican congressional candidates in November and Governor Romney in 2012.

    Given the concentration of Hispanics, Asians, and African-Americans in New York, California, and several swing states like Virginia, the Democrats have a good shot at winning most presidential elections in coming years.

    However, white voters still account for about 70 of the eligible voters, and given their particular dominance in more-sparsely populated states and the south, Republicans will likely continue to hold the House and Senate most of the time.

    Still, the Constitution does not provide white Americans with a remedy when a president bypasses congress and abuses executive power to satisfy a constituency that puts its agenda above the rule of law.

    Impeachment is not a viable option, and Republicans lawmakers face uncertain prospects at best for successfully challenging executive orders in federal court.

    Whites face a government that is explicitly working against their interests, the economic prospects of their children, and democratic processes they have spent more than 200 years defending.

    If that is not a recipe for racial animus, I don’t know what is.

    Peter Morici is an economist and business professor at the University of Maryland, and a national columnist. He tweets @pmorici1.

  • wbboei

    I should add, this is a complete turn around from 2008.

  • wbboei

    The hardest hit victims of this will be African Americans. Their presumed leaders–NAACP, Sharpton, NAACP (they’re all the same) will support this amnesty initative because it enhances their political power, and their oozing never to be staunched grievance against every white American. But the people they speak for—African Americans may eventually figure out that while this may enhance the power of these faux leaders, it undermines their own economic security, and job prospects.

    So I am back to where I was–or was getting to last night, before demon rum interceded and got me wishing on a star. Hillary will be a polarizing force, at a time when this nation needs unity and the rule of law, not crass politics. Question: what difference does it make? The policies she supports will destroy the foundations of a system which has brought freedom and prosperity to generations of Americans. Prior to this, it was arguable. Now it is crystal clear where she stands. And it is not with us.

  • wbboei

    I knew a guy who was the head of the Merrill Lynch office in Atlanta. He was an experienced broker, and he had senior people in his office who lived through the crash of 1929. He took his job seriously. Before he would speak to a client about a particular investment he might recommend, he would discipline himself to write down on a piece of paper the pros and cons of that investment, to be as sure as he could be that he was not missing something in his own thinking, and could relay them to the client for a decision.

    This is the problem with this tweeting crap. The immediate reaction you have to a major event may not be the right one. It is only when you sit back and think it through that you realize the downside risks. This is a problem for Hillary, who tends to go off half cocked at times and say things she later regrets. This blanket approval of Obama’s act of betrayal, conveyed in a tweet is a good example of what I am talking about. Her response to it should have been more nuanced. If it had been, big media would have pressed her for a yes or no answer, but that does not mean she needed to answer those sorts of questions.

  • holdthemaccountable

    A brief landing here from a self-described Twitter freak. ICYMI. (IT was published a week ago. Regret if it is a repeat.)

    NY GOP Chair: de Blasio will take 2016 nomination over Hillary
    Mayor de Blasio — not Hillary Rodham Clinton — will be the Democratic nominee for president in 2016.
    That’s the jaw-dropping prediction being made by New York’s top Republican, state GOP Chairman Ed Cox, who, as son-in-law to former President Richard Nixon, knows a thing or two about national politics. snip
    http://nypost.com/2014/11/17/gop-chairman-de-blasio-will-take-nomination-over-hillary-in-2016/

    There’s also been a suggestion that Cory Booker may “help” Mary Landrieu in the runoff. Dems have had him on a fast track since August 2013 – MLK 50th. And damn it, so far he’s still accelerating. Maybe Obama IS flushing out the older generations of Dems.

  • wbboei

    There’s also been a suggestion that Cory Booker may “help” Mary Landrieu in the runoff. Dems have had him on a fast track since August 2013 – MLK 50th. And damn it, so far he’s still accelerating. Maybe Obama IS flushing out the older generations of Dems.
    ————
    Booker will hit a wall. In Louisiana he is redundant. She already has 102% of the black voters and that is not enough. Booker comes across as Obama II. I think he could drag her down rather than boost her up. But what it does represent is an effort to give this Obama clone national exposure beyond New Jersey. However, I doubt he will have the protection of the ring like Obama has. In the future, attempts to play the race card will lead to social disorder from both sides. If you doubt it go back and re-read the Peter Morici piece above. With the unequal distribution of demographic power in the states vs the federal government, I predict that this time around, the debt ridden dysfunctional and poorly led federal government will lose.

  • wbboei

    Part of the reason I say this is political. White people are no longer represented by the federal government (see Morici). The other reason relates to “megapolitics”, wherein large organizations are on the decline, cost cutting measures are on the ascendant, and as we see in the middle east, the scale of violence has dropped from large scale armies to small scale humvies. Large organizations are hierachical, tone deaf and unresponsive to real needs. No central planner can possibly know as much about the potential benefits of a transaction as the two parties to that transaction do. With this improvident move on amnesty we have lost control of our borders, the socialization process has been thwarted, the constitution has been torn asunder and the future population over which the federal government seeks to exert control will have nothing whatsoever in common with eachother–no common heritage, no common culture, no common language, and no commitment to the rule of law. The cultures they come from have imprinted them with different software, and they will not change. The real goal of a functional immigration system beyond controlling borders, separating desireable from undesirables, is to ensure a credible socialization process. That’s gone.

  • wbboei

    I suspect it’s because Truman Democrats have been replaced by Gruber Democrats — self-styled elitists who feed lavishly at the public trough and think government should serve them, not the hoi polloi they disdain and deceive
    ——–
    Nice. And they are just that–legends in their own minds, who could not pour piss out of a boot if it had the instructions on the bottom side.

  • wbboei

    In 2008, Hillary had 26 flag rank officers supporter her candidacy including former Secretaries of the Army, Navy and Marine Corps. Obama had 1–a broken down Air Force Secretary who lasted all of 90 days, who singluar accomplishment was changing the uniforms of enlisted Airmen–which they hated, and who went out on the campaign trail with Obama. Now that Hillary is a devotee of all things Obama, I wonder whether she could garner that same level of support. I wonder if she believes in a strong military, because it is clear from Obama’s words and actions that he does not. In one sense, however, it no longer matters. Meanwhile, jerk offs like McCain and Graham are patting themselves on the back over the firing of Hagel, and missing the gravamen of what he is saying. It is an implicit repudiation of Obama, and that is why he is being fired.
    ——————-

    Hagel Unchained

    Departing Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel may have sealed his exit in this interview with Charlie Rose last week. Rose conducted the interview at the Pentagon.

    In the interview, Hagel made two key points that serve as accusations that President Barack Obama is mismanaging the United States military and the ISIS threat.

