Immigration, Immigration, Immigration – The Lawsuit Today

Update II: Gay marriage? The Supreme Court will take up the issue of gay marriage. So what does this have to do with immigration? For that matter what does this have to do with ObamaCare? Noah Rothman makes a case for The Supreme Court’s possible gay marriage gift to the GOP in 2016. It’s mostly a “take the issue off the table” argument.

But we think the gift to the GOP and Obama opponents is much much bigger. We think another chess piece has just been moved. We’ve discussed Supreme Court chess when it comes to ObamaCare before. We wrote “Now the Supreme Court will move against ObamaCare before the 2016 election and safely after the 2014 elections.” Chief Justice John Roberts wants to protect the court and this desire hurt ObamaCare opponents in the first court decision (which came in June of election year 2012) but works against ObamaCare now that the high court will be protected from election year attacks.

So why do we think that this weirdly timed gay marriage case is to be heard this term with a decision likely in June as a boon to the GOP? Try this: Chief Justice Roberts would love to rule in favor of gay marriage at the same time he rules against ObamaCare subsidies and Obama’s illegal illegal immigration diktat. This way the Supreme Court gets praise (on gay marriage) and attack (on ObamaCare and illegal immigration) from the left and praise (on illegal immigration and ObamaCare subsidies) and attack (on gay marriage) from the right. Positioned right on the center of the political chessboard and protected from attacks is just where the Roberts Supreme Court wants to be.


Update: As our main article notes, the courts will have to intervene because the Republicans can’t or won’t fight Obama’s illegal illegal immigration diktat. The latest tell-all clue comes from Mitch McConnell to conservatives: We’ll do our best to stop Obama’s executive amnesty but don’t expect miracles, okay? The good news in all this? At least Mitch did not have James Taylor sing “I Surrender Dear”.


The immigration struggles hit Europe in its Paris heartland and the next elections will see a rightward shift on the continent. In America, immigration has been a big issue too and getting bigger. Yesterday, Republican/conservative website HotAir mocked as futile Kabuki posturing the Republican House votes to undo Obama’s executive amnesties as part of new funding bill for Homeland Security.

Well, it’s not entirely a Kabuki performance – maybe more a dress rehearsal for the show that tops the bill: the courts. The Republican controlled House went on the record with its vote and that can only help the real immigration fight WHICH TAKES PLACE TODAY.

What do we think is going to happen? We believe the district court will rule with the plaintiffs. Then upon appeal the 9th5th circuit will overturn the district court. This then sets up the same circumstances we discussed as to the ObamaCare Halbig cases – the plaintiff states will reject an en banc appeal and instead go directly to the Supreme Court. Ordinarily the Supreme Court would side with the 9th 5th Circuit and defer to the government and Obama but Obama’s imperial rule will force the Supreme Court to side with the plaintiff states and clip Obama’s wings on immigration (as well as on ObamaCare). That’s our best prognostication – we are sure others will disagree and they will walk down the street with their umbrellas open as we stroll on the sunny side.

We wrote about and posted the Lawsuit Against Obama’s Illegal Illegal Immigration Executive Diktat when it was filed on December 4, 2014. The lawsuit specifically targeted Obama’s illegal executive overreach and unconstitutional power play not the issue of immigration itself. Today the action moves to the courtroom.

To recap, several states which now add up to 25 filed on December 4, 2014 a lawsuit targeting Obama’s imposition of a change in immigration law via executive orders and departmental policy changes. The states seek injunctive relief and believe they satisfy the three prong test for such relief. On December 24, 2014 the government filed its response (which can be read in PDF form HERE) to the lawsuit.

On Sunday, January 11, 2015 the plaintiff’s filed a detailed brief of the damage Obama’s amnesty inflicts on their finances. To counter the claim of standing with citation of damages to them by the 24 state plaintiffs, on Tuesday twelve states and the District of Columbia filed an amicus curiae brief with the court (pdf file is HERE) claiming Obama’s imperial overreach does not harm them but is wonderful and profitable.

Today, all these filings land in a courtroom in Texas:

Obama amnesty to impose billions in costs on states, lawsuit alleges

25 states detail financial burdens resulting from non-deportation order in lawsuit

President Obama’s new deportation amnesty will impose “billions of dollars in costs” on states, they told a federal court this week — including more than $130 for each Texas driver’s license issued to illegal immigrants under the policy.

More than 1,100 pages of documents submitted by Texas and two dozen other states suing to stop the amnesty detail the costs in depth, and include sworn affidavits from state officials, federal immigration officers and others arguing that the amnesty will increase illegal immigration, leaving the states with even bigger burdens.

Wisconsin said the illegal immigrants granted amnesty would be eligible to apply for concealed weapons permits at a cost to state taxpayers. Indiana said it will end up paying unemployment benefits to the illegal immigrants. And in Texas, officials said they’ll have to hire more than 100 new employees to process hundreds of thousands of driver’s license applications, with state taxpayers shelling out more than $130 per applicant.

The states will lose money,” Texas, which is leading the lawsuit, told Judge Andrew Hanen in legal papers.

These cases typically founder on the question of standing. It’s why two days before today’s hearing there was a scramble by the twelve states saying all is well and wonderful. Mocked by many, the Texas led case appears to meet the question of standing:

The case turns on two key factors: first, whether Texas and the 24 other states that have joined the lawsuit can show they or their residents stand to suffer from the president’s policies; and second, whether Mr. Obama’s actions go beyond case-by-case discretion and tread on Congress‘ power to write laws and set policy.

Texas and its fellow states argue the licenses and other benefits prove they will suffer, which means they have “standing” to sue in court.

They also painted a compelling picture of the program as a rubber-stamp rather than the careful case-by-case decisions the Obama administration claims.

Texas says a 95 percent approval rate for applicants for the existing amnesty for so-called Dreamers shows the program is a rubber stamp. The state even filed an affidavit to that effect from Kenneth Palinkas, head of the labor union of officers who process the applications.

Leadership has intentionally stopped proper screening and enforcement and, in so doing, it has guaranteed that applications will be rubber-stamped for approval, a practice that virtually guarantees widespread fraud and places public safety at risk,” Mr. Palinkas said.

As with ObamaCare, the government argument is somewhat topsy-turvey:

Texas also says the administration has repeatedly hurt its own case with the way it’s gone about attacking states that have cracked down on illegal immigration, while trying to make its own amnesty programs as generous as possible.

In one instance, the administration argues that states don’t have to issue driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants — thus saying there’s no financial burden to states from the amnesty. But the administration is currently arguing in another case out of Arizona that states must issue driver’s licenses to those granted the amnesty and work permits.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has sided with the administration, meaning that all of the states under its jurisdiction, including three of the plaintiff states in the Texas case, do not have a choice.

In another example, Texas submitted the declaration of a labor economist who said that because the illegal immigrants would become legal workers but still aren’t eligible for Obamacare, they are cheaper to hire for some businesses. Texas said that’s exactly the kind of “economic harm” that courts are allowed to step in and fight.

The Obama administration told the court that judges don’t have the power to stop the president’s use of discretion. [snip]

“The state lawsuit is about politics, not policy or the constitutionality of the executive actions,” said Marielena Hincapie, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center, which has filed briefs in the case defending the policy. “Ultimately, we — along with scores of legal experts — believe the courts will prove that President Obama’s immigration policy is legally sound.”

Meanwhile, the Cato Institute has filed briefs challenging the program. [snip]

“All of this is pretty new in the sense that the administration is coming up with creative ways of governing without Congress,” he said.

Cato’s involvement is intriguing because, as a libertarian-leaning think tank, it generally agrees with legalizing illegal immigrants. But Mr. Shapiro said sometimes “something can be good policy yet bad law.”

Advocates are already preparing for the government to accept applications. A first round, for those brought to the U.S. as children, will begin by Feb. 20. A second round, for illegal immigrant parents of children who are U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents, will follow 90 days later.

Barack Obama has veto power over whatever congress can pass and that is why the courts must intervene if law is to rule the nation. In this, the plaintiffs chose their venue well:

U.S. President Barack Obama drew the short straw in a lawsuit by 25 states seeking to block efforts to loosen immigration restrictions: The judge who will decide the case has previously assailed him in that arena for turning “a blind eye to criminal conduct.” [snip]

Hanen may prove a tough sell. The judge, whose courthouse is located on the Mexican border, accused the Department of Homeland Security last year of complicity in cross-border child smuggling.

“The DHS should enforce the laws of the United States — not break them,” Hanen said in a written opinion.

Hanen, who was appointed by Republican George W. Bush in 2002, rebuked the agency for “completing the criminal conspiracy” by delivering undocumented children caught at the border to their parents living illegally in the U.S. The judge complained in a December 2013 opinion that the undocumented parents weren’t arrested or deported after being reunited with their kids, and taxpayers were footing the transit bills.

The biggest beneficiaries of the conspiracy, Hanen said, are the Mexican drug cartels that control the border smuggling rings, who’ve learned to rely on the U.S. government to “finish the job of the human traffickers” if they get caught.

Instead of enforcing the law of the United States, the government took direct steps to help the individuals who violated it,” Hanen wrote in his opinion that followed a string of child-trafficking convictions in his court. “A private citizen would, and should, be prosecuted for this conduct.”

If the plaintiffs cannot win with this judge then forget the Supreme Court or the appeal courts. This judge appears to be very resistant to the government’s argument:

“At its core, plaintiffs’ suit is a generalized disagreement about the scope of the prosecutorial discretion of the executive branch of the federal government, in the exercise of exclusive federal authority over immigration,” government lawyers said in a filing today in the Brownsville court.

That authority, under prior rulings of the Supreme Court, includes the right to “decide whether it makes sense to pursue removal at all, including because of immediate human concerns,” White Houe lawyers said.

Immigration officials must focus their limited resources on deporting criminals and recent border-crossers, because Congress singled these groups out for priority handling without providing sufficient funding to accomplish the job, the White House said in the filing.

By shifting away from “low-priority aliens,” DHS can spend more on rounding up dangerous immigrants and those without family ties to the U.S., they said.

The Obama administration told Hanen it believes judges don’t have authority to decide if the president abused his power by changing immigration laws singlehandedly, without Congressional approval.

Under a 1985 Supreme Court ruling, “an agency’s decision not to exercise its enforcement authority, or to exercise it in a particular way, is presumed to be immune from judicial review,” White House lawyers said in court papers. [snip]

Brownsville has just two federal judges — Hanen and an appointee of Democratic ex-President Bill Clinton — and they evenly split all incoming civil cases, according to the court’s website and a courthouse clerk who confirmed the case-assignment protocol but declined to give her name.

The assignments are random” between Hanen and the other judge, Lauren Bean, a spokeswoman for the state attorney general’s office, said in an e-mailed response to questions on how Texas decided where to file the case.

Plaintiffs chose their venue well and lucked out in the random draw. If they can’t win now in this district court….

The battle has begun today. Obama’s illegal illegal immigration executive diktat is now before the courts:

BROWNSVILLE – A federal judge in Brownsville will hear oral arguments Thursday from Texas and 24 other states that want to block President Barack Obama’s executive action on immigration, which shields about 5 million undocumented immigrants from deportation.

U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen is expected to decide whether the lawsuit opposing Obama’s plan on immigration should proceed and its implementation suspended because of the perceived harm claimed by the 25 plaintiff states.

“It is a case we lawyers call a case of first impression in the sense there never has been one like it,” said Muzaffar Chishti, director of the Migration Policy Institute’s office at New York University School of Law. “There is not a direct precedent for this action to know the law is clearly on one side or the other.

On Nov. 20, Obama announced his executive action, which greatly expands the 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, and includes a deferred action program for undocumented parents of U.S. citizens and permanent residents.

In response, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, the incoming governor, filed a lawsuit to block the action, arguing the president overstepped his legal authority by not getting congressional approval. Twenty-four other states and attorneys general, most of them Republican, have since joined the Texas-led lawsuit. [snip]

Legal scholars say the issues of deferred action and executive discretion on matters of immigration have been upheld in court many times before, and yet predicting the outcome of this lawsuit is difficult because of its unprecedented scale.

“Under current case law, there is no basis to find this action illegal,” Chishti said. “But there has never been a case of 5 million, and therefore one might argue that prior cases don’t apply.” [snip]

But non-citizen students are already eligible to attend public schools under a 1982 Supreme Court decision – similarly immigrants are currently eligible for emergency health care coverage under existing law, casting doubt whether a claim of financial harm would hold up in court.

Public opinion as reflected in polls does not approve of Obama’s executive overreach.

It’s Caesarism with a Joker grin face:

Asserting a legal and constitutional authority he himself said he did not have, President Obama is going rogue, issuing an executive amnesty to 4 to 5 million illegal aliens. [snip]

Thus does our constitutional law professor-president “faithfully execute” the laws of the United States he has twice swore to uphold?

Our rogue president has crossed an historic line, and so has the republic. Future presidents will cite the “Obama precedent” when they declare they will henceforth not enforce this or that law, because of a prior commitment to some noisy constituency.

We have just taken a monumental step away from republicanism toward Caesarism. For this is rule by diktat, the rejection of which sparked the American Revolution. [snip]

Immigrants who waited in line for years to come to America, and those waiting still, have egg on their faces. Why, they are saying to themselves, were we so stupid as to obey U.S. laws, when it is the border-jumpers who are now on the way to residency and citizenship?

The courts do not want to intervene in a fight between the legislative branch and the executive branch. But they will have to. It’s that “rule of law” thing.


218 thoughts on “Immigration, Immigration, Immigration – The Lawsuit Today

  1. “my sonny boy is a good kid who wouldn’t hurt a fly”. Paging the parents of Mike Brown and Trayvon Martin:

    Father of Muslim who plotted to bomb US Capitol says son is “peace-loving momma’s boy” set up by FBI

    “‘He is one of the most peace-loving people I know’: Father of Ohio-born Muslim convert, 20, ‘who planned to detonate pipe bombs in the U.S. Capitol’ insists his son is a ‘momma’s boy,’” by Lydia Warren and Snejana Farberov, MailOnline, January 15, 2015:

    A radicalized Muslim convert from Ohio who was arrested on Wednesday for allegedly plotting a deadly attack on the U.S. Capitol is a ‘peace-loving momma’s boy’, his father has insisted.

    Christopher Lee Cornell, 20, had planned to detonate pipe bombs in the U.S. Capitol before opening fire on fleeing government officials in December 2015, according to a criminal complaint.

    But his father isn’t buying it – and says he believes the FBI set his son up.

    ‘They’ve already painted him as some kind of terrorist,’ John Cornell told the Cincinnati Enquirer. ‘(Christopher) is one of the most peace-loving people I know.’

    Speaking from their home in Green Township, Cornell, 60, claimed his son was a ‘momma’s boy who never left’ their apartment and said he still loves him despite the charges.

    ‘I think he was a really vulnerable kid, just a big kid,’ he said.

    His mother, Angela Carmen, added to WCPO: ‘He was a good kid, I mean, he would do anything in the world for you. He would not hurt nobody.’

    His father told CNN: ‘His best friend is his kitty cat. There’s no way he could have carried out any kind of terrorist plot. He didn’t even drive; he didn’t have a car.’

    Cornell added to ABC that he does not think his son could have devised a terror plot on his own and believes that an FBI informant, with whom his son allegedly exchanged messages and met in person, duped him.

    ‘He told me he had went to a mosque and now I know, in hindsight I know, he was meeting with an FBI agent,’ he said. ‘And they were taking him somewhere, and they were filling his head with a lot of this garbage.’

    The parents added that he only had around $1,200 in his bank account – not enough to fund a terror plot or pay for the two guns he bought before his arrest on Wednesday.

    ‘These guns cost almost $2,000. Where did that money come from? Well, it came from the FBI,’ his father said. ‘They set him up.’

    After high school, where he was a wrestler, Cornell worked at Kohl’s and spent a lot of time playing video games in his room, his parents said. At the time of his arrest he was unemployed.

    They believe their son took an interest in Islam about two months ago – which contradicts the FBI’s narrative.

    Cornell Sr., who is himself not a Muslim, said his son attended Masjid Abue Baker Siddikue mosque in South Fairmount and had found peace in the religion.

    After turning to Islam, Christopher Cornell became a target for bullies because of his long beard and tradition Muslim clothing, and his father said he discouraged him from talking about it too much in case he offended others. Still, the older Cornell said he supported his son’s religion.

    ‘Hey, that’s my son and I love him just the same,’ he said.

    His parents said the first they knew of his arrest or alleged criminal plot was when the FBI turned up at their door on Wednesday and seized their son’s electronic devices.

    Christopher Cornell, also known as Raheel Mahrus Ubaydah, was arrested by the Joint Terrorism Task Force, after leaving a gun store on Wednesday morning….

    I believe that we should just wage jihad under our own orders and plan attacks and everything,’ Cornell allegedly wrote in August. ‘I believe we should meet up and make our own group in alliance with the Islamic State here and plan operations ourselves.’

    In instant messages to the undercover informant, Cornell indicated that while he did not have support to conduct an attack on behalf of any group, ‘we already got a thumbs up from the Brothers over there and Anwar al Awlaki before his martyrdom and many others’….

    He loved his cat. He wouldn’t hurt a fly.

  2. Terrorists in Belgium:

    Two people have been killed in an anti-terror operation in eastern Belgium, local officials say.

    A third person was wounded in the raid in the town of Verviers, according to Belgian TV. Several arrests have been made.

    Witnesses reported hearing heavy gunfire for several minutes and at least three explosions.

    Unconfirmed reports said raids were also taking place in Brussels and elsewhere in Belgium.

    An official quoted by AFP news agency said the raid in Verviers was “jihadist-related”.

    “An operation is under way,” a source in the mayor’s office told AFP, but gave no details.

    The area around the train station has been cordoned off and reports on social media say there is a heavy police presence in the town centre.

    Media reports suggested those targeted were suspected jihadists who had recently returned from Syria.

    Intelligence had indicated that they had been planning an attack, the reports added.

    Verviers is in the province of Liege and has a population of about 56,000.

    The incident comes a week after attacks in neighbouring France that killed 17 people.

    Belgian media has reported that some of the weapons used in the attacks in Paris were bought near the Midi train station in Brussels.

    The attacks – on satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo, a kosher market and police – have heightened security fears in several European countries.

    In May last year, four people were killed inside the Jewish museum in Brussels by a Frenchman of Algerian descent.

    Gee, four dead after a Muslim attack in the Jewish Museum, four dead because they went to a deli in Paris. Is this the victim card?

  3. Admin, thank you for that thorough and comprehensive explantion of events up to current time…

    thank goodness, the “people” had the luck of the draw with Judge Hanen and let’s hope that sanity, the law and justice will prevail…

    …it is still unbelieveable to me that, with all this violence and dangerous threats to us in the USA, our border agents are not even on the border…and O did not even know that…


    btw, I love Carly Fiorina’s comments on O and his obliviousness to what was going on in Paris

    Carly says:

    But honestly, it’s just inconceivable to me that the president wasn’t even aware, apparently, that this event was being planned so that he would have a conversation with his staff about whether or not he should go or someone else should go,” the former Hewlett-Packard CEO told Fox News Channel’s “On the Record with Greta Van Susteren.”

    Asked by Van Susteren whether it was a staff failing, Fiorina said no.

    “If you turned on the television you knew this was going to happen,” she said. “I find it inconceivable that the president wasn’t aware that this was going to happen and that he had a decision to make.”

    On the other hand, she said, Obama has repeatedly claimed to have learned of things only after reading about them in the newspaper or seeing them on television.

    “I just find his apparent ignorance of what’s going on around him quite stunning,” she said. “And obviously he is failing as a chief executive.


    you said it Carly…stunning!

  4. It doesn’t surprised me a bit that Obola said he didn’t know what was going on in Paris.

    Better he look like an idiot than someone that just doesn’t give a rat’s ass unless it’s to defend boys that could be his or something to do with sports.

    I am still surprised at everyone that still thinks he was a ‘Professor’. A lecturer that got a free racial pass to a Ph. D….I can believe.

  5. “But the administration is currently arguing in another case out of Arizona that states must issue driver’s licenses to those granted the amnesty and work permits.”

    Can the right to vote be far behind?

  6. Great analysis of the legal maneuvering around this case, admin.

    On the issue of costs to states – California began issuing driver licenses to illegals on January 1st. They are opening new facilities to handle to the demand, and of course offering the illegals low cost insurance.

    But as for proof of residence… “California’s DMV has not yet finalized their plans for the new facilities or for which documents the new applicants will have to provide.” (translation: anyone can get a license).

    I have heard from a friend in law enforcement, however, that only 37% are passing the written test.

  7. Osama is dead

    al Quaeda is on the run

    Yes, al Quaeda was behind the Paris attack

    But the golf god beckons

    And we must not overreact to this incident

    Like do something more than bloviate

    That is the position of our elite class

    One can only wonder how they would have reacted

    To the bombing of Pearl Harbor

    As far as those lawsuits, the Supreme Court will side with the government

    I guarantee it

    I can see the sophistry they will use to get there

    The only thing that matters is this

    The corrupt elites have the power

    And we–we do not.

    The law can be contorted in any direction

    To reflect that reality

    And with the cowardly Roberts at the helm

    It will be

    Like Peggy Lee, I am not up for that final disappointment

    If the matter were as simple as reconciling the need for a replacement population

    Then I could understand the impetus for this

    But are these largely untrained future recipients of welfare checks

    The kind of “new Americans” we should be looking for???

  8. And, the other question is do we really need a monarchical ruling class?

    Three generations of idiots is enough

    Even if their surname happens to be Bush.

  9. The legal maneuvering is intriguing until you realize that the end game will be just another belly flop by Roberts.

  10. When the government declares in open court that Obamacare is not a tax, thereby conceding the point, but Roberts who originally made noises like he believed it was unconstitutional and then, when subjected to pressure, does a 180 and finds it constitutional on the very grounds which the government conceded, i.e. that it is a tax, then it becomes obvious what kind of a man you are dealing with. Professor Glenn Reynolds warned me and everyone else that the court would go the wrong way. I must remember to ask him whether he also believes Roberts will fall through his ass on the current issues immigration overreach and the legality of federal funding prohibited by the express terms of the act as well. I fully expect the will say yes. I firmly believe that Roberts is a pattern player, and past is prologue. Like Roger Taney, he shrinks from the great issues of his time.

  11. I read the Texas brief and there is little doubt in my mind that the standing issue before the district court will survive. This action by Obama imposes direct and material harm on the states, and that alone should be sufficient to give them standing to sue.
    The Ninth Circuit will attack that issue, but they will become vulnerable as hell when they pull their usual crap in this case. Watch them step into that trap of their own making. How do I know? I know because they are so dogmatic and so willfully blind of the real world consequences that they cannot help themselves.


