The GOP Does Something Real Smart

Update: Our smart idea is catching on. We still think the Egyptian President and the Mayor of Rotterdam should be next on the list. While Obama whines about the smart GOP move others are coming along with us with additional suggestions. Democrats whine: Boehner broke with protocol by inviting Netanyahu without telling Obama first:

Let’s hope the Netanyahu invitation is just the first of many, then. One minor but symbolic way that Boehner can strike back at Obama’s executive overreach is to invite various western leaders to speak whose own policies align more with Congress’s than the White House’s. First invitee, obviously, should be Stephen Harper to discuss the benefits of building the Keystone pipeline. Next invite goes to French prime minister Manuel Valls, who declared war on an enemy that our own leaders are now afraid to name. Third invite could go to Iraqi prime minister Haider al-Abadi, who’ll have an interesting view, I’ll bet, on whether Obama was right in the SOTU that we’re making gains against ISIS in Syria. If Boehner can’t stop Obama from blowing up separation of powers, he could at least invite foreign dignitaries to reality-check him.

———————————————

The smartest SOTU coverage? It was here. We entirely ignored the boob-a-palooza.

We ignored the Obama SOTU this week. That alone cements our claim to have provided the best coverage. But there are other, earlier reasons to consider our coverage as the best.

Consider, on the day after the November 2014 elections we begged Republicans to do just one little thing… just one little thing we begged:

But there is an issue of such paramount importance that it must go to the forefront in the battle against treacherous Barack Obama. This issue has the added benefit that it can be successfully fought and won because so many Obama Dimocrats will likely join with Republicans to fight Obama.

The issue that cannot wait and must be at the forefront of the Republican battle against Obama is a nuclear Iran:

We might get our wish. The Keystone Pipeline issue is small potatoes (less relevant to with the drop in oil prices) and should not be the keystone of Republican opposition to Obama. Make the fight about something really meaningful. Make our wish come true congressional Republicans.

Barack Obama is like a cracked LP record from before CDs and the digital world of MP3s. Obama repeats and repeats and repeats his threat to veto any new Iran sanctions bill passed by Congress. Now Boner has trumped the bonehead with a smart move which we kinda sorta begged for too.

Hey, when he does something this smart let’s call “Boner” by his proper name and title – Speaker of the House, The Honorable John Andrew Boehner.

Immediately after the Muslim terrorist attacks in Paris we suggested that Republicans in control of Congress invite the Egyptian President to address a joint session of Congress:

The new Republican controlled Congress of the United States should invite Egyptian President Fattah al-Sisi to speak before a joint session – soon after Barack Obama delivers his “State of the Union” speech. This would not require permission from Barack Obama so it can be done easily and would be a powerful rebuke of Obama’s appeasement/pro-Muslim Brotherhood policies.

In an update we added the Mayor of Rotterdam to the invite list. Well, we didn’t get our invites but we did get the Israeli Prime Minister. Yeah. Boehner rolls out welcome mat to Netanyahu for Iran speech.

Boner, er, Speaker of the House, The Honorable John Andrew Boehner, done did real good. He borrowed our idea and tweaked it to help get votes for a new Iran sanctions bill which will need 67 votes to override the Obama veto.

Speaker of the House, The Honorable John Andrew Boehner added bitch-slap to injury when he issued the invite to the Israeli Prim Minister without consultation with Obama or the State Department:

President Obama warned Congress last night that he would veto any sanctions legislation on Iran, saying it would derail U.S. negotiations in the Middle East. But John Boehner isn’t ready to sit out the battle over Iran’s nuclear program, and on Wednesday, he invited Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to address Congress next month.

“[Obama’s] exact message to us was: ‘Hold your fire.’ He expects us to stand idly by and do nothing while he cuts a bad deal with Iran. Two words: ‘Hell no!‘” Boehner said during his weekly press briefing on Wednesday. “We’re going to do no such thing.”

Boehner said that he did not consult with the White House before extending the invitation to Netanyahu. And the White House is not happy, because it heard about the invite from Boehner’s office, not from the Israelis.

Boehner’s office confirmed that Netanyahu has accepted, and will give a speech to a joint session of Congress on Feb. 11. The date is significant: It’s the 36th anniversary of the Iranian Revolution. [snip]

The speaker said in a statement Wednesday that he invited Netanyahu “to address Congress on the grave threats radical Islam and Iran pose to our security and way of life.”

This is real smart. And it is not just for show;

Boehner’s invite adds fuel to a potential showdown between Congress and the White House over Iran, one that could lead to the first successful veto override of Obama’s tenure as president. Twelve Democrats in the Senate have previously cosponsored legislation to impose sanctions on Iran. If they continue to call for sanctions alongside their Republican colleagues, the Senate may have the two-thirds majority necessary to override an Obama veto.

This might not only help get the votes to override an Obama veto but might also help Netanyahu win his election which will take place on March 17 of this year. Way to go Speaker of the House, The Honorable John Andrew Boehner!

Heavens to Mergatroyd, Heavens to Betsy even… this all sounds too good to be true. No way, just no way Obama Dimocrats will dump Obama in order to fight for truth, justice, and the American way. No way right? Way:

Menendez: Obama Iran Rhetoric Sounds ‘Straight Out Of Tehran’

Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) criticized the Obama administration’s Iran rhetoric for sounding “like talking points that come straight out of Tehran” and supporting “the Iranian narrative of victimization” before a Senate hearing on Wednesday.

“The more I hear from the administration and its quotes, the more it sounds like talking points that come straight out of Tehran. And it feeds to the Iranian narrative of victimization, when they are the ones with original sin, an illicit nuclear weapons program going back over the course of 20 years that they are unwilling to come clean on. So I don’t know why we feel compelled to make their case” he stated.



This Netanyahu invite and focus on Iran sanctions is the third smart move by the GOP. The first two came before the November 2014 elections. If this keeps up we’ll have to retire the “Boner” and refer to him with the longer moniker – Speaker of the House, The Honorable John Andrew Boehner.

Share

313 thoughts on “The GOP Does Something Real Smart

  1. Bill O’Reilly is entirely wrong in his discussion of Obama at the SOTU trying to help Hillary. Charles Krauthammer is right that O’Reilly is wrong.

  2. http://rebelpundit.com/theyre-baaack-chicago-unchained-the-state-of-the-union-video/

    Chicago Activists Respond to SOTU: He Doesn’t Care about Our People

    “In my world, on the south side and the west side of Chicago” Gresham says, “everything you (President Obama) spoke of in your speech, it doesn’t affect us. The stock market is at a record high, at 17,000. I can’t invest in the Dow Jones.”

    McKinley say’s “the country is more racially divided” since President Obama took office six years ago, and the president has failed to correct it.

    Watson had a message for new Republican congress, saying, “We hope that congress defunds Obamacare. We pray that congress do away with your amnesty executive order, giving and providing illegal aliens and immigrants work permits to make sure black don’t get jobs in our own community.

  3. Inspirations of the evening began with this post via admin who usually can find a bright spot… incredibly via Speaker of the House. With a dream expressed long ago and thot never to see the light of day. Yet, Netanyahu is coming.

    Even more unexpectedly was an invitation to join Ted Cruz’s live teletownhall which ended just a bit ago. The fundraiser within was handled competently; they were hoping for $25,000 and were approaching that goal as time ran out. Over the time (1 hr ?) I noticed passions increasing. Ted believes these times are similar to those of the Carter years and will likely result in energy similar to that which brought Reagan to the WH.

    From within DC he, with some help from Senators like Lee and Paul, works to slow down the legislative processes and shine a light on them – so that people have time to react. Within DC, he tries to change the GOP mindset of colleagues who think GOP efforts are routinely doomed; but Ted did remind his audience tonight that only voters, by remaining in frequent contact with their own representation, can change the defeatist attitudes which are too easy to maintain.

    After his Make DC LIsten blitz for stopping Obamacare, one of own party complained to him that the phone messages/tweets were ongoing – and this rep who remained anonymous, liked it better when voters had little to say!

  4. checkmate…one for the Speaker of the House, The Honorable John Andrew Boehner…

    after all he and his posse “won”…touche…

    …who would thunk it…we, the people, counting on the repubs to use common sense and take care of the USA…against Iran…

    O to be boxed in a corner protecting Iran from the Americans…what kind of a leader would…

    well played…

  5. Good news, Admin. Every bit of hope is appreciated – not Obama hope – real hope.

    I loved it toward the end of the video of the Rebel Pundit when the man very sincerely asks Barack, ” Was it all about you”?
    Yes sir, I’m sorry but, It was. Even with all of the work the black community did to put Barack into the WH, it was never about you. I t was all about him.

    As has been said here many times, Barack can shape shift into whomever his audience wants him to be,. If addressing wealthy progs from either coast, he’s super-yuppie, with impeccable Ivy league cred (at least as far as the crowd nows). When his audience is comprised of Middle America’s middle class, Barack tries to get down home and folksy.. When addressing a crowd of black people, he becomes their soul brother who feels their pain and identifies with their struggle. Trouble is, he hasn’t participated in their struggle.

    The AA community needs to understand. Barack used you. He exploited you. He wants your unconditional support. But, he feels no loyalty to you.

  6. This is the news we look for after every SOTU speech because it is really the bottom line results and possibility of success later:

    http://variety.com/2015/tv/ratings/state-of-the-union-ratings-lower-fox-news-tops-cable-overall-cnn-leads-in-demo-1201411030/?xnl

    Viewership of the State of the Union address continues to wane, with early numbers suggesting perhaps the lowest tune-in for the annual event in 15 years.

    Nielsen won’t issue cume numbers until later Wednesday or Thursday, but Fox News (3.471 million), CNN (2.557 million) and MSNBC (1.995 million) combined to draw a little over 8 million viewers from 9 to 10:15 p.m. ET, according to preliminary estimates. This is down from 9.1 million last year and 10.35 million in 2013.

  7. Great post admin.

    I hope to God that this is a turning point for Bonar and the GOP. That this is a preview of the next two Obola years…where the majority in Congress start to crack the darn whip on the corrupt Administration and scare the muffins outta the sitting Dimocrats.

    Bibi in the Congress, telling it like it is and making a bigger fool out of the jerk we have to house in the WH.

    I will have to see a little more of this grownup action before I can stop calling him Bonar…he has sat on his hands for 6 years and blown enough smoke to give everyone lung cancer.

  8. admin
    January 21, 2015 at 7:38 pm
    —–
    Great, great video!

    How surprised would these people be to find out that us white working class people feel the same way. That this is what’s happening to all of us, of every race.

  9. admin (and wbboei):

    Thank you again for linking to the DHS defense in the Texas case. It is indeed an interesting read — much more so than the complaint, because right from the opening sentence, DHS nails the case shut:

    “The Constitution and Congress have vested the Executive Branch, and the Secretary of Homeland Security in particular, with broad discretion over the enforcement of federal immigration law — including determining whether and when to remove (or not remove) particular aliens.”