    Rose asked Hagel to elaborate on comments that he made in a speech at the Reagan Library last weekend. In that speech, Hagel said that America’s military capability, while still the best in the world, is being threatened.

    Hagel re-iterated that to Rose, but also left viewers to wonder about the direction that President Obama is taking the military.

    “I am worried about it, I am concerned about it, Chairman Dempsey is, the chiefs are, every leader of this institution,” Hagel said, including Pentagon leadership but leaving both President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden’s names out of his list of officials who are worried about the U.S. military’s declining capability. Hagel said that the Congress and the American people need to know what while the U.S. military remains the strongest, best trained and most motivated in the world, its lead is being threatened because of policies being implemented now.

    Hagel went on to note that a good leader prepares their institution for future success, saying that “the main responsibility of any leader is to prepare your institution for the future. If you don’t do that, you’ve failed. I don’t care how good you are, how smart you are, any part of your job. If you don’t prepare your institution, you’ve failed.”

    In the past couple of years, Hagel has warned that defense budget cuts implemented under President Obama were hurting readiness and capability. The “how smart you are” line may be a veiled shot at President Obama, who basks in a media image that he is a cerebral, professorial president.

    In the same interview (video on the next page), Hagel also commented on the rise of ISIS and how it must be fought. Hagel charged that Obama’s handling of the ISIS threat is now indirectly assisting Syrian dictator Bashar Assad.

    hile President Obama has downplayed the ISIS threat, even calling the group “jayvee” as it rose to power, Hagel warned last week that it is a threat unlike any other we have ever faced.

    “We’ve never seen an organization like ISIL that is so well-organized, so well-trained, so well-funded, so strategic, so brutal, so completely ruthless,” Hagel said. “We have never seen anything quite like that in one institution.

    “And then they blend in ideology — which will eventually lose, we get that — and social media. The sophistication of their social media program is something that we’ve never seen before. You blend all of that together, that is an incredibly powerful new threat.”

    http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2014/11/24/hagel-unchained-departing-defense-secretary-fire-parting-shots-in-interview-last-week/

  • moononpluto

    I see Hagel got tossed under the bus……..

    Well here is some news…..

    DNC announces finalists for 2016 convention city: NYC, Philadelphia, Columbus.

    I would imagine if they want Hillary…NY will be chosen.

  • wbboei

    If you were this Michell Forney and Obama offered you the job of Secretary of Defense, after the three predecessors went down in flames, arguing with his determination to shift military spending to social programs and leave our nation unprotected. Yes, I know, if the president asks you to serve, it is incumbent on you to accept if you are a democrat. But with this joker all you have to look forward to is a brown helmet job, and a legacy of failure. It is too late, as Richard Fernandez explains:

    “The strategic choices in 2011 (when Obama appointed Hagel) were far more abundant than they are at the end of 2014. In 2011 there were still choices. But now the crisis in the Ukraine, the unraveling Middle East, and the lack of success in Afghanistan have driven foreign policy to the point of collapse. Now there’s nothing but burned bridges behind and a broad, inviting path over a minefield ahead. The administration is on the defensive everywhere. They have utterly lost the power of initiative.

    There is little prospect that Hagel’s successor can reverse the situation, nor stabilize the rot because the root cause of the administration’s problems lies at its very top. That “new car smell” in the Defense Department will be of little avail. The man whose resignation could have made a difference was Chuck Hagel’s boss.

    http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2014/11/24/hagel-gone/#more-40574

  • moononpluto

    It will slip out before that…..

    CNN reporting that Brown family has been notified of the Grand Jury’s decision. Official announcement expected at 4pm local time/5 Eastern

  • wbboei

    The Obama trap: Hillary Clinton’s popularity drops, president’s record an albatross

    Douglas E. Schoen

    By Douglas E. Schoen, Patrick Caddell
    ·Published November 24, 2014·
    The Wall Street Journal

    Facebook29 Twitter17 livefyre27 Email Print

    Hillary Immigration Praise.jpg

    Hillary Rodham Clinton, former US Secretary of State, listens before delivering keynote remarks at the Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves summit, Friday Nov. 21, 2014 in New York. (AP Photo/Bebeto Matthews)

    clinton-2016-run-1.jpg

    Next

    President Obama ’s high-risk immigration gamble may have severe consequences for Washington, the country and the Democratic Party, most of all Hillary Clinton .

    Mrs. Clinton’s putative bid for the Democratic presidential nomination is already running into trouble. The national exit poll from the recently completed midterm elections showed her with less than a majority of voters (43%) saying she would make a good president. When pitted against an unnamed Republican candidate, Mrs. Clinton lost 40% to 34%.

    Those grim numbers followed on a September WSJ/NBC poll showing a plunge in Mrs. Clinton’s favorability rating, to 43%, from 59% in 2009.

    And that was before President Obama launched a defiant post-midterm campaign discarding political compromise and unilaterally doubling down on his unpopular policies. As a candidate, Mrs. Clinton would likely inherit a damaged party—and as a former member of his administration, she would struggle with the consequences of Mr. Obama’s go-it-alone governance.

    To continue reading Douglas E. Schoen and Patrick Caddell’s column in the Wall Street Journal, click here.

    Douglas E. Schoen has served as a pollster for President Bill Clinton. He has more than 30 years experience as a pollster and political consultant. He is also a Fox News contributor and co-host of “Fox News Insiders” Sundays on Fox News Channel and Mondays at 10:30 am ET on FoxNews.com Live. He is the author of 11 books. His latest, co-authored with Malik Kaylan is “The Russia-China Axis: The New Cold War and America’s Crisis of Leadership (Encounter Books, September 2014). Follow Doug on Twitter @DouglasESchoen.

    Patrick Caddell is a Democratic pollster and Fox News contributor. He served as pollster for President Jimmy Carter, Gary Hart, Joe Biden and others. He is a Fox News political analyst and co-host of “Political Insiders” Sundays on Fox News Channel and Mondays at 10:30 am ET on “FoxNews.com Live.”

  • wbboei

    Here is the advice Hillary is not listening to . . . It is sound advice which reflects everything admin has been saying:

    By DOUGLAS E. SCHOEN And PATRICK H. CADDELL
    Nov. 23, 2014 5:00 p.m. ET
    847 COMMENTS

    President Obama ’s high-risk immigration gamble may have severe consequences for Washington, the country and the Democratic Party, most of all Hillary Clinton .

    Mrs. Clinton’s putative bid for the Democratic presidential nomination is already running into trouble. The national exit poll from the recently completed midterm elections showed her with less than a majority of voters (43%) saying she would make a good president. When pitted against an unnamed Republican candidate, Mrs. Clinton lost 40% to 34%.