    Dive: Just 37 percent approve of Obama in week marked by Paris MIA

    President Obama’s public approval rating has dropped to just 37 percent, with 55 percent disapproving of his job performance, according to the first Reuters/Ipsos political tracking poll of the year.

    The poll clashes with Gallup, which last had Obama at a 46 percent approval rate. During the period, the president was hit for not sending an important member of his team to the protests in Paris over recent al Qaeda terrorist killings.

    Worse, with the GOP in charge of Congress, more say that the Republicans “have better plans on the economy, taxes and foreign policy than do Democrats,” said the newly released poll.

    Democrats, however, continue to hold the edge on the environment and welfare.

    The poll was conducted Jan. 10-14 and included 634 Democrats, 646 Republicans and 230 independents.

    Overall, 56 percent said that the nation is on the “wrong track,” while 26 percent said the nation is on the right track.

    The national poll was released along with one that looked at how blacks, Hispanics and whites view police. The bottom line: 70 percent of blacks and 52 percent of Hispanic Americans agree that “police officers tend to unfairly target minorities,” compared to 29 percent of whites who agree with the statement.

  13. The national poll was released along with one that looked at how blacks, Hispanics and whites view police. The bottom line: 70 percent of blacks and 52 percent of Hispanic Americans agree that “police officers tend to unfairly target minorities,” compared to 29 percent of whites who agree with the statement.

    Where’s the stats on which races commit violent crimes? Which use guns, which are in violent gangs?

  14. Freespirit, we saw that Cleaver interview this afternoon on which The Hill article is based. Cleaver is as much a Clinton backer as Rush Limbaugh.

    In the interview Cleaver said it would be good for Hillary to have a challenger. We interpret that as “I will support someone else if only they run against Hillary.”

    The “locked in behind” Clinton comment is a sign of resignation, not support. Cleaver wants someone to challenge Hillary but no one has so that is where the “support” comes from. Cleaver also says that maybe grandma will stay home and take care of the kiddies.

    As you wrote, “untrustworthy Dims” are untrustworthy. We don’t trust them. We trust them as much as we trust Obama. We don’t trust Obama.

  15. A French Jew whose family has lived in France for roughly three centuries, because in his view France has ceased to be France. This is yet another example of the loss of faith in Western democracy by the Transatlantic elites, here and in Europe. His story is brief and moving–a new diaspora. Fortunately, they now have a homeland–a place to go–at least for now. But again, the trans-Atlantic elites are unwilling to protect that country and the big media beloved messiah dumps on it every chance he gets while saying that he is their staunchest ally. Obama is a fraud, and the moment he promises X people must understand that when it comes to actions, he will be not X. Put differently, if you like your doctor you can keep him.


    “Peacetime or war, our loyalty to France was absolute. It even survived the Dreyfus Affair, when a Jewish army officer was falsely prosecuted for espionage, and the “dark times of the Thirties,” when large sections of the French media promoted Nazi prejudices against Jews.

    For our family, being Jewish and French are inseparable strands of our identity. Our family tomb is in Montmartre, at the very heart of French culture. We embraced the Republic even when it impinged on our core beliefs – requiring Jewish children, for instance, to attend school on the Sabbath. We accepted the centrality of the state in exchange for its celestial values: liberty, equality and fraternal dialogue. The dogmas of the Republic were our guarantee of tolerance. We participated in the life of France, its culture, its economy. Some distant cousins became Christian; one is married to a Muslim.

    We were part of France – until France ceased to be France. The problem was not the waves of North African immigration from the Sixties onwards. Those waves actually contained many Jews: Uncle René, annoyed by a young Israeli rabbi, stormed out of rue Cadet to form a new community with Moroccans and Tunisians.

    For a while, Paris seemed friendlier than ever, and Jews a vital part of its élan. Alain Finkielkraut and Bernard-Henri Lévy, two popular TV philosophers, are avowedly Jewish. A celebrated bass-baritone at the Opéra, Laurent Naouri, belongs to a family of kosher supermarket owners.

    My Jewish friends were out on the streets of Paris this weekend, hoping that, after this tragic moment, the tide will turn

    But the alienated populace in the outer suburbs, ignored by the Republic and exploited by radical preachers, contributed to Jewish unease. Some streets were no longer safe to walk in a skullcap. Anti-Semitic rhetoric was heard on the Right, on the Left, and from the banlieues. Murderous attacks on Jewish schools aroused no national outrage on the scale seen in the past week.

    So Jews fled in their thousands – many to London, where two new communities have sprung up in my own neighbourhood. Some 3,300 left for Israel in 2013, rising to 5,000 last year. Many more French Jews acquired homes abroad.

    France awoke too late to the exodus. Last September, prime minister Manuel Valls, whose violinist wife is Jewish, put on a skullcap at a central synagogue and announced to the world that “a France without Jews is no longer France.” This weekend, for the first time since the Nazi era, that same synagogue had to shut for the Sabbath because the state was unable to protect its worshippers.

    France is in a state of moral confusion. Yesterday a million marched in Paris and the impressive Mr. Valls declared: “We are all Charlie, we are all police, we are all Jews of France.”

    How I long to believe that. My Jewish friends were out on the streets of Paris this weekend, hoping that, after this tragic moment, the tide will turn. For myself, I am unable to pretend that life will go on as before. My history, as a Jew of France, is over.

    The Daily Telegraph

  16. Admin, that comment about needing a “challenger” was a red flag. Of course the potentials mentioned were Webb and Stands-With-A-Latte.

  17. wbboei
    January 16, 2015 at 12:35 am

    I’m hearing about entire French Jewish “clans” showing up all over Canada. They are bringing their assets and what they can of their businesses. I would too if I were them. I guess they are political refugees.

  18. Mormaer, Jews are the canary in the coal mine. When antisemitism rises in a society something is gone terribly wrong and there is trouble ahead for other groups. The canaries begin to die swiftly when charges that Jews are playing a “victim card” are displayed without shame. France is in great trouble. So is Europe.

    There is some hope. The West that has surrendered its identity and its heritage might be getting back to its roots. We think this is a good and necessary development:

    Is there a Christian revival starting in France? [snip]

    On a recent Sunday, my family and I only showed up 10 minutes early for Mass. That meant we had to sit in fold-out chairs in the spillover room, where the Mass is relayed on a large TV screen. During the service, my toddler had to go to the bathroom. To get there, we had to step over a dozen people sitting in hallways and corners. This is business as usual for my church in Paris, France.

    I point this out because one of the most familiar tropes in social commentary today is the loss of Christian faith in Europe in general, and France in particular. The Wall Street Journal recently fretted about the sale of “Europe’s empty churches.”

    Could it be, instead, that France is in the early stages of a Christian revival?

    Yes, churches in the French countryside are desperately empty. There are no young people there. But then, there are no young people in the French countryside, period. France is a modern country with an advanced economy, and that means its countryside has emptied, and that means that churches built in an era when the country’s sociological makeup was quite different go empty. In the cities — which is where people are, and where cultural trends gain escape velocity — the story is quite different.

    But back to our parish. Is our pastor some outlier with megawatt charisma? In terms of flair, he would win no public speaking contests. But there is something that sets him apart from many of the Catholic priests my parents’ generation grew up listening to: he is unapologetically orthodox. He is tactful, but unafraid to talk about controversial topics. He will talk about a lackadaisical approach to the liturgy being a kind of unfaithfulness to God. A few weeks ago, I even got to see something for the first time in my life: a Catholic priest preaching about Hell.

    But there is no rigoristic hectoring at our parish. Our pastor will stress the importance of living in accordance with the Church’s rules, and in the same breath say something like: “Is the real problem in the Church people who are divorced and remarried, or people who are homosexual? No, the real problem is people who go to church every Sunday and are not willing to see everyone as a child of God, are not willing to welcome them.” It is the kind of approach modeled by Popes John Paul II and Francis: a Catholicism that is both doctrinally robust and joyfully welcoming.

    This is not an isolated phenomenon.

    We need a Jewish revival too. For too long it has been Islam that proclaimed its illiberal faith with pride.

  19. “Marx was not a German, he was a Jew.” From the movie The Stranger. The Orsen Welles character is an escaped war criminal who betrays himself (up to that point he has posed as a Western liberal) with that sentence.

  20. Our humiliation is complete:

    U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry visited Paris Friday in what was billed as a show of solidarity with the French people after terrorists attacked last week. The former Massachusetts senator brought fellow Bay Stater and singer-songwriter James Taylor to sing a slightly off-key rendition of “You’ve Got a Friend” to a Parisian audience.

  21. Something tells me our humiliation is far from over. What’s next? Maybe he will send Al Sharpton to sing, “Bridge Over Troubled Water.”

  22. I wish the French would have had the Spencer Davis Group responding with their song “So Glad You Made It” (Gimme Gimme Some Lovin’)

  23. Ya’ll certainly don’t want to turn this into a Youtube Friday featuring songs/artists John Kerry should have used, do ya?

  24. Our humiliation is complete:


    The court jester brings his cheap dog and pony show to Paris…a week late.

    Barry doesn’t bother to go, because no one TOLD him about it.

    We had better pray we are not attacked again for the next two years, America is at serious risk without a President and administration.

  25. Ya’ll certainly don’t want to turn this into a Youtube Friday featuring songs/artists John Kerry should have used, do ya?

    How could we ever top Mr. Ed for Kerry?

    ‘The landslide bring you down…’

  26. No way to top Mr. Ed for Kerry. Laughter is good. It is good for the soul. The chuckles help. Heck, they’ve kept me going (and sane) for 7 years.

    They certainly help now to lighten the mood as we begin to see history repeat itself. I honestly never thought this would happen in my lifetime. Jews fleeing Europe. Unimaginable. Till now. Canary in the coal mine indeed.

  27. Take a long walk through history, and what you will discover is that when the elite class of a nation–any nation no longer cares for that nation, but only on holding the reins of power, and burning the candle at both ends, ignoring the future for the sake of the here and now, the path of national decline has been laid. That is EXACTLY where we are as a nation at this point in history. I do not see the threat to our future emanating nearly as much from old money who we have co-habited this nation with since its inception. Those people as a group have a clear sense of history, and the value of the republic. As I see it, the real threat to the republic now comes from marxists who have completed their march through the institutions and now hold the reins of power, the computer geeks who skipped adolecence and have become too much like engineers who emerged from world war II who were so invested in the arms race that they never looked up outside their silos, and an American Public who are stupid enough to elect Obama. It is no defense for them to say, we voted for him by default, because the sensible alternative was not to vote, rather than giving their imprimatur to a man who is determined to destroy the country. The reason I hold out very little hope is because the problem is not simply a matter of personalities. The problem relates to the character of our elites at this moment in history, who have complete control over the system, and contempt for 99% of its inhabitants.

  28. The elites have a problem. Their numbers are small. But if they can control who is nominated and give the American People a false choice between tweedle dee and tweedle dum, and if they can further their control by exploiting the fault lines of our society as the democrat party does today, then they need not worry that their numbers are small. They can still control the population.

  29. Hmmm, I have a hunch some here have a wicked sense of humor. Just a small feeling. Don’t know why.

    I love Leo Sayer. He was a hottie back in the day. Neither can be said for Kerry.

  30. Let me say it one more time.

    Yes, we have a complex county.

    Yes, it is hard to govern, for a myriad of reasons.

    And, yes, whereas a businessman has only one pole star–profit, the politician has an entire constellation of factors to manage and manage well if he or she is to be effective. Hiring good people and being decisive are critical factors in that respect.

    But the success of a nation always begins at the top.

    And the people at the top must make a decision, whether consciously or not, whether they believe in democracy or obligarchy, whether they believe that the people are the master or the servant, and whether the future generations who have no vote, at least now, matter.

    Ultimately they must decide who to get behind and who to ignore. By what sophistry of reason would you or anyone else give the microphone and a show to race baiter and extortionist named Sharpton. It isn’t just the fact that he is a clear and present danger to societal cohesion and public order. What message does corronating him send to the black community. If you want to know who makes these sort of decisions that corrupt our culture and our politics, look to big media and the people who control it.

    Until the nation wakes up and realizes that they are the source of the problem, this devolution will continue.

  31. I love Leo Sayer. He was a hottie back in the day. Neither can be said for Kerry.
    Perhaps not.

    But who could argue that Kerry is not a steaming pile of horse manure?

    A windbag of flatulence?

    A high born aristocrat for all seasons.

    A legend in his mind.

    Only an ironic deity would deny this well deserving pillar of virtue the Nobel Prize.

  32. Obama with Cameron at press conference. Obama claims great credit for his Iran negotiations. It’s so delusional. Tells congress not to pass a sanctions bill against Iran. Then threatens veto.

  33. Obama claims great credit for his Iran negotiations

    Now its up to NYT to make the case.

    And they will.

    The question however is this.

    If a protracted negotiation with Iran gives them the time and space to develop a nuclear bomb which threatens Israel and touches off an arms race in the middle east in which the top nations take opposing sides, what have we really gained. And, it it leads to Armageddon, how ill NYT put lipstick on that pig? Save to say, it was not Obama, Bush did it. Focus groups conducted by NYT prove that line still works, and their pollsters will rig the survey question to make sure it does.

  34. Even a steaming pile of horse manure can be useful.

    Honestly, one of those botox injections must have penetrated too deeply into his skull. “Amateur hour” at its worst.

    Speaking of amateurs, our resident amateur at 1600 P, Herr Hoops himself, can threaten to veto a sanctions bill against Iran. If I remember correctly, the vast majority of Americans are against Iran getting the bomb. Stuff like that would seriously impact the next presidential election.

  35. Freespirit you are on a roll! We should stand together at the next Strawberry Social. [pop trivia reference]

  36. Immigration news from Brownsville:

    Arguments began Thursday in federal court in Brownsville regarding a 25-state legal challenge to President Barack Obama’s planned expansion of a deferred action program that allows undocumented immigrants to remain in the country.

    Another 4.4 million immigrants stand to benefit from the combined expansion of a program allowing child arrivals to the United States and the creation of a new program giving status to the undocumented parents of natural-born U.S. citizens.

    The states, led by Texas in court, argued those moves sidestep existing statutes while incentivizing illegal immigration that could eventually cause undue harm to health and education budgets through increasing demand on services.

    The Department of Justice argued that broadening the applicant pool for deferred action is part of its prosecutorial discretion and in step with a policy of not pursuing low-priority immigration cases to focus resources on deporting undocumented immigrants with criminal backgrounds.

    The states are seeking an injunction from U.S. District Judge Andrew S. Hanen to put a hold on preparations being made to implement the new measures. Hanen said Thursday he won’t issue a ruling on the injunction before Jan. 30.

    The expansion of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program is scheduled to begin Feb. 18.

    The president’s new initiative, called Deferred Action for Parental Accountability, or DAPA, should be in place by May.

  37. Some nuances in the immigration lawsuit:

    Attorneys for the Texas-led case claimed Obama violated the U.S. Constitution and brushed aside decades of immigration law when he announced his dramatically expanded policy.

    “If this president can do this, then the next president can do the same thing with any law,” said Andrew Oldham, deputy solicitor general of Texas. “There really is no limit.”

    While legal scholars dispute the case against Obama on its merits — deferred action and executive discretion on matters of immigration have been upheld in courts — there is no precedent for discretion involving 5 million people.

    Oldham said that if the administration is allowed to implement its immigration policy, it would cost the plantiff states billions in additional law enforcement, education and health care expenses.

    Abbott has said Texas shouldered the financial brunt of Obama’s 2012 executive action on deferred action for children, which opponents claim spurred a surge of immigration and cost the state tens of millions of dollars to send additional state troopers to police the border, along with added education and health care costs.

    When Hanen pointed out that states already are responsible for covering those expenses under existing law, Oldham said the costs included more bureaucracy to handle the swell of unemployment benefits, tax forms, driver’s licenses and their associated fees.

    But Hanen questioned whether Obama had in fact taken executive action, noting it was Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson who issued the six-page directive.

    “It makes this even more lawless,” Oldham said in response. [snip]

    Hanen, who in 2013 said the homeland security was aiding criminal conspiracies when it reunited children with parents in the country illegally, pressed the government on the use of discretion and its effect on states.

    “The federal government decided on the policy that impacts the states, and the states are powerless to do anything,” Hanen said. “They can’t fix it, they’re stuck with whatever you guys do.

    Hanen further questioned what statutory authority homeland security has for allowing 4 million undocumented immigrants to stay in the country.

    The department “is removing as many people as it can with the resources that it has,” Hartnett answered.

  38. Finally, the response to the big media beloved attorney general of the big media beloved messiah tends to rain all over their parade. It comes from a bitter clinging white highly decorated military and FBI agent and leaves no stone un-turned. In the main, it provides an effective rebuttal to Holder’s infamous statement that America is a nation of cowards because it does not accept his vile racist views. This letter has gone viral and it stunned the Obama Administration:

    U.S. Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530-0001

    Dear Attorney General Holder,

    It is unlikely that we met while I served in the FBI. That being said, we served at the Department of Justice (DOJ) during the same years and on the same “team” conceptually speaking. During my service in the FBI I worked with a number of U.S. Attorney Offices in the United States to include a tour at FBIHQ where I worked with the Department of Justice (Main) on a daily basis.

    I begin my letter with this comment to highlight that I am not a bystander on the topic of law enforcement in the United States. I worked and managed a variety of federal investigations during my 12 years of service in the FBI, to include the management of several Civil Rights cases in the State of Texas. In fact, during my last tour in the Bureau, I was an FBI Supervisor responsible for managing federal investigations in nine (9) Texas counties, many of which were rural; in places where one would suspect racism to flourish given the narrative often pushed by Hollywood and urban progressive elites like yourself. I performed this mission diligently and under the close supervision of two FBI managers; an Assistant Special Agent in Charge (ASAC) and Special Agent in Charge (SAC,) both of which happened to be African American and outstanding law enforcement professionals. I also performed this mission serving side by side with a variety of law enforcement agencies at the Federal, State and local level.

    I have observed you closely during your tenure as Attorney General and notably during these last tumultuous years; watching you negotiate a number of controversial public matters to include the ATF Fast and Furious scandal, Black Panther Party intimidation at voting booths, IRS targeting of American citizens (citizen groups opposed to the Obama Administration,) the ignoring of US Immigration laws, DOJ criminal indictments of select news reporters and your management of several high profile criminal investigations involving subjects of race, notably African Americans.

    Until today, I chose to hold my tongue. However, with the assassination of two NYPD Lieutenants last weekend in New York City, at the hands of a African American man with a lengthy criminal record, fresh from his participation in anti-police activities; coupled with numerous “don’t shoot, hands up,” and “black lives matter” anti-police protests (some of which are violent) occurring daily around the nation, I am compelled to write you this letter.

    To be blunt Mr. Holder, I am appalled at your lack of leadership as the Attorney General of the United States and your blatant politicizing of the Department of Justice. Your actions, both publicly and privately, have done nothing to quell the complex racial issues we face in our country and have done everything to inflame them. As the “top cop” of the United States, you share in the blame for much of the violence and protests we are now witnessing against law enforcement officers honorably serving throughout our nation.

    During one of your first public speeches as Attorney General you made it a point to call America “a nation of cowards” concerning race relations. That speech, followed by other public announcements where you emphatically opined that the odds were stacked against African Americans in regard to the enforcement of law, your intention to change the law and permit convicted felons to vote after incarceration, and your changes to federal law ending “racial profiling,” are poignant examples of how detached you remain from the challenges faced by law enforcement officers serving in crime ridden neighborhoods throughout the nation. These opinions are also indicative of a man that lives and works in the elitist “bubble” of Washington D.C.

    Your performance, as the nation’s Attorney General, during the Trayvon Martin case in Sanford, Florida and the Michael Brown case in Ferguson, Missouri clearly highlights your myopic view on this topic. Contrary to your embarrassing prejudgment in the Brown case and evasive post trial remarks on the Martin case, neither Brown nor Martin were targeted and/or killed because of their African American race. Rather, as non-emotive investigations determined, both teens died as a consequence of their own tragic and egregious behavior; behavior that involved a violent assault on a law abiding citizen in the Trayvon Martin case, and a violent assault on a young police officer in the Michael Brown case. Yet you, as the number one spokesman for law enforcement in the country, blame the deaths of these men on years of institutional racism and the alleged epidemic targeting of African American men by police departments around the country; nothing could be further from the truth. Following the Michael Brown case Grand Jury decision all you could muster was the following comment:

    “The Department of Justice is currently investigating not only the shooting but also the Ferguson police department in what is called a “patterns and practices” inquiry to determine if the police department has engaged in systematic racism.”

    So, let’s get this straight. At a decisive moment in history when our nation required a strong and unbiased voice from its’ senior law enforcement official, you Mr. Holder, made it your personal mission to join with other racial antagonist and politicize a tragic event, accusing a young white police officer of a racially motivated killing in what we now know was a justified self-defense shooting of a predatory felon. Your behavior is unbelievable. You sir, have sacrificed your integrity on the altar of political expediency. You, Mr. Holder, are the “coward” and hypocrite you so loudly denounce when speaking of broken race relations in America.

    Further to this point Mr. Holder, law enforcement officers around the country remain dismayed and shocked at the counsel you keep; that being your close relationship with none other than Al Sharpton, a racist “shake down artist” who spreads hate, divisiveness and the promotion of anti-law enforcement sentiment throughout the country; a tax evading fraudster who has unbelievably visited the White House over 80 times in recent years. It is simply beyond my comprehension as a former federal law enforcement professional, that you, the Attorney General of the United States, joined arms in common cause with a charlatan like “the Reverend” Al Sharpton; and it speaks volumes to your personal character and lack of professional judgment.

    Violent crime, out of wedlock births, drug abuse, rampant unemployment and poverty found in many low-income minority neighborhoods are not a result of racist community policing and racial profiling as you so quickly assert, and frankly most law abiding Americans are exhausted of hearing this false narrative repeated time and again by you and others in the racial grievance industry. While no one, me included, would ever suggest that African Americans have not suffered from institutional racism in the past, I would strongly argue that we no longer live in the Mississippi of 1965, nor do we live in a country that even closely resembles the “Jim Crow” South of yesteryear. Those days, thankfully, are in the past as are the generations of Americans that supported such egregious behavior and endured such suffering.

    Rather, Mr. Holder, we live in a day and time where the root cause of many problems faced in our African American communities can be attributed to the breakdown of civil order due to the rejection of institutional and family authority and the practice of counter-culture values; and most notably, from the absence of strong male leadership in fatherless black families. The reason that our local police officers are so often entwined in tragic events in black communities is because it is the police that have filled the void in these communities that should be occupied by moral and strong black men leading family units with Godly values. You, Mr. Holder, especially, should be thanking the police rather than persecuting them for the gap they fill in these communities because if it were not for the intervention of local police many African American neighborhoods would be in a state of total anarchy.