    Implying that, since the States have no powers at all in the matter, there is no encroachment on State powers and prerogatives and the Fed government is taking responsibilities that are its own and nobody else’s.

    In its justification of prosecutorial discretion, the Defense follows through with pertinent references to the Constitution, 33 statutes, 124 cases, 11 collateral references and 33 exhibits.

    It’s overkill.

    Coupled with the fact that the States cannot show the slightest trace of any damages, but only premonitions based on surveys of what recent illegal immigrants have to say about their own border crossings — and recent illegals are not eligible for the DHS “deal” anyway — the States have nothing to complain about.

    All of this means: No standing; no case to argue.

    If this complaint gets past even the friendly south Texas court, I raise my voice against the wilderness of the American legal system.

    Mind you, in Europe, there is no provision for one governmental entity to sue another. This can only happen in a federal system as we have it in the US.

    There are the “accounting review boards” (called a “court” in France) where regional councils haggle over the amount of local taxes paid back to them, and the State reviews the accounts of those councils. But these are not courts, really.

    Also, a private entity can sue the government, in “Administrative Court”.

    But there is no jurisdiction for one government entity to sue another: it just can’t happen.

    So, I am viewing the Texas case as if it were a civil case between two equal parties, in which case it should be dismissed outright.

  10. Jes, of course doesn’t live in America, let alone Texas, as I do. We ARE already
    paying billions of dollars to educate, feed, house, incarcerate, and provide medical care for the illegals.
    We have billions of legitimate grounds to sue successfully.

  11. Boeher invited an expert to speak to Congress. And on a topic that is giving both Democrats and Republican members great concern. This expert just happens to be the PM of Israel. He is well known to many members of Congress because he actually talks to them unlike Obama. IF and that is a big if, Obama had any kind of personal relationship with Congress, other than a few Democrats who helped engineer his nomination in 2008, he might have influence over public orations which he feels violate his royal prerogative. But it is too late now for that to happen. Cause and effect will bite you in the butt every time you ignore it. Was it rude of Boehner to blindside the White House? Yes but not as rude as Obama has been to the new Congress as evidenced in his petty, snarky, trash talking spiel the night before. Now he has to be upstaged by a better man. That’s life. And tough shit.

  12. gonzotx January 22, 2015 at 4:00 am

    We ARE already paying billions of dollars to educate, feed, house, incarcerate, and provide medical care for the illegals. We have billions of legitimate grounds to sue successfully.

    I don’t question your picture of the the existing situation; but the existing situation is not evidence of future damages due to the recent DHS Directive. Such “damages” are purely hypothetical.

    Furthermore, if you look at the Executive Order and the ensuing DHS Directive objectively (and not through the eyes of an Obama hater), you can see that the policy is to register the illegals and get their tax money, thereby already alleviating the situation for the states, and allowing the registered alien to stay only for a limited period of time (deferred action), thus carrying the real threat of deporting them in the end anyway.

    Imo, there are very few illegals who are going to take the bait, because they have a lot to lose and little to gain. But the overall effect of this Directive, for the states, would be beneficial.

  13. Shadowfax January 21, 2015 at 11:34 am
    … my perception of Hillary is about 180 degrees from what Wbb thinks of our girl.

    wbboei January 21, 2015 at 4:35 pm

    No, I think it is 90 degrees.

    Shadowfax January 22, 2015 at 2:10 am

    Okay, Wbb…I can accept that you and I are 90 degrees apart instead of 180.

    Now, there’s an interesting little exchange…

    Having been an ace in geometry and trigonometry, I always interpret people’s differing viewpoints in terms of an angle — literally.

    For instance, I’ve always thought that a marriage works best when the spouses’ viewpoints are at 90° from each other — 0° produces boredom and divorce; 180° produces violence and divorce.

    Looks like you two should get married!

  14. Here’s a video aired around 7 AM on HLNTV – of all places. HLN’s intent was to indicate on how US Senators in audience were smirking.

    So far I’ve found that video only on cspan and it appears now to have been edited to blur the smirks.
    JANUARY 21, 2015
    Senator Inhofe on Climate Change
    Man can’t change climate.” Senator Inhofe said the climate “has always changed and always will,” but “the hoax is that there are some people who are so arrogant to think they are so powerful they can change climate. Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), chair of the Senate Environment and Punlic Works Committee, asked to be added as a co-sponsor to Senator Sheldon Whitehouse’s (D-RI) amendment to the Keystone XL pipeline bill.
    www dot c-span.org/video/?323919-9/senator-james-inhofe-rok-climate-change

    I found other interesting coverage at HLN this morning. Believe they’ve switched to our side for the moment.

  15. Was it rude of Boehner to blindside the White House? Yes but not as rude as Obama has been to the new Congress as evidenced in his petty, snarky, trash talking spiel the night before. Now he has to be upstaged by a better man. That’s life. And tough shit.

    ____________

    Right on Mormaer. Barack has also usurped the power of congress taking on the legislative function. When they opposed his policies, he ignored the elected representatives of the people, and issued executive orders. His basic contempt for America and disregard for the constitution become more apparent everyday.

    Now, chickens are coming home to roost. Maybe Boner is growing a spine at last, and we’ll se chickens flying through the windows of the WH, landing squarely on Barack’s desk.

  16. A group of American academics of varying religious views and political persuasions are volunteering to take some of the lashes for the Saudi blogger, Raif Badawi who was sentenced to 10 years in prison and 1000 lashes for criticizing his country’s Islamic clerics.
    He has received 50 of the assigned lashes thus far.

    The UN has appealed to the Saudi government on Badawi’s behalf, but without success.

    Among those co-signing a letter sent to the Saudi government asking it not to administer further lashes is former FLOTUS Laura Bush.
    _________________

    (snip)

    “If the Saudi government refuses, we each asked to take 100 of Mr. Badawi’s lashes so that we could suffer with him. The seven of us include Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, Christians, Jews, and a Muslim.”

    (snip)

    Mr Badawi, 31, who set up a liberal website to discuss Saudi politics in which he criticised the country’s hardline religious establishment, has been sentenced to ten years in prison as well as 1,000 lashes. So harsh is the flogging that it has to be administered in individual sessions of 50 lashes a time in order to stop the recipient dying or suffering serious injury during the process.

    The first bout of 50 lashes was dished out to Mr Badawi on January 9, before hundreds of spectators in a public square in front of a mosque in the Red Sea city of Jeddah.

    (snip)

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/saudiarabia/11362384/Top-US-academic-Let-me-be-lashed-instead-of-Saudi-blogger.html

  17. Some people just share Barack’s view of the state of the union .

    _____________

    For those who skipped Barack Obama’s State of the Union address last night—and I know it was a lot of you—here is the shorter version.

    Everything is Awesome: Leggo Movie
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?x-yt-ts=1421782837&x-yt-cl=84359240&v=StTqXEQ2l-Y

    That’s right, President Obama’s main theme was to declare how awesome it is to live in the wonderful new era of peace and prosperity that no one but him has noticed.

    http://thefederalist.com/2015/01/21/obamas-state-of-the-union-delusion-everything-is-awesome/

  18. S
    January 21, 2015 at 11:50 pm

    checkmate…one for the Speaker of the House, The Honorable John Andrew Boehner…

    after all he and his posse “won”…touche…
    _________________________-

    But Barry, the poor thing!!! thinks he Won!!! 😆

  19. Foxy, in reading the article about Nano, I was interested to see the author’s reference to “Pigmented Representative James Clyburn”, so I follow the “pigmented” link to an article about Clyburn’s admonishment to Tim Scott to vote his “pigmentation”. What a tribute to Dr. King, who asked that we look not at skin color, but at character.
    ______________

    Clyburn To Tim Scott: Vote Your “Pigmentation”

    By Robert Gehl, May 9, 2014.

    http://downtrend.com/robertgehl/clyburn-to-tim-scott-vote-your-pigmentation/

  20. foxyladi14

    January 22, 2015 at 10:33 am

    But Barry, the poor thing!!! thinks he Won!!!

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

    foxy,

    O lives in his own alternative bubble universe of I,I,I, me,me,me, my,my,my

    he is going to have a very tough time ‘letting go’ of his deluded, perceived and finite ‘supreme’ power…

  21. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2920816/White-House-aide-says-Obama-steamroll-Democrats-Congress-split-White-House-Cuba-Iran-energy-trade-just-DAY-combative-State-Union.html

    EXCLUSIVE: White House aide says Obama will ‘steamroll’ Democrats in Congress after they split with White House on Cuba, Iran, energy and trade just a DAY after combative State of the Union

    The Obama administration appears to be arming itself for a take-no-prisoners approach to lame-duck governing, at the risk of crushing Democrats who disagree with policies outlined in the president’s State of the Union address on Tuesday night.

    A White House aide said plainly on Wednesday that ‘party loyalty’ won’t protect Barack Obama’s fellow Democrats on Capitol Hill if they get in his way.

    ‘The president is in the last two years,’ the aide told Daily Mail Online, ‘and party loyalty isn’t worth what it used to be. He’s going to steamroll them.’

    So much for the pen and the phone.

    Obama’s legislative vision hit an unexpected snag this week as prominent members of his own party – including three U.S. senators and a handful of indignant House members – voiced targeted objections to items on his State of the Union laundry list.

    Tuesday night marked the first time he dropped his agenda in the lap of a GOP-dominated Congress; while loud objections from Republicans were expected, some parts of the speech drew howls from Democrats as well.

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

    a man unto himself with no loyalty towards anyone…country?

  22. Looks like you two should get married!

    ——
    Ain’t gonna happen. Wbb and I agree with each other on many things…but not about some important issues- to me.

    My ex was an off-the-boat, German. One of the last days of our 6 year marriage he said these words to me in a very heavy German accent, “Women’s liberation, is OVER!”

    I told him he picked the wrong woman and to get the Hell outta Dodge.

    I think Wbb and I are not the kind of 90 degrees you are talking about.
    I need to be at 45 degrees or less. I never had the problem of being with a boring person.

  23. The stupidest people on earth are those who give up their inheritance in exchange for bread and circuses.

    For, as the venerable Trotsky put it, shortly before Stalin’s agents smashed his head in with an axe:

    You may not be interested in politics, but politics is interested in you.

    In the movie Doctor Zhivago, we get this from a Red Guard General: the private life is dead in Russia.

    In the movie The Night of the Generals, we get this from an SS General who burns down the Warsaw Ghetto.

    There is no room for a private life, we are building a new world order and everyone must play their part.

    The American Progressive would say the same thing.

    In sum, we are witnessing the death of the private life in this country.