    Those grim numbers followed on a September WSJ/NBC poll showing a plunge in Mrs. Clinton’s favorability rating, to 43%, from 59% in 2009.

    And that was before President Obama launched a defiant post-midterm campaign discarding political compromise and unilaterally doubling down on his unpopular policies. As a candidate, Mrs. Clinton would likely inherit a damaged party—and as a former member of his administration, she would struggle with the consequences of Mr. Obama’s go-it-alone governance.

    The latest indication of the president’s politically damaging approach was his move on Thursday to unilaterally grant amnesty to an estimated five million illegal immigrants. A Rasmussen poll released Nov. 18 found that 53% of likely voters opposed the amnesty without congressional approval, while 34% approved. Moreover, 62% of those polled said that the president lacks the legal authority to take the action without congressional approval, and 55% said Congress should challenge the executive order in court.

    That’s a problem for Democrats, who will be asked to defend the president, as they have had to do with other Obama policies, like the Affordable Care Act, that lack the support of most Americans.

    Another source of trouble for Democrats: The proposed Keystone XL pipeline, which is enormously popular—59% of Americans are in favor, 31% against, according to a Pew poll this month. With the project so heavily favored, the president could score an easy win by backing the pipeline, but instead he has aligned himself with the elitist, environmentalist left led by billionaire environmentalist Tom Steyer.

    Mr. Obama’s willingness to disregard the public’s wishes will hurt Mrs. Clinton in particular. The president’s former secretary of state is already struggling to forge an independent identity without disowning the president. It will be almost impossible for Mrs. Clinton to directly oppose him over the next two years, though she will certainly continue to try to distance herself from Mr. Obama, as she did during her summer book tour. But if the president continues to lose the support of Democrats and moderates—as Mrs. Clinton has—she might have no alternative but to shelve her presidential ambitions.

    If she does run, Mrs. Clinton could face a challenge from liberal populist Sen. Elizabeth Warren. Mrs. Clinton has struggled to adopt a populist mantle. The challenge was nowhere more in evidence than when she appeared in Massachusetts with Ms. Warren in October, awkwardly urging the crowd: “Don’t let anybody tell you that, you know, it’s corporations and businesses that create jobs.” She later explained that the line hadn’t come out right.

    Mrs. Clinton will have to work harder than that to dispel the impression among liberal Democrats that she is, as the line goes, the “candidate from Goldman Sachs , ” having numerous ties to the institution. The threat to a Clinton campaign from a Democratic rival running to her left, as Mr. Obama did in 2008, increased last week when populist former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb announced he is setting up an exploratory committee for a 2016 presidential bid.

    Mrs. Clinton will also have to contend with her role as the architect of “HillaryCare” in the 1990s, a clear forerunner to the Affordable Care Act, which was not popular with Americans when it was passed and now has the approval of only 37%, according to a recent Gallup poll.

    It appears that Mrs. Clinton is trying to have it both ways on immigration by supporting President Obama but saying that the only lasting solution is congressional action. And on Keystone, she has been missing in action.

    And if that weren’t enough, foreign policy—which should be a selling point for the former secretary of state—will be a minefield. The president seemingly has no coherent strategy to deal with Islamic State terrorists in Iraq and Syria, no coherent strategy for dealing with Russian President Vladimir Putin ’s bellicosity in Eastern Europe, and no coherent strategy for dealing with the Iranian nuclear program. Regardless of whatever news emerges from the Nov. 24 deadline for a nuclear deal with Iran, this story will drag on for ages, as the mullahs would prefer.

    All of these foreign-policy dead zones have roots in Mrs. Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state, when she logged hundreds of thousands of miles without alighting on any significant successes. The Republican takeover of the Senate may bring fresh attention to her role in the deadly debacle in Benghazi, Libya, with victims that included U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens.

    With President Obama now courting a constitutional crisis over his unilateral action on immigration reform, the Democratic Party is losing popularity by the day. The pressure is on Mrs. Clinton to separate herself from the partisan polarization and dysfunction in Washington while not alienating the liberal Democrats who dominate turnout in presidential primaries. She needs to distance herself from Mr. Obama without alienating his strongest supporters, but she also needs to develop a clear reason and logic for why she should be elected president—a logic that six years after she first declared her candidacy remains more elusive than ever.

    Barack Obama could end up beating Hillary Clinton yet again.

    Mr. Schoen, who served as a pollster for President Bill Clinton, is the author, with Melik Kaylan, of “The Russia-China Axis: The New Cold War and America’s Crisis of Leadership” (Encounter Books, 2014). Mr. Caddell served as a pollster for President Jimmy Carter .

  • dot48

    Accepting S.O.S. was the start of the unraveling of any hope for a Hillary Clinton presidency. I said it then, I repeat it now. She accomplished NOTHING, he sent her globetrotting, all the while knowing how it woudl look for future endeavors .. Condoleeza Rice was always at President Bush’s side and you rarely saw bambi with Hillary. This was all planned out years ago. Hillary really is lost people. When you see Doug Schoen(sp) and Pat Caddell who both worship Hillary going down that path they see the writing on the wall.

    Benghazi can be glossed over…even the repub led committee says nothing was wrong. BUT tying yourself to this administration is like chaining yourself to a concrete ball and jumping off a bridge.

    You drown.

  • admin

    We’re not the only ones that saw Obama’s latest as an attack on Hillary:

    http://hotair.com/archives/2014/11/24/obama-voters-want-a-new-car-smell-in-2016/

    Obama: Voters want a new-car smell in 2016

    American voters will want a candidate in 2016, Barack Obama told George Stephanopoulos yesterday on ABC’s This Week, that “doesn’t have as much mileage as me.” They’ll want that “new-car smell” from their next president, Obama said — while ostensibly defending Hillary Clinton as a potential Democratic nominee for 2016. That’s practically the argument against Hillary, though, which Obama either doesn’t realize or doesn’t mind floating, for some reason: [snip]

    As it happens, I agree. After eight years of Obama and Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton, voters will want something very different in 2016. One cannot argue that Clinton’s four years as Secretary of State in Obama’s administration counts as a plus for her presidential ambitions while at the same time claiming that she represents significant change — especially from Obama’s disastrous foreign policy. The same “dings” that plague Obama will also plague Hillary, because she’s a big part of them.

    As for the idea that she represents a fresh start, well, it’s difficult to stifle laughter at that notion. Chris Cillizza accidentally underscores the problem in his explainer of Obama’s comments:

    Even back in 2008, Clinton had, to borrow Obama’s phrase, “some dings.” The entire reason Obama was able to reverse course and enter the race after denying interest was because of Clinton’s vote in support of the use of force resolution in Iraq — and his opposition to it (although not while a member of the Senate.) Since at least 1992, Hillary Clinton has been an active part of the national (and international) political debate. From her husband’s failed attempt to overall the health care system in the early 1990s to her decisions made as Secretary of State earlier this decade, Clinton’s record is soooooooo long.