    Yet tragically, you and your race-baiting colleague Al Sharpton (a paid media personality under contract with MSNBC news) choose to remain silent because to publicly speak this self-evident truth threatens to not only alienate and offend the most loyal voting constituency of the Democratic Party but diminish your and Al Sharpton’s self-serving power base in these suffering communities. God forbid that you would suggest individual citizens accept responsibility for their own behavior and the collective failure of their communities; it is so much easier for you and others like you to make excuses, play the victim card, and pander rather than address the real root causes that plague many low income neighborhoods.

    Mr. Holder, the public is aware of FBI statistics that tell a different story than the one you and Sharpton preach. We know that young African American males, representing a tiny fraction of the U.S. population, are by far the greatest perpetrators of violent crime in America when compared to their peers in other ethnic groups, and, we know that citizens of African American descent overwhelmingly make up the majority of their victims. We also know that incidents where white police officers shoot and kill black perpetrators are rare and on the decline. We know further that although there are legitimate and bona fide Federal Civil Rights investigations in the United States worthy of pursuing, they are miniscule when compared to the false narrative portrayed by you, President Obama and Sharpton declaring rampant discrimination against African American men by police officers throughout the country. You are just plain wrong.

    In closing Mr. Holder I will leave you with this thought; you were given a rare opportunity to lead with integrity during a variety of divisive and controversial issues during your tenure as the 82d Attorney General of the United States and rather than be a man of moral courage you chose instead to cower, further inflame racial tensions, advance false narratives and play progressive political activist.

    Time and again you chose to “politicize” the mission of the Department of Justice rather than pursue justice and now, tragically, we are witnessing the fruits of your irresponsible behavior in the murder of two innocent police officers in New York City, assassinated by a man motivated by the flames of racial hatred that you personally fanned. How many more police officers will be injured or die in the coming days because of the perilous conditions you helped create in this nation. You, President Obama and Al Sharpton own this problem lock, stock and barrel and now it is your legacy.

    As thousands of NYPD officers turn their collective back on New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, another dishonest politician and Sharpton disciple, so too do countless Federal law enforcement officers turn our backs on you.

    K. Dee McCown

  39. RNC OKs 9 primary debates, CNN will host up to 3 of them, including Sept. 16 Ronald Reagan Library debate
    This tells me the nominee they will push will be Bush, not Romney/.

    I made it a point to ignore Rove’s bullshit predictions about 2016.

    After his belly flop in 2012 he is totally unreliable.

    Frankly, I am reasonably sure that the base will stay home if Bush is the nominee.

  40. But Hanen questioned whether Obama had in fact taken executive action, noting it was Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson who issued the six-page directive.
    When Obama says I am granting amnesty,

    Under color of executive authority and in derogation of the powers reserved to congress and

    Immediately thereafter the department of Homeland Security who reports to him

    Implements the action that Obama has decreed

    There can be no doubt that Obama has taken executive action

    Why then should this judge have any doubt that executive action has been taken?

    This strikes me as less of a nuance and more of a non sequitur

    Even if he is trying to push this matter away from executive power

    And in the direction of an agency acting ultra vires

    It still does not compute, at least for me.

    But then again, I never went to Baylor

    I do believe he wants to rule the right way

    But I worry that he is getting tangled up in his underware

  41. Update: As our main article notes, the courts will have to intervene because the Republicans can’t or won’t fight Obama’s illegal illegal immigration diktat. The latest tell-all clue comes from Mitch McConnell to conservatives: We’ll do our best to stop Obama’s executive amnesty but don’t expect miracles, okay? The good news in all this? At least Mitch did not have James Taylor sing “I Surrender Dear”.


  42. Mormaer: I have been consistently impressed with your analysis, and I believe it stems in part from a desire to know what the forces are that are moving the world, which politics is in so many ways a response to. Granted, lobbyists move the federal government in the short term, but the intermediate and long term trends are beyond their control partly because they are, and partly because the lobbyist is captive to the capitalist who is captive to quarterly earning. Mark Steyne is one of the deep thinkers who understands the forces moving the world, and mirable dictu he writes about it. This video answers many of the questions which confuse most of us about why the west is in decline, and the ultimate question of whether it will disappear altogether, or survive in pockets like the Irish monks who saved western civilization during the dark ages. As we talk about things like equal rights, and assume that overtime sharia law will yield to western values, it is significant that at a major academic institution, in a 1950 all the women graduates were bare headed, whereas today, they all wear the ceremonial headdress and veils of their religion. At the root of this is zero population growth in the advanced society and a plan by the elites to import Muslim population to fill the gap, who bring with them their own culture while the west has lost faith in its own culture, just as Obama/Soros eviscerate the doctrine of American exceptionalism which serves to promote western values.

  43. You got it, Felix. Except, Admin has me so pumped, I’m thinking we ditch the Strawberry Social, and go to Bonaroo. lol

  44. Wow, wbb. That letter from retired FBI agent is pretty powerful. It makes many of the same points made here about Holder. Sadly, the misguided wannabe liberals who buy the pre-pacaged views pushed by the far left will label the letter and its author “racist” out of hand. They won’t think about the damage Holder, Sharpton, and their ilk do to the black community through their attempts make them victims. They won’t get that these so-called black leaders are exploiting their own people; or that some of the organizations that ostensibly work to further the cause of racial equality actually want the opposite. Without racial division, they can’t justify their own existence, let alone pull in the big bucks. It is not in their selfish interest for race relations to improve.

    The cookie-cutter wannabe libs won’t see the truth in this letter. It’s not in the best interest of the big wigs on the far left to have their peon followers actually begin to think critically and with open minds about issues.

    Some people are beyond hope. But, there are many, many people in this country who are cheering this author right now – thankful that their thoughts and concerns have been given voice in this letter.

    The author of this letter deserves admiration. Let’s hope the IRS or NSA or the federal retirement group in charge of his retirement check don’t target him.

  45. Update: As our main article notes, the courts will have to intervene because the Republicans can’t or won’t fight Obama’s illegal illegal immigration diktat. The latest tell-all clue comes from Mitch McConnell to conservatives: We’ll do our best to stop Obama’s executive amnesty but don’t expect miracles, okay? The good news in all this?
    Just exactly what I have predicted.

    Now, lets get on with the business of breaking up the Republican Party.

    The RINOs can go their way–which is the way of the lobbyists.

    And the conservatives can go their way—which is the path of a third party.

    They can tell McConnell, Rove and the rest of them, we to reform the party from within.

    It did not work.

    And we will not be a party to your fraud any longer.

    You can go to blacks, hispanics et. al. to win your future elections.

    You don’t need us.

    And sure as hell, we do not need you.

    You bugged eyed extraterrestrial looking motherfucker.

  46. It is simply impossible to superimpose a constitution and the other indicia of self government on any group of people and expect it to succeed. On the contrary, in order for self government to succeed, those people must possess certain attributes, concerning which the founding fathers were in universal agreement. Those attributes were, and are:

    1. marriage

    2. industriousness

    3. religiosity

    4. honesty

    Harvard sociologist Charles Murray, a favorite of mine, has surveyed the current crop of Americans to see how prevalent those virtues are in the society in general, and the haves/have nots in particular. He found compelling statistical evidence that those attributes are the exception and not the rule. But to the extent they exist at all, you are more likely to find them in the ranks of the elites than in those of the middle class. What this suggests to me is that the sovereignty of the American People which I believe in, may turn out to be nothing more than a legal fiction, because contrary to Buckley’s comment about preferring to be ruled by the first hundred names in the Brooklyn phone directory, than by the entire faculty of Harvard Law School may have been wrong. But if that is the case, then it is all the more reason to focus the ability of those elites to lead this nation in a competent and effective manner. Unlike prior generations of elites, I find the current masters of the universe to be wholly deficient when it comes to promoting the general welfare, as opposed to their own. They lead privileged lives themselves, yet they presume to judge how the rest of us live. Their passion for wealth and power is all consuming and vulgar.

  47. Correction: But to the extent they exist at all, you are more likely to find them in the ranks of the elites than in those of the WORKING class.

  48. freespirit
    January 16, 2015 at 8:07 pm


    Holder looks like a skunk and he behaves like one.

    He bangs the racial drum and scapegoats the cops–all for political gain.

    It is unseemly and devisive conduct for the nation’s top cop.

    It is hardly surprising that the federal officers under his command

    Are taking a page from the NYPD’s playbook

    And turning their backs on Holder.

    He well deserves this well crafted rebuke.

    Let this rebuke be his legacy.

  49. admin — Thanks for linking to the full text of the DHS defense in the Texas case. I’ll read it when I have time, later this week.

    As I noted in my critique of this lawsuit in early December, and as you note in today’s article, there is a problem with the plaintiffs’ standing: they have none.

    The reasons they have no standing are (i) they have no immigration powers to begin with, thus there is no encroachment on states’ powers, and (ii) they have no proof of injury, past or even future. You don’t consider the first of these arguments.

    As the case moves up the ladder, refusal to hear a case for lack of standing is not a victory for either side, because the merits are not reviewed. No appeal is possible. No other court will take the case. In the friendly Southern District court of Texas, the plaintiffs might pass muster; but anywhere north of El Paso, the case dies.

    So, I don’t think it will ever reach the Supreme Court and, if it does, it will be dismissed not on the merits but for lack of standing of the plaintiffs.

    Furthermore, considered on its merits, i.e. the three counts of accusation, the case is also pretty shaky. The counts are about interpretations, or rather abuse, of the APA, saying the DHS is not engaged in deferred action but is simply refusing to enforce the law.

    No mention is made of the fact that the federal government has not enforced the law for decades (see the Palinkas testimony in your article), mainly because the law is unenforceable.

    The DHS Directive, on the other hand, explains the deferred action convincingly as falling within the prosecutorial discretion of the federal government.

    I’ll read the DHS document anyway; but imho, this case is headed for the circular file.

  50. There is a young Muslim immigrant named La Hali (or something like that) who was just given French nationality by presidential decree.

    La Hali lives and works in Villejuif (= ‘Jew city’, originally a haven for Jews), which hosts sizable Jewish and now Muslim populations.

    La Hali works in a Kosher supermarket, an indication of how well the Muslim and Jewish communities get along with each other (Muslims shop Kosher too, and Jews shop Hallal).

    On the day of the Charlie Hebdo attack, there was a copycat attack by four gunmen who broke into the supermarket and opened fire.

    I don’t have a minute-by-minute account of what happened; but what put La Hali on the national radar that day was that he herded 15 customers — mostly Jewish — into the cold room in the back of the store, saving their lives until the police arrived and killed the gunmen.

    Some customers were killed, some wounded; a mosque and synagogue were also attacked in Villejuif. But when the smoke cleared, La Hali came out as one of the heroes of the day. Since he had asked for French nationality, Hollande had the papers drawn up and officiated the ceremony himself.

    I’m wondering if La Hali will get any attention by the world press.

  51. Below is the last line of an article by The Atlantic about how O will be viewed once he leaves office. It states the obvious, that O’s approval rating will be higher than it is currently because most former presidents enjoy higher approval ratings once out of office.

    I, for one, will feel much better about Obama after he is out of office, and no longer has the power to rule the country as a spoiled, petulant dictator. I think most Americans will. But it won’t be about approval. It will be about relief.

    The author seems a little pissed at Americans for not approving of Obama. How dare we? Who are we to judge? We know not what we do. The last line posted below, seems intended to shame us. Where were we when Obama needed our support? Why couldn’t we do the right thing, and support him when he needed it? OMG! Maybe we were on the damn golf course. Maybe we were busy trying to find one of those jobs he destroyed. Maybe we were in sick because we couldn’t keep our doctor as O promised.

    We know where this author was. On an 8 year hopium bender.


    “He’s most popular when he least needs it. Obama may look back to his final two years in office, those tough days of 2015 and 2016, and think: I really could have done with this support then.”

  52. ’ll read the DHS document anyway; but imho, this case is headed for the circular file.
    I would caution you AGAINST predicting an outcome on this issue based on reading the briefs.

    I have told you before how the judicial system works

    Judge to clerk: this is my (political) conclusion. Now, go find me the case law that supports it.

    The issue of standing can be overcome if they want to.

    The law is more flexible than you think in that area.

    And the Supreme Court is the arbiter of what the law says.

    And the Supreme Court reads polls and election results.

    The thing to bear in mind is that we are talking about a much larger issue.

    I doubt you are tuned into it, the way a lawyer would be.

    The link below will help you understand what I am talking about.

  53. The case for the plaintiffs becomes far easier if congress is seen to be addressing the issue. I do not think that such action renders the issue moot, because it has far reaching constitutional ramifications. I think what it does do is strip Obama of the argument that he has a right to act, because congress is not addressing the issue. That gives the court a free shot at restoring a sense of balance in the constitutional order and responding to the challenge laid down by Professor Turley.

  54. freespirit
    January 17, 2015 at 10:04 am
    I think a positive case for Obama will be hard to make outside the realm of the elite class who has benfitted from his bullshit. Most of the country will wake up to the fact that he is an elitists and he treats everyone who is not part of that class as niggers regardless of race, color, religion or national origin.

  55. The slop factor here is the antithesis of responsible representative government.

    It is not the act of legalization of illegals alone that is the problem, i.e. the act of rewarding illegal behavior, snubbing those who waited in line as per the law and giving future law breakers a strong incentive to do so as well.

    It is the ramification of legalization which include overwhelming the safety nets, opening a new path for the drug cartels (because we have no idea whom we are legalizing) and the depressing wages.

    The elites win, the American People lose, end of story.

    Except it isn’t the end, because this is the issue that will split the Republican party. The interests of the elites are adverse to those of the American People and this issue draws them into high relief. The open question for the Republican Party after they swore to voters that they would stop Obama is this:

    Whom will you cheat: your donors whom you have promised to support illegal immigration, or your constituents whom you have promised to fight illegal immigration, Obamcare and all the rest?

    For me the answer to that question was no mystery, because I know McConnell and Boehner personally.

    McConnell to conservatives: We’ll do our best to stop Obama’s executive amnesty but don’t expect miracles, okay?

    Oh sure Mitch, that’s just fine. By the way you lied to us and we are staying home in 2016. Okay?

  56. Whom will you cheat: your donors whom you have promised to support illegal immigration, or your constituents whom you have promised to fight illegal immigration, Obamcare and all the rest?
    We got our answer when the rino passed cromulus. After that, it was all just anti climactic.

  57. Whoda Thunkit??? 😆

    Last week, President Obama decided to announce his grand plan to provide two years of “free” community college to millions of folks across the nation.

    In case this wasn’t already obvious, there’s no such thing as a free lunch, so what this really means is there are hard working tax payers who are going to pay for millions of people to get a college education.

    Speaker of the House John Boehner decided to respond to Obama’s big idea and completely roasted him over it using an unconventional method of political warfare.

    He used Taylor Swift GIFs. I kid you not.

  58. McConnell to conservatives: We’ll do our best to stop Obama’s executive amnesty but don’t expect miracles, okay?

    Oh sure Mitch, that’s just fine. By the way you lied to us and we are staying home in 2016. Okay?

    Does not compute?

    Okay Mitch.

    Let me make it easier for you to understand.

    One good fucking deserves another.


  59. foxyladi14
    January 17, 2015 at 10:57 am
    Two questions:

    Who is paying for this washed up singer to serenade Kerry on the world stage.

    Is this Kerry’s best answer to the Paris attacks.

    This elitist prick has always been tone deaf and behaviorally blind.

    Like when he decided to take time off in the closing days of his presidential campaign.

    All bullshit aside, the man is a fucking loon.

  60. Wbboeu said about Kerry. 😆

    All bullshit aside, the man is a fucking loon.

    Amen and pretty sure We pay the tab as always in the Gubmint. 👿

  61. foxyladi14
    January 17, 2015 at 11:22 am
    Wbboeu said about Kerry. 😆

    All bullshit aside, the man is a fucking loon.

    Amen and pretty sure We pay the tab as always in the Gubmint. 👿


    Amen wbb and foxy. Apologies to all loons who did not know they were fucking dumb, but it’s true. Deal with it.

  62. foxyladi14
    January 17, 2015 at 11:24 am
    Looks like the Dish ran away with the Fox.
    And the Fox won!!!


  63. Barack Obama style race-baiting is very close to the fake charge of “Islamaphobia”. Both make a false charge to prevent examination or rational discussion and to profit in some way those who hurl the charge. Real hatred and real attacks against a groups, such as we see with antisemitism are not equivalent to Obama/Sharpton style race-baiting and phony Islamaphobia. Here’s a pretty good discussion:

    French Prime Minister: ‘I Refuse to Use This Term Islamophobia’
    Manuel Valls argues that the charge of ‘Islamophobia’ is often used to silence critics of Islamism.

    The prime minister of France, Manuel Valls, has emerged over the past tumultuous week as one of the West’s most vocal foes of Islamism, though he’s actually been talking about the threat it poses for a long while. During the course of an interview conducted before the Charlie Hebdo attacks, he told me—he went out of his way to tell me, in fact—that he refuses to use the term ‘Islamophobia’ to describe the phenomenon of anti-Muslim prejudice, because, he says, the accusation of Islamophobia is often used as a weapon by Islamism’s apologists to silence their critics.

    Most of my conversation with Valls was focused on the fragile state of French Jewry—here is my post on his comments, which included the now-widely circulated statement that, “if 100,000 Jews leave, France will no longer be France”—and I didn’t realize the importance of his comment about Islamophobia until I re-read the transcript of our interview.

    “It is very important to make clear to people that Islam has nothing to do with ISIS,” Valls told me. “There is a prejudice in society about this, but on the other hand, I refuse to use this term ‘Islamophobia,’ because those who use this word are trying to invalidate any criticism at all of Islamist ideology. The charge of ‘Islamophobia’ is used to silence people. ”

    Valls was not denying the existence of anti-Muslim sentiment, which is strong across much of France. In the wake of the Charlie Hebdo attack, miscreants have shot at Muslim community buildings, and various repulsive threats against individual Muslims have been cataloged. President Francois Hollande, who said Thursday that Muslims are the “first victims of fanaticism, fundamentalism, intolerance,” might be overstating the primacy of anti-Muslim prejudice in the current hierarchy of French bigotries—after all, Hollande just found it necessary to deploy his army to defend Jewish schools from Muslim terrorists, not Muslim schools from Jewish terrorists—but anti-Muslim bigotry is a salient and seemingly permanent feature of life in France. Or to contextualize it differently: Anti-Muslim feeling appears to be more widespread than anti-Jewish feeling across much of France, but anti-Jewish feeling has been expressed recently (and not-so-recently) with far more lethality, and mainly by Muslims.

    It appears as if Valls came to his view on the illegitimacy of ‘Islamophobia’ after being influenced by a number of people, including and especially the French philosopher Pascal Bruckner and the writer (and fatwa target) Salman Rushdie. Rushdie, along with a group of mainly Muslim writers, attacked the use of the term ‘Islamophobia’ several years ago in an open letter: “We refuse to renounce our critical spirit out of fear of being accused of ‘Islamophobia’, a wretched concept that confuses criticism of Islam as a religion and stigmatization of those who believe in it.”

    Bruckner argued that use of the word ‘Islamophobia’ was designed to deflect attention away from the goals of Islamists: “[I]t denies the reality of an Islamic offensive in Europe all the better to justify it; it attacks secularism by equating it with fundamentalism. Above all, however, it wants to silence all those Muslims who question the Koran, who demand equality of the sexes, who claim the right to renounce religion, and who want to practice their faith freely and without submitting to the dictates of the bearded and doctrinaire.”

    It is difficult to construct a single term that captures the variegated expressions of a broad prejudice. ‘Anti-Semitism,’ of course, is a terribly flawed term to describe anti-Jewish thought or behavior, and not only because it was invented by an actual hater of Jews, Wilhelm Marr, to prettify the base hatred to which he subscribed.
    It’s difficult to construct a single term that captures the variegated expressions of a broad prejudice.

    The origins of the term ‘Islamophobia’ are somewhat murky. According to Bruckner, the term was first used in its current manner to excoriate the writer Kate Millett, who had called upon Iranian women living under a theocratic yoke to take off their chadors. The term seems to have come into widespread use after the U.K.-based Runnymede Trust issued a report in 1997 entitled “Islamophobia: A Challenge for Us All,” and by 2001, the United Nations had recognized Islamophobia as a form of prejudice at its Durban conference on racism (this is the same conference from which the official U.S. delegation walked out, to protest the widespread trafficking in anti-Israel and anti-Jewish tropes). The Runnymede Trust defined Islamophobia as “unfounded hostility towards Muslims, and therefore fear or dislike of all or most Muslims.” This corresponds, in some ways, to my colleague Conor Friedersdorf’s definition of Islamophobia as the “irrational fear of mainstream Muslims.”

    I don’t think that Valls would disagree with the notion that the fear of “mainstream Muslims” is grounded in anything but prejudice. But the question he is asking (and answering) is this: Can hostility to the various related ideologies of Islamism—ideologies rooted in a particular reading of Muslim texts, theology, and history—be properly defined as Islamophobic?

    Michael Walzer, in the most recent issue of Dissent, provides one answer. He argues that it is quite rational to fear Islamism:

    I live with a generalized fear of every form of religious militancy. I am afraid of Hindutva zealots in India, of messianic Zionists in Israel, and of rampaging Buddhist monks in Myanmar. But I admit that I am most afraid of Islamist zealots because the Islamic world at this moment in time (not always, not forever) is especially feverish and fervent. Indeed, the politically engaged Islamist zealots can best be understood as today’s crusaders.

    Is this an anti-Muslim position, not a fear but a phobia—and a phobia that grows out of prejudice and hostility? Consider a rough analogy (all analogies are rough): if I say that Christianity in the eleventh century was a crusading religion and that it was dangerous to Jews and Muslims, who were rightly fearful (and some of them phobic)—would that make me anti-Christian? I know that crusading fervor isn’t essential to the Christian religion; it is historically contingent, and the crusading moment in Christian history came and, after two hundred years or so, went. Saladin helped bring it to an end, but it would have ended on its own. I know that many Christians opposed the Crusades; today we would call them Christian “moderates.” And, of course, most eleventh-century Christians weren’t interested in crusading warfare; they listened to sermons urging them to march to Jerusalem and they went home. Still, it is true without a doubt that in the eleventh century, much of the physical, material, and intellectual resources of Christendom were focused on the Crusades.

    Walzer doesn’t understand how opposition to a misogynistic, homophobic, anti-Semitic, anti-free-speech theocratic strain of totalitarianism could make a person a “racist” (a particularly inapt term for prejudice against Muslims, who are found among all races) or “Islamophobic,” or anything but a secular-minded progressive who is interested in defending the rights of women and minorities.

    I frequently come across leftists who are more concerned with avoiding accusations of Islamophobia than they are with condemning Islamist zealotry,” Walzer wrote. “There are perfectly legitimate criticisms that can be made not only of Islamist zealots but also of Islam itself—as of any other religion.”