    And the American People are clueless.

    Even stupider than Gruber imagines.

    Even stupider than the man on the street interviews peddled by late night comics.

    Nothing we can do about it.

    Nobody cares.

    We have crossed the river.

    Not the Rubicon, but the Styx.

    ——-

    For freedom and secularism to survive it ironically needs a ”kingdom not of this world” – the universe of privacy, where the do-gooders operating at the behest of some political messiah have no business intruding. Without privacy, there is no freedom.

    Kevin Williamson in the National Review argued we are now witnessing the abolition of private life. Citing the black brunch protesters who are determined to invade spaces where behavior they don’t approve of may be going on, Williamson says “the message these protests send is that there is no private space — and, therefore, no private life — so far as this particular rabble is concerned.”

    But Williamson stops short of giving that rabble its true name. The leftist mobs perform the function which in a strict Islamic society would be fulfilled by the mutaween or religious police. That’s exactly what they are and there are ever more of them each day.

    The mutaween circulate among us endlessly, looking at the third page of the paper you’re perusing, checking the spread of your legs as you ride the subway, parsing your words for forbidden phrases, investigating suspicious Greek fraternities, ensuring the requisite Wellness, retaining all the data passing through your ISP to be sure you have had no impure thoughts recently, even as they remind you that “yes means no” — all the while denying that there is an ultimate meaning to anything. Why all this busyness? Well that’s the irony. They don’t even know why.

    Well, just because.

    http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2015/01/22/the-part-of-yourself-you-used-to-own/#more-41590

  24. Has anyone else received the new DNC begging for dollars email?

    This takes the stupidity cake.

    You can get yer car magnet for $10, or donate much more at their site.

    The magnet is from a quote by the Fraud himself:

    “I have no more campaigns to run… I know, ’cause I won both of them.”
    – pResident Obola, 6th State of the Union Address, Jan 20th

    The magnet says, ‘WE WON BOTH OF THEM’

  25. This article asserts that media has yet again, misread Hillary – at least those who paint her as being hand in glove with Barack.
    Although she may embrace a version of some of the policies and initiatives he supports, she will actually get the work done – not just talk about it.

    An aide to both the Clintons speculates as to the way in which Hillary will distance herself from O.

    _____________

    I had coffee recently with an adviser to both Bill and Hillary Clinton. Halfway through an animated conversation about the 2016 presidential campaign, he grabbed my napkin and sketched out how Clinton might contrast herself to Obama. He wrote:

    Consensus builder > Loner

    Plodder > Celebrity

    Listener > Lecturer

    Doer > Talker

    http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/here-s-how-hillary-clinton-will-distance-herself-from-barack-obama-20150122

  26. freespirit
    January 22, 2015 at 5:16 pm
    —————–
    1. Nearly 2/3 of the electorate believe the nation is on the wrong track.

    2. The question is why.

    3. This aid asks us to believe the problem is stylistic—-loner, celebrity, lecturer, talker

    4. That may be true, but it is not the reason why most people believe our nation is on the wrong track.

    5. The problem is substantive.

    6. The policies Obama is pursuing are dysfunctional and are harming the nation.

    7. Hillary must repudiate or trim back those policies if she wants to win.

    8. Or, maybe I am wrong.

    9. According to Professor Wolin our political system is one of inverted totalitariansm, managed democracy and the elections are not an exercise in democracy but a popularity contest.

    10. The manta of a plodder, listener and doer may win a popularity contest, but but standing alone, it cannot save the nation.

  27. I have a vague feeling that this anon. Shakespeare of the cocktail napkin is the illustrious Robby Moucks. A 34 year old wiz kid. Now let’s see. Mark Penn was also a whiz kid. How did that work out? Thought California was a winner take all state. Here’s my campaign advice. Listen to what Admin is saying. And beware of whiz kids bearing campaign advice.

  28. “I have no more campaigns to run… I know, ’cause I won both of them.”
    – pResident Obola, 6th State of the Union Address, Jan 20th

    ———–
    Then you have no need for the money. Go fuck yourself Obola.

  29. Update: Our smart idea is catching on. We still think the Egyptian President and the Mayor of Rotterdam should be next on the list. While Obama whines about the smart GOP move others are coming along with us with additional suggestions. Democrats whine: Boehner broke with protocol by inviting Netanyahu without telling Obama first:

    Let’s hope the Netanyahu invitation is just the first of many, then. One minor but symbolic way that Boehner can strike back at Obama’s executive overreach is to invite various western leaders to speak whose own policies align more with Congress’s than the White House’s. First invitee, obviously, should be Stephen Harper to discuss the benefits of building the Keystone pipeline. Next invite goes to French prime minister Manuel Valls, who declared war on an enemy that our own leaders are now afraid to name. Third invite could go to Iraqi prime minister Haider al-Abadi, who’ll have an interesting view, I’ll bet, on whether Obama was right in the SOTU that we’re making gains against ISIS in Syria. If Boehner can’t stop Obama from blowing up separation of powers, he could at least invite foreign dignitaries to reality-check him.

    ———————————————

  30. 7. Hillary must repudiate or trim back those policies if she wants to win.

    __________

    Agreed, wbb. If she can get elected without putting forth at least a trimmed back version of his policies especially since, as you said 2/3 of Americans disapprove of the way the country is going, I guess the only explanation may be that Gruber was right. We just can’t put two and two together and get four. Dots are going unconnected.

    The Dim mantra is, as we have said before – save the middle class (well, that and climate change). Obama has gotten away with talking endlessly about helping the middle class, all the while developing policies and issuing orders that will have the opposite effect. The dissonance, as you have said before is astounding.

    Maybe Hillary can pull of his schizophrenic way of doing things, but I doubt it. MSM will not be giving her a pass for a single awkward word that comes out of her mouth, nor on a single misstep .

  31. Free

    Maybe Hillary can pull of his schizophrenic way of doing things, but I doubt it. MSM will not be giving her a pass for a single awkward word that comes out of her mouth, nor on a single misstep .

    ——–
    Don’t worry Free, the GOP, MSM and the crazy Kooks will all be consistent. They will trash Hillary, whether they have awkward words or missteps…or a pair of black, heavy framed glasses…they will rip her apart for:

    -Being a Clinton
    -Being a woman
    -Being over 40
    -Over 100 lbs
    -Wearing pantsuits
    -Wearing scrunchies, little heels, long hair, short hair
    -Working for Obola, no longer working for Obola
    -Not being black, Hispanic, from a third world country
    -For trying to push women forward
    -For bringing the idea of women even in her campaign
    -God forbid, a tear
    -For being too tough
    -For being too soft

    The list is endless. She will become the punching bag for every person that doesn’t like her, support her or just needs someone to take their frustrations out on.

    Jeeze what a delightful campaign for Hillary to look forward to.

  32. Lu4PUMA
    January 22, 2015 at 8:45 pm
    Trouble in Obola’s Paradise. Evacuation in Yemen

    ————
    Yes Lu, Yemen is a hotbed for terrorists and no one is running the country.

  33. If Hillary says, “Screw you!”

    and doesn’t run, I certainly will not blame her.

    I will be selfishly disappointed and depressed, but I will not blame her.

  34. If you took all the consultants and all the staffers and sent them for all all expenses paid tour of a lush tropical paradise where flamingos fly like um . . er. . . Devil’s Island, then the world would be a far far far better place. Oh yes, they can take Obola Insane Bamboozler with them so he could flap his jaw and pretend to be a wind sock.

  35. No. I take that back. Obola has no time for such niceties. He is too busy leading from behind—in Yemen. The Assistant Editor of the Wall Street Journal reported this morning that he went to see the movie The Sniper, and when he returned home inspired he was in no mood to listen to the glorious messiah delivering his state of the union so serene in his state of semi divine remove from reality congratulating himself at the end of every sentence and never entertaining the thought that the world is not only going to hell, but is going to hell precisely because of him. Him. HIM. Joni Ernst gave the response. But if it had been me I would have been more succinct. I would have told him to go fuck himself and left it at that.

  36. The list is endless. She will become the punching bag for every person that doesn’t like her, support her or just needs someone to take their frustrations out on.

    Jeeze what a delightful campaign for Hillary to look forward to.

    _________

    You are so right, Shadow. If there is nothing to criticize,they just make something up, as in the tear, the pillow joke during 2008 debates. The Chosen One is not to be dissed – not while media is standing guard.

  37. Another reason the White House is furious out over Boehner inviting Bibi to speak to the House is that the media cannot ignore it, the White House cannot control what he says through staged questions and limited time coordinated with the media, and the White House media spinners cannot have a canned response ready since they won’t get an advance copy of the speech. Thinking on their feet is not their strong point. The control of information to mold and shape public opinion has been one of their strongest tools with the full collusion of the media. This jumps both layers of censorship, media and the White House, and presents directly to the US public which the White House and media assume is their right. It isn’t and Boehner knows it. The vehemence of the reaction of the White House, and flunkies like Pelosi, show that a free flow of information and ideas is not in THEIR interest. Inviting a French Socialist and an Egyptian Muslim ex-general are great ideas and show an interest in a free flow of opinions which the White House seeks to restrict. I hope Bibi gives a real stem-winder of a speech.

  38. freespirit
    January 22, 2015 at 11:37 am

    Foxy, in reading the article about Nano, I was interested to see the author’s reference to “Pigmented Representative James Clyburn”, so I follow the “pigmented” link to an article about Clyburn’s admonishment to Tim Scott to vote his “pigmentation”
    ____________

    It’s the koolade Free!!!! 🙂

  39. Mormaer
    January 23, 2015 at 6:53 am

    ——

    Great points Mormaer.

    How about the visual during the speech by Bibi…

    will both parties clap and show support for defending American’s ally,

    or will only the Rep side of the room show support

    while the Dim’s sit on their hands?

  40. I agree Admin. Also one to watch. 🙂
    ________________

    A spokesman for Cuomo had no immediate comment.

    “Today, in order to prevent Silver from accessing his alleged ill-gotten gains, we also announce that the court has issued warrants allowing us to seize approximately $3.8 million in alleged fraud proceeds that Silver had dispersed among eight different bank accounts at six different banks,” Bharara said.

    In a line that might send a chill through certain corners of the Capitol, Bharara noted that his corruption work was ongoing.

    “We will keep at it, because the men and woman of the FBI and of my office still subscribe to the quaint view that no one is above the law, no matter who you are, or who know, or how much money you have,” he said. “And so our unfinished fight against public corruption continues. You should stay tuned

    http://blog.timesunion.com/capitol/archives/228037/bharara-after-silver-arrest-stay-tuned-for-more/

  41. http://www.timesofisrael.com/netanyahu-spat-in-our-face-white-house-officials-say/#!