    This is, in part, why she is such a giant favorite in a Democratic primary and, to a lesser extent, the general election in 2016. She is incredibly well known and, generally, well liked by the electorate. It feels like she has always been with us. There’s a sense of reassurance in Clinton; she has proven, over a very long period of time, that she is up to the very difficult job of being president. That sense that she can “do” the job is even more important because a majority of Americans now believe that Obama — with that relatively scant experience — is simply not up to the job.

    The flipside of that strength, however, is that Clinton will struggle to cast herself as “new” in any meaningful way. To do so would be to run against — or at least downplay — all of the experience that makes her appealing to large swaths of voters. The problem for Clinton is this: What would you be surprised or intrigued to learn about her right now? Anything? It’s hard to imagine.

    [snip]

    Besides, as Chris notes, Hillary 2016 won’t have a new car smell; it will have a distinct odor of nostalgia and heavy mileage.

    Hillary has to run as a candidate of deep and fundamental change. To do that she must be the antithesis of Obama. That is why we have been advocating for so long that she unleash unrelenting attacks on Obamaso that the public will associate her as the anti-Obama.

    Will attacks on Obama hurt Hillary? Yes, with voters that will turn on her anyway and with the Obama thugs that will attack her as Obama just did. But if Hillary wants to win the general election in 2016 (if she decides to run), not just get the nomination and lose in the general – she better take a look at our suggestions and implement them right away.

    Obama will undermine Hillary at every turn and Obama henchmen want to use Hillary as a human shield. Obama cannot be trusted. Hillary better wise up.

  • Shadowfax

    Admin, Hillary is in a pickle.

    Please point out flaws in my opinion below, I trust you.

    If Hillary directly turns on Obama himself, too soon, she will split the Dim party before the primary.

    If she attacks his policies because they were set up incorrectly, like ObamaCare a cash cow to BigPharma and the Insurance comps that hurt the American workers…she could pull it off. She could also frame the immigration fiasco that King Obola pulled, as a temporary situation until she sits down and works out a bipartisan solution with the Republican Congress.

    If she goes after the GOP exclusively, she won’t be able to say she is a person that works across the isle to break the deadlock in Congress and get the country back on it’s feet.

    Like you said, the Kooks will never vote for her, but ripping Obama directly into shreds will just split the party further in two, and have the GOP hot on her tail.

    I think it will take major diplomacy on her part to come out the winner in this dance.

  • wbboei

    Chris Cillizza: I would love to give this scumbag the Patton treatment. Grab him by the nose and kick him in the ass. He is a relentless defender of big government and Washington DC. He cannot see past the beltway. And he and his fellow maggot Dana Milbank called Hillary a bitch in 2008 in order to help Obama, and now that there is no one capable of defending the primacy of Washington he turns to Hillary, while she by mimicking Obama is confirming what he believes.

  • wbboei

    Cilezza, Milbank, the head of the IRS, this attorney general nominee, they all look like extraterrestials to me. You wonder if someone hasn’t planted a chip in their heads, because they all sound so much alike.

  • wbboei

    Like you said, the Kooks will never vote for her, but ripping Obama directly into shreds will just split the party further in two, and have the GOP hot on her tail.
    ————-
    This is the choice that so many are telling us she must face:

    To support Obama or to attack him.

    That is a false choice.

    It would as you suggest leave her paralyzed.

    The real choice is based on policy differences.

    That is where she needs to make her mark.

    When Obama advocates policy X and X is proven not to work

    Rather than double down on X or

    Rather than tinkering around the edges of X

    Advocate a different policy Y—which may incorporate the spirit of X but not the substance.

    As a matter of fact, go big, like Gingrich did in 1994 with the contract with America

    In other words, develop a grand strategy of her own

    And make sure that grand strategy is geared to the interest of main street not wall street

    If she plans to run, she needs to move in that direction quickly and decisively.

    As Hillary is no Cyd Charisse, I would rather rely on her political acumen than her moves on the dance floor.

  • wbboei

    Mind you I am not saying that is enough to seal the deal. All I am suggesting is that she is dug in now and afraid to move in any direction. It is not unlike the problem of the trenches in World War I, when the defensive trumped to offensive. The missing element was mobility—and it took tanks, and other weapons of war to restore mobility and along with it, the offensive. It would not seal the deal. But it would be a gaff free step in the right direction–for a change.

  • gonzotx

    Black_Saint

    We needed a bigger-than-life President – we got …..A Radical Left wing Chicago thug. that organized mob of takers to blackmail the makers that has been surrounded and tutored by American hating racists, terrorist and Marxist all of his life!

    We needed a well-grounded stable President – we got a certifiable narcissist.

    We needed bold leadership – we got a teleprompter

    We needed a seasoned hand – we got a hand in in our pockets

    We needed a champion for American citizens… We got hate for the Makers and a champion for the Takers and love for the uneducated horde of invading Welfare Takers!

    We needed a skilled bridge builder – we got a class-warfare specialist and inciter-in-chief.

    We needed practical, proven policies – we got socialist dogma and monumental waste nd rampant corruption.

    We needed an inspirational visionary – we got an ideologically blinded, left learning-impaired radical.

    We needed a Constitutional champion – we got a domestic enemy of the Constitution.

    We needed a restrained, respected and intimidating warrior – we got groveling, bowing, Barney Fife

    We needed a patriot – we got G. D. America, G. D. America, G. D. America.

    We needed someone to unshackle our economy – we got someone who is a friend to our enemies and an enemy to our businesses

    We needed a president beyond color – we got a green president embracing every whim and myth ever spoken by the kook environmental fringe.

    We needed mature, principled leadership – we got a narcissist, petulant, lying, whining, blaming, sulking, accusing, excusing, lazy, cowardly, despicable, man-child.

    It is a national disgrace that someone this Lazy, this Incompetent, this Corrupt, this Racist, could be elected to the office of the Presidency.

  • gonzotx

    Obama’s Incoherent Explanation for Chuck Hagel’s Departure
    By Joel Gehrke

    November 24, 2014 4:41 PM

    President Obama’s team is suggesting that Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel had to go because he doesn’t have the skill set to run the military during such turbulent times.

    “When Secretary Hagel was first nominated for this job . . . the threat that was posed by ISIL was not nearly as significant as it is now,” White House press secretary Josh Earnest said, per the Daily Mail.

    You might infer from that statement that Hagel’s dovish leanings and his intention of overseeing the downsizing of the Pentagon budget and avoiding another war made Obama think that he’s not equipped to handle the Islamic State.