    Hussein Ibish, writing in The National, offered a definition of Islamophobia that makes sense to me, and I would imagine, makes sense to Valls.

    The key to a practicable definition of Islamophobia that can help identify truly objectionable speech, must be that it refers to living human beings and their fundamental rights. It cannot be about protecting people from being offended, or having their feelings hurt. Still less can it be about protecting abstract ideas, religious dogmas, or cultural norms from being questioned, critiqued or even lampooned.

    The proper metric to identify genuinely bigoted speech is whether or not the expression in question is intended or likely to have the effect of promoting fear and hatred against broad categories of people based on their identity. Would such speech make it more difficult for communities to function effectively in their own society? In other words, does the speech attack the legitimate rights and interests of identity-based communities? Does it prevent them being seen as, and treated as equal by, and with regard to, other communities?

    Ibish argues that Charlie Hebdo, against which accusations of Islamophobia continue to be leveled, does not meet his standard: While many of the images it printed over the years were offensive to Muslims and many others, and were intended to be so, did its track record really suggest that its presence on the French scene in any way compromised, challenged, or complicated the ability of the Arab and Muslim migrant communities in France to function properly in that society? Clearly, the answer is no.

    Prejudice against Muslims is repulsive. Criticism of Islamist doctrine, and the lampooning of religious beliefs, is not.

  64. Another good (and long) discussion of Islam which includes immigration issues:

    Immigration and Islam: Europe’s Crisis of Faith
    France and the rest of Western Europe have never honestly confronted the issues raised by Muslim immigration

    The terrorist assault on the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo on Jan. 7 may have been organized by al Qaeda’s affiliate in Yemen. But the attack, along with another at a Paris kosher market days later, was carried out by French Muslims descended from recent waves of North African and West African immigration. Well before the attacks, which left 17 dead, the French were discussing the possibility that tensions with the country’s own Muslim community were leading France toward some kind of armed confrontation.

    Consider Éric Zemmour, a slashing television debater and a gifted polemicist. His history of the collapse of France’s postwar political order, “Le suicide français,” was No. 1 on the best-seller lists for several weeks this fall. “Today, our elites think it’s France that needs to change to suit Islam, and not the other way around,” Mr. Zemmour said on a late-night talk show in October, “and I think that with this system, we’re headed toward civil war.”

    More recently, Michel Houellebecq published “Submission,” a novel set in the near future. In it, the re-election of France’s current president, François Hollande, has drawn recruits to a shadowy group proclaiming its European identity. “Sooner or later, civil war between Muslims and the rest of the population is inevitable,” a sympathizer explains. “They draw the conclusion that the sooner this war begins, the better chance they’ll have of winning it.” Published, as it happened, on the morning of the attacks, Mr. Houellebecq’s novel replaced Mr. Zemmour’s at the top of the best-seller list, where it remains.

    Two days after the Charlie Hebdo killings, there was a disturbing indication on Le Monde’s website of how French people were thinking. One item about the killing vastly outpaced all others in popularity. The reactions of Europe’s leaders was shared about 5,000 times, tales of Muslim schoolchildren with mixed feelings about 6,000, a detailed account of the Charlie Hebdo editorial meeting ended by the attack, 9,000. Topping them all, shared 28,000 times, was a story about reprisals: “Mosques become targets, French Muslims uneasy.” Those clicks are the sound of French fear that something larger may be under way.

    France’s problem has elements of a military threat, a religious conflict and a violent civil-rights movement. It is not unique. Every country of Western Europe has a version. For a half-century, millions of immigrants from North and sub-Saharan Africa have arrived, lured by work, welfare, marriage and a refuge from war. There are about 20 million Muslims in Europe, with some 5 million of them in France, according to the demographer Michèle Tribalat. That amounts to roughly 8% of the population of France, compared with about 5% of both the U.K. and Germany.

    Such a migration is not something that Europeans would have countenanced at any other moment in their generally xenophobic history, and the politicians who permitted it to happen were not lucky. The movement coincided with a collapse in European birthrates, which lent the immigration an unstoppable momentum, and with the rise of modern political Islam, which gave the diaspora a radical edge.

    Just why Europe has had such trouble can be partially understood by contrasting it with the U.S. Europe’s welfare states are more developed and, until recently, more open to noncitizens, so illegal or “underground” immigration has been low. But employment rates have been low, too. If Americans have traditionally considered immigrants the hardest-working segment of their population, Europeans have had the opposite stereotype. In the early 1970s, 2 million of the 3 million foreigners in Germany were in the labor force; by the turn of this century, 2 million of 7.5 million were.

    Europe was not just disoriented by the trauma of World War II. It was also demoralized and paralyzed by the memory of Nazism and the continuing dismantling of colonialism. Leaders felt that they lacked the moral standing to address problems that were as plain as the noses on their faces—just as U.S. leaders ducked certain racial issues in the wake of desegregation.

    Europeans drew the wrong lessons from the American civil-rights movement. In the U.S., there was race and there was immigration. They were separate matters that could (at least until recently) be disentangled by people of good faith. In Europe, the two problems have long been inseparable. Voters who worried about immigration were widely accused of racism, or later of “Islamophobia.”

    In France, antiracism set itself squarely against freedom of speech. The passage of the 1990 Gayssot Law, which punished denial of the Holocaust, was a watershed. Activist lobbies sought to expand such protections by limiting discussion of a variety of historical events—the slave trade, colonialism, foreign genocides. This was backed up by institutional muscle. In the 1980s, President François Mitterrand’s Socialist party created a nongovernmental organization called SOS Racisme to rally minority voters and to hound those who worked against their interests.

    Older bodies such as the communist-inspired Movement against Racism and for Friendship Among the Peoples made a specialty of threatening (and sometimes carrying out) lawsuits against European intellectuals for the slightest trespasses against political correctness: the late Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci for her post-9/11 lament “The Rage and the Pride,” the philosopher Alain Finkielkraut for doubting that the 2005 riots in France’s suburban ghettos were due to unemployment, the Russia scholar Hélène Carrère d’Encausse for speculating about the role of polygamy in the problems of West African immigrants.

    Speech codes have done little to facilitate entry into the workforce for immigrants and their children or to reduce crime. But they have intimidated European voting publics, insulated politicians from criticism and turned certain crucial matters into taboos. Immigrant and ethnic issues have become tightly bound to the issue of building the multinational European Union, which has removed vast areas of policy from voter accountability. “Anti-European” sentiments continue to rise.

    So impressed were the Europeans with their own generosity that they failed to notice that the population of second- and third-generation immigrants was growing bigger, stronger, more unified and less inclined to take moral instruction. This is partly a demographic problem. Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, Western Europe has had some of the lowest birthrates of any civilization on record. Without immigration, Europe’s population would fall by a hundred million by midcentury, according to U.N. estimates.

    When mass immigration began, Europeans did not give much thought to the influence of Islam. In the 1960s, there might have been worries that a North African was, say, a Nasserite Arab nationalist, but not that he was a would-be jihadist. Too many Europeans forgot that people carry a long past within them—and that, even when they do not, they sometimes wish to. Materialistic, acquisitive, averse to God and family, Europe’s culture appeared cold, dead and unsatisfying to many Muslims. It failed to satisfy a lot of non-Muslims too, but until they ran out of borrowed money with the 2008 crash, they could avoid facing it squarely.

    Europeans didn’t know enough about the cultural background of Muslims to browbeat them the same way they did the native-born. Muslims felt none of the historic guilt over fascism and colonialism that so affected non-Muslim Europeans. They had a freedom of political action that Europeans lacked.

    As European politics grew duller and the stakes lower, many political romantics looked enviously at the aspirations of the Muslim poor, particularly regarding Palestine. You could see a hint of this last weekend in the BBC journalist who interrupted a mourning Frenchwoman, distraught about the targeting of Jews for murder at a kosher supermarket, to say that “the Palestinians suffer hugely at Jewish hands.”

    In a world that prized “identity,” Muslim immigrants were aristocrats. Those who became radicalized developed the most monstrous kind of self-regard. A chilling moment in the most recent terrorist drama came when the TV network RTL phoned the kosher supermarket where the Malian-French hostage-taker, Amedy Coulibaly, was holding his victims at gunpoint. He refused to talk but hung up the phone carelessly. The newspaper Le Monde was able to publish a transcript of the strutting stupidity to which he then gave expression:

    They’re always trying to make you believe that Muslims are terrorists. Me, I’m born in France. If they hadn’t been attacked elsewhere, I wouldn’t be here…Think of the people who had Bashar al-Assad in Syria. They were torturing people…We didn’t intervene for years…Then bombers, coalition of 50,000 countries, all that…Why did they do that?”

    The Muslim community is not to be confused with the terrorists it produces. But left to its own, it probably lacks the means, the inclination and the courage to stand up to the faction, however small, that supports terrorism. In 1995, there were riots among French Muslims after the arrest of Khalid Kelkal of Lyon, who had planted several bombs—in a train station, near a Jewish school, on a high-speed rail track. In 2012, when Mohamed Merah of Toulouse was killed by police after having gunned down soldiers, a rabbi and three Jewish elementary-school children, his brother professed himself “proud,” and his father threatened to file a wrongful-death suit against the government.

    And when Charlie Hebdo printed a memorial cover this week that had a picture of its controversial cartoon character “Muhammad” on it, it was as if the attacks had never happened: Muslim community spokesmen, even moderate ones, issued dire warnings about the insult to them and their coreligionists. To many Muslims in France and the rest of Europe, the new drawings were evidence not that the terrorists had failed to kill a magazine but that the French had failed to heed a warning. Impressive though the post-attack memorial marches were, “the working classes and the North African and West African immigrant kids weren’t there,” as the president of France’s Young Socialists told the newspaper Le Temps.

    It may seem harsh to criticize the French in their time of grief, but they are responding today with tools that have failed them in previous crises. They reflexively look at their own supposed bigotry as always, somehow, the ultimate cause of Islamist terrorism, and they limit their efforts to making minority communities feel more at home.

    The mysterious riots of 2005 in France—which lasted for almost three weeks, during which the rioters made no claims and put forward no leaders—were chalked up to deprivation. The French media responded with an effort to hire more nonwhite news anchors and reporters, and the government promised to spend more in the suburbs. Now, after the murders in Paris, the contradictions continue to accumulate:

    • On religion: Mr. Hollande has insisted that the attacks have “nothing to do with Islam.” At the same time, Prime Minister Manuel Valls speaks of “moderate Islam” and rails against “conservatism and obscurantism”—as if the violence had everything to do with Islam, and even with religious devotion in general.

    • On spying: Some in the French government blame intelligence failures, since the secret services tracked the Charlie Hebdo killers Said and Chérif Kouachi until last summer. But government officials boast of about their principled unwillingness to legislate a “Patriot Act a la française”—even as they draw daily on intelligence gathered by the U.S.

    • On religious hatred: Justice Minister Christiane Taubira has announced an all-out assault on “racism and anti-Semitism,” promising that those who attack others because of their religion will be fought “with rigor and resolve.” In theory, this sounds like a promise to protect Jewish shoppers from getting killed at their neighborhood grocery stores. In practice, it will mean placing limits on any inquiry into the inner dynamics of Muslim communities and may wind up increasing the terrorist threat rather than diminishing it.

    What continues is the deafness of France’s government and mainstream parties to public opinion (and popular suffrage) on the issues of immigration and a multiethnic society. Mr. Hollande’s approval ratings have risen since the attacks, but they are still below 30%. In January 2013, according to the newsweekly L’Express, 74% of the French said that Islam “is not compatible with French society.” Though that number fell last year, it is almost certain to be higher now.

    Voters all across Europe feel abandoned by the mainstream political class, which is why populist parties are everywhere on the rise. Whatever the biggest initial grievance of these parties—opposition to the European Union for the U.K. Independence Party, opposition to the euro for Alternative für Deutschland, corruption for Italy’s 5 Star Movement—all wind up, by voter demand, placing immigration and multiculturalism at the center of their concerns.

    In France, it is the Front National, a party with antecedents on the far right, that has been the big beneficiary. In the last national election, for seats in the European Parliament, the FN, led by Marine Le Pen (daughter of the party’s founder, Jean-Marie Le Pen), topped the polls. But the ruling Socialists froze the Front National out of the recent national ceremonies of mourning, limiting participation in the Paris rally to those parties it deemed “republican.” This risks damaging the cause of republicanism more than the cause of Le Pen and her followers.

    Acts of terrorism can occur without shaking a country to its core. These latest attacks, awful as they were, could be taken in stride if the majority in France felt itself secure. But it does not. Thanks to wars in Iraq, Syria and Yemen, thousands of young people who share the indignation of the Kouachis and Coulibaly are now battle-hardened and heavily armed.

    France, like Europe more broadly, has been careless for decades. It has not recognized that free countries are for peoples strong enough to defend them. A willingness to join hands and to march in solidarity is a good first response to the awful events of early January. It will not be enough.

    We believe now even more than when we wrote it that the attacks in Paris will have a greater impact and more consequences than the 9/11 attacks in New York City. The West is waking up from its slumbers.

  65. Bobby Jindal:

    Jindal’s Brilliant Take on Radical Islam

    “Let’s be honest here. Islam has a problem.”

    Those are key sentences in an incredibly hard-hitting speech that Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal will give in London on Monday. It is the toughest speech I have read on the whole issue of Islamic radicalism and its destructive, murdering, barbarous ways that are upsetting the entire world.

    Early in the speech Jindal says he’s not going to be politically correct. And he uses the term “radical Islamists” without hesitation, placing much of the blame for the Paris murders and all radical Islamist terrorism on a refusal of Muslim leaders to denounce these acts.

    Jindal says, “Muslim leaders must make clear that anyone who commits acts of terror in the name of Islam is in fact not practicing Islam at all. If they refuse to say this, then they are condoning these acts of barbarism. There is no middle ground.”

    Then he adds, specifically, “Muslim leaders need to condemn anyone who commits these acts of violence and clearly state that these people are evil and are enemies of Islam. It’s not enough to simply condemn violence, they must stand up and loudly proclaim that these people are not martyrs who will receive a reward in the afterlife, and rather they are murderers who are going to hell. If they refuse to do that, then they’re part of the problem. There is no middle ground here.” [snip]

    And by the way, what Bobby Jindal is saying is very similar to what Egyptian president el-Sissi said earlier in the year to a group of Muslim imams.

    Said el-Sissi, “It’s inconceivable that the thinking we hold most sacred should cause the entire umma [Islamic world] to be a source of anxiety, danger, killing and destruction for the rest of the world.”

    He then asks, “How is it possible that 1.6 billion Muslims should want to kill the rest of the world’s inhabitants — that is 7 billion — so that they themselves may live?” He concludes, if this is not changed, “it may eventually lead to the religion’s self destruction.”

    That’s President el-Sissi of Egypt, which I believe has the largest Muslim population in the world.

    And what Jindal and el-Sissi are saying is not so different from the thinking of French intellectual Bernard-Henri Levy. Writing in the Wall Street Journal, he calls the Charlie Hebdo murders “the Churchillian moment of France’s Fifth Republic.” He essentially says France and the world must slam “the useful idiots of a radical Islam immersed in the sociology of poverty and frustration.” He adds, “Those whose faith is Islam must proclaim very loudly, very often, and in great numbers their rejection of this corrupt and abject form of theocratic passion. … Islam must be freed from radical Islam.”

    So three very different people — a young southern governor who may run for president, the political leader of the largest Muslim population in the world, and a prominent Western European intellectual — are saying that most of the problem and most of the solution rests with the people of the Islamic religion themselves. If they fail to take action, the radicals will swallow up the whole religion and cause the destruction of the entire Middle East and possibly large swaths of the rest of the world.

    Levy called this a Churchillian moment. And London mayor Boris Johnson argues in his book “The Churchill Factor” that Winston Churchill was the most important 20th century figure because his bravery in 1940 stopped the triumph of totalitarianism. So today’s battle with the Islamic radicals is akin to the Cold War battle of freedom vs. totalitarianism.

  66. Erickson was sounding off this morning about the hypocrisy and double standards applied by big media. The specific target of his wrath this time was the pass given to a white democrat who had sexual relations with a 17 year old black secretary. It is a waste of time to condemn this double standard as a violation of their journalistic integrity. They gave that one up in 2008, and there is no going back. What big media tells you–and fails to tell you is driven by one objective, and it is not to sell newspapers which is the often cited canard. This is 100% about social control by the elites.

    This point is reinforced by the current outcry in the press against the new movie about the civil rights movement which challenges the myth perpetrated by white liberals that they and Johnson were partners with Martin Luther King in that movement. In order for the white liberals to pose as saints they must portray Johnson in those terms as well. Johnson, the leader of the Dukes of Duvalle whose reputation would have made Huey Long blush, Johnson a one time advocate of segregation, Johnson who flew over a battlefield in World War II and got a medal for it, Johnson who gave interviews to female reporter while he was sitting on the c-mode, and listened in to surveillance tapes of King’s sexual pecccadilos, was no saint any more that these white liberals were. He was a crass opportunist, and that was his only virtue. My godfather–a backroom member of the party and campaign manager for Senator Magnuson knew him and liked him, considered him a more substantial man than JFK. He had a trained eye for such things, but he would laugh at the idea that LBJ was the great man liberals want him to be so they can feel so good about themselves, and preen before mirrors. Lay down thy flattering unction.

    The other point is something which the world needs to take note of and that was a statement by a prominent black conservative of that era–Joseph Jackson, who called the game on the white liberal, and accused them of trying to select who the black leaders would be–King in this case. For that is precisely what the white liberals of today have done with shakedown artists like Sharpton who clearly lack King’s moral character and leadership skills. Sharpton, like Jackson, is a big media created figure, and they are the ones– white liberals like Phil Griffin head of MSNBC who have made him the spokesman for all black people. Nunc pro tunc–then as now the white liberal is determined to tell black people who their leaders are, and unfortunately, those faux leaders are the worst of men. Obama is yet another example of this kind of fraud which keeps them on the plantation.


    Chosen are only those historians whose opinions fit the flattering narrative of those who like to think of themselves arm-in-arm with the “marchers” either in actuality or imaginatively–and choking up at the movie, as Richard Cohen, in his column, said he did.

    But Johnson’s support of civil rights legislation for political purposes was seen for what it was back in the 1960s by black conservatives like Reverend Joseph Jackson and Pittsburgh Courier columnist George Schuyler.

    Schuyler, who supported Barry Goldwater for president against Johnson because of his better record on civil rights, saw civil rights marches as a form of “beggary,” of prostration of blacks before white political leaders. Working in the tradition of Booker T. Washington, Schuyler promoted the idea of black economic independence in the form of cooperatives and black-owned financial institutions and businesses.

    Joseph H. Jackson, the longest serving president of the National Baptist Convention, in a speech before the meeting of that body in 1964, also opposed the “direct action” tactics of “boycotts, pickets, sit-ins, and demonstrations,” implying that most of the black community did not approve of such lawless tactics for achieving civil rights. “We must not allow the white community to pick our leaders or tell us what Negro to follow,” he stated.

    Such expressions of Truth to Power, however, do not fit into the self-flattering image of liberals. Dramatizations of such speeches will not be coming to a screen near you.

  67. Update II: Gay marriage? The Supreme Court will take up the issue of gay marriage. So what does this have to do with immigration? For that matter what does this have to do with ObamaCare? Noah Rothman makes a case for The Supreme Court’s possible gay marriage gift to the GOP in 2016. It’s mostly a “take the issue off the table” argument.

    But we think the gift to the GOP and Obama opponents is much much bigger. We think another chess piece has just been moved. We’ve discussed Supreme Court chess when it comes to ObamaCare before. We wrote “Now the Supreme Court will move against ObamaCare before the 2016 election and safely after the 2014 elections.” Chief Justice John Roberts wants to protect the court and this desire hurt ObamaCare opponents in the first court decision (which came in June of election year 2012) but works against ObamaCare now that the high court will be protected from election year attacks.

    So why do we think that this weirdly timed gay marriage case is to be heard this term with a decision likely in June as a boon to the GOP? Try this: Chief Justice Roberts would love to rule in favor of gay marriage at the same time he rules against ObamaCare subsidies and Obama’s illegal illegal immigration diktat. This way the Supreme Court gets praise (on gay marriage) and attack (on ObamaCare and illegal immigration) from the left and praise (on illegal immigration and ObamaCare subsidies) and attack (on gay marriage) from the right. Positioned right on the center of the political chessboard and protected from attacks is just where the Roberts Supreme Court wants to be.


  68. today’s battle with the Islamic radicals is akin to the Cold War battle of freedom vs. totalitarianism.
    In some way, that’s true. But this has another element to it—a religious one–which makes it even more lethal. And frankly, it is not merely the clash of governments but the clash of civilizations which has a long history to it. The Soviet soldier may have been prepared to give his life for the motherland, but never expected to greet 12 vigins after he slipped to mortal coil. In such battles as these ferocity counts and the enemy will give no quarter.

    The sons of the Prophet are brave men and bold
    And quite unaccustomed to fear,
    But the bravest by far in the ranks of the Shah,
    Was Abdul Abulbul Amir.

    If you wanted a man to encourage the van,
    Or harass the foe from the rear,
    Storm fort or redoubt, you had only to shout
    For Abdul Abulbul Amir.

    Now the heroes were plenty and well known to fame
    In the troops that were led by the Czar,
    And the bravest of these was a man by the name
    Of Ivan Skavinsky Skavar.

    One day this bold Russian, he shouldered his gun
    And donned his most truculent sneer,
    Downtown he did go where he trod on the toe
    Of Abdul Abulbul Amir.

    Young man, quoth Abdul, has life grown so dull
    That you wish to end your career?
    Vile infidel, know, you have trod on the toe
    Of Abdul Abulbul Amir.

    So take your last look at the sunshine and brook
    And send your regrets to the Czar
    For by this I imply, you are going to die,
    Count Ivan Skavinsky Skavar.

    Then this bold Mameluke drew his trusty skibouk,[A]
    Singing, “Allah! Il Allah! Al-lah!”
    And with murderous intent he ferociously went
    For Ivan Skavinsky Skavar.

    They parried and thrust, they side-stepped and cussed,
    Of blood they spilled a great part;
    The philologist blokes, who seldom crack jokes,
    Say that hash was first made on the spot.
    They fought all that night neath the pale yellow moon;
    The din, it was heard from afar,
    And huge multitudes came, so great was the fame,
    Of Abdul and Ivan Skavar.

    As Abdul’s long knife was extracting the life,
    In fact he was shouting, “Huzzah!”
    He felt himself struck by that wily Calmuck,
    Count Ivan Skavinsky Skavar.

    The Sultan drove by in his red-breasted fly,
    Expecting the victor to cheer,
    But he only drew nigh to hear the last sigh,
    Of Abdul Abulbul Amir.