    The White House’s outrage over Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s plan to speak before Congress in March — a move he failed to coordinate with the administration — began to seep through the diplomatic cracks on Friday, with officials telling Haaretz the Israeli leader had “spat” in President Barack Obama’s face.

    We thought we’ve seen everything,” the newspaper quoted an unnamed senior US official as saying. “But Bibi managed to surprise even us.

    “There are things you simply don’t do. He spat in our face publicly and that’s no way to behave. Netanyahu ought to remember that President Obama has a year and a half left to his presidency, and that there will be a price,” he said.

    Washington said that the “chickenshit” epithet — with which an anonymous administration official branded Netanyahu several months ago — was mild compared to the language used in the White House when news of Netanyahu’s planned speech came in.

    In his address the Israeli leader is expected to speak about stalled US-led nuclear negotiations with Iran, and to urge lawmakers to slap Tehran with a new round of tougher sanctions in order to force it to comply with international demands. The Mossad intelligence service on Thursday went to the rare length of issuing a press statement to deny claims, cited by Kerry, that its chief Tamir Pardo had told visiting US politicians that he opposed further sanctions.

    Haaretz reported that Obama had personally demanded that Netanyahu tone down his pro-sanctions rhetoric in a phone call between the two last week. The president has said a sanctions bill would cripple negotiations with Iranian leaders at a critical stage, and has threatened to veto such a bill should it come through.

    bla, bla, bla

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

    O is the only one allowed to spit in other people’s faces…

  42. Shadowfax January 22, 2015 at 2:47 pm

    I think Wbb and I are not the kind of 90 degrees you are talking about.

    I need to be at 45 degrees or less. I never had the problem of being with a boring person.

    When I said 90°, I was talking about marriages in general.

    My own marriage was at about 210° (both angle and temperature!) and still lasted 8 years, because I’m a pretty stubborn guy: Nobody in my family had ever divorced before, and nobody has since. I just took the heat as long as I could, and then fled.

    Now:

    (1) What I really imagine for myself is also something like 45°.

    (2) I think you’ll believe me when I say that the very concept of “Women’s liberation is OVER” could never enter my mind or even be pronounced in any accent in my presence without prompting a scorching 360° rebuke…

    So:

    (3) Will you marry me?

  43. S, Sarah Palin is right with that deflated balls talk. Here’s a guy who has brass ones:

    http://hotair.com/archives/2015/01/23/obama-white-house-in-meltdown-over-netanyahus-proposed-speech-to-congress/

    Who benefits from this quarrelsomeness? Surely, the administration, which has taken to governing for the left from the left, seems to think that it benefits from alienating America’s Israeli allies. But if Obama really wanted to hurt Netanyahu’s electoral prospects, he would embrace the Israeli leader. As of last year, 70 percent of Israelis said they had no confidence in Obama to safeguard their national interests. For most of the president’s first term, his approval rating in Israel was persistently stuck in the single digits. Netanyahu could only benefit domestically from being seen as a figure nobly standing opposed to the hostile administration temporarily occupying a historically friendly American government.

    What’s more, Obama’s decision to sideline himself during an Israeli Prime Minister’s visit to Congress does not seem to be particularly well-considered. For the day, ascendant Republicans will take hold of the reins of American statecraft and foreign policy. Optically, congressional Republicans will be elevated to global statesmen and will assume equal footing with the President of the United States. Meanwhile, Obama and his aides will nurse their wounds behind closed doors in the West Wing. The contrast between the petulant White House and bold Republican majorities in Congress will be stark.

    What publicity stunts will Obama resort to as a way to take the spotlight away from Netanyahu? Will Obama invite the Castro brothers, Fidel and Raul, to visit the White House? Will Obama do another set of interviews with Glozell Green?

  44. A handful of democrats from Jewish districts will support Bibi’s speech, but the majority of dems will sit quietly or may not even attend. The democratic party to any objective observer is hostile to Israeli interests. The liberal MSM are making it like Bibi is some evil, dangerous man, while seemingly OK with the Mullahs in Teheran.

  45. freespirit January 22, 2015 at 5:16 pm

    This article asserts that media has yet again, misread Hillary

    No, freespirit, you’re the one who didn’t read the whole article! Ron Fournier apparently gets it — or talks to people who do!

    About distancing herself from Obola, it’s what I’ve been saying for years now. He says:

    Clinton is not worried about being associated with Obama’s policies, associates say. Her challenge is to convince voters that, unlike Obama, she can deliver on her promises.

    “He can blame Republicans and all sort of structural problems—and get sympathy from a lot of us, … But voters don’t want to hear that. They want shit done. He hasn’t gotten shit done.”

    Clinton… believes that voters want the next president to get beyond “a critical debate” and forge actual solutions. They want somebody to step up and deliver.

    I think the whole country is aware of this difference: Not much difference between the two on the issues, but HRC thinks tough and follows through: engage the adversary, find common ground, and get a result.

  46. O is the only one allowed to spit in other people’s faces…
    ____________

    Right, S. And the Spitee is supposed to just say “thanks, I needed that”.

    ______

    Jes
    (3) Will you marry me?

    Don’t do it Shadow!!! You would never get a word in edge-wise!!

    (That was a joke, jes. No insult or condescension intended)

  47. Jes, I based that statement on this passage from article, commenting on Hillary’s tweet about SOTU speech. The author tries to make distinction between the “political media’s” interpretation of it and what it actually was conveying.
    ________________

    Tweet:

    @BarackObama #SOTU pointed way to an economy that works for all. Now we need to step up & deliver for the middle class. #FairShot #FairShare

    Quote from article:

    “The first sentence envelops Obama in an embrace—something her husband often did to his rivals before digging a shiv between their ribs. The next day, she told a Canadian audience that Obama doesn’t get the credit he deserves for leading the United States out of recession.

    The political media took her at face value—always a risky route with the Clintons. “Hillary hugs Obama—again,” declared the NBC political blog First Read. “Clinton [tied] herself to Obama’s economic programs,” The Washington Post reported.

    The second sentence of her tweet is the key—the social-media shiv. “Now we need to step up and deliver for the middle class.”

    Key word: Deliver.”

  48. freespirit January 23, 2015 at 1:25 pm

    I based that statement on this passage from article

    Yeah, I realized that after the fact.

    Anyway, Team Hillary seems to understand clearly where the “distance” lies and wants to shape the campaign to show up the difference.

    When speaking about the “distancing” object here, my point on this subject has always been just where Team Hillary points: The issues and policies are not so different between Obola and Hillary, the difference is delivery. It’s also approach: Do your homework and hammer out your ideas, round up your forces, engage the adversary, find common ground and haggle as if you were Donald Trump lite, and deliver.

    It’s no accident that Trump was thinking of running against Obama in 2012. The two are worlds apart.

    If Hillary had been president, she would have hired Trump as Commerce Secretary.

  49. So looks like Rubio is in…..anyone surprised?

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/rubio-enters-fray_824344.html

    News today came that Marco Rubio looks likely to run for president. What to make of this?
    Marco Antonio Rubio

    The knock on Rubio, of course, is his support for the Senate immigration bill. I second these criticisms — and have written about how the bill is bad for the middle class and is riddled with payoffs to corporate America. I don’t think Rubio is reliable on immigration, although I am guessing that he feels duly chastened by his experience in 2013 and 2014.

    But then again I do not think any of the major Republican contenders — outside Ted Cruz — is reliable on this issue. The fact of the matter is that there is a disconnect within the Republican party on this issue. The financial interests that bankroll the party’s campaign want one thing — something akin to the Senate bill — while its grassroots voters want something else. So long as campaigns cost so much money, while grassroots voters have no practical alternative but to back the GOP, ambitious Republicans will lean to the “left” side of this issue. That’s just politics — hate to say it, but it’s true.

    ……………………

  50. Free

    Don’t do it Shadow!!! You would never get a word in edge-wise!!

    ——-

    🙂 Don’t worry Free, fading into the background has never been my problem. I majored in Philosophy and in real life, thrive on debates. I try very hard to keep my debates online to a minimum and step away from the keyboard when I am really ramped up. (I have to because typos fly at lightening speed.)

  51. Then it’s true. Obama has chosen to be interviewed by the woman who eats cereal out of bath tub?

    Well, if that don’t blow your dress up, nothing will!

    WTF is wrong with Obama? WTF is wrong with his aides and advisors? Is everyone in the WH on crack? Or, do they just lack any class, sense, understanding of what the office represent, pride, concern for how Barack represents America,

    Is this a joke? I mean, I’m asking. Did I misunderstand, and it’s really a joke?

    That woman will probably become too sick to actually do the interview after eating that filthy cereal. My inner germaphobe couldn’t even watch that video.

    Have we all died and gone to hell, and just don’t realize it?

  52. Shadowfax
    January 23, 2015 at 3:23 pm
    Free

    Don’t do it Shadow!!! You would never get a word in edge-wise!!

    ——-

    🙂 Don’t worry Free, fading into the background has never been my problem. I majored in Philosophy and in real life, thrive on debates. I try very hard to keep my debates online to a minimum and step away from the keyboard when I am really ramped up. (I have to because typos fly at lightening speed.)
    ________

    I think you’ve made the right decision.

  53. Yikes!

    “After declaring that the White House “feels quite good” about the State of the Union, McDonough went on to hint that presumed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton would be a FITTING FLAGBEARER FOR PRESIDENT OBAMA’S PROGRESSIVE VISION.” (Emphasis Added) f
    ————-
    http://dailysignal.com/2015/01/22/white-house-chief-staff-hillary-good-president/?utm_source=heritagefoundation&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=dailydigest&mkt_tok=3RkMMJWWfF9wsRolva%2FJZKXonjHpfsX56%2BwoWqOxlMI%2F0ER3fOvrPUfGjI4ETsBjI%2BSLDwEYGJlv6SgFQrLBMa1ozrgOWxU%3D

  54. So looks like Rubio is in…..anyone surprised?
    ————
    Hey Marco.

    No sale!

    Come back in 20 years.

    By then your supporters may have forgotten your betrayal of your pledge on immigration.

    Just like now most of us have forgotten Poppy’s pledge: read my lips. No new taxes. (Until I decide otherwise)

    Besides by then the Hispanics will be in the majority and the next largest group will be Muslim.

    Un belle di.

  55. Shadowfax
    January 23, 2015 at 3:10 pm
    jeswezey

    (3) Will you marry me?

    ——–
    Free

    Don’t do it Shadow!!! You would never get a word in edge-wise!!

    ——-
    Now lets pause, take a deep breath and think this one through.

    Would you rather live in Paris or San Francisco?

    Would you rather work for a living or stay home and eat bon bons?