    And yet, on Hagel’s most notable disagreement with Obama, Hagel was right and the president was wrong.

    “He at one point called ISIS an ‘imminent threat to every interest we have,’ contradicting the President’s comments just months before that the group was simply ‘junior varsity,’” as CNN noted.

    And now, the White House is using the fact that the Islamic State is definitely not a JV team to justify Hagel’s ouster. “Another secretary might be better suited to meet those challenges,” as Earnest put it.​

  • Shadowfax

    wbboei
    November 24, 2014 at 4:37 pm

    I agree.

  • Lu4PUMA

    Hategel is not the only one touched by Obola, Horseface is taking a beating, too, reaching new lows in diplomacy

    http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/John-Kerry-nuclear-talks-Iran/2014/11/24/id/609218/

  • wbboei

    Oh beware beware of the tyrants there
    In the countries across the sea
    Better get control of the Kerry Kerry bird*
    On top of the divi divi tree
    (*Note: a Kerry Kerry bird is a cuckoo bird with a degree from Harvard, and a membership in the secret Skull and Bones Society)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7AK5UqjZAk

  • Lu4PUMA

    Obola is in total meltdown, spitting in the face of the Legislature, plainly provoking them to do something about it, firing Hategel and sending Horseface to Iran for verbal sodomizing. And then he finds the time to spit darts at HC.

    It’s a good thing we have Ferguson for light conversation.

  • wbboei

    One minute.

  • wbboei

    This confirms the suspicions many of us have had the Boehner is a Quisiling. Same with Mitch. They wanted amnesty just as much as Obama did. Boeher was worried however that conservatives would revolt if this was done prior to the election. What he was keen on protecting were RINOS, and defeating conservative candidates. So he asked Obama to wait until after the election, which he did. Boehner denies this, and it is Jarrett is the one accusing Boehner of this. But for once in her life Jarrett is telling the truth, because this is exactly the kind of thing Boehner (and McConnell) would do to tunnel under on their base. The way they intend to do this is by passing an omnibus spending bill, and then coming back after they take control of Congress, and pass legislation to defund the amnesty project, which Obama will veto and then Boehner and McConnell can turn to their constitutents and say we fought the good fight, but until we have the White House and Congress, there is nothing we can do. To which I say to both of them: are you really that stupid, or do you just think we are.
    ————–

    House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) requested that President Barack Obama avoid making a “very public push” on immigration during the midterm primaries, according to White House Senior Adviser Valerie Jarrett.

    Speaking to the Chicago Sun-Times’ Washington Bureau Chief, Lynn Sweet, Jarrett claimed that the Speaker asked Obama to wait until after the primaries to publicly move with the immigration issue.

    As Sweet notes, the immigration issue during the primaries could have served to make fending off conservative challenges — a la the defeat of Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) at the hands of David Brat, who made immigration an issue in his campaign — more difficult.

    “Initially (Boehner) encouraged the president to hold off on a very public push until after the primary season of the midterms, and the president did that,” Sweet quoted Jarrett.

    “And after the primary season, the president said, he called again on the House to pass legislation, and the Speaker didn’t call it up, and the president said he wanted it done by the end of the summer, and the Speaker did not call it up, and then the president decided to wait until the end of the year, and after the election the Speaker made it clear he would not be calling it up,” Jarrett continued.

    Jarrett reiterated her contention when asked for more detail about Boehner’s request to avoid a “public push”.
    “He said ‘Look, let’s not make this a part of the mid-term primary campaign, let’s just try to, ‘Give me a little time and space to get this done,’ I think was the broader message the Speaker gave to the president. And so the president did hold off,” Jarrett said.

    To be sure Jarrett — one of Obama’s closest advisors — is no unbiased narrator in this story.

    Obama recently announced his long anticipated, controversial executive amnesty and has used the Speaker and House Republicans as the proverbial villains who forced him to act unilaterally on immigration, given their failure to pass the bill he wanted. Many have speculated that Obama’s timing has also been intended to spur further division in GOP.

    Jarrett’s claim would, however, fit the narrative of the more conservative wing of the party which sees Boehner through a skeptical lens, especially on the issue of immigration.

    Michael Steel, a spokesman for Boehner, said House passage of the Senate Gang of Eight bill wasn’t on the table.
    “The Speaker told the President that his unilateral actions to alter his healthcare law undermined the American people’s faith that he would implement any law as written. He also made it clear that any action on immigration would be done in a step-by-step, common-sense manner – nothing like the Senate ‘Gang’s’ legislation,” Steel said.

  • Southern Born

    No indictment by grand jury of Officer Wilson in regard to the killing of Michael Brown in St. Louis

  • wbboei

    Did you see where the police officer has agreed to give an interview to George Step and Fetch It.

    I am sure he was offered $100,000 and a chance to “tell his side of the story”.

    How stupid can you get.

    Step and Fetch It will ask him all these have you stopped beating your wife questions.

    Anyway you answer such questions you lose.

    Big media is determined to foment a riot, and if they don’t get it now, they will try to get it through this interview.

    I saw the New York Times do this in the so called Battle of Seattle, and seeing is believing.

    Plus, Step and Fetch it is such a depraved slimeball that this will be a set-up.

    Nothing good can come with this sort of encounter.

  • wbboei

    It’s a good thing we have Ferguson for light conversation.
    ————
    He did not get what he wanted there either. A big ugly race riots which he could mediate in front of the cameras. I am thinking about that presidential library. A big building with nothing inside.

  • admin

    This new era of racial harmony ushered in by Barack is great isn’t it?

  • jbstonesfan

    Very unsettling evening. Each network with their own agenda and directly or indirectly flaming the fire. Our nation is in serious trouble.

  • gonzotx

    Thugs are us..just thugs taking an opportunity to steal and destroy, compliments of the Fraud and Holder

    Can you imagine MLK, what he would say. .

  • gonzotx

    Wbb,
    I agree, don’t understand why the police officer would agree to the set up.

  • Southern Born

    Exactly, Administrator. It is so sad to see what has happened especially for those of us who live near St. Louis.

  • Southern Born

    Businesses set on fire, looting of several businesses, windows broken in businesses, police car or cars on fire, Interstate 44 shut down by protesters, tear gas, shots fired, bricks, rocks, bottles thrown. It’s a sad night in St. Louis.

  • wbboei

    Wbb,
    I agree, don’t understand why the police officer would agree to the set up.
    ——–
    I don’t know why he agreed to it either, other than what I said.