    There’s a tomb rises up where the Blue Danube rolls,
    And graved there in characters clear,
    Is, “Stranger, when passing, oh pray for the soul
    Of Abdul Abulbul Amir.”

    A splash in the Black Sea one dark moonless night
    Caused ripples to spread wide and far,
    It was made by a sack fitting close to the back,
    Of Ivan Skavinsky Skavar.

    A Muscovite maiden her lone vigil keeps,
    ‘Neath the light of the cold northern star,
    And the name that she murmurs in vain as she weeps,
    Is Ivan Skavinsky Skavar.

  69. admin
    January 17, 2015 at 12:53 pm
    Very logical.

    Very politicaly savvy.

    But the ultimate question remains:

    What will John Roberts do when they squeeze his balls?

    The answer to that question is an imponderable.

    History suggest that he will either cave or he will split the baby.

    As between the two issues extant, by far the more important one is amnesty.

    For that is the issue which shivers the timbers of our constitutional system.

    I hate to see panic.

    I hate the reaction in myself and do everything I can to control it–so no one sees.

    But what I saw in Roberts in the seminal case on Obamacare was panic.

    A panic that was open and notorious.

    The law clerks reported this.

    Justice Kennedy went to great lengths to talk John off the ledge.

    But there was no stopping him.

    Can you imagine Bill Rhenquist acting in that manner.

    He was a solid jurist secure in his philosophy and his convictions.

    John Roberts is none of those things.

  70. wbboei
    January 17, 2015 at 10:27

    I see the problem with the Supreme Court restoring the balance of powers by defending our Constitution…is that the Supremes are more worried about defending their political parties then the American public as a whole.

    It starts out with Presidents stacking the court, the court members kicking the bucket, and the party in power taking advantage of the new nominees. The President in ‘charge’ is the person that decides on a new supreme…unless Congress does it’s job and really vets this person.

    For example, Sodamyass…how the Hell did she have the effin’ wisdom to be accepted by Congress as a life long Supreme?

  71. Yes, it is the legal path, the logical path, the political path and it could insulate his legacy from attacks. It may even be the case that when the case is decided months from now, Messiah Obama will be less popular with the ignoranti–as opposed to the elites.

    Nevertheless, on the issue that really counts in the preservation of our constitutional order, for reasons that have nothing to do with logic, politics or legacy, it may turn out to be the path not taken. The human question mark here is John Roberts.

  72. Shadowfax
    January 17, 2015 at 1:39 pm


    As I was saying to Mrs. Smith last night, my despair (or despondency as she called it) stems from the fact that there are checks and balances against tyranny built into our constitutional order by the genius of James Madison. The courts, the judiciary and the media are three of them charged with that function. Arguably, the states are another check and balance. Each of them, in their own respective ways have failed the American People and abdicated their institutional role for the sake of crass politics–and oligarchy. To my way of thinking, certain issues are so critical to our nation that the players are supposed to rise above politics and do what is right. There’s very little of that now. Instead we get speeches, smoke and mirrors.

    Why is it that Sharyl Attkisson and Judicial Watch have done more to get to the bottom of the scandals that plague this administation than the Republican officials, their staffs, etc. Is it because they are all incompetent? Or is it because they don’t really want to. We know why big media has taken a dive. But what about the rest of these so called guardians. If you consider these things in light of Mark Steyne’s comments in the video above one thing becomes obvious: time is not on our side. So for all those who say be patient we will prevail in the long run, I say, in the long run we will all be dead.


    In the final segment of Friday’s edition of HBO’s Real Time, host Bill Maher took aim at those who oppose free speech, especially taking liberals to task for the “Islamophobia kills” campaign and being against “bullying” when it’s convenient.

    “Yeah, liberals hate bullying alright but they’re not opposed to using it when they causally through out words like bigot and racist,” Maher said.

    “It does cower people into avoiding this debate. And if you’re doing that, you don’t get to wear the “Je suis Charlie” button; the button you wear is ‘Je suis party of the problem.‘ And that goes for everybody,” he added.

    Maher criticized Catholic League president Bill Donahue for blaming the publisher of Charlie Hebo for not understanding “the role he played in his tragic death. Maher says that’s essentially blaming a woman for rape because she was wearing clothes that were too provocative.

    Next, Maher slammed frequent guest of the show Glenn Greenwald for saying anti-Muslim speech is a “vital driver” for the occupation of Muslim countries and killing the innocent.

    “Really?” Maher incredulously asked. “Newspaper cartoons did all that? Wait until they get to the horoscopes and the crossword.

    “It reminds me of one of those protest signs that I saw up in Berkeley last month; it said: ‘Islamophobia kills.’ Does it? The phobia kills? Or maybe it’s more the AK-47s, and the beheadings, and the planes into buildings,” Maher responded.

    Maher even defended Rush Limbaugh from campaigns in recent years to boycott him and get companies to pull their advertisements from his show.

    “This may surprise you, but I am not a big fan of Rush Limbaugh,” Maher said. “However, if you’re one of the people with a website devoted to making him go away, you are part of the problem. Ironically you’re not even a proper liberal because you don’t get free speech. You’re just a baby who can’t stand to live in a world where you hear things that upset you. Oh, you’re not alone.”

    “Free speech only works if there are no waivers. No waivers. Including for religion,” Maher said in the conclusion of his monologue. Transcript below.

    BILL MAHER: Now that it’s been a month since I gave the commencement address at Berkeley someone needs to check in with the people who tried to have my speech canceled, and make sure they made it though okay.

    Also, since they were protesting me for once saying “Islam is the only religion that acts like the mafia (and will) kill you if you say the wrong thing or draw the wrong picture,” and then two jihadists gun down 12 people in Paris for saying the wrong thing and drawing the wrong picture, you have to tell me where do I go to protest you?

    The march we saw in Paris last Sunday with the leaders of 44 countries standing up for free speech was very heartening. But unfortunately, not everybody got the memo, like the Pope and his American vigilante Bill Donahue. Bill is the head of the Catholic League and as such he’s called me an anti-Catholic bigot so many times it’s now my ringtone. Bill also once took umbrage at my stance on pedophilia, on against it, and threatened to — I guess this is a Catholic thing now — punch me in the nose. Because whether you’re representing the prince of peace or the religion of peace threatening violence is a great way to drive home the point that you’re secure in your medieval beliefs.

    Last week, Mr. Donahue wrote that it was too bad Charlie Hebdo’s publisher, “didn’t understand the role he played in his tragic death,” which is like saying the rape victim didn’t understand that her clothes were too provocative. And that’s the great irony of Bill Donahue. He’s a staunch advocate for a religion which considers masturbation a sin and yet he’s a huge jerk off.

    Glenn Greenwald says anti-Muslim speech like the cartoons in Charlie are, “a vital driver in bombing and occupying Muslim countries and killing the innocent.” Really? Newspaper cartoons did all that? Wait until they get to the horoscopes and the crossword. It reminds me of one of those protest signs that I saw up in Berkeley last month; it said: “Islamophobia kills.” Does it? The phobia kills? Or maybe it’s more the AK-47s, and the beheadings, and the planes into buildings.

    (MAHER to audience): Anyway, wow, you don’t agree with that?

    Thank you. Thank you. Hey one guy, thank you.

    You’d think that someone like Glenn Greenwald wouldn’t be so ambivalent about terrorism since terrorism is really just bullying. Extreme bullying. And I thought that we hated bullying now? When it happens in high schools these days people go nuts. When I was a kid adults just shrugged and said, “kids are assholes, what are you going to do?”

    Yeah, liberals hate bullying alright but they’re not opposed to using it when they causally through out words like bigot and racist. It does cower people into avoiding this debate. And if you’re doing that, you don’t get to wear the “Je suis Charlie” button; the button you wear is “Je suis party of the problem.” And that goes for everybody.

    This may surprise you, but I am not a big fan of Rush Limbaugh. However, if you’re one of the people with a website devoted to making him go away, you are part of the problem. Ironically you’re not even a proper liberal because you don’t get free speech. You’re just a baby who can’t stand to live in a world where you hear things that upset you. Oh, you’re not alone.

    In much of Europe denying the Holocaust is a crime. It shouldn’t be. The French arrested an anti-Semitic comedian this week for his comments about the attack, which were vile, but opinions shouldn’t be illegal. Everyone can always come up with a reason why the thing that bugs you should get a waiver. But free speech only works if there are no waivers. No waivers. Including for religion.

    Like, say you are, and I’m just picking a religion at random here — Muslim. And you love, love, love you some Islam. It’s what uplifts you and inspires you and you can’t imagine your life without for what everyone doesn’t love it too. Believe me, I get that, that’s how I feel about weed. But when someone criticizes weed, I think, “good, more for me,” not off with their head. And as a comedian I like it that jokes can hurt. I like it that Kim Jong-un was wounded by a movie. If you’re a satirist, that’s winning. Kim Jong-un hates jokes, he doesn’t get them and he takes them too seriously, which proves something I’ve always expected about him. He’s a lesbian. (HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher, January 16, 2015)

  74. Wbb

    But what about the rest of these so called guardians. If you consider these things in light of Mark Steyne’s comments in the video above one thing becomes obvious: time is not on our side

    I see the American public at large as the hammer that will bring back the balance…although it won’t happen quickly.

    American’s know what it is about their country that gives them pride in living here. We have seen American’s start to fight back since 2008.

    – Millions of Hillary Clinton’s supporters did not fall in line with their party, they went rouge and voted for their life long opposition party to try and stop the freight train.

    – The folks in the GOP tent didn’t like the madness of their party either, and the Tea people joined together and voted in many new members in 2012.

    – Then the public started to get Dim policies crammed down their necks, lose their hard earned health care and get stung by the lies of the administration and Barry’s stinky bare ass was exposed, starting his nose dive in the polls.

    – Polls reflect the public anger in being lied to and manipulated.

    – The media is being punished for their manipulation by viewer drop off.

    – I know you call the American public stupid for voting for Obola, but you also have to see that the tide has turned. Most that voted for him now realize they were duped.

    Most of us do not know much about the candidates that run for President. Most do not support their candidate for years, based on their history…but tend to want to believe what is presented to them in the Presidential debates.

    Sometimes we pick a loser, sometimes we end up with someone that is better than we ever expected (Bill Clinton), but we haven’t been faced with someone that is so destructive to our country as Obama, in our life time. IMO.

    This is a test for the American public, to see that the dithering in accepting a President’s lies are the time it buys to put our lives at risk. Obama will not be forgotten, not because he was a good pResident, but because of his lies and failures.

    Congress is already paying for not doing the job they were voted in to do, that’s why the Dims lost BOTH houses, giving up their power.

    We are stuck with another 4 years of Obola, so the best we could do is line him up against a majority in the House and Senate.

    The worst situation for American’s is the set up of the Supreme Court. We are stuck with these people for as long as they can sit in that chair.

    I do have faith in American’s learning from their mistakes while still finding hope in the future…even if they have to hold their breath until it gets there.

    Now there are always exceptions…but that’s my view of the big picture.

  75. jbstonesfan
    January 17, 2015 at 2:56 pm
    Sadly, I think it is upheld Wbboei.
    It is very hard for me to be optimistic when all systems fail. All systems that are supposed to protect our liberty and our prosperity fail. And fail they do, not innocuously, not temporarily, but spectacularly, permanently and irretrievably. This is a paradigmatic shift in our form of government, with Orwellian undertones. Yes. It is hard to be optimistic which is why I am completely pessimistic about the future. The driver of this decline is the elites. They think they can throw the middle class to the wolves with impunity. History however proves that is a sucker’s bet. By the way, Murray was pessimistic too. I do not see Roberts as the man to save the republic. It is not in his genetic make up to ever venture out on the limb.

  76. Shadow, you have more faith in the American People than I do. For lest we forget Franklin’s answer to the man in the street outside Convention Hall in Philadelphia who asked what kind of government he had: a republic sir, IF you can keep it. In order to keep it, the must be vigilant to the attacks on their liberty which today the American People are not. Their response is either one of indifference or Pavlovian, as in Pavlov’s dog. Beyond that, as noted yesterday, the founding fathers had certain attributes in mind when they vested ultimate power in the people. In their view, the condition precedent to self government consists of the very things that the left has moved heaven and earth to destroy in its blighted march through the institutions, namely, marriage, religiosity, industry and honesty. Suffice it to say, those attributes of character are hardly the cornerstones of this culture today. And without them, self government is impossible. It therefore follows that the American People today are not up to the task. And nature abhors a vacuum. And it to that vacuum pour the worst of men, men like Sharpton, Holder, Obama, and their ilk.

    Sadly, the American People have fallen into the same trap as their predecessors in Rome 20 centuries past:

    “‘It is scarcely possible that the eyes of contemporaries should discover in the public felicity the latent causes of decay and corruption. This long peace, and the uniform government of the Romans, introduced a slow and secret poison into the vitals of the empire.

    The minds of men were gradually reduced to the same level, the fire of genius was extinguished, and even the military spirit evaporated.’ Now that no one buys our votes, the public has long since cast off its cares; the people that once bestowed commands, consulships, legions and all else, now meddles no more and longs eagerly for just two things—-Bread and Games!”

    Juvenal–Satire 10

  77. CNN’s Jim Clancy resigns after anti-Israel tweets

    Anchor leaves Cable News Network after 34 years following controversial Twitter debate with pro-Israel activists over terror attack on Charlie Hebdo
    I am tempted to say he is an unmitigated scumbag and he should fork over the monies he earned over that period.

    Instead, I will say only this: Clancy was part and parcel of the culture that has existed at CNN since its inception and Christine Amopour is guilty of the same bad thoughts. Bad thoughts in turn product bad words and bad words produce bad actions. Finally, ironic though it might seem, CNN dumped on Israel, but refused to report on Saddaam’s autrocities for the same reason they ignore Obama’s transgressions, i.e. the fear of losing access. Emile Zola marched to a very different drum. Jaccuuuz!!!!

  78. One more example of the dysfunction of the stupid party.

    CNN tanked the Republican nominee in 2012.

    Nevertheless, the RNC has decided that there will be 7 primary debates and CNN will get up to 3 of them in 2016.

    I call it dysfunction, but I may be wrong.

    It may simply be masochism.

  79. Wbb

    Yes, I do have more faith in American’s than you do…and because I do, I don’t feel as hopeless as you do.

    The odds of things being as bad with a new President are better than 50/50, especially if it’s Hillary or a good person in the GOP. Bush was pretty bad to get us into two freakin’ wars over WMD instead of just going after the Bin Laden crew, but anyone as bad as Obama…I highly doubt it.

    I don’t have high hopes that things will get a lot better in the next two years tho’.

  80. It’s not paranoia when you really are being followed. It’s not a “victim card” when there is an entire political religion out to kill you aided and abetted by Socialists. Speaking of CNN:

    Brussels (CNN)Soldiers stood guard outside the Jewish Museum in central Brussels on Saturday, as Belgium joined France in deploying its military alongside police to counter the threat of potential terror attacks.

    Security has been stepped up across Europe in the wake of last week’s shootings in Paris and a sweeping Belgian counterterror operation two days ago that left two suspects dead in the city of Verviers.

    An attack at the Jewish Museum in Brussels last year by an accused gunman suspected of having joined ISIS in Syria left four people dead.

    Soldiers in camouflage gear and police could also be seen by the Great Synagogue of Europe in Brussels and some roads in the area were closed to traffic. Troops have been deployed in Belgium’s largest city, Antwerp, to protect its Jewish district.

    The move follows a series of police raids that authorities said targeted a terror cell on the brink of carrying out an attack against police officers.

    Defense Minister Steven Vandeput told a news conference that besides Jewish sites, a number of embassies in Brussels were being protected, including those of the United States, Israel and Britain.

    Belgium has deployed 150 troops so far in Brussels and Antwerp, he said. That number could be increased by another 150 in the coming days and could be extended to other cities in Belgium, depending on police requests. [snip]

    Overall, authorities made 17 arrests related to the Belgium threat — 13 in Belgium and four at two locations in France.[snip]

    As many as 20 sleeper cells of between 120 and 180 people could be ready to strike in France, Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands, a Western intelligence source told CNN.

    European Union and Middle East intelligence agencies identified an “imminent threat” to Belgium, and possibly to the Netherlands, the source told CNN.

    “There is a tremendous amount of concern over sleeper cells in Europe,” said a Western official with direct knowledge of the situation.

  81. wbboei
    January 17, 2015 at 4:05 pm

    It is very hard for me to be optimistic when all systems fail. All systems that are supposed to protect our liberty and our prosperity fail.

    I sometimes become quire melancholy to see our wonderful nation in decline. But remember that the struggle between good and evil is eternal. The nation was set up with checks and balances and over time those who sought to exploit it learned how to undermine the system. I try to remember that my mother was 4 years old and her father died just as the great depression started. The nation was in ruins and saw the rise of the Nazi and terrible wars. She went on to live the American dream that was passed on to me, but my generation was too complacent. Who would know what was going on or how to stop it? I knew we were in terrible trouble when George Dubya got elected. Maybe it was set up before then, but that was when things started spiraling out of control. Yes I saw first hand what was happening in the Courts and the Executive Office. I have fought. I will keep fighting. If not for me, for my daughter.

    I do not know if it will do any good or not, but I will not go quietly.

  82. A little off topic, but I have been out on the internet using Facebook and Twitter to try to promote a project and I accepted a “Friend” from a western appearing Arabic person. Now I am getting connection messages from all kinds of scarey looking people. Maybe I have Islamaphobia, but I think Isis is on Facebook. Do you think I should give them a few Tweets?

  83. Shadowfax
    January 17, 2015 at 4:39 pm

    Yes, I do have more faith in American’s than you do…and because I do, I don’t feel as hopeless as you do.

  84. When journalists/reporters like this jerk and the late Helen Thomas (may she rest in hell) express their true feelings, we see how the bias towards Israel has become quite ingrained in the MSM.

  85. Lu, I think I would unfriend the dude, and pursue contact with his friends through twitter or whatever. Maybe I’m paranoid, but better safe than sorry. I don’t think it’s Islamaphobic to be cautious. If so, people didn’t become distrustful for no reason. Once people of that religion – granted, from extremist factions – launch a terrorist attack killing thousands in NYC, and repeatedly declare they want to kill you, annihilate you, destroy your country, etc., caution is called for. JMHO

  86. Lu, I agree with Free.

    Block the guy from your page. I only friend people I trust, no one else needs to know I exist.

  87. I was thinking about that Bill Maher interview from last week. The thing that really struck me was his statement that even though mainstream Muslims (non-terrorists) did not kill any of the victims from Charlie Hebdo, without a doubt they all, millions upon millions of them, applauded the action because it’s such a violation in their religion to ridicule Mohammed. I don’t know if Bill’s statement is entirely accurate, but I would bet the very large number of Muslims in the ME, especially, felt the victims got what they deserved.

    Yet, we the see far left Obamanuts, kooks, and others in this country making the cartoons the focus of this issue – not the terrorist act, not free speech. Some have come very close to blaming the victims for their own deaths.

    The attitude of the far lefties has been very different regarding images of other religious figures. I recall several years ago, when some Christian groups strongly objected to paintings demeaning Jesus, portraying him being urinated on, engaging in pretty gross behavior – that kind of thing. These Christian groups did not object to people having the right to paint such images. They objected to those artists, art galleries, groups, etc. receiving federal grants.

    I can’t recall all the details, but I remember some on the far Left raising a good bit of hell about these Christian groups who objected to federal money being used to fund this kind of art. They accused them of trying to limit free speech, of dictating morality, etc.
    They were pretty incensed about the whole thing. They loudly proclaimed that people should be allowed to paint whom and what they were inspired to paint, and the federal government ought to continue to fund them to do so.

    My how things have changed. The Left is apparently not as into free speech as they used to be. Or maybe they’re just more into Mohammed than Jesus. Maybe they’re just scared shitless of Muslims and too PC to say it. Who knows?

  88. Just a word about the perceived American decline spoken of by several bloggers upthread. It all hinges on economics, even the military aspects.

    After World War II, the US was producing about 60% of the world’s wealth and possessed 80% of it. Even the mighty British Empire paled in comparison, and the Soviet Union was just a show horse.

    That declined somewhat with the rise of Europe, which was due to the massive US loans under the Marshall plan; but by the end of the Cold War, US production was still about 40% of the world’s, and wealth was down to 50%.

    Despite this shrinkage, the US was not poorer by a long shot. In absolute terms, it was far wealthier than in 1950 and, in relative terms, was still the wealthiest nation on earth.

    But the end of the Cold War prompted the rise of the “BRICS” countries as they were freed from their hostage status during the Cold War, and of course Russia is one of the BRICS. China is also one of the BRICS, and is now the world’s largest producer of wealth.

    This means that, in relative terms, the US is declining. There is no going back on the development of the BRICS and their partner countries. This relative decline is the real world and it is actually a good thing for us, both economically and politically. But we are no longer the world’s one and only economic super-power, and it is arguable that we were never the one-and-only military power. Politically, we have to trim the sails, and that means militarily too.

    Economically, what we should worry about is not our relative position with respect to Russia, China and the other “emerging” nations, but about our own absolute level of production of wealth and the welfare of our own citizens. The macro figures are dismal and the labor force is shrinking and earning less and less, approaching poverty level. Millions more are on food stamps than ever before. Main Street has less and less money to buy products, so demand is limp, businesses won’t invest or innovate, are hoarding their cash, and any growth we see is not “natural” but due to deficit spending by the government, ergo more debt. We are in a downward spiral — a tailspin, even if we sport 1% or 2% growth. Down we go.

    All this brings us back to the question of what we are to do about it. The only thing I can see is to up the minimum wage to support or increase demand. The Republicans, ever ignorant of economics, will not stand for such an increase. The most they will do over the next two years is to propose tax cuts and spending cuts, both of which are counter-productie. If we get a tax cut — even for the middle class — it won’t spark demand and if we get a spending cut, the economy will nose-dive.

    So I’m very pessimistic about the possibility of spurring the economy and reviving “American greatness” over the coming two years: the problem is not Obola, now, it is McCornhole and Boner.

  89. I had a great dinner and lively discussion last night with my soulmate’s friends JM (man) and MN (his wife), who are both university professors. JM is a fanatical lover of the American way of life and hates politicians, so the discussion quickly turned to American politics.

    The first subject was Obola, of course. JM and MN both volunteered the opinion that Obola was a weakling without character and a big disappointment to everyone. That assessment gained my hearty approval and shut up my Bot soulmate on the subject of American politics, once and for all — at least, for last night.

    Then JM flew into a rage about politicians in general, accusing them of being supercilious windbags with high-falutin’ words and empty heads, and threw HRC into the same lot as the rest of them.

    I cut him short there. I said, “HRC pockets $300,000 an hour for her speeches. How much do you earn — both of you — for an hour of your time in the classroom?”