    If you decide for any reason that you want to go through with this thing, despite the fact that second marriages often prove to be a triumph of hope (a dirty word) over experience, then you must insist upon two (2) non-negotiable conditions:

    1. First, no prenuptial. What’s yours is yours. And what is J’s is also yours. I advise you to bargain tough on that one.

    2. Second, J must stipulate in writing that geometry notwithstanding, if in the course of this marriage you determine to your satisfaction that you and he are more than 45 degrees out on any issue, it shall be grounds for immediate divorce, and he shall be liable for any and all attorney fees incurred.

    Yes, I know, the natural tendency is to say, no. Or if you wish to be diplomatic you might say I am flattered, I value your friendship, but I am just not ready to commit. The better way to do it is with what is known in negotiating circles as a Japanese no. Rather than saying no, you say yes to the other party if he accepts an outrageous set of conditions such as those above. Then he ends up saying no, and no one gets their feelings hurt. And if by chance he says yes, then you have the upper hand, and as Marilyn said diamonds are a girl’s best friend.

  56. If you decide for any reason that you want to go through with this thing, despite the fact that second marriages often prove to be a triumph of hope (a dirty word) over experience, then you must insist upon two (2) non-negotiable conditions:

    1. First, no prenuptial. What’s yours is yours. And what is J’s is also yours. I advise you to bargain tough on that one.

    2. Second, J must stipulate in writing that geometry notwithstanding, if in the course of this marriage you determine to your satisfaction that you and he are more than 45 degrees out on any issue, it shall be grounds for immediate divorce, and he shall be liable for any and all attorney fees incurred.

    Yes, I know, the natural tendency is to say, no. Or if you wish to be diplomatic you might say I am flattered, I value your friendship, but I am just not ready to commit. The better way to do it is with what is known in negotiating circles as a Japanese no. Rather than saying no, you say yes to the other party if he accepts an outrageous set of conditions such as those above. Then he ends up saying no, and no one gets their feelings hurt. And if by chance he says yes, then you have the upper hand, and as Marilyn said diamonds are a girl’s best friend.

    _______

    I’m with wbb. Except for the diamonds being a girl’s best friend part.

  57. 3. Third, you must make J prove to your satisfaction that he is not German and does not have a drop of German blood, to ensure that this union does not become that triumph of hope over experience alluded to above.

  58. To be perfectly blunt, I am looking for someone to pay me to stay home and eat bon bons, so long as it is not the federal government. At may ripe age, gender is not an issue. It all comes down to cash flow, and the drudgery and eternal sameness of the workplace, compared to what the rest of life has to offer. But, as you might expect, no one has come forward and accepted–or tendered a Japanese yes.

  59. wbboei
    January 23, 2015 at 4:05 pm

    —–
    😆

    Were were you??

    – when I hired an attorney with an embossed degree from Harvard, that sat on his thumb and made me, the non-lawyer lead my own divorce proceedings and pay him more than I could afford, for his freakin’ services?

    He somehow “mistakenly divulged the location of the ‘proof’ he asked me to collect, to the opposing attorney, while my ex broke into my home and stole all the documents. He forgot to ‘file’, (I think that’s what it’s called) a restraining order, from an attempted homicide.

    Next time Wbb, you’re hired as my attorney! 😉

  60. the prez behaving like a goofball…

    with all that is going on in the world, he creates more and more excuses to just laugh and goof off…if not golf, parties, hanging out at ESPN, restaurant hopping, looking for the best burger in DC and the USA…hell, why not a national contest sponsored by the WH to find the best burger?

    on and on…an overgrown petulant child – what a colossal error the USA made

    such a foolish, thin skinned person parading around…Glozell and James Taylor..lame and embarrassing…heaven help us…

    I hope I live long enough to see adults in charge of governing once again

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

    btw…repubs never learn…right out of the gate they have to push the abortion divide…chill and try, try…to let the country see you as responsible, level headed, ready to lead and stop focusing on alienating people…don’t start with the judgemental heavy hand in people’s private lives…

  61. Seriously, Free. Don’t think I haven’t thought about it.

    My actions might have been less honorable if I wasn’t a mom.

  62. Lord, forget about an attorney, Shadow. You needed a hit man/woman.
    —————
    Sometimes that does not work either.

    I may have mentioned this before.

    A former golf partner of mine was the city psychiatrist for Miami from 1957-1975. Also he was in charge of Prisoner of War debriefings after the Korean war, a project that was later aborted.

    He had a girlfriend–a beauty queen from a past life–Miss Louisiana so he said, who was being harassed by an attorney. The details of this harassment went in one ear and out the other, but it was clear to me that he was concerned.

    He brooded and brooded and brooded over that until that was all he could think about.

    He ended up hiring a ex cop from Miami to terminate that lawyer with extreme prejudice.

    Gave him $2000 and promised to keep him supplied in golf balls for the rest of his life.

    I saw the golf balls he was referring to, he fished them out of the lake on the Blue Monster ( the final hole on the blue course where they used to play the Doral Open) and the were dingy looking and had lost their compression.

    If he had made the same offer to me (which he did not) I would have told him: no sir! I will not accept those duds as fair compensation for my service.

    Well, the ex cop did accept them, but only as part of a sting operation in which my golfing partner was arrested and charged with attempted murder.

    The story was reported in the Miami Herald and later on one of those msm shows. Their point was not that this happened but that when it did happen, he invoked a defense which he himself had invented when he was the city pschiatrist, namely the (bogus) sugar defense.

    I have not seen him since.

    If there is a moral to the story I suppose it would be this: if you are going to hire a hit man (or hit woman as free suggests), steer clear of ex cops, especially those who are willing to accept lousy golf balls for services to be rendered.

  63. Well, Damn Wbb. I guess that pretty much says it all. What a story! What a psychiatrist! He needed to write himself a prescription to take care of that pesky little fixation.

  64. Well free, I left out the best part. I went to his condominium which as on the golf course in a gated community. He got a succession of calls from what appeared to be young women and he asked me to screen the calls. I asked him what am I your secretary. But I decided to humor him because he had commandeered the golf cart and I wanted to get back on the course. I answered a couple calls and he told me to tell them he was not there, so I told them he was unavailable. Then a third call, he leaped up from his seat and grabbed the phone from me. He sounded intimate, invited her to come over and see him and hung up.
    Then he told me that he was pleased with himself that at the tender age of 76 he was still a chick magnet.

    Then he told me to watch the football game, and he would go out to get her. He took the golf cart and returned 15 minutes later with a very attractive young woman who was dressed in a blue bikini. He told me that he did not want to play golf any more and he would drop me off at the hotel. As they used to say in the marine corps, I got mine how’d you do. That was the last I saw of him, until the article appeared in the Miami Herald. One of the things it noted was that in his later years he had taken to writing prescriptions for ladies in the adult entertainment business. Mystery solved.

  65. S
    January 22, 2015 at 1:34 pm

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2920816/White-House-aide-says-Obama-steamroll-Democrats-Congress-split-White-House-Cuba-Iran-energy-trade-just-DAY-combative-State-Union.html

    EXCLUSIVE: White House aide says Obama will ‘steamroll’ Democrats in Congress after they split with White House on Cuba, Iran, energy and trade just a DAY after combative State of the Union
    ————————————————————-

    Well now we have the Spitting Obola Steamroller!

  66. Lesson: Beware of beauty queens, porn stars, and psychiatrists who are into beauty queens and porn stars.

    OMG, wbb. You should write a book.

    _________

    Spitting Obola Steamroller – What a mental image that evokes!

  67. Ooo, Wbb

    The shrink hired an ex cop? Guess he didn’t see the red flag with that one. $2k and golf balls…that cop musta been some desperado.

    I will keep my thoughts of his 76 year old with his hot chick, to myself. 😉

  68. Wish we had a insect drone with a camera in it, to watch Baracko as Bibi gives his speech to the Congress.

    I hope Bibi doesn’t go all polite guest to the fool in the Oval, although, I know he will. Bibi will be all Presidential and I will be angry when I see it and yearn for what could have been.

  69. http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/01/23/krauthammer-rubio-is-most-likely-to-win-gop-nomination/

    Columnist Charles Krauthammer named Florida Senator Marco Rubio his pick as most likely to be the GOP nominee on Friday’s “Special Report” on the Fox News Channel.

    Krauthammer was asked by fellow panelist Steve Hayes how he would allocate his money if he was given $100 to go Las Vegas and bet on who will be the nominee. Krauthammer put the most money, $40 on Rubio, with $30 going to Jeb Bush, $15 to Scott Walker, and the remaining $15 on booze. He added “he’s [Rubio] my underestimated dark horse candidate who threads his way, young, energetic. He’s got a program and I think if he runs against Hillary, the contrast say the vigor, the energy that Kennedy-esque idea will be be a major one.”

    Amy Walter, National Editor of the Cook Political Report put the most money on Walker, giving him $40, with $25 going to Bush, and the remaining $35 split evenly among the entire field.

    Hayes gave Walker and Rubio $30 each, $15 to Jeb Bush, and $10 to Ted Cruz, with the remaining $15 going to the field as a whole.

  70. On January 21st, Secretary Hillary Clinton announced that she supported President Obama’s opposition to new sanctions on Iran, and she urged Congress to give the negotiations a chance to play out. The report appears at http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/01/21/clinton-backs-obama-on-opposing-new-iran-sanctions/ .

    What do we think about that? Frankly, I was surprised that Hillary decided to take such an unambiguous position. It’s hard to believe her heart is not with Menendez. I can understand her being circumspect and refusing to take a position, one way or the other, until Netanyahu has had a chance to plead his case. But to decide to support Obama on this point right now, and unambiguously, caught me by surprise. Like I say, what do we think about this?

  71. Tom Sowell. What can I say. I met him, spoke with him, and to this day I cannot say whether I was speaking to God himself or if God was speaking to me through him. This was at a Hillsdale college event in Seattle. In addition to being a towering intellect, Tom is very down to earth and charming guy, with a wonderful wit and sense of humor. In this video and one more that I will post when I get a chance he discusses what is really occurring in this country and everything that happens, including what Hillary does although his comments are confined to the big media beloved messiah can be understood in that light. In sum, he made me feel like Keats did In First Looking Into Chapman’s Homer:

    MUCH have I travell’d in the realms of gold,
    And many goodly states and kingdoms seen;
    Round many western islands have I been
    Which bards in fealty to Apollo hold.
    Oft of one wide expanse had I been told 5
    That deep-brow’d Homer ruled as his demesne;
    Yet did I never breathe its pure serene
    Till I heard Chapman speak out loud and bold:
    Then felt I like some watcher of the skies
    When a new planet swims into his ken; 10
    Or like stout Cortez when with eagle eyes
    He star’d at the Pacific—and all his men
    Look’d at each other with a wild surmise—
    Silent, upon a peak in Darien.