  • wbboei

    Businesses set on fire, looting of several businesses, windows broken in businesses, police car or cars on fire, Interstate 44 shut down by protesters, tear gas, shots fired, bricks, rocks, bottles thrown. It’s a sad night in St. Louis.
    —————–
    I am glad to see the “freedom fighters” are taking it all in stride.

    John Lewis, Elija Cummings, Bill Ayers, Jessee Jackson, Ben Jealous, Eric Holder, are with them.

    Tomorrow they will appear on all the big media morning shows for a not so insignificant fee.

    And they will decry white man’s justice, say we are a nation of cowards who refuse to have an honest discussion about race, and tell us how nothing has really changed in the past 150 years.

    This is how they make their living–through extortion.

    And the biggest race hustler of all is Obama, who pays others to do it, while claiming plausible deniability.

  • Shadowfax

    Stay safe SouthernBorn.

    These things always happen and end up hurting innocent people. California has had many and it never makes things better.

  • wbboei

    Businesses set on fire, looting of several businesses, windows broken in businesses, police car or cars on fire, Interstate 44 shut down by protesters, tear gas, shots fired, bricks, rocks, bottles thrown. It’s a sad night in St. Louis.
    —————————-
    Tak’n one consideration for another
    A policeman’s lot is not a happy one.
    Happy one.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4buHqmedJRE

  • wbboei

    Shadowfax
    November 25, 2014 at 12:27 am
    Stay safe SouthernBorn.

    These things always happen and end up hurting innocent people. California has had many and it never makes things better.
    ————
    The thing I most regret about this rioting looting and violence is

    It gives the racebaiter in chief Obama an excuse to deliver another mawkish speech.

    Which nobody outside the beltway will pay any attention to—least of all the looters.

    He gives the American People no respect, and they are repaying him now in kind.

    Obama man has no credibility beyond the beltway.

    The nation sees him as a dictator–who rides roughshod over the constitution and civil liberties.

    The world sees his as a joke–a portrait of world super power in decline.

    So why should a man with an axe breaking the windows of a McDonalds hamburger joint pay heed to what Obama says.

    Unless as a matter of professional courtesy—as in one law breaker to another.

  • moononpluto

    Why are we putting up with looting and violence shit. Deal with these morons. Total waste of oxygen that most them are.

  • wbboei
    November 24, 2014 at 10:06 pm

    It’s a good thing we have Ferguson for light conversation.
    ————
    He did not get what he wanted there either. A big ugly race riots which he could mediate in front of the cameras. I am thinking about that presidential library. A big building with nothing inside.
    _____________________

    Not to worry Wbboei
    His Big Ego will fill it up. 😆

  • moononpluto
    November 25, 2014 at 2:31 am

    Why are we putting up with looting and violence shit. Deal with these morons. Total waste of oxygen that most them are.
    _______________________
    Amen Moon the Law must be obeyed by everyone, 😡

  • Southern Born

    FOX News had on the Republican Missouri Lt. Governor criticizing the Democratic Missouri Governor. Politics as usual.

  • S

    Is Hillary listening and paying attention? the American people do not like this BS

    Is she going to be part of this and follow O or seperate herself and stand with the people???

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/poll-obama-pays-the-price-of-a-unilateral-presidency/article/2556629

    Poll: Obama pays the price of a unilateral presidency

    A new Quinnipiac poll shows broad public dissatisfaction with President Obama and his legacy achievements. Just 39 percent of those surveyed approve of Obama’s performance in office, while 54 percent disapprove. Just 40 percent approve of the Affordable Care Act, while 54 percent disapprove. And just 45 percent approve of the president’s recent executive action on immigration, while 48 percent disapprove.

    There is a theme running through the numbers, and it is that unilateral action, whether by the president himself (immigration), or by a single political party (Obamacare), alienates a significant part of the electorate, including independents, and makes it hard for a leader to win the support of a majority of the American people.

    The survey, of 1,623 registered voters, contains other revealing numbers. As far as Obama’s approval is concerned, there is more evidence of a continuing Democratic gender gap problem: just 32 percent of men approve of Obama’s performance, while 45 percent of women do.

    As far as Obamacare is concerned, the survey is bad news for Democrats who argue that, whatever the public’s misgivings about the law, more people want it to stay in place than repeal it. In the Quinnipiac poll, 48 percent say they want Congress to try to repeal Obamacare, while 46 percent want Congress to let it stand.

    And on immigration, Obama’s action received majority support only from Democrats (74 percent of whom approve). Just 40 percent of independents, and 20 percent of Republicans, support the president going it alone. The unilateral presidency is not a popular one.

    The poll had a margin or error of plus or minus 2.4 percentage points.

  • wbboei

    His Big Ego will fill it up. 😆
    ——-
    Then they need to issue barf bags for anyone foolish enough to enter.

  • wbboei

    Everybody has been saying that the RINOs must respond to this violation of the Constitution. Only secretly we learn that McConnell and Boehner intend to accept this illegal act as a fait a compli, and set up a punch and judy routine where they pass an ominbus spending bill covering everything including this illegal amnesty for five million, then come back after they take power, scream about how they will not stand for this blatant violation of our most sacred political document, pass legislation to defund it, so that he can veto the legislation in which case it stands and they can claim to the ignoranti we fought the good fight but we will never be able to keep our promise to stop the other party until you give us complete control of government meaning the White House in 2016. What they do not tell you, is they will break their promises then as well, if it benefits their contributors. We know by now the democrat party is corrupt to the core and is working against the interests of white people. What we must also realize however is that so long as the Republican Party is lead by castrade RINOs like McConnell and Boehner it will not save the country either. The best you can say is it will take them longer than the democrats to complete its destruction. Napoleon said it best and it applies in spades to the Republican Party: an army of lions led by a stag (or in this case, a pair of self interested castrades out to line their own pockets) is not an army of lions.

    Without intended to help us, Val Jar actually has. This revelation of hers, that Boehner secretly told Obama to delay his immigration push, and presumably although this part is not entirely clear his executive order on amnesty, so establishment republicans could defeat conservative challenges, has Boehner actively conspiring with Satan to undermine his own base. It coincides closely with the over actions by the Republican Machine in Mississippi to defeat the conservative challenger to the senile RINO adulterer Cochrane, by distributing walk around money to blacks and waiving the white sheet in their faces, to get them to voter for the senile adulterer and thereby defeat the conservative.

    Politics as usual? Perhaps. We saw the same thing I suppose when that pig Brazille conspired with the hated Rove to defeat Hillary. But here there is a fundamental difference. Rove never admitted that he has secretly conspired with the pig. In this case however, the other black pig, Jarrett, has admitted on the record that Boehner conspired against his own party.