    That left JM speechless, literally mouth gaping. But MN cheered me on (she’s got to be a Hillary supporter or feminist!), so I added that HRC was the most sought-after speaker in the world.

    So JM says, “She must have a great speechwriter. They all do.”

    I said, “Sure she does, but all the speechwriter does is organize the thoughts and refine the final expression. The ideas are all Hillary’s. If you hired the same speechwriter, your speaking fee would still be the same as it is now.”

    JM: “Bullshit.”

    Me: “Wait a minute: Each speech is followed by a Question-Answer session of an hour or more. It’s spontaneous, unprepared. To succeed in Q-A, you have to research the subject. You can’t wing it. It’s in the Q-A session that HRC shows her mastery of the subject down to the tiniest detail. Moreover, there are questions in Q-A that range beyond the scope of the speech, and HRC shows — every time — that she masters even the most far-flung subjects, again down to the tiniest detail.” I concluded: “She’s no windbag.”

    That enhanced JM’s respect for HRC a notch or two, so we started discussing some of her history that he wasn’t aware of. Since he was so flabbergasted by her speaking fee and doubted it was for real, I explained that the figure was highly publicized because Republicans and Democrats alike are giving her flak for it, though for opposite reasons.

    All this while, MN was fascinated and beaming. She doesn’t talk much. JM is the windbag of their household.

    Anyway, neither of them is a voter, so there’s no way to make this into a political victory. But it did hone some of my weapons for upcoming debates with American voters and I’m looking forward to our next evening out with JM and MN in a month or two.

  90. Shadowfax
    January 18, 2015 at 12:41 am

    Lu, I agree with Free.

    Block the guy from your page. I only friend people I trust, no one else needs to know I exist.

    Yes!!! Only family and close friends,
    Delete or block trouble makers. 🙂

  91. wbboei January 17, 2015 at 10:15 am

    (1) Judge to clerk: this is my (political) conclusion. Now, go find me the case law that supports it.

    (2) The issue of standing can be overcome if they want to. The law is more flexible than you think in that area.

    (3) And the Supreme Court is the arbiter of what the law says. And the Supreme Court reads polls and election results.

    Far be it from me to try to dispute your knowledge of how the judicial system works. At least in the US. Thank you for the explanations.

    However, though I’ve never studied the law, I do have experience reading legal scholarship and attorneys’ pleas as they are written and applied in Europe.

    (1) In Europe, a judge never looks up, or has the clerk fetch, case law in support of one decision or another. This is done by the lawyers themselves in their pleas, which are generated in 2, 3, 4 or more back-and-forth “submissions” between the lawyers that never come before the judge’s eyes. Even the supreme court (Cassation) operates solely on the lawyers’ arguments and references to case law. Or statute law, for that matter.

    (2) The reason I took standing to be crucial was because it is investigated systematically in Europe, but also because there was another case reported here in full at H44 a few years back, in which the judge meticulously examined the plaintiffs’ standing (they all passed muster), and that examination took up a full two-thirds of his entire decision — the decision on the merits was kind of an afterthought (he was against the mandate). So I concluded then that courts take standing as seriously in the States as they do in Europe.

    (3) Your assertion that the Supreme Court is subject to the whims of public opinion is a jaw-dropper for me. I hope you’re exaggerating, or just being your typical pessimistic self.

  92. At least O is sending someone to the ceremony to mark the liberation of Auschwitz. We won’t have John Kerry and James Taylor showing up a week late to do a song and dance routine. Treasury Secretary Jack Lew will lead the US group. I’m sorry, but I don’t get why Obama or Biden can’t attend this international event. Maybe Joe’s on a bender and O has another vacation scheduled.

  93. Freespirit, we always considered ourselves creatures of the “left” and part of the “liberal” world. But we will have nothing to do with the “left” now.

    What we see is that the “left” has become what we supposed it to be against. Serves us right for mocking and attacking the “right” for so long. Now we see what it is that the right wing intellectuals have denounced about the “left” for so long but we never saw.

    You write “My how things have changed.” Yes they have. The liberal brethren we grew up with and the liberal ideas we espoused and supported are no longer. Once it was the free speech movement. Now it is hate speech laws designed to silence anyone who disagrees with majority opinion on the left.

    Once the “left” stood up for the unorthodox and the downtrodden. Now that the “left” is in power it has become authoritarian and totalitarian. What the “left” does is redefine words in Orwellian manner so that up becomes down. If you disagree or hold a point of view that varies with the approved speech of the left you must be destroyed.

    The failures of those in the “left” are also redefined. When the Obama “stimulus” which we saw as crony capitalism and corrupt propping up of state institutions that had failed itself failed the excuses became that it had not been big enough. Every failure of Obama and “left” wing crony capitalism was blamed on Republicans or someone or something else instead of acknowledgement that it was the “left” wing philosophy that failed or “left” wing analysis that did not understand the problem.

    “Liberalism” has become intolerance. The “downtrodden” have become cronies government institutions protect with largesse. “Culture” is wielded by the “left” to elevate itself in ways Chairman Mao could only dream of.

    The “left” is what those of us who are true “liberals” have fought against all our lives. The “left” wants to reshape the world into what they want, reality be damned. It’s very much like what the “left” revolutionaries of the proletariat in the early part of the last century became – Soviet Communists unable to face their failures and the reality of the world. The “left” believes it knows best and will use all the force of the state to impose its vision on everyone no matter if the model works or doesn’t work.

    Today the The “liberal left” is gone, replaced with crony capitalist Socialists who are authoritarian in behavior and totalitarian in ideals.

  94. jeswezey
    January 18, 2015 at 10:35 am
    Yes. I know. It seems counterintuitive.

    At the trial court level, the major concern is getting reversed on appeal.

    But when it gets to the appellate level in the state or federal supreme court level that is exactly how it works.

    I was never a law clerk to a supreme court justice, but I know personally two of them that were.

    And because the law is what the supreme court says it is–per Justice Jackson

    The operative question for the Supreme Court Justice tends to be not what does the law say, but what do I want the law to be.

    During the 19th century there as such a thing as federal common law which relied heavily on the doctrine of Natural Law.

    Holmes and his school of legal realists rejected that doctrine, saying that the (federal) common law is not some brooding omnipresence in the sky, but the articulate voice of some sovereign or quasi sovereign who can be identified—and the states should not be constrained by the federal government, but allowed to act as laboratories for new ideas.

    Later, we had the school of original intent, which sought to discern from the express terms of the constitution its meaning and its limitations upon government. The Constitution as originally conceived was a document that limited the power of government in order to ensure maximum liberty for its citizens. Scalia is the most eloquent spokesman for that viewpoint.

    Then we had the economic school championed by Judge Richard Posener of the Seventh circuit court of appeals, who believes that the law ought to reflect economic factors, including the notion that all property gravitates toward its highest valued use. That doctrine is sterile and it favors privatization.

    Finally, we got the critical legal thinking school which would tear down the entire legal edifice for the sake of social justice. Within that school we find feminists, racial redistributionists and others. They believe that the law was created by white males to oppress everyone else. They believe in the doctrine of a “living constitution” which allows them to abandon the constraints of precedent and legislate from the bench. The self proclaimed wise latina is a paragdigmatic example of that viewpoint.

    Its one big mess. And each of those viewpoints has its adherent(s) on the court.

    And then there are those who claim, not altogether cynically, that the law depends less on precedent, and more on what the judge had for breakfast.

  95. Admin,
    I used to be proud to be a “liberal”. Those were the days. Those who embrace the label today are as far away from true liberalism as are those on the far right.

  96. foxy, the progs are doing their best to turn Wig Wam into a legend in her own time (and their own mind). The Obamanuts and MSM are trying to transform her into a folk hero – maybe a cross between Robin Hood and Joan of Arc. I guess that would be Robin Arc. She’s got one helluva marketing team. I think there’s more faux to her than just her Indian heritage.

  97. ” I think there’s more faux to her than just her Indian heritage.”
    Practicing law without a Mass. license, making $100k++ writing appeals for asbestos companies, etc.

  98. admin
    January 18, 2015 at 10:57 am
    Admin: this Bud’s for you

    (Note: beginning at the 8 minute mark, et. seq.)

  99. The race hustler is no different than the heroin dealer—both get their victims hooked, fill their minds with a toxic dream, make them feel hopeless, and cause them to hold society hostage for their next fix. That is the true legacy of Obama, Holder and Sharpton. But nobody seems to see it.

  100. Multi culturalism–and its siren song of diversity is a snare and a delusion. The more the common culture gives way to many cultures, the less stability there is, and the more prone they become to violence. Sowell cites the example of India, where the clash of competing cultures cost hundreds of thousands of live. Red Vienna between the wars is another example.

    The greatest factor holding back black achievement in this country is not the legacy of slavery. It is the welfare state policies of the 1960’s and the sub culture of the black community i.e. gangsta rap etc. If you take the race factor out of the equation you find that this same phenomenon exists in all white societies. The bad news is there are no black political leaders willing to identify these root causes of current conditions. There is no money in it.

    Perhaps the most significant point in the above video is the fact that then intellectual class in this country, of which the race industry is merely a part, is almost always wrong on matters of social policy and yet they pay no price for being egregiously in error. That is because there is no empirical test for the legitimacy of their theories, no scoreboard, no reliable metrics for measurement. On the contrary, for them the sole test for the truth of an idea is whether other intellectuals agree with it. In other words, this is the free from evidence zone which refuses to consider feedback from reality and rather than adjusting their theories to comport with reality, they double down–causing grave harm to society.

  101. freespirit
    January 18, 2015 at 12:15 pm
    foxy, the progs are doing their best to turn Wig Wam into a legend in her own time (and their own mind).

    —The reason they think they can turn FeatherHead into the Kooks ideal, is because that is what they did with lazy Obama and look how far their voter cheating, smoke and mirrors got them in 2008 and 2012.

    Fool the people once, shame on…………….bla, bla, bla.

    If Freathers4Brains became the first woman prez…I would leave the effin’ country.

  102. Has anyone else noticed the email begging for dollars by the DNC and bros?

    Even Barry was begging, using MO’s 50th birthday as a ploy for donations. Now MO is out birthday begging.

    These people have no shame.

    No begging using the Clinton’s names…so far. Keep it that way Hillary and Bill.

    Stay mum.

  103. admin
    January 18, 2015 at 10:57 am

    Lincoln said that if you want to test a man’s character–then give him power.

    One example of this was a man who in his youth worked side by side with William Travers Jerome, the celebrated district attorney at the turn of the 19th century and cousin to Churchill to fight the poverty despair and police corruption of New York city as depicted in the movie gangs of New York and more poignantly by the writer Steven Crane best known for the civil war novella Red Badge of Courage, in the more obscure work Maggie A Girl of the Streets. I suspect both–no, I am sure that both of them were Bull Moosers whose slogan is applicable to our time as well—ill fares the land to hastening ills aprey where wealth accumulates and men decay–speaking specifically of our own moribund, money grabbing and nihilistic elite class.

    From all we can tell from contemporary accounts, this particular man fought the good fight and was the quintessential social reformer. And for that he was given power where his character was ultimately tested. A well deserved reward–or so you might well assume.

    Fast forward from the musty courtrooms of the 1890s to a particular courtroom a generation later. And enter a new character—Lloyd Paul Stryker one of the great courtroom advocates of the early part of the century–and more than a mere technician, a philosopher of the law, which is the highest of callings. His client is a New York policeman of a later era who was charged with a heinous crime, was innocent, and had the misfortune of appearing before that once celebrated social reformer and now senior judge in the criminal court of the city of New York. In short a social reformer with institutional power.

    Stryker described that judge as one of the most evil men he had met with flowing white hair and a maniacal look about him. He kept the shades partially drawn in his court room, cut the defense to ribbons, manipulated the jury and lowered the shade all the way down before passing the most draconian of sentences on the flimsiest of evidence.

    There is no single record of this transformation, but I managed to connect the dots by reading the biography of William Traverse Jerome and then much later the The Art of Advocacy by Stryker and realize this social reformer and this Judge Dred were the same man separated by a generation and the acquisition of power.

    It goes to show that Henry Adams the son of one President and the grandson of another was spot on when he said: the effect of power and publicity upon men is the aggravation of self, a sort of tumor that ends up killing the victim’s sympathies, a diseased appetite like a passion for drink or perverted tastes. One can scarcely describe the violence of egotism it stimulates. . . a friend in power is a friend lost.

    Now that is the same disease, I fear, that afflicts the elite class of this nation at this moment in our history. More power, more wealth, there is no end to it. And notice how they scream when a democrat proposes that perhaps there should be a slight increase in the tax rate on billionaires to help the middle class. Those are the people who are making this nation slide into a have and have not society. Newton’s first law: a body at motion or at rest tends to stay in motion or at rest. Meaning that as a matter of physics as well as politics, this trend will continue, until it can continue no longer.

  104. I got it, Shadow. The email featured a pic of the royal couple, and asked for a donation in honor of Meeechelle’s birthday. I’m thinking of donating a blouse with sleeves.

  105. Shadowfax
    January 18, 2015 at 3:01 pm

    Even Barry was begging, using MO’s 50th birthday as a ploy for donations.

    Now MO is out birthday begging.


    I’m in.

    Here’s my contribution.

    A bobblehead doll for a real life doll named Michelle Robinson.

    Not to be confused with Marie Antoinette.

    Two elitist separated only by a different century and Airforce I.

    Let this bobble head doll sit at that prominent place in the Obama White House once occupied by the Churchill bust.

  106. I expect that the kooks are stealing pocket change from mommy dearest and their incest prone daddies to send to Michelle for her birthday. Lord knows she is destitute and needs the money.

  107. Seems fitting that the only people that will donate to MO’s 50th birthday, on to the DNC are the same people that support FeatherHead…that should keep the DNC in the red…

  108. Larry is getting upset about Saudi extremism. They are the ones who are training and funding Sunni terrorism. They are also one of the factions that controls Obama. There is hard core documentary proof in the form of a letter from the Saudi Royal family to Harvard where they own two chairs on the executive committee $asking$ them admit Obama, whose grades at Occidental/Columbia were mediocre, to get him into their law school and to make him the head of their law review, where he never showed up and never wrote a single article, which is a feat unequaled by any other editor since the dawn of time. They also sent millions of illegal campaign contributions to get him elected. With that glorious history, it is hardly surprising that he should be pushing the Muslim line when it comes to issues as diverse as immigration, releasing terrorists from Gitmo, dismissing the ISIS threat, to boycotting Paris and that pants splitting bow to the Saudi King. And now he is dismantling the agency charged with dealing with terrorism and letting various agencies attempt to deal with that threat from separate silos and putting us at risk. Do the American People care about his neglect for their safety and security?

    Daily Presidential Tracking Poll
    in PoliticsEmail thisShareThis
    Fewer Voters Think Allies Should Follow America’s Lead
    Voters See A Sinking America
    Feds Still Have Few Friends
    Voters Want Congress To Tackle Taxes, Spending First
    What They Told Us: Reviewing Last Week’s Key Polls
    Confidence in Race Relations Tumbles
    60% Think U.S. Society is Fair and Decent
    Voters Agree The Rich Get Richer
    Sign up for free daily updates

    Sunday, January 18, 2015

    The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows that 49% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Obama’s job performance. Fifty percent (50%) also disapprove (see trends).

    The latest figures include 24% who Strongly Approve of the way Obama is performing as president and 39% who Strongly Disapprove. This gives him a Presidential Approval Index rating of -15.

    Fifty percent (50%) of Democrats Strongly Approve of the job the president is doing. Seventy-seven percent (77%) of Republicans Strongly Disapprove. Among voters not affiliated with either major party, 14% Strongly Approve, while 37% Strongly Disapprove.

    Regular updates are posted daily at 9:30 a.m. Eastern (sign up for free daily e-mail update).

    Voters continue to show little optimism about America’s future and feel less strongly about this nation’s leadership role.

    Just 27% believe the United States will be the most powerful nation in the world by the end of this century.

    The president will reportedly call in his State of the Union address Tuesday night for higher taxes on upper income Americans to pay for tax cuts for those who earn less. Most voters (57%) still prefer a smaller government with fewer services and lower taxes over a more active one with more services and higher taxes.

    Here we are, thirty years later, and the face of terrorism is Sunni extremism. Iran is no longer engaged in the kind of slaughter that we saw in the 1980s. The danger now is greater. With the emergence of the Islamic State, who now controls a broad swath of northern Iraq and Syria, we face a well armed, well-trained enemy that has become an international symbol for devoted muslims keen on getting their jihad on.

    And what is Obama doing? The inter-agency process that was created in 1986 out of recognition that no single Agency or Department could beat the terrorist threat is being dismantled. Even Bush continued to rely on the CSG and the Deputies Committee to coordinate counter terrorism efforts. No longer. Obama has turned, instead, to political operatives in the National Security Council. The inter agency committee for dealing with US hostages has been disbanded. The position at State Department for the Coordinator for Counter Terrorism has become a backwater and is no longer the lead on key international terrorism issues.

    We are back to a period where each Agency and Department is doing its own thing, often without any clear guidance from the White House. It is now all about politics. We have entered very dangerous waters.

    So Shadow, tell me this:

    How can you have this great faith in the American People when you see shit like this.

    Talk about non sequiturs:

    half of them approve of Obama (?) and yet:

    most of them want smaller government (note: yet obama promotes big government??)

    most of them are not optimistic about the future (note: yet they do not blame him???)

    If this poll is accurate, then I shall not scruple to say that they are IDIOTS.

  109. I don’t know about you but I have great admiration for those audacious young people who live at home with their parents and who in a sublime act of protest handcuff themselves to cement barrels in the middle of rush hour traffic to prove that black lives matter. Big media was thrilled to see it until it slowed down their limousines and then they became petulant like they when they come down from a bad cocaine trip. Some get a kick from cocaine but I’m sure that if I took even one sniff it would bore me terrifically too, but I get a kick out of you young whipper snappers. In case you are wondering what you can do to prove that not only do black lives matter but they really matter, let me make a suggestion. Take a long walk off a short pier til your hat floats. That way you will prove your point beyond cavil, and you will have that 15 minutes of fame Warhol talked about. No life jackets allowed.

  110. so, so spot on…your whole description and analysis…and the trust is completely gone…they want to control everything…our thoughts, our speech, our privacy and our money…

    January 18, 2015 at 10:57 am

    Freespirit, we always considered ourselves creatures of the “left” and part of the “liberal” world. But we will have nothing to do with the “left” now.

    What we see is that the “left” has become what we supposed it to be against. Serves us right for mocking and attacking the “right” for so long. Now we see what it is that the right wing intellectuals have denounced about the “left” for so long but we never saw.

  111. wbb, one of the primary reasons Americans still say they approve of him is that Obama and his peeps, with the help of MSM have succeeded in portraying those who see what’s happening and who dare criticize him as flag-waving nut jobs, paranoid conspiracy theorists, and narrow minded haters and racists.

    The birther movement is an example. Although during the campaign in 2008, it was kept pretty quiet by Obama and peeps. As the issue and the movement became more well-known, Obama began to refer to it occasionally, feigning exaggerated incredulity, and the jokes and ridicule began. Within a short time there were birther jokes online, on late-night talk shows, during mainstream news broadcasts – even though the birthers made some valid points. Since that time, (and before, really) no matter how well documented Obama’s blatantly anti-American actions or just plain stupid policies are, people just act like it’s nothing.

    And when they don’t. When Americans raise a little too much public hell about a specific Obama mistake, lie, bad policy, unconstitutional action, anti-American word or deed, the ridicule begins. They start the rhetoric: we’re smart, compassionate, not racist, and all other things cool and wonderful and you’re a redneck dumb-ass who is really too Effed-up to be taken seriously anyway.

    With MSM running interference for him and doing propaganda, O’s hatchet job on the opposition is easy. And, regular not-too-high info voters believe Barack’s bamboozling.

    People may say they don’t trust the news, but they still watch it and absorb it and repeat it to others.

  112. freespirit
    January 18, 2015 at 10:58 pm
    Freespirit, there is just no way around it. The American People are stupid when it comes to politics. And stupidest of all, if they cannot see what big media is doing. This is why I attack big media every chance I get. It is why I try to show people that we do have a two party system, but not the one advertised. One party is the elite establishment party and the other is the grass roots party, a party in being, but loosely established. Most of the people in congress belong to the fusion party, and are, by definition the enemy of the American People. I cannot stand to listen to them anymore, especially after cromulus, any more than I can stand to listen to Obama or big media. I am sick of them. There are nicer ways to say it, but that is what it amounts to. And that is why it is refreshing to see that one rare candidate who supports us, rather than his donors. He or she must be strong however, because the elites will do everything in their power to annihilate him and to show others who might step out of line and do what is right for the people, as opposed to their donors.

  113. wbb, I have to agree that a whole bunch of us Americans are not as well informed as we should be, and either don’t know how to think critically, or just prefer to have someone spoon-feed the faux news, including the faux polling data regarding which candidate has the most support from Americans. Some figure that if the majority of people like someone, he/she is probably ok to vote for.

    I know that most people don’t have a lot of spare time to educate themselves as fully as would be desired, especially if they work outside the home, have children, families, or care responsibilities for elderly parents etc. But, what’s happening in and to our country, at the hands of those who are supposed to be running it is scary as hell.

    uninformed, apathetic voters are hazardous to the country’s health.

    Excellent point, S.

    [ as interpreted by The Left ]
    Rev. Al Sharpton and his National Action Network will host a “Be Like King” day event in Harlem, with a forum that will include Mayor Bill de Blasio, U.S. Senator Charles Schumer and other elected officials…
    Rev. Sharpton and the family of Eric Garner will also lay a wreath at the memorial where NYPD Detectives Rafael Ramos and Wen Jian Liu were killed in Brooklyn. Sharpton said he is paying tribute because King would have denounced senseless violence, and said the recent demonstrations across the city are part of a movement that is not anti-police, but about social justice. But the president of the Lieutenant Benevolent Association calls it ‘an insincere act’… “We need to be outraged when local law enforcement and the justice system repeatedly allow young, unarmed black men to encounter police and then wind up dead with no consequences,” said U.S. Rep. William Clay, a St. Louis Democrat…

  115. free and wbb, Ambrose Bierce said it best over a century ago:

    Politics: A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles. The conduct of public affairs for private advantage.

    The only difference is today we have the 24/7 news cycle and the internet which broadcast paid for advertisements to further a talking point amongst those too lazy to find out the truth for themselves. The uniparty controls all the advertising. Of course, they protest any idea of collusion between the faux parties themselves. But notice, the lady always doth protesteth too much.

  116. The fact a man like Sharpton (and I use the word “man” loosely) can even exist and prosper is an insult to Martin Luther King Jr. Same for the faux march in Selma headlined by that billionaire who insists she’s a victim.

    These people are vampires of the worst order.