    MUCH have I travell’d in the realms of gold,
    And many goodly states and kingdoms seen;
    Round many western islands have I been
    Which bards in fealty to Apollo hold.
    Oft of one wide expanse had I been told 5
    That deep-brow’d Homer ruled as his demesne;
    Yet did I never breathe its pure serene
    Till I heard Chapman speak out loud and bold:
    Then felt I like some watcher of the skies
    When a new planet swims into his ken;
    Or like stout Cortez when with eagle eyes
    He star’d at the Pacific—and all his men
    Look’d at each other with a wild surmise—
    Silent, upon a peak in Darien.

  72. At the conclusion of that interview, the moderator asks Tom:

    Q-1: in a single sentence, what one piece of advice would give to Obama.

    A-2: “Resign!”

    Note: Can’t get more succinct that that.

    And, it has the added advantage of being true.

    The moderator says, I can’t end this interview on that note.

    Q-2: What advice would you give a young person who does not want to see the country go to hell?

    A-2: If by some miracle we get through this please take to heart the lesson we have learned. When you vote, do not be seduced by rhetoric or symbolism. Think for yourself. It doesn’t matter how smart you are, unless you stop and think.

  73. Columnist Charles Krauthammer named Florida Senator Marco Rubio his pick as most likely to be the GOP nominee on Friday’s “Special Report” on the Fox News Channel.
    ——–
    He is a RINO. He is a Bush asset. He betrayed the Tea Party. I have a better chance of getting the Republican nomination than he does. And my chances are zero. On the other hand he is a consultant’s dream. A Hispanic–a way to capture the fastest growing demographic, a proponent of amnesty which is code for illegal immigration and a Trojan horse for the North American Union which Bush and Vicente Fox were working on prior to 9/11. As Milton Friedman explained the reason why neither political party promotes the general welfare is because the public power is dispersed whereas the power of special interests who plunder the public is concentrated. The other reason is the expanding role of the intellectual, who has emerged from the classroom with little knowledge beyond his specific discipline, assumes he knows everything, advances policies that are never work and relies on a consensus among other intellectuals rather than empirical proof to support him. Not for nothing has it been said, if you look at every disaster that has afflicted this nation in the past 50 years you will find a Harvard Man in the center of it. And, worst of all the intellectual pays no price for being wrong. In past administrations, 50% or more of the cabinet positions were assigned to people with private sector experience whereas with Obama it is a mere 20%. Put differently, government is all they know. I can think of no better example than Power and her hubbie. Therein lies the explanation for the love of Obama manifested by the elites. He is an intellectual himself, he furthers the careers of intellectuals, like them he wants to take decision making authority away from the people and give it to people from Harvard. Harvard itself is an institution where the test of the truth of an idea is not whether it works, but whether it is new, exciting and other elitists agree with it. At the University of Chicago it is the exact opposite. There debate is a full contact sport, whereas at Harvard it is touch football. The Ivy League itself which replenishes the elite class and expands their control over our lives.

  74. Correction: The Ivy League itself IS THE FACTORY which replenishes the elite class and expands their control over our lives.

  75. Wbb

    ….(Rubio) He betrayed the Tea Party. I have a better chance of getting the Republican nomination than he does. And my chances are zero. On the other hand he is a consultant’s dream. A Hispanic–a way to capture the fastest growing demographic, a proponent of amnesty which is code for illegal immigration and a Trojan horse for the North American Union which Bush and Vicente Fox were working on prior to 9/11

    —–
    A big YUP to that!

  76. Rubio is a nice guy, but his plan to populate America with illegals is going to sink his ship, along with Jeb’s same vision.

    Hillary also gets to cozy with the idea, I don’t like it a bit.

    I agree fully with the Rethugs on building a damn fence…

  77. Former President Bill Clinton is mapping out a strategy for his wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton, to become the next president of the United States. Part of that involves disengaging her from President Obama.

    In a story by National Journal‘s Ron Fournier, Clinton “associates” spoke strictly on the condition of anonymity. Which Fournier readily granted.

    Here’s what they had to say.

    “He can blame Republicans and all sort of structural problems—and get sympathy from a lot of us,” a female “associate” said. ”But voters don’t want to hear that. They want shit done. He hasn’t gotten shit done.”

    Later, a male “advisor” describes how he met with former President Clinton, who wrote out a diagram on a napkin of how Hillary differs from Obama.

  78. But voters don’t want to hear that. They want shit done. He hasn’t gotten shit done.”
    ————-
    No fucking way.

    These DC insiders are all alike.

    They imagine a world outside the beltway that does not really exist.

    A world where the American People are clamoring for them to do MORE.

    That is a justification for a hyperactive micro managing bureaucracy.

    I believe the American people do not trust the federal goverment.

    They do not trust Lois Learner Eric Holder or even the big media beloved messiah.

    After they have been lied to an let down time and again.

    I am telling you for sure, not for maybe, this Benghazi thing is a big deal.

    The problem is not that the progressive agenda has not accomplished what it promised to accomplish.

    The problem is it is destroying our liberty and our security in pursuit of a new world order.

    To promote Hillary as a more competent version of Obama is a stone cold loser.

    To people with a vested interest in the progressive agenda, that argument works.

    But for those who do not want Big Brother this sales pitch has no allure.

  79. A wonderful writer with a clear grasp of the zeigeist of our era, and the only way to survive the remainder of the benighted rein Emperor Norton II.
    ———-

    It’s Barack Obama’s Cloud Cuckoo-Land and We Just Live In It

    Mike Walsh @ pjmedia

    It’s easy to despise Barack Hussein Obama, perhaps the least qualified man ever to accede to the Oval Office. The empty resume, the imaginary biographies, the laziness, the arrogance, the profligacy with the public treasury, the weakness, the cowardice and the cringing servility when dealing with America’s enemies abroad: his six years as president of the United States — a presidency we will all look back upon someday with wonder, shame and national embarrassment — have been as disastrous and harmful as some of us predicted at the time. The man is a disgrace.

    And yet…

    There is one thing, and one thing only, to like about him. And that is his complete and utter contempt for his domestic political enemies and the high-handedness with which he treats them. And why shouldn’t he? As the beneficiary of the Being There presidency, he must retire to the family quarters of the White House each night laughing his head off at the electorate and yet at the same time being utterly convinced of his own rightness. After all, he won, didn’t he? Twice! If he’s so dumb… how come he’s president?

    As Yuval Levin noted in a post over at NRO after the State of the Union speech, Obama acts as if the electorate had not just delivered his party a crushing rebuke in an election in which he said quite clearly that while he may not have been on the ballot, his policies most certainly were. (Not that he cares about what happens to the Democrats after he retires to a live of Secret Service-protected, taxpayer-supported, think-tank enriched utter indolence.) But he appears to be living in a fantasy land of his own device, one in which he, Barry, remains beloved by the masses who didn’t bother to show up at the polls.

    The most striking thing about President Obama’s State of the Union address was how thoroughly and consciously it was disconnected from the political moment. The president addressed the Congress he will face for the remainder of his term, which is the most Republican Congress since 1929, but he didn’t really speak to that Congress or to the electorate that sent it. He made no mention of the recent congressional election and offered no reason to think its results would change his approach to his own job.

    Instead, he began by pointing to economic gains that suggest that, six years after the end of the last recession, we may finally see the sort of growth that could merit being called a recovery. He then proceeded to propose a set of policies — giving the federal government far more power over community colleges, cutting taxes for families with two working parents but not for those with a stay-at-home parent, levying new mandates on employers — designed to draw contrasts with Republicans rather than to close distances or to be enacted. Then he painted a rosy picture of international affairs on an Earth-like planet that plainly is not this one. And finally he hearkened back to the promise of his 2004 Democratic Convention speech, which he knows everyone recalls fondly on cold nights, and said it wasn’t too late for Americans to prove ourselves worthy of that speech and its maker, if only we would behave a little less like congressional Republicans.

    In short, so far, so nuts. But this presupposes that sanity is currently an operative virtue in the American political system. Alas, it’s not; what counts is a ruthless, Nietzschean Will to Power, against which everything else is either nugatory or negotiable. One man’s tilting at windmills and mistaking sheep for enemy soldiers is another man’s Don Quixote, the crazy hero of his own tale who eventually becomes our hero as well. For Obama, the sheep are the Republican majorities in both houses of Congress, and as long as he can send them fleeing with just a shake of his mighty rhetorical lance, he must be doing something right.

    Because, in the current political system, it is the GOP that’s tilting at windmills — in this case, the windmill that what the American people “really said” in November’s election was that they wanted to have both parties work together and “get something done.” This is an even more idiotic delusion than Obama’s, since the clear meaning of the vote — by Obama’s own standard! — was a repudiation of both the Emperor Hussein and his fawning courtiers in Congress (one of whom mysteriously wound up with four broken ribs and the possible loss of his sight in one eye over the Christmas break, an event in which the national lickspittle media has shown exactly zero interest).

    Now you might think that the beating of the former Senate majority leader, the single most important man to Barack Obama over the past four years, the apparatchik who effectively blocked any attempt at Congressional rollback or oversight of what has become a rogue presidency, might be of interest to the “national media,” that collective of prep-school and college classmates who make up the Praetorian Guard of the Democrat-Media Complex — even if it was an “exercise machine” that administered the beating. (And why, pray tell, is Reid not suing the manufacturer?)

    But not in the Cloud Cuckoo-Land that we currently inhabit. Whatever you may think of “fundamental transformation,” the fact is that Obama and his media buddies have done their best to make it a reality, even if it is only a Jedi-mind-meld virtual sort of reality that can still be overturned by the one-eyed man (not Harry Reid) who realizes that in the country of the blind he is king.

    A point I’ve made before: Obama resembles no historical figure more than San Francisco’s Emperor Norton, a bona fide 19th-century Bay Area crackpot to whom everybody paid obeisance but not a whit of attention. This should be the GOP response to the Emperor Hussein for the next two years: genuflect when he comes into the room, flatter his overweening vanity, indulge his sybaritic tastes in vacations and restaurants — and then completely and utterly ignore anything he has to say or, more important, actually does under the guise of “executive orders.” The English-South African Emperor Norton issued many executive orders, including the dissolution of Congress and the building of the Bay Bridge, two eminently sensible ideas, as it turned out, and one of which was actually acted upon after his death. Otherwise, he was a beloved figure of fun in America’s most beautiful, wackiest city.

    Here was his proclamation of executive authority:

    At the peremptory request and desire of a large majority of the citizens of these United States, I, Joshua Norton, formerly of Algoa Bay, Cape of Good Hope, and now for the last 9 years and 10 months past of S. F., Cal., declare and proclaim myself Emperor of these U. S.; and in virtue of the authority thereby in me vested, do hereby order and direct the representatives of the different States of the Union to assemble in Musical Hall, of this city, on the 1st day of Feb. next, then and there to make such alterations in the existing laws of the Union as may ameliorate the evils under which the country is laboring, and thereby cause confidence to exist, both at home and abroad, in our stability and integrity.