    In any kind of negotiation, the parties have their bargaining position. The purpose of a bargaining position is to show institutional strength, and commitment their goals. The purpose is to show their constituents, their opponent and the media that they are serious. But as a legendary Las Vegas gambler Bart Stupak used to say he wanted the action because without action nothing moves. Therefore, in due course they must move beyond their initial position, through a dance of the seven veils to agreement and move their constituents along with them. The time honored way to do this is through off the record meetings. The purpose of those meetings is to find out what each side needs to have in order to agree, whether a hypothetical agreement can be reached at that sitting, and if so how to get there, as in you do this, then I will do that, etc.

    The key to this, however, is secrecy. The details of this off the record meeting, as well as the meeting itself must be held in strictest confidence. If this information is disclosed to the public by one party, then the other party will suffer reprisals and a loss of confidence in his own ranks. They will question his motives and think he is selling them out. Hence, this off the record meeting must be neutral in all respects.

    Conclusion: when Obama authorized Jarrett to disclose to the media that Boehner secretly begged Obama to not push the anmensty initiative until after the election, so conservatives could be defeated in the primary, Obama sewed the seeds of civil war in the Republican camp by confirming everything conservatives believed was true about him–a sell out artist. But in another sense, Obama violated the norms of good faith negotiation: he bombed Switzerland. This will make it more difficult to reach a bi partisan accord, because the RINOs will have a knife at their back as never before. One can only speculate as to whether this will also result in more executive orders and a determination by those leaders to finally do something about it.

  • wbboei

    Yes Obama has bombed Switzerland and he has exposed the RINO for what he is.

    But the bellweather will be who gets the chairmanships.

    And when it comes to doing everything possible to fight this illegal amnesty initiative, the pivotal appointment by McConnell will the Senate Budget Committee.

    There are two contenders for that position: Jeff Sessions (R-Al) and Mike Enzi (R-Wy).

    Both are conservatives, but as between the two of them, only one will stand up to the capitulaor McConnell.

    “Senator Sessions has a track record of real success, as ranking member of the Judiciary Committee and now the Budget Committee. In 2007 and 2013, his relentless opposition — including floor speeches, reports, and other acts of public and private advocacy — played a central role in defeating so-called comprehensive immigration reform. On the Judiciary Committee, he mustered substantial opposition to President Obama’s Supreme Court nominees, something predecessors had not managed to do in similar circumstances.

    He has done an exceptional job on budget issues, explaining complicated fiscal matters to voters and colleagues. In particular, Sessions unremittingly attacked his Democratic counterparts on the Budget Committee for not writing or releasing a budget on their own, as the law required. After more than 1,000 days of lassitude, Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA)0% finally relented: Sessions forced the party of tax increases and debt accumulation to go on record as such by passing a budget resolution. The senator has also made a priority of welfare reform, applying research and rhetoric to push for conservative, work-focused approaches to social spending.”

    So, as I say, if you wish to know how blows the wind for the next two years, take a good hard look at who McConnell appoints as Senate Budget Committee Chairman. If he had his druthers, I have no doubt he would appoint Enzi, who is more subject to manipulation. But with all the promises McConnell has made to stop Obama, and with the revelation of his scheme to tunnel under on his base, and with strong conservative opposition to him in the caucus, he may appoint Sessions. If he does that, then Obama will not run unopposed like a free range chicken for the next two years.

    If you want a better analysis of this, see: http://www.redstate.com/2014/11/25/jeff-sessions-budget-committee-chair/

  • wbboei

    Gone is the romance that was so divine
    Its broken and cannot be mended . . . Irving Berlin
    This must be most disheartening
    To those who bought the meme of
    A race baiting post racial president
    Except for big media who loves the action
    Burn baby burn–they do not want to report
    They want to instigate
    They want to be part of the story
    If the police did this, it would be called entrapment.
    If you were a legal aid lawyer forced to defend one of those thugs
    You might be tempted to argue that big media made me do it

    —————-

    THE FLAMES OF FERGUSON ILLUMINATE THE AGE OF OBAMA

    Christian Adams, former Deputy Attorney General Civil Rights Division

    When history remembers the Obama administration, the flames of Ferguson will light up our memories. It wasn’t just an AutoZone and Jade Nails burning up in the fires of Ferguson, it was also the “Hope” of 2008 going up in smoke.

    Instead of hope, the age of Obama has been characterized by racial division and discord.

    Obama and Holder commanded the police to behave themselves. The police behaved, and look what happened.

    Last week, members of the New Black Panther Party were arrested by state officials for plotting to use pipe bombs against the St. Louis Gateway Arch and for purchasing guns in a plot to kill as many policemen as possible.

    Notice it was state officials who made the arrests. The Washington Times had a no-longer-surprising quote from an Obama administration official characterizing the plot to blow up the arch and kill (presumably) white police officers as “not a serious threat.”

    Why do avoidable subplots involving the New Black Panthers keep shadowing this president? From the time he marched with them in Selma in 2007, to this past weekend, there has been a strange ambivalence toward their racially soaked radicalism.

    Why would an administration official say anything to downplay a gun and bomb charge against New Black Panthers? Better yet, why didn’t the Justice Department bring their own domestic terrorism charges against these New Black Panthers?

    Critics will say all these questions about the administration coddling the New Black Panther Party are getting old and tiresome, and I wholeheartedly agree.

    Obama and Holder stoked division, strife and anger in Ferguson, culminating in last night’s violence.

    Sure, President Obama called for calm in Ferguson. But that was after the damage was done. Calls for calm came after Attorney General Eric Holder tripped the time bomb during his visit to Ferguson by meeting with activists and agitators and assuring them the administration was on their side against the police.

    When Holder complained about the police, when Obama talked about problems with policing in the United States, everyone understood the administration’s loyalties.

    President Obama’s call for calm in Ferguson provided the administration deniability that the administration bore any responsibility for the riots, even after Holder flooded the zone with swarms of FBI agents and Civil Rights Division lawyers to investigate the police.

    The Obama administration led their legions to believe that if Officer Wilson was not charged, it was due to racial injustice, racial injustice Obama would help remedy one way or another. Holder and Obama made the protesters think their cause was just and correct.

    It was no accident that President Obama named Vanita Gupta acting head of the Civil Rights Division weeks ago. Gupta is beloved by the radical left for her militant hostility toward law enforcement officers. It’s why another Justice Department lawyer, Karla Dobinski, who illegally railroaded police officers in Louisiana, still hasn’t been fired.

    Today, Holder announced that a federal criminal investigation will be ongoing. Holder is barely telling the truth.

    Here’s some news that I suspect the mainstream media will ignore. My sources familiar with what is happening on the ground in Ferguson say DOJ Criminal Section lawyers have been encamped in Missouri. Nevertheless, sources familiar with the federal process say federal charges are very unlikely due to lack of evidence of a crime by Officer Darren Wilson.