  117. Agreed, Felix. If Rev.Al wanted to honor King and the nonviolence he stood for, he should have not encouraged violence against police to begin with. He exploited Garner’s death, now, he’s seeking to exploit the deaths of the policemen killed by one of his followers. BS on top of BS just creates a bigger pile of BS.

  118. freespirit January 19, 2015 at 1:54 am

    Some figure that if the majority of people like someone, he/she is probably ok to vote for.

    Unfortunately, this is so.

    There’s another thing I noticed a long time ago and I think it still holds today: people want to vote for the winner. If they think somebody will lose, they won’t vote for him.

    Before I could vote, I got this line about the Kennedy/Nixon race from several of my school friends: They said, whatever you think about Kennedy, he’s going to lose. Implication: Don’t waste your vote on him. I know they were getting this line from their (Republican) parents, but it made perfect sense to them.

    I got it again in 2004 in Florida. A school teacher drove me to the polls (she knew I wanted to vote Kerry) and said “I think we can win it this time…” which we didn’t, of course — I mean Florida was governed by Shrub3 and voted for Shrub2. It was obvious that was going to happen, but the school teacher was in get-out-the-vote mode and encouraging people to vote with “I think we can win it” i.e. Kerry isn’t a loser, it’s not a wasted vote.

  119. Yes. He is a big pile of bs. To paraphrase wbb, he is a big, stinking pile of horse manure.

    Few things can really get me riled up. He is one. That self anointed reverend has a long history of inciting violence. People have died because of it. Yet, he is the toast of the town. He can barely string a sentence together in gibberish, let alone English. Yet, he is most sought after for his views on the issues. That hide over a skeleton with a colostomy bag for a face is a big, stinking pile of bs. The corpses litter his doorway, yet he is at the height of popularity as an “elder statesman.”

    I get ill when I see pictures of him. I’d much rather shovel real bs with my bare hands.

  120. There’s another thing I noticed a long time ago and I think it still holds today: people want to vote for the winner. If they think somebody will lose, they won’t vote for him.


  121. Felix_the_Infidel
    January 19, 2015 at 8:36 am

    And I have no objection to that, so long as there is clear cogent and convincing proof that the government action taken is in the public interest. For every right that government presumes to create over and above those specified in the constitution to reward or to mollify some special interest per force entails a concomitant burden upon the nation or some segment their off measured in terms of a loss of liberty or prosperity. Therefore, it is imperative that government weigh carefully the costs and benefits of the legislation on the public welfare, rather than cavalierly accepting whatever is put forward by the donors of one party or another and passed into law through log rolling. Log rolling is the reason we have an 18 trillion dollar debt and nothing to show for it, but a damnosa heritas on a posterity that has no vote. Part of the job of a responsible leader is to stand up for the general welfare and say no to those proposals that represent a bad bargain for the American People. And that iw where Citizens United and Cromulus bite the nation in the ass. When–if ever will we get a national leader who stands up for the people of this nation. The system is rigged the other way, starting with big media and the way donations are distributed by party leaders. All the intertial forces drag the well intentioned candidate away from the welfare of his constituents and the welfare of the oligarchs. As Charles Murray pointed out, the elite schools are the factories and the pipelines for replenishing the elite class, which is why a fucking numbnutz like Charlie Gibson cannot tell us often enough that he was “trained” at Princeton. And because a Princeton education has been compared with taking a drink of water from a fire hose, what exactly did that phony elitist prick take with him from that experience that is worth remembering, other than a self promoting peer group. Certainly NOT a commitment to journalistic integrity or truth. The Ivy League alas offers no course in those pedestrian subjects. The game is social control–the game that ruins nations.

  122. Wbb, in 2008 I thought HRC had the guts to put the public before the donors. Then I thought Palin had the guts to do that. Alas, we got the exact opposite. Today I can only hope Walker or Cruz (maybe both) continue this trend to look out for the tax-payer. (I really hope they mean what they say. So far, they walk the walk)

    For all her talk, One Drop (aka, Talking Bull) is just about the talk. She is as elite as they come.

    You have compared Cruz to James Bond in the past. The image stuck in mind.

    As to Gibson, I made a long list of imaginary things I’d like to do to him after the infamous Palin interview. Needless to say, I will not offend anyone here with the level of profanity necessary to describe those acts. However, a complicated yoga position and his head up his rear do figure prominently in one of those imaginary scenarios.

  123. This nation is planted thick with laws, and if we fail it will not be because we have too few laws but too many laws which sap the vitality of the nation and loot its wealth. For that reason, prudence requires that before any new legislation be passed into law that there be an effort to determine whether it is in the public interest. The temptation of the elites will be to simply add boilerplate language to the bill, stating in effect that the bill is good for the country, period. Frankly, that tells us nothing. What I want to know is what will it cost, what benefit will it confer upon the public at large, what are the intended and unintended consequences, what is the opportunity cost, will it be subject to review once implemented to determine its impact, will it sunset if it does not work, who are the primary beneficiaries and how much were the sponsors paid to to get it passed.

  124. Felix_the_Infidel
    January 19, 2015 at 12:42 pm
    I agree with you on all points, 100%.

    I think Cruz IS the real deal and I say that for four (4) reasons:

    1) First, his family history is a tell:

    His father is a Cuban refuge who first embraced Fidel and then rejected him root and branch. He came to this country with nothing and made a name for himself. Ted was able to see the devil and want no part of him–the devil being left wing totalitarianism. That inheritance allows him to see, as most people cannot, that the path laid out for the people of this nation by the hard left is the path that leads to despair and from which no one ever returns.

    2) Second, his professional background is a second tell.

    Specifically, he is the product of a top notch Ivy League education and a brilliant legal career, which included being a law clerk to Chief Justice Rhenquist, arguing 8 cases before the US Supreme Court, and being one of the top attorneys in the nation in a main line Philadelphia law firm I was close to–Morgan Lewis and Bockius. They are a cut above other firms. They recruit from the best law schools, but even if you are accepted, your chances of making partner are 1 in 16.

    3) Third, his political choice is a third tell.

    There is a book called To Be A Politician, which was written in the 1950s by a lawyer I knew that described what the process entailed. Schlessenger called it the best book on the subject. One of the salient points is that at the outset a politician must decide who he will represent–the elites or the people. Cruz made a conscious decision to represent the people. His senate colleague Bob Corker (The Whore of Babylon) decided that he would represent the elites. He whines about Ted, collects huge donations from the insurance and financial industries, has been given a plumb committee chairmanship and whines about Ted incessantly. Cruz sides with the people. Bob Corker could care less about them. He is a politician who stays bought.

    4) Fourth, his courage.

    Ted has a clear set of values, he is willing to take the heat for them, and he comes out swinging. Moreover, he has caught the zeitgiest of our era in ways that more conventional politicians–like Hillary have not. When Pat Cadddell reports that 2/3 of the public would vote for a third party it tells most of us, that stay the course and business as usual misses the mark. Perhaps that is why Jim Carvalle called Cruz the most talented Republican to come along in a generation.

  125. I can easily imagine a conversation between Cruz and Corker where Corker puts his arm around Cruz and says hey Ted, why not stop fighting the system, you are not going to change it, and if you go along to get along you will get rich. Whereupon Ted would remove Corker’s hand from his shoulder, tell him that he can stand up without help, and that he did not come to Washington to get rich. He came here to make sure that a constitutional system which has brought unprecedented freedom and prosperity to millions of Americans and has been an inspiration to the world is not destroyed by Obama and his toothless RINO confederates. Whereupon Corker would throw a Vesuvian hissy fit.

  126. I’ve been meaning to answer these questions from way back {referencing the “9 questions for HRC in 2015” posted at January 12, 2015 at 5:12 am}, so here goes:

    wbboei January 12, 2015 at 1:16 pm

    (1) Other than the symbolism of a woman president, which I gather is a huge thing for you…,

    Let me stop you right there before you even ask the questions:

    Yes, a woman president is a “huge thing” for me, but it is not a matter of abstract symbolism, nor is it a matter of body parts. There is a difference I’ve noticed between men and women’s concerns and especially their behavior in leadership positions that I think is very important to bring to the presidency and, for that matter, to legislative positions.

    Maybe I’ll address the “concerns” later. Let me first address the behavioral pattern I think is most important:

    Men in power throughout history have been proven themselves adept at playing win-lose games, AKA zero-sum games: “If I win, the other guy loses.” And “If I lose, the other guy wins.”

    Usually, though, these games lead to lose-lose results. Military action in general and the Pyrrhic Victory in particular is emblematic of such a lose-lose result: a game where the winner suffers such terrible losses that it is tantamount to defeat. Putin and Netanyahu are playing zero-sum win-lose games as we speak.

    I have never witnessed a woman playing such zero-sum games. Maybe it’s because they’re afraid of losing; maybe it’s out of empathy for the adversary. Whatever the reason, women seek win-win solutions, systematically. To be fair, some men do too. But women do it all the time. It must be in the chromosomes.

    To my mind, this is an extremely important lay of mindscape needed in leadership positions for the coming decades and centuries. HRC has hammered on it repeatedly and shown the effectiveness of her win-win approach in the Senate, at State, and all through her life.

    Something you don’t get with the win-win approach is a glorious “Mission Accomplished” banner. That’s why people who don’t bother to look closely at HRC’s statecraft don’t think she accomplished much in 4 years. No treaties signed on the deck of an aircraft carrier, just myriad win-wins all around the world and more smiles on people’s faces where there were nothing but frowns before.

    One thing I don’t care about so much is who is the “first” woman president. You can have your Nikki Haley if you want, or Jan Brewer, Susan Martinez, or how about Kirsten Gillibrand or Amy Klobuchar?

    What I want to see is a lineup of women ready to take the reins once the first woman president has finished her job overhauling DC. Yes, it is a “huge thing” for me.

    (2) what specific policies do you believe Hillary would advance which are different from those of Obama for those of us who are more interested in the future of this country than gender politics…, what specific, tangible, measurable, verifiable benefit do you see {to an HRC presidency}?

    I’ve said repeatedly that, at the level of the issues, you’re never going to see much daylight between Obola and HRC.

    Besides, it’s not really at the level of the issues that people don’t like about Obola. It’s rather his character, attitude and approach that people don’t like; and at that level, the difference between Obola and HRC is so striking and obvious that everyone — except you, apparently — sees them as quite distinct from each other. She doesn’t need to make any special effort to distance herself from him. Besides, as admin pointed out in the Jan 12 article,

    “Now is not the time for Hillary Clinton to speak. Now is the time to think about what the message is and how the attacks on these issues are to be truthfully and effectively replied to.”

    So, as for the specific policies, we just have to wait and see what kind of feast HRC cooks up for us.

    But in terms of “tangible, measurable, verifiable benefits”, one thing is foreseeable: As admin also pointed out in the article of January 12,

    “Hillary Clinton has a reputation of no-nonsense toughness.”

    Now, wouldn’t that be a welcome change from Obola? Combined with a willingness to engage with the adversary, the search for win-win solutions will definitely lead to “tangible, measurable, verifiable benefits”.

    (3) Forget about the Republican candidate,

    Man, I sure would like to forget about the Republicans altogether. I wish they would go away. They have nothing to contribute.

    [answers] (4) in terms of one thing we seem to agree on, namely that the current system is controlled by Wall Street and the American People are sucking hind tit. In 2008 I was called upon to answer that question, I did, but today, I am lost for an answer.

    Well, I can’t give much more of an answer to the matter of Wall Street control than I have already given above.

    It is true that HRC is not and does not intend to become an enemy of Wall Street.

    In fact, HRC uses the win-win approach with all her supposed adversaries. She has said to Wall Street: “We’re all in this together.” This is typical of the win-win approach. She wants Wall Street to do its share.

    Wall Street is what it is: People earn a living by making money for other people, doing so essentially by trading or investing. Do you want to change that? Do you want to stop them? Do you want to channel their money to the 99%? What exactly would you like to see happen?

    HRC wants Wall Street to get back into the investment business.

    However, as I pointed out in my explanation of “Don’t let anybody tell you that businesses create jobs,” investment doesn’t just happen because people have money to invest. The businesses need the incentive to produce. They need to perceive a demand for their products.

    The Stimulus and deficit spending has sustained demand for the last six years but demand has remained limp and the sovereign debt is breaking ceiling after ceiling.

    HRC wants a minimum wage hike. She wants to help organize new industries. She can help companies find foreign markets where they can increase the demand for their products (and has already done so as Senator and Secy of State). She can create tax credits for research and the corresponding tax programs.

    She has these ideas; she will express them; she can implement them once she is in office.

    On the road there, she will definitely refrain from whining about Wall Street. She has to bring them on board; and from the looks of it, they’re already there.

  127. jeswezey
    January 19, 2015 at 2:06 pm

  128. jeswezey
    January 19, 2015 at 2:06 pm
    I recall a conversation I had with a 20 something about Obama while the primary campaign was still underway. She said, yes, Hillary has experience. But Obama, he has so much hope.

    Be careful lest you fall into the same trap. Faith can move mountains but it cannot reverse the harm that has been done, particularly if all she can offer is Obama lite.

    The tell most of us were looking for–and never got, was a clear and unequivocal commitment to a different course. But whenever the opportunity arose she praised Obama.

    One of the more passionate arguments I made for Hillary in 2008 was that in the next four years we would be tested as a nation, and her crisis management skills derived from years in the White House were second to none.

    It took four years to happen, but I got blown out of the water on that one by Benghazi. Those presumed crisis management skills, including but not limited to identifying a hot spot, staying in touch with the ambassador, seeing that our allies were pulling out of the area, suffering the attack, and blaming it on a video may have been political crisis management, but nothing more, and certainly not what I would have expected.

    Another argument I made was that she was the candidate of Main Street Obama she was the candidate of Wall Street. She made one speech where she questioned whether hedge funds needed to be regulated and another speech where she questioned whether NAFTA was working for average Americans in Ohio. You say her close association with them now is simply a matter of getting them aboard. I say, he who pays the piper calls the tune. It is not a matter of making an enemy of Wall Street. It is a matter of priorities.

    I realize symbolism is a big thing for you. That is why I recommended you read the article I linked to you–Buying Brand Obama.

    Seattle has a fine police department. But our city council is somewhere to the left of Karl Marx. They hired a new Chief from Boston who is trying to set a new tone, and change the culture consistent with the work I did for another municipality. What this new chief is doing is forcing all officers from the rank of assistant chief down to captain to re apply for their jobs.

    In a sense, that is what Hillary will have to do if she runs in 2016. The Hillary of 2008 is gone. We need to know what the current Hillary stands for, and based on that some of us will decide whether she is worth supporting this time around. Others will decide strictly on the basis of gender, but in that case they would be do well to read Buying Brand Obama.

  129. It is not cynicism but experience that compels me to point out that in our state, we have a part time legislature which avoids difficult issues, which require solid leadership, and prefers instead to spend their time passing legislation that involved symbolic gesture and hat tips–renaming points of interest after Martin Luther King, and a city council that delights in renaming Columbus Day Native American Day. A clear case of confession and avoidance, wherein the issues that need attention languish.

  130. jeswezey
    January 19, 2015 at 2:06 pm

    I agree with most of what you said in this post, with one big exception, I do care if Hillary is the first woman President of the United States…

    To me, she is the most qualified candidate among all candidates…both male and female that has the possibility of becoming a great President. Not Nickki, not Featherhead, not Jan Brewer (although I do admired her), not even Greta V S, who I also admire. Not MO, not Kristen, no one.

    Just having a female President isn’t the most important thing to me, having Hillary comes first, having her be the FIRST woman President comes second.

    I also agree that Hillary would try to make Wall Street, and the rest be part of the inclusive plan…like she is with everything else. Working with Republicans and Dims in Congress. Working to get health care straightened out, working to protect our county, unlike her ex-boss.


  131. Sorry for the typos…too excited and not enough coffee after staying up most of the night and sleeping in late.

  132. To be honest, I scanned though the new posts and when I saw Lu scream out ‘Hillary’, my mind clicked that Hillary had made some comment that she might toss her hat in the ring…so my heart was racing…

  133. deblasio again.

    Within this past hour I watched a minute or 2 of his NAN speech and it reminded me of POTUS’s racial healing speech in Philadelphia April 2008.

    And now this bombshell [ published with snark ]:

    De Blasio’s Off To Paris

    In a move that the NY Post’s editors are sure to love, Mayor de Blasio will be flying to Paris tonight, leaving behind a city in ruin so he can frolic with cheese-eating surrender monkeys who hate freedom and cops. According to a press release from the mayor’s office, de Blasio will spend Tuesday attending “a series of events with French officials and Jewish community leaders to honor and commemorate the victims of the terror attacks that occurred there earlier this month.” Here’s the itinerary:
    The Mayor will stand in solidarity with our friends in Paris and across France to send the clear message that together we will fight terrorism and anti-Semitism at every turn, and that crude attempts to intimidate free expression will not succeed. 10:00 AM – Lay Wreath at Hyper Casher with Deputy Mayor Klugman 10:30 AM – Meeting with Leaders of the Jewish Community with Deputy Mayor Klugman (Closed press.) 11:30 AM – Meeting with Mayor Hidalgo at Parisian City Council Assembly Room (This meeting will be closed press. There may be a photo spray opportunity.) 12:15 PM – Lay Wreath at Charlie Hebdo with Mayor Hidalgo 12:25 PM – Lay Wreath where Police Officer Ahmed Merbat was Shot and Killed 12:45 PM – Press Statement and Availability with Mayor Hidalgo at Place de la République 2:30 PM – Drop By “Le Cent Quatre” – a cultural center representative of the diversity of Paris
    De Blasio will return to NYC on Tuesday night, bringing back an estimated 8.5 million Eiffel Tower souvenirs for everybody.

  134. Speaking of tough women, Le Pen has tough words for those who shy away from publicly identifying the terrorists who attacked Charlie Hebdo as islamic. She makes several good points in this article.

    I found it a bit surprising that NYT accepted the article – even from her.

    “To Call This Threat by Its Name”

    Marine Le Pen: France Was Attacked by Islamic Fundamentalism

  135. American Sniper is a good movie for several reasons.

    American Sniper Has Created a Cultural Moment. Here’s why according to David French.

    1, The characters are not one dimensional heroes but fully realized people who did heroic things.
    2. The movie tells a story we may not often hear and shows how children and adults are often savagely tortured.
    When Kyle describes the enemy as savages, you know why and agree.
    3. It tells the story of what it is like as a soldier…often the consequences of PTSD and survivor guilt and that for
    a time soldiers can flip to becoming better warriors than parents.
    4. The movie gives Americans something that is lacking these days…a hero on a national and cultural scale. It gives
    our kids someone besides quarterbacks, rappers, point guards to look up and count as a real live hero.

  136. Just having a female President isn’t the most important thing to me, having Hillary comes first, having her be the FIRST woman President comes second.

    Amen and Hell Yeah!!!

    Preach it Shadow.

  137. Over at the Weekly Standard, William Voegeli has a long piece called “Liars’ Remorse” about the pickle the dwindling band of Democrats now finds itself in, electorally speaking. As the monstrous nature of Obamacare becomes ever clearer, even to the lowest of low-information, easily bamboozled, gimme voters, they are faced with a rare situation: their cover has been, at least temporarily, blown. And for this we can thank the gift that keeps on giving, the true id of the Democrat Party and its contempt for the intelligence of the American people: Jonathan Gruber. As Voegeli writes:

    The voters’ cognitive deficiencies are a retrospective problem for Democrats, as Tomasky and Hiltzik point out, but also a prospective one. They mean that new government interventions cannot be secured through candor and clarity, but require guile and subterfuge, a position made clear by MIT economics professor and Obama administration adviser Jonathan Gruber. Explaining, in 2012, why the Affordable Care Act taxes insurance companies, which will pass along the costs to policyholders, rather than taxing the insured directly, Gruber said, “It’s a very clever, you know, basic exploitation of the lack of economic understanding of the American voter.”

    In 2013 he told a University of Pennsylvania audience that the ACA “was written in a tortured way” so that neither the Congressional Budget Office nor the public would see its individual mandate to buy heath insurance as a new tax. “Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage,” Gruber concluded. “Call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical to getting the thing to pass.”

    When, days after the 2014 midterm elections, Gruber’s remarks were publicized, Democratic politicians and journalists scrambled to denounce them, and Gruber himself apologized in congressional testimony for his “glib, thoughtless, and sometimes downright insulting comments.” Disdaining and deceiving the people are indeed affronts to democracy, but are not the only transgressions against American self-government. Gruber’s arrogance was gratuitous, but the deceptions he smugly praised served a Democratic purpose: convincing people that government interventions that can bestow formidable benefits while imposing negligible costs are, despite sounding too good to be true, low-hanging fruit ready to be harvested.

    Watch and listen to the cocksure arrogance of this whiny little creep as he gloats about how the administration put one over on the gullible American public:

    But not to worry — there’s more where that came from. In his upcoming State of the Union address, Obama is “expected” to propose even more freebies and goodies to his core constituency: wastrels, layabouts, bums and moochers. Here’s The Hill, salivating over the prospect of more government action:

    The White House wants President Obama to play the part of Robin Hood at Tuesday’s State of the Union address. Obama hopes to use the big speech to remove a blemish of his presidency: an economic recovery that has left wage growth behind.

    Free community college. A $175 billion tax cut for the middle class. Faster, cheaper broadband internet. A week of paid sick leave. Discounted mortgages. Obama wants to move forward with all of these populist proposals for the poor and middle class, and he wants to do so by taking from the rich in the form of higher taxes on the wealthy and Wall Street.

    Few of the proposals are going anywhere with a GOP Congress, but the White House sees Obama’s penultimate State of the Union as the president’s last, best chance to lay down policy markers for the next two years —and to frame the 2016 battle for the White House. It’s also meant to ensure Obama remains relevant for as long into his presidency as possible.

    Now, you know this is a lie because the Democrats’ lips are moving, but also because no one has been more snuggled up to Wall Street than President Robin Hood. The Democrats are now the party of the very, very, very rich and the indigent and the indolent: they don’t give a damn about the middle class except as it affects them at the ballot box.

    Forget the details about Obamacare, whether it works or it doesn’t (it doesn’t); whether it was a noble intention (it wasn’t); whether it can be fixed (it can’t). Instead concentrate on the principle behind the thing: a breathtaking Leftist power grab, so long sought and finally achieved. It’s not the end; it’s only the beginning, unless it is ripped out, root and branch before it’s too late. Over to you, John Boehner and Mitch McConnell.

    Yeah, right…

  138. wbboei January 19, 2015 at 3:25 pm

    (1) I can see why you felt “blown out of the water” by Benghazi; but I was not.

    HRC took responsibility for it because that’s the way she is, and it happened on her watch; but in fact, it was not a crisis that HRC was in a position to manage or even to prevent.

    You have to consider the powers of the Secretary of State and how the agency is organized:

    The SoS is the head diplomat, not the Secretary of Defense or head of the FBI or of the CIA. Matters of security at embassies and outposts everywhere in the world are handled by a small service of freshman foreign service officers way down the ladder called “Diplomatic Security”, or DS.

    For these embassies and outposts, DS does not bring in the military or hire armed thugs to guard outposts. Rather, it organizes that level of security with the local police. It was the local police who were supposed to guard the Benghazi outpost, and they either fled or were off duty that evening.

    DS does borrow Marines from Defense; but the Marines are not at the embassies for physical safety purposes, rather for data security. Their job is to check ID at the entry to certain facilities, guard state secrets and destroy documentary evidence in the event of a breach. There are no Marines at outposts like Benghazi.

    In any event, DS is a small service that doesn’t have much to do, and security requests come and go from their office and never reach the Secretary’s desk. It is not only understandable but obvious that HRC had no advance warning of what might happen in Benghazi, no power to prevent it with greater military protection, and no power to take charge of the crisis once the firing began. Only the president can order Defense, or CIA, to intervene.

    Besides, Republican congressmen had cut funding for DS for that year, a point they made haste to overlook.

    As to why the ambassador was there on that day, and in the company of the Turkish ambassador, both of them far from their home bases, HRC swears that she doesn’t know why.

    I doubt her somewhat, here, because the speculation that the ambassadors were organizing a gun-running operation from the arms caches of Benghazi to the Syrian rebels seemed highly plausible to me; and if these rumors were true, it seems highly unlikely that HRC was not aware of and involved in such a plot.

    However, even if the rumors were true, I refuse to hold it against HRC for keeping state secrets.

    Otherwise, it is still likely that HRC did not know that Stevens was in Benghazi that day, or why. Ambassadors are free to roam their host countries at will without informing DC, and they almost always do. And, if you read Hard Choices, you would find that Chris Stevens had a kind of love affair with Benghazi. He went there on a secret mission while Kadhafi was still in power and approaching Benghazi with his forces, and Stevens’ mission was to organize and encourage the resistance and make it known that America was on their side. He spoke Arabic and French fluently.

    As for the accusation that she acquiesced in the cover-up, I admit that she adhered to the video story for a few days; but that cover-up was blown a long time ago, and my reaction since then is the same as hers: “What difference, at this point, does it make?”

    (2) “I realize symbolism is a big thing for you.”

    I really don’t appreciate your putting words in my mouth, especially when they are the exact opposite of what I said. Here’s what I said:

    “… a woman president is a “huge thing” for me, but it is not a matter of abstract symbolism, nor is it a matter of body parts“

    I take symbols for what they are — symbols and nothing else. I realize symbols have marketing value, but I don’t need any parallel lessons about the symbolism and marketing ploys of the Obama campaign. Everything Obama said and his Hope & Change ploy went in one ear and out the other, because all I could see in him was a man without character and no sign of competence, which he himself admitted.

    Those are still my basic criticisms of Obola, and I repeat that it is in these matters of character and competence — not the issues — that we find the huge gap between HRC and Obola.

    (3) “The Hillary of 2008 is gone. We need to know what the current Hillary stands for…”

    Yes indeed, HRC says that there is a certain consistency to what she says and does; but she is also subject to change just like any thinking person is.

    The Hillary of 2008 is indeed gone; but the essentials remain and we are just going to have to “wait and see what feast Hillary cooks up for us,” as I said.

  139. This article calls BS on NY Times editor Dean Baquet, who cites “religious sensibilities” as the reason he allows no depictions of Muhammed to appear in his faux-news paper. When “religious sensibilities” are extended to only one religion, one has to wonder. Has the Times deemed the other religions unworthy? Or, perhaps is the infamous arm of the Obama state terrified of terror?

  140. Shadowfax January 19, 2015 at 4:42 pm

    I do care if Hillary is the first woman President of the United States…

    Yeah, I know what you mean and agree. I was just addressing wbboei, who has said that “first woman potus” doesn’t concern him and shouldn’t be the thrust of HRC’s campaign. I said “first” matters less to me than the rest of the argument.

    And of course, not every woman qualifies: I did say that my “feminism” had nothing to do with body parts.

    I agree, in any event, the HRC is by far the most qualified, male or female, at this point in time; and if she wins, she will therefore be the first.

    But then there’s always the possibility that HRC will lose! In that case, I want to find a deep bench of other women to step up to the plate. The ones I mentioned are presidential timber, I think (Gillibrand has said “call me back in 10 years” — give her time!). You mention Greta: great thinking! Taking someone from outside the political world!

    So, we’re on the same page, as usual.

  141. jeswezey
    January 20, 2015 at 9:37 am

    I totally agree with your (2) above in your post.

    Symbolism, branding, fairy tales for women…

    No reason for me to say it all again, you either get it or you just don’t.

    You get it, Free gets it…

  142. I can see why you felt “blown out of the water” by Benghazi; but I was not.

    HRC took responsibility for it because that’s the way she is, and it happened on her watch; but in fact, it was not a crisis that HRC was in a position to manage or even to prevent.

    Oh . . . . I see now . . . she took responsibility for something she was not really responsible for–like not being prepared, not taking the ambassador’s call, blaming the video . . . because . . . that is the way she is . . . responsible.

    Bear in mind, you and I are not the judge and jury. Our opinion, frankly does not matter. The electorate will decide whether the explanation you proffer is what they expect from their leaders. Or would they prefer to have candor.

    Obama had so much hope, you have so much faith, and at this point, I hold Hillary to the same standard I would hold any other secretary of state under these circumstances.

    I believe the men and women who put their lives on the line for this nation have a right to expect competence and truthfulness from their leaders.

    Otherwise you get this:

    “Forward, the Light Brigade!”
    Was there a man dismayed?
    Not though the soldier knew
    Someone had blundered.
    Theirs not to make reply,
    Theirs not to reason why,
    Theirs but to do and die.
    Into the valley of Death
    Rode the six hundred.

  143. Jeeze Louise – and this isn’t like UFO sightings on some trash paper in the market –

    New police radars can ‘see’ inside homes

    WASHINGTON — At least 50 U.S. law enforcement agencies have secretly equipped their officers with radar devices that allow them to effectively peer through the walls of houses to see whether anyone is inside, a practice raising new concerns about the extent of government surveillance.

    Those agencies, including the FBI and the U.S. Marshals Service, began deploying the radar systems more than two years ago with little notice to the courts and no public disclosure of when or how they would be used. The technology raises legal and privacy issues because the U.S. Supreme Court has said officers generally cannot use high-tech sensors to tell them about the inside of a person’s house without first obtaining a search warrant.

    The radars work like finely tuned motion detectors, using radio waves to zero in on movements as slight as human breathing from a distance of more than 50 feet. They can detect whether anyone is inside of a house, where they are and whether they are moving.


  144. I hope Hillary comes out fighting and using herself and her free will to shape her campaign and message…

    I really hope so…I hope we don’t hear her going on and on about what a great job O did and how hard he worked and how smart he is…bla, bla,bla..

    part of me is very worried that Hillary has been compromised and with O people around her and the left pouncing on her, her power and strength…here core…will be lost…

    I do want to hear a rekindle of Bill’s centrist, common sense approach…I do not want to hear or see her parroting the left many of us have actually left behind for good…or patronizing their nonsense

    I do not want to see Hillary playing all the stupid ego games O has played and has wasted so much time and so much taxpayer money…I do not want to see Hillary seeking Al Sharpton’s approval…he needs to go back to the hole he crawled out of…not carte blanche into the white house and a megaphone like he rules the world…

    I want to see Hillary making deals that make sense and rebuilding the middle class…and stop giving away our whole damn country to every person who thinks they can just waltz in and start asking or demanding entitlements and our taxpayer money for themselves…and making the middle class fools who just have to pay for it and shut up or be called racists…

    heck, O and the congress already want to raise taxes on gas that just started becoming reasonable again…enough of that…enough of bleeding us dry…

    I want maturity and sanity back in our leadership…so far I have not been convinced she will be that Hillary…it feels like her wings have been clipped…

    …however I am still hopeful that she is working hard behind the scenes to bring that Hillary to the forefront this Spring…I hope strong, smart, independent Hillary shows up, not some clone or bot…

  145. I am not watching Obama tonight so hopefully someone with a strong constitution will watch and summarize the nonsense he spews forth tonight.

  146. jbstonesfan
    January 20, 2015 at 8:35 pm


    I’m with you. I’ve never, never, never listened to more than a few minutes of the puppet since he rode into Dodge on his donkey. No palm fronds waving, no seas parting…just a aged Slick Rick the Poverty Pimp. I do like his laugh tho’…..I know, it’s weird of me.

  147. S

    …however I am still hopeful that she is working hard behind the scenes to bring that Hillary to the forefront this Spring…I hope strong, smart, independent Hillary shows up, not some clone or bot…


    Me too, S.

    Hillary is too smart to put on the clown shoes, but does she really want it bad enough for the fight of her life? She won’t run and play and give up so much of her last decades if she doesn’t think she can win.

    She is going to have to walk a tough but fair line to try and bring her party together, but if we runs and wins the primary…she will come out guns a blazin’

  148. Agreed, S. Hillary needs to be Rocky 20 or whatever the number of Rocky movies there have been.

    OMG, I’m visualizing the day when we hear the last SOTU Obama will ever give. Haven’t listened to a single one. Won’t start now.

  149. part of me is very worried that Hillary has been compromised and with O people around her and the left pouncing on her, her power and strength…here core…will be lost…
    It’s not unlikely. All presidents live in a bubble. Their world view is defined by the people they choose to have around him. I do think Bill was an exception. He was his own man, and a borderline genius. That is a rare thing however.

  150. Larry sums up my reaction succintly:

    “I would rather be water boarded while fire ants are being shoved up my ass than listen to the liar that occupies the White House. Barack Obama is a danger to America, in part, because so many Americans are flat out ignorant.

    Jimmy Kimmel and others hit the streets yesterday pimping men and women in the street with the premise that Martin Luther King was still alive and still speaking. Absolutely shocking the number of morons walking our streets. Second thought, no it is not. They elected the clown Obama:

    I won’t be watching the dismal State of the Union tonight. I can’t stomach the grandiose prevarication.”

  151. These events, coming on the occasion of the president’s keynote speech recalls the last time president Obama took to the podium to extol his foreign policy achievements and disaster followed. Michael Gerson described it in the Washington Post only a few days ago:

    President Obama’s 2014 State of the Union address is remembered today mainly for this bit of rhetorical irony: “America must move off a permanent war footing.”

    It was the triumph of speechwriting over experience. Obama’s pledge came about three weeks after the fall of Fallujah to the Islamic State. By June, Mosul would be overrun. Global jihadism now has a cause — Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi’s sham caliphate — around which to rally. It controls unprecedented territory and resources. It has a stream of thousands of Western recruits cycling in and out of the Middle East. And it encompasses a dangerous competition between the Islamic State and al-Qaeda, in which acts of terrorism are a source of street credibility.



    On a more serious note, however, one must never forget that what may simply be an embarrassment for the president is life or death on the ground for American allies; it victory or defeat for national interests. Events are still ridiculous – that can’t be helped — but they is also tragic. Obama’s defeats are in the long run, also American setbacks.

  152. Big media is raving about the SOTU tripe, I mean speech. Marvelous they say. Just marvelous. Inspired. Breathtaking. Riveting. David Ignatius Assistant Editor of WashPo says it is the greatest piece of political literature since the Funeral Oration of Pericles–and doubled down on his prior statement that we should all be happy because under Obama we have peace and prosperity. Except in Yemen and Paris and Iraq etc. I wonder whether that wilfully blind elitist Harvard trained moron has even read the Funeral Oration of Pericles. But the Republican response, drenched in empathy for working people is more of the same old tripe which says, we feel your pain but don’t ask us to do anything about it. We would like to but our donors won’t let us. And if it is a choice between you and our donors, its gonna be you that gets the shaft. Still you should support us, because we will get you to hell slower than if you take the Obama A-train. Now there is a compelling argument.

  153. freespirit January 20, 2015 at 4:53 pm

    Pope lectures women: don’t breed “like rabbits.”

    Well, at least the Pope is not being hypocritical here: He has probably never fucked anybody and, afaik, he has no kids.

  154. A friend of mine was in the audience during the SOTU address and sitting behind him was the Presidential Historian Michael Bechloss. Bechloss salivated through the entire speech and kept saying under his breath Obama is a genius, our greatest president, our lord and protector, and master of the universe. A vile of cocaine fell out of Bechloss pocket, and everyone pretended not to notice, except for my friend who picked it up and handed it to him saying I believe this is yours. Bechloss claimed he had never seen it before, and someone must have planted it in his pocket when no one was looking. When told he sounded like he was high on something to be making such stupid statements, he dismissed the charge and claimed it was just a case of irrational exhuberance which consumes him and (Ignatius) whenever they see Obama—like Pavlov’s dog.

  155. Pope lectures women: don’t breed “like rabbits.”

    The problem in Europe and here is not that people are breeding like rabbits. The problem is they are not breeding at all. So they must import people from the third world to replace the white European. And, in the process, France is ceasing to be France.

    And when Europe is more Muslim that Christian–which will happen within 30 years according to demographers comparing birth rates we can ask this Pope: how say ye now?

    Obviously, this pope is not a European.

    However, where the third world is concerned point is well taken.

    With millions of Mexicans living off the garbage dump in Mexico city, etc.

  156. Shadowfax January 20, 2015 at 10:18 pm


    …I hope strong, smart, independent Hillary shows up, not some clone or bot…

    You’re looking at HRC the way wbboei is: Hillary = Obola-lite

    The opposite is the case: Obola is Hillary lite.

    You (and wbboei) should be accustomed to this. It was evident all through the 2008 campaign: Hillary would say “X” and Obama would say “XX-plus” or “XX-minus”.

    Sometimes the order was reversed, as in the debates. Obama would say “XX-plus” or “XX-minus” and Hillary would say “X”.

    All along, he was following her playbook. All the others were too, as long as they were in the campaign. HRC was the one who set the tone and content of the campaign, and this was why it was so easy for her to turn on a dime and support him in the general election: On the issues, they’re practically two peas in a pod — Hillary’s pod. Obama is Hillary lite.

    This continued during HRC’s tenure at State. Obola described her as “the ideal Cabinet officer” because she took matters in hand and kept ahead of the game. Except, he was the one that made the final decision. He went against her advice once (on arming the Syrian rebels) and we’re paying for that now.

    So, we don’t have to worry about seeing “Hillary the Bot.” She has always been and still is her own person.


    Very well said, wbb.

    A greater tragedy, I would add is that ANYONE is this country, whether the parrots in media or the rank and file progs and kooks, could and would allow themselves to be impressed by ANYTHING Obama says. How many times to they have to witness the dissonance between what he says and what actually happens before they finally get that they have been bamboozled? What difference does it make what he says to anyone. It’s all just a contrived bunch of bullshit designed to at least salvage the delusional notion that if nothing else, he is a great orator. Hell, anyone could say stuff that sounded wonderful and masterful if it didn’t have to be true.

    I could say that I had held a summit with world leaders in Kandahar, where we dined on Taco Bell and Caronas and were entertained by James Taylor. The Taliban was so enamored of him and his music they got real mellow, and allowed all the women to remove their burqas and we all had a big, rockin’ partay. James ended the lovely evening with a song recorded by his ex-wife, Carley Simon – “You’re So Vain” (I bet you thought this song was about you) which was dedicated Obama.

    At some point, you would think even the sickest, most deluded Obamanut would figure out that the verbiage streaming from his mouth was no more noteworthy than a dog’s bark or cricket’s chirp.


    Jes, the Pope’s unwillingness to get fucked is what makes Femisex’s line funny. But, you’re right, he ain’t no hypocrite in that regard – I assume. Maybe if he had more experience, he would lighten up on that birth control thing.

  158. All progress comes as a result of a threat, so says the high priest of the progressive movement. That is entirely wrong, but it is entirely what the progressive believes. Too often, the threat reverses progress. Certainly that is true in race relations today. The threat interposed by Obama, Holder and Sharpton—3 of a kind has set race relations in this country back 100 years. In the video blow Buckley demolishes Alinsky.

  159. Alinsky was the consummate community organizer. He was the role model for Obama. Their tactics are essentially the same. The veiled threat that holds society hostage. To understand Obama you must first understand Alinsky. Personally, I am underwhelmed by the guy. I have known union organizers who were better theoriticians, better strategists with more fire in their belly. He was an crass opportunist who came along at a certain time, and road the coattails of the rump end of the civil rights movement, where the real leaders were King and his ilk. I might even go so far as to say Alinsky–like Obama, Holder and Sharpton were the dark underbelly. If King ran with the angels, Alinsky and his protogees slid along on their bellies like serpents.

  160. If the devil can quote scripture, then it is hardly surprising that Alinsky would quote Madison. It is just like that fucking Obama. He wraps himself in the American flag while doing EVERYTHING he can to undermine it.

  161. After that monumental speech which was so powerful that it put a dent in the universe, Obama Almighty turned his attention to the middle class, and promised to lift them into prosperity with his pen and his phone. If he happened to stab himself with the pen and hang himself with the phone cord, the nation would not be the less. But if he is talking about government action then it would be wise to reflect upon the words of Lord Highcross, and the example of perfect government presented by Lois Lerner:

    “The assumption that every market ‘imperfection’ can be remedied by political intervention depends on the elementary non sequitur of perfect government.”

  162. Another Alinsky principle that O’ Army of Asses has done a brilliant job of operationalizing: Personally attack those whose views differ, isolate them, belittle them, make them appear to be a fringe group, generally thought of as nut jobs. I don’t think that’s the exact wording, but the general idea.

    Wbb, one need only to look at the miserable failure public housing was to recognize that government interventions are not only much less than perfect, they can create a multitude of new problems.

  163. This is the headline at Blogs for Hillary (which often links to anti-HIllary sites):

    Obama undermines Hillary Clinton in State of the Union address – Fox News
    2 hours ago

    I didn’t go to FOX to read the article because I didn’t want to see the gleeful expression on the face of the plastic looking guy or the blonde Barbie reporting on this. I don’t know who does the FOX morning program but it doesn’t matter. They’re all essentially the same.

  164. Wbb,
    Thanks for the Buckley/ Saul “The Devil”, video. I imagine Saul died of lung cancer, just guessing… I really miss Buckley, always liked him, even when I thought I was a liberal he always amazed me with his wit.He always seemed to be able to use it to take apart the senseless rhetoric of others.

  165. jeswezey
    January 21, 2015 at 2:08 am

    Shadowfax January 20, 2015 at 10:18 pm


    …I hope strong, smart, independent Hillary shows up, not some clone or bot…

    You’re looking at HRC the way wbboei is: Hillary = Obola-lite

    The opposite is the case: Obola is Hillary lite.


    Okay, hold the darn phone!

    I didn’t say Hillary might be a Obot, that was S’s remark. I greed with S:

    “…however I am still hopeful that she is working hard behind the scenes to bring that Hillary to the forefront this Spring…I hope strong, smart, independent Hillary shows up, not some clone or bot…”

    — Meaning that I wanted her to be her own self, not worry about pleasing just the far left kooks.

    You should know me by now, that my perception of Hillary is about 180 degrees from what Wbb thinks of our girl.

    I am actually insulted.

  166. Shadowfax January 21, 2015 at 11:34 am

    You should know me by now, that my perception of Hillary is about 180 degrees from what Wbb thinks of our girl.

    I am actually insulted.

    Jeez, I condescend to freespirit and now I’m insulting the only audience I have left…!!!!

    Let me just say: I didn’t see S’s original post. I only saw it quoted in your post. I was reacting to S’s comment, not yours, and when I said “you” I meant S, not both of you.

    Sorry if you thought I was equating your attitude with that of wbboei.

    But now you say you agreed with S… so I don’t know what to think anymore.

    In any event, S was hoping HRC would not be a clone or a bot. That sounded like wbboei to me and it ticked me off. I don’t take back anything of what I said. Just imagine I was saying it to someone else….

  167. jeswezey

    This happens with others on the blog sometimes, where they grab a reply feathers get ruffled for the wrong reasons.

    I don’t agree that Hillary is any kind of an Obot, only that her attempt to defend basic Dem beliefs often sounds like she is in full agreement with the turd she worked under.

    Hillary would never call Mr. Turd a turd…so it is often perceived that she is following the corruption of the jackass.

    I just want Hillary to find the words that support her beliefs and make her break with the One that milked her ideas and party until it has become a disaster. It won’t easy…

  168. …now I’m insulting the only audience I have left

    That’s almost humorous. You wouldn’t dip into so much hot water if I was the only one that read your posts. 😉

    At least I know you tactic now when you get mad.

    Hey, we all get mad sometimes…it isn’t easy on a political blog. It’s one of those topics that most people don’t share more that a quick comment to one another.

    The fact that some of us are still here after 6 years, says something.

  169. Shadowfax January 21, 2015 at 11:34 am

    You should know me by now, that my perception of Hillary is about 180 degrees from what Wbb thinks of our girl.

    I am actually insulted.

    No, I think it is 90 degrees.

    My position does not preclude supporting her in 2016. But it does take full account of my unequivocal support in 2008, vs. what I have observed in the interim which serves to negate some of those assumptions. Furthermore, I have acquired a deeper understanding of how corrupt the overall system is, and that makes me skeptical of any establishment politician. If you are in this business for racial or gender politics, then Obama and then Hillary is an easy choice. But if you are in the game save this nation, meaning our constitutional system, then your focus will be entirely different. You will reject brand Hillary and ask a more pointed battery of questions such as who will she bring aboard in her campaign, what will her priorities be, how hard will she fight for them, and how relevant are they to saving the nation. She fought Obama in the primary, but has supported him consistently ever since, including after she left he post. Other former cabinet officers have been more forthcoming about the problems they saw, but judging by what she has said, one is left with the distinct impression that she shares his piorities, which is why I said Obama lite. And for those who say she cannot attack him, I say that is a false choice. You can define the differences without attacking him. Her refusal to do so suggests that she would be Obama lite with an emphasis on gender as opposed to race. If that is not the case, then she will need to define an agenda separate and apart from his. I am waiting.

  170. That point about defining the differences as opposed to attacking Obama, was the suggestion made to me by Ann Lewis, when I asked her how far Hillary would want me to go in opposing Obama.

  171. jbstonesfan
    January 21, 2015 at 12:21 pm

    Boehner invites Bibi to address Congress without O’s approval:

    I saw this on the news after work and came here straight away knowing somebody posted this and bingo! jb!!

    I think that this was overall, a good move by the GOP. And Bibi. Now let’s see how the Iranians react. If they pitch a fit and cause the white house to caution congress, teh one’s approval ratings will sink into the 30s. Democratic hopefulls will have a chance to split from preezy on another big issue.

    Hillary 2016

Comments are closed.