    —NORTON I, Emperor of the United States.

    No wonder Obama calls himself Barack Obama II. Which is exactly the way he should be treated henceforth.

  80. This comes from a Jewish site called “Mondoweiss”. It dates from December and states that Chris Matthews actually had something intelligent to say about HRC:

    “Hillary Clinton’s decision to support Iraq war was driven by Israel concern”

    http://mondoweiss.net/2014/12/clintons-decision-matthews

    The article dates from December. It ends with:

    “And doesn’t Matthews’s analysis dovetail with the revelation in the New York Times, that when Obama wanted to hire Hillary Clinton as sec’y of state, he reached out to the prince of the Israel lobby, Malcolm Hoenlein… How much of our foreign policy is a subchapter of our Israel policy?”

  81. Shadowfax January 23, 2015 at 3:23 pm

    I try very hard to keep my debates online to a minimum and step away from the keyboard when I am really ramped up. (I have to because typos fly at lightening speed.)

    Then you must be really ramped up by my marriage proposal, because there you go again with the typos: “lightening” => “lightning” !! “Lightening” exists, but actually implies the opposite of what you want to say.

    Anyway, I guess my proposal is refused. I’ll spend the morning pouting.

  82. jeswezey to Shadowfax:

    (3) Will you marry me?

    wbbole January 23, 2015 at 4:05 pm

    Now lets pause, take a deep breath, and think this one through.

    ROTFLMAO !!!!!!

    And so appropriate – I know all about the Japanese “No”;

    I can’t pout any longer !!

  83. Shadowfax January 23, 2015 at 4:53 pm

    wbboei:

    Were were you??

    Is that like in “werewolf” you? Quite appropriate!

    I can see you’re getting real ramped up!!

    (I also see you corrected yourself, so…)

  84. wbboei January 23, 2015 at 6:12 pm

    … You needed a hit man/woman.

    A hair-raising experience; but, as usual, hugely amusing the way you recount it.

    My moral to the story would be to stay away from golf courses entirely. Golf has got to be the most senseless activity ever devised by mankind.

    Even war is more intelligent, because at least you have a worthy goal in mind sometimes.

    But who the fuck cares about hitting a tiny ball into a slightly larger hole 2 or 3 football fields away, or about the dinginess or compression characteristics of said ball??

    God dammit, I don’t see how you can spend your time that way, or associate with people who do.

    Unless you’re hoping to meet up with Obola someday….

  85. admin January 23, 2015 at 9:39 pm

    Columnist Charles Krauthammer named Florida Senator Marco Rubio his pick…

    Aside from Trump, Gowdy and maybe a few others, the Republicans as a whole, including Rubio, are worth barely more than a barrel of used toilet paper.

    They have little of value to contribute to the national debate.

    Which doesn’t mean that Rubio’s gene pool and soaring rhetoric won”t win him the nomination and perhaps the presidency, just as they did Obama.

  86. wbboei January 24, 2015 at 1:47 am

    “But voters don’t want to hear that. They want shit done. He hasn’t gotten shit done.”


    They imagine a world outside the beltway that does not really exist…. where the American People are clamoring for them to do MORE.

    I believe the American people do not trust the federal goverment…. After they have been lied to and let down time and again.

    The problem is not that the progressive agenda has not accomplished what it promised to accomplish.

    The problem is it is destroying our liberty and our security in pursuit of a new world order.

    To promote Hillary as a more competent version of Obama is a stone cold loser.

    After all the times you have portrayed the American voter as cold stone stupid, now you claim to speak for those very voters and side with them too!

    There is reason to believe that the progressive agenda pulls some weight in the electorate, because they voted Obola into office twice; and the second time, it was against a quite reasonable nominee with good business sense for whom even I, a socialist, voted.

    There is furthermore no evidence for believing that it is the progressive agenda that is making inroads into our liberty and security, or that it is the progressive agenda that prevents Obola from working with Congress and getting things done in a constitutional manner.

    The fundamental reason for these inroads into the constitutional order, private liberties and even physical security is that, for psychological reasons, Obola can only be a loner. He doesn’t know how to engage and argue with Congress, or anybody else for that matter.

    In foreign policy, Obola believes as much as HRC in “smart power”, as a purely intellectual matter; but he is unwilling to use all the components of smart power (military, economic sanctions, diplomacy, economic carrots, cultural ties, etc.) or does not know how to use them; whereas HRC’s diplomacy wielded the promises and threats of all these tools.

    On the all-important matters of the national economy, all Obola has done for the last 6 years is to spend like a madman to keep up demand; but demand has remained limp and sovereign debt is now astronomical. I tried to explain HRC’s proposals in a post upthread about Wall Street. These proposals differ fundamentally from Obola’s, but they are in no way out of keeping with the progressive agenda. If you didn’t appreciate them, I’m willing to go into them with fuller explanation.

    But the point is, it is not the progressive agenda, nor the progressives themselves, who are at fault for the present dismal state of affairs. HRC is the solution, because of her willingness and ability to engage and haggle with adversaries, and because her ideas are valuable. She can get things done.

  87. Also, the idea that the progressive agenda is “in pursuit of a new world order” is not something that needs to be stymied.

    The New World Order is already upon us, sparked by the end of the Cold War and by the ensuing rapid globalization.

    We are not in a position to stop this. If we want to cut ourselves off from this globalized world and go back to living like it was 50 or 100 or 200 years ago, we’re headed for the dustbin of history.

    What we can and need to do is to try to shape the New World Order in a way that suits our values and interests best.

    We will have the greatest leverage to reach this end by using all the tools of smart power, which is HRC’s toolkit. She knows better than anyone I’m aware of how to use these tools, and has the willingness to do so.

    Obola doesn’t know how, and the Republicans generally are too engrossed in their conservativism to want to look forward on any issue whatsoever. They still worship at the Reagan altar, generally — even the “21st century” Rubio.

  88. I knew he would do this. 🙂

    President Barack Obama will cut short his three-day trip to India and visit Saudi Arabia to pay respects after the death of King Abdullah, U.S. and Indian officials said Saturday.

    The schedule change, announced shortly before Obama left for India, means the president will skip plans to see the Taj Mahal, and instead pay a call on an influential U.S. ally in the volatile Mideast.

    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/obama-seeks-leverage-ties-indias-modi-visit-28446575

  89. Me: I know all about the Japanese “No”.
    ********

    Indeed I do. In fact, any woman who married me under the stringent conditions you suggest to Shadowfax would not only own my half of an apartment and my modest bank account, but also (1) my debt for the other half of the apartment plus (2) a sizable debt dating from the catastrophes of 2001-2 (I’d be willing to explain). In the end, there would be no diamonds.

    This is the main reason my soulmate and I have not married. The other reason is that I don’t like marriage, and neither does she.

  90. Shadowfax January 24, 2015 at 1:20 am

    I agree fully with the Rethugs on building a damn fence…

    Me too. But why couldn’t they just tag that onto the immigration bill?

    Aside from kicking the fence pail down the road, the immigration bill had real teeth in it. There was no good reason to ignore it… that just played into Obola’s hands.

    The House had the possibility of imposing the fence and funding it. I doubt Obola would have vetoed that, as long as the money was there. But no, the “Just say no” caucus ignored it.

  91. HenryJohnson
    January 23, 2015 at 9:47 pm

    On January 21st, Secretary Hillary Clinton announced that she supported President Obama’s opposition to new sanctions on Iran, and she urged Congress to give the negotiations a chance to play out. The report appears at http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/01/21/clinton-backs-obama-on-opposing-new-iran-sanctions/ .
    ———————————————-

    In reality, I do not think sanctions or diplomacy is going to stop these freaks. I also think Hillary should have kept her mouth shut. She obviously needs to hear what Bibi has to say. The difference between her and Ovomit is that she stated her opinion in a civil, open minded manner while he had a tantrum and issued steamrolling threats. What she said was what Ovomit should have said. Instead he acted like a spitting Obola steamroller.

    In terms of the world theater, it seems to me she has played her position well in engaging the adversary and the left at the expense of moderates that she needs to win a presidential election. The Republicans are doing what they should be doing and we can only pray the whole thing will result in pressure on Iran towards some productive end.

  92. wbboei January 24, 2015 at 2:29 am

    … the Being There presidency…

    An excellent expression. I like Shadowfax’s “pResident” — says the same thing.

    Very good article, on target all the way through. Thanks for posting it.

  93. Lu4PUMA January 24, 2015 at 11:05 am
    *****

    Very good analysis, I can only agree with you.

    Also, I love “Ovomit” ! First time I’ve seen that.

  94. jeswezey
    January 24, 2015 at 9:36 am
    —————————
    Well, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that they are stupid, because they do not realize what is happening to them.

    The main support for the progressive agenda comes from people who are seduced by images and rhetoric—they are stupid by any definition of the term, or perhaps we should say easily manipulated and leave it at that. And, it comes from those who believe that the nation owes them a living.

    That they believe the world owes them a living is not entirely their fault, however. The fault for that lies with the intellectual class in this county, and, I would argue with people who think like you do. That is not a personal attack, but an observation which has much merit.

    High civilizations have come and gone. At one time the Islami countries were flowers of culture, whereas today culture and learning is the Islamic Republic is heresy. That is one type of poverty and ignorance. And it is a recurring phenomenon. Here in the United States the same kind of secular intolerance is being imposed by the progressive agenda, which you and other intellectuals so fervently. And they have no time or use for the constitutional safeguards which were put in place by the founders. Their vision is global and it coincides nicely with international business although they would be the first to deny it. Fundamentally, their goal is to “control the people” as the senior democrat in the House now retired and replaced by his daughter so inartfully put it. Theirs is the path to world government and frankly tyranny.

    How did this come to be? The answer lies with the dramatic rise of the intellectual in post modern society. His vision, his tastes, his biases, and his lust for total control now dominate the media, academia, entertainment and other institutions that control our culture, our government and what we come to believe as a culture.

    Who is the intellectual? He or she is someone who has been told from an early age that they are special, who went to elite prep schools like Extner and Harvard, who specialize in one particular area of human knowledge and become good at it, and believe that this expertise makes them an expert in everything else. They know in their hearts that this is not true, so rather that testing their assumptions in other areas by demanding empirical evidence, the defer to other in their class and adopt their views until a consensus forms.

    Once they take a position in the political arena, they have a huge ego stake in defending it against all others, and that includes the American People and against feedback from reality. Just yesterday there was a front page article in NYT above the fold celebrating the fact that despite the devastating losses by his party and the rejection of his agenda by the American People Obama has his mojo back as evidenced by the State of the Union. To an objective observer this is a farce. The world is spining out of control, yet there he sits all calm and serene.

    These New York Times intellectuals have a huge ego stake in Obama succeeding. Why is that? First of all he shares the disdain an contempt they feel from the American people, the abiding sense that they are better—which is completely different from my position. Like Buckley, I would prefer to be ruled by the first 200 names in the Brooklyn phone directory than the entire faculty of Harvard law school. The reason I call them stupid is not because I believe I am better, but because instead of using their heads and seeing how they are being manipulated, they fall for bread and circuses.

    The other thing they love about Obama is he is a great promoter of the intellectual class, whereas Bush 43 and Reagan did not trust them. These contrarians believed that those with experience in the private sector where people pay a high price for failure are better stewards of the country than those from academia who pay not price for being wrong, and survive as long as they are thought of as popular. The rise of an intellectual class, their unfounded self flattering unction, their pretentions of moral superiority, their refusal to accept contrary evidence and their quest for absolute power, secure in the belief that the opinions that dominate their class are superior to the will of the people are the game that ruins nations.

    The intellectual has lost faith in this country and in the values which have defined it. He does not want the people to decide their fate because he knows better. They remind me of the former CEO of Boise Cascade who told shareholder we have a great product here, only the customer does not realize it.

    When it comes to race they put on airs about how terrible poverty and ignorance are and then proceed to give us their snake oil as a cure. They ignore the fact that poverty and ignorance have been prevalent throughout history, and that high civilization has been the exception. Having lost their faith in western civilization, they contend that what we need is diversity and all civilizations are equal so who are we to judge. This explains their abject failure to confront radical Islam and their destruction of the black community through perverse policies. The question is not what is the white community doing to blacks. The question is what is the white commmunity doing that blacks are not doing which if they did it would make them equally successful.

  95. jeswezey
    January 24, 2015 at 9:36 am

    Please watch the video below and give me your reasons for believing that Tom is wrong.

    Per stirpes–by the roots, progressivism is a word used to describe an elite class who wants to take decision making in all forms out of the hands of the American People, in elections and in the marketplace, and hand it over to progressives who are morally and intellectually superior. And because the collective knowledge of the American People is far greater than a small group of people with little real world experience, who are motivated by self advancement and arrogance, proffering untested theories that have the smell of the lamp, 3 times out of 4 they turn out to be wrong, they pay no price for being wrong, but sure as god made little green apples the American People pay grievously for their error, in terms of liberty, and security.

  96. Obama cancels end of India trip to fly to Saudi Arabia following king’s death
    ————
    Question: who gives a flying fuck where he goes and what he does. This is more of this ceremonial crap that he craves. If his benighted staff have not considered the question of successorship, and built bridges to a new leader, then his presence is not required. All he can possibly do is fuck it up. Of course, the real objective is to keep the Saudi money flowing into his personal coffers, since they helped him get into Harvard many years ago. He is a world stage embarrassment and needs to stay home. Let Israel handle Iran, and let the Saudi’s have them use their airfields. I doubt the Supreme Leader of Iran will show up.

  97. http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2015/01/23/king-abdullah-stand-president-obama/

    Uh oh. Somebody got the wrong idea about a friendship they were having.

    That would be President Obama, who said, as part of an obsequious statement lamenting the passing of Saudi Arabian King Abdullah, “As our countries worked together to confront many challenges, I always valued King Abdullah’s perspective and appreciated our genuine and warm friendship.”

    According to Richard Engel of NBC News, Abdullah’s feelings were not warm, and if they seemed that way to Obama, they were not genuine.

    You see, unlike Obama, who thinks other world leaders like him because they dig Obama, Abdullah understood that friendships between leaders are based on what they can do for each other’s countries. And for Abdullah, where Obama was concerned, that wasn’t much.

    Said Engel:

    The king could not stand President Obama because the president was supportive of the Arab spring, because the president did not support Hosni Mubarak in Egypt – in fact turned his back on Hosni Mubarak in Egypt.

    Obama has made an utter mess of the Middle East. He focused on withdrawing the United States from the region, supporting “protestors” – no matter who the protestors actually were – and focused on helping John Kerry get a Nobel Peace Prize by making peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis. Meanwhile, the whole place fell to pieces.

  98. Not sure if this was already posted on the blog…bring in the spittoons!

    From the Times of Israel

    Netanyahu ‘spat in our face,’ White House officials said to say

    The White House’s outrage over Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s plan to speak before Congress in March — a move he failed to coordinate with the administration — began to seep through the diplomatic cracks on Friday, with officials telling Haaretz the Israeli leader had “spat” in President Barack Obama’s face.

    “We thought we’ve seen everything,” the newspaper quoted an unnamed senior US official as saying. “But Bibi managed to surprise even us.

    “There are things you simply don’t do. He spat in our face publicly and that’s no way to behave. Netanyahu ought to remember that President Obama has a year and a half left to his presidency, and that there will be a price,” he said.

    Officials in Washington said that the “chickenshit” epithet — with which an anonymous administration official branded Netanyahu several months ago — was mild compared to the language used in the White House when news of Netanyahu’s planned speech came in.

    In his address the Israeli leader is expected to speak about stalled US-led nuclear negotiations with Iran, and to urge lawmakers to slap Tehran with a new round of tougher sanctions in order to force it to comply with international demands. The Mossad intelligence service on Thursday went to the rare length of issuing a press statement to deny claims, cited by Kerry, that its chief Tamir Pardo had told visiting US politicians that he opposed further sanctions.

    Haaretz reported that Obama had personally demanded that Netanyahu tone down his pro-sanctions rhetoric in a phone call between the two last week. The president has said a sanctions bill would cripple negotiations with Iranian leaders at a critical stage, and has threatened to veto such a bill should it come through.

    The Washington Post reported that Netanyahu’s apparent disrespect for the US leadership was particularly offensive to Secretary of State John Kerry, who over the past month had made frenzied efforts on Israel’s behalf on the world stage — making dozens of calls to world leaders to convince them to oppose a UN Security Council resolution which would have set a timeframe for the establishment of a Palestinian state.

    “The secretary’s patience is not infinite,” a source close to Kerry told the Post. “The bilateral relationship is unshakable. But playing politics with that relationship could blunt Secretary Kerry’s enthusiasm for being Israel’s primary defender.” [Horseface bucks]

    The White House said Thursday that Obama would not meet with Netanyahu when he travels to Washington, with a spokeswoman citing a “long-standing practice and principle” by which the president does not meet with heads of state or candidates in close proximity to their elections. Kerry will also not meet with Netanyahu. [Good, no back door for Bibi and no bs to have to listen to.]

    Netanyahu will be in Washington in part for a March 3 address to a joint session of Congress. House Speaker John Boehner invited Netanyahu to speak to Congress without consulting the Obama administration.

    The White House initially reacted icily to Netanyahu’s plans to address Congress, an appearance apparently meant to bolster opposition to a nuclear deal with Iran as it is currently shaping up, as well as opposition to new sanctions against Tehran.

    White House spokesman Josh Earnest suggested Wednesday that Netanyahu and Boehner had broken with protocol in not informing Obama of the prime minister’s travel plans.

    “We haven’t heard from the Israelis directly about the trip at all,” he said, adding the White House would “reserve judgment” about any possible face-to-face meeting until explanations are made.

    “The typical protocol would suggest that the leader of a country would contact the leader of another country when he is traveling there. That is certainly how President Obama’s trips are planned,” explained Earnest.

    “So this particular event seems to be a departure from that protocol.”

    Speaking several hours after Earnest, top US diplomat Kerry said Netanyahu was welcome to give a speech at “any time” in the United States. But Kerry agreed it had been a “little unusual” to hear about the Israeli leader’s speech to US Congress next month from the office of Boehner and not via the usual diplomatic channels.

    http://www.timesofisrael.com/netanyahu-spat-in-our-face-white-house-officials-say/#ixzz3Pf5pHksN

  99. admin
    January 24, 2015 at 3:46 pm
    ———–
    I think that is EXACTLY right. I mean the late King and Israel both have/had a REALISTIC view of the Middle East, which included a containment policy toward radical Islam. Obama holds the opposite view if his bullshit can be dignified as a view at all. He is a fucking utopian academic fuck up—faculty lounge community organizing whore in love with himself and expects others to love him as well. I do remember hearing that the King was very disgusted with Obama’s retreating red line and his coddling of radical Islam. To people who have to live in the Middle East and to those outside of it which today includes my favorite country after ours Japan is learning today a cloud cukoo land asshole like Obama does more harm than good, and a little big of knowledge plus a Harvard degree is a very dangerous thing. There was once that story about the nation that declared war on the US so it could lose and get its own Marshall Plan. It was called the mouse that roared. Obama is the mouth that roared and it is better to be an enemy of the United States and be coddled by this cocksucker than to be an ally and be thrown under the bus. Take that David Igantius you tut tut WashPo elitist douchebag.

  100. I was thinking about the prototypical progressive earlier today. Tom Sowell describes him to a tee in the above video. Time was he merely advised king. Now, he wants to be a player and create an environment which forces people to goals or prevent opponents from attacking them. He loves to say the sky is falling in, because that claim makes him essential as opposed to what he really is, which is meaningless. He covets the crusade, provided he is permitted to lead it. He bows and scrapes to the elites, loots the middle class and bamboozles the lower class, which the same game the elites want because it perpetuates their place at the top of the pyramid. He is a natural ally of the elites, and an enemy to the rest of us.

  101. A friend of mine visited a Facebook location recently. He was duly impressed. He said there are no offices, no cubicles, everybody just sits at a big desk and has fun. They have pool tables, dart boards, a starbucks stand, and, believe it or not an open bar. It sounded like a cross between kindergarten and an arcade. Everyone was having f-u-n. Then he went back to his law firm and found everyone there was miserable. Thirty years ago I used to have discussions with peers in his firm about how the finance people were making all the money and why did we bother to become lawyers and walk that gauntlet. Today, it ain’t the lawyer but the teckies that are the object of envy by lawyers. The have so much fun, they get all the money, and they even have their own bus–the microsoft connector which allows them to be driven to work and to work on their computer during the ride. Given enough time we will either become robots or we will be displaced by them.

    But ouch a backward cast my ee
    On prospects drear
    And forward tho I cannot see
    I guess and fear—-Robert Burns

  102. Carly Fiorina taking cheap shots at Hillary tonight……..at least she didn’t tank a company.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/397127/fiorina-take-swipe-hillary-eliana-johnson

    “I too have traveled hundreds of thousands of miles around the globe,”. “But unlike her, I have actually accomplished something. Mrs. Clinton, flying is an activity not an accomplishment. I have met Vladimir Putin and know that it will take more to halt his ambitions