    Yet Holder will maintain the charade that federal civil rights charges might yet come.

    Maintaining the pretense of an expensive investigation, too, is another dual message. Just like calling for calm while stoking the protests, prolonging the promise of a federal indictment against Officer Wilson keeps the folks energized on the side of the administration. Obama will use their anger, for example, to implement anti-police policies at the Justice Department while he outlasts the short memories of the protesters.

    After all, the folks firebombing the AutoZone probably don’t spend much time watching cable news.

    Capture

    This is the same game Holder has played with George Zimmerman the last two years. Activists, like the New Black Panthers, hold out hope that Zimmerman will eventually face federal civil rights charges. Meanwhile, sources with direct knowledge have told me that FBI agents have repeatedly told FBI Director James Comey and Attorney General Eric Holder that there is no federal civil rights case to be made against Zimmerman.

    But the phony Zimmerman “investigation” rolls on. Karla Dobinski’s Criminal Section at DOJ is still trolling for tips at Sanford.Florida@usdoj.gov.

    So why doesn’t Holder announce the Zimmerman case is closed? The answer is obvious, and the same sick storyline may play out in Ferguson.

    When the mob thinks Obama is on the mob’s side, the mob will be on the side of Obama. This is a president schooled in the art of flexing left-wing mob muscle. For decades, mobs have been useful to Obama’s cause of fundamental transformation.

    Consider a 1988 mob in Chicago. Obama, according to Stanly Kurtz in his book Radical in Chief, was deeply involved in a group called UNO that “favored civil disobedience and tactics that went to extremes.” In a demonstration that Obama helped plan, a mob of one-hundred activists burst into a private boardroom where bank officials were discussing plans to develop a landfill with Waste Management Corporation. Obama and his UNO gang delivered their message of opposition and intimidation

    When Eric Holder was at Columbia, Holder helped a mob take over the Navy ROTC office until the demand was met that it be renamed the “Malcom-X lounge.”

    Michelle Obama, dressed all in black, helped a mob take over the dean’s office at Harvard Law School to demand that the administration hire professors on the basis of race.

    Mobs, to these people, are sometimes seen as partners, not threats.

    On cue, the so-called civil rights groups like the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights sent out press releases blaming the police, not the rioters. Barbara Arnwine, like Holder, blames the police:

    The decision not to indict “raises serious questions about how communities of color nationwide are treated by our criminal justice system. We call upon elected officials and law enforcement to raises serious questions about how communities of color nationwide are treated by our criminal justice system. We call upon elected officials and law enforcement to establish policies and procedures that will put an end to bias against people of color. Police brutality, especially against minority communities, is a national crisis and requires a national response.

    Arnwine and all of the other racially motivated agitators can’t subscribe to the post-racial hope Obama offered the nation in 2008. A nation divided along racial lines pays Arwine’s salary and provides power to those seeking to divide Americans.

  • Shadowfax

    FERGUSON, Mo. (AP) — Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon says more than 2,200 National Guardsmen will be in place in the region near Ferguson on Tuesday night in the event of more violence.

  • Shadowfax

    Brown’s step dad, low hanging pants and exposed boxers and all, eggs on the hot tempered protestors-

    After a grand jury decision not to indict Officer Wilson, cameras captured the fiery reaction of Brown’s mom and stepdad.

    http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/us/2014/11/25/bts-crump-reaction-brown-family-video.cnn.html

  • Lu4PUMA

    From what I have read, it was Brown’s Step-father who called for the violence and Mom played the drama. The Father had been on TV advocating non-violence. I guess we know how who taught MB to be a thug.

  • Lu4PUMA

    Oh no! Ferguson has Obola! He is going to spew again!

  • wbboei

    Obama makes a mockery of our system, contradicts what he said before and he insults our intelligence every time he speaks.

    Anyone who supports him, supports the destruction of our system.

    Or else they are more oblivious than the cartoon character Mr. Magoo.

    This goes especially for the rubes who voted for him, and still display his bumper stickers on their vehicles.

    It also applies to big media who is corrupt to the core, as Sharyl’s expose reveals in the starkest terms.

    ———————–

    The Ferguson verdict is in: No indictment.

    The people who deserve the most sympathy in Ferguson are the parents of Michael Brown who lost their son. That makes them the biggest losers and I mean that in a sympathetic way.

    The second biggest loser in Ferguson is the liberal media which flocked to the scene and stoked racial bias. Now that the facts are in, they look like complete fools. I mean that in a non-sympathetic way.

    The third biggest loser in Ferguson is President Obama who made a hasty statement on the situation which opened with these words:

    First and foremost, we are a nation built on the rule of law.

    We are? Really?

    (From the LegalInsurrection blog)

  • gonzotx

    Oh God the fraud is droning on and on, about Ferguson. ..so sad the white man didn’t get indicted.

    By all means, he is going to send Holder out to all the states, Federal investigation still on going.

    well, he is as responsible for this BS. I’m surprised he didn’t tell us ” If I had Stepson”…

    “We have to agree with it”, even if we don’t agree with it”..wink, wink…

  • wbboei

    Gonzo: his power is in decline and his legacy is being sealed with every new lie he speaks. His staunchest supporter–and co- conspirator big media finds itself drowning in his horses of the Aegean stable of lies and deceit writ large. They are going down together just as surely as he is. It is too late for them to abandon this sinking ship. Down down down they go to the bottom of Davey Jones locker with no one to keep them company and tune in to their propaganda but stone crabs, octapuses and lamprey eels.

  • wbboei

    The second biggest loser in Ferguson is the liberal media which flocked to the scene and stoked racial bias. Now that the facts are in, they look like complete fools. I mean that in a non-sympathetic way.

    The third biggest loser in Ferguson is President Obama who made a hasty statement on the situation which opened with these words:

    ———————–
    Which is why they are the ones screaming the loudest.

    Just remember what Christian Adams said:

    ” So why doesn’t Holder announce the Zimmerman case is closed?

    The answer is obvious, and the same sick storyline may play out in Ferguson.

    When the mob thinks Obama is on the mob’s side, the mob will be on the side of Obama. This is a president schooled in the art of flexing left-wing mob muscle. For decades, mobs have been useful to Obama’s cause of fundamental transformation.”

    Bottom line? Obama and big media gave the rioters tacit approval for the rioting which they now pretend to condemn.

    What we have here is a race based protection racket, no different from what the Mafia does.

  • admin

    NEW ARTICLE IS UP.

  • […] many discussions about the white working class, including our most recent one, have emphasized that a focus on the interests of the white working class force the party to not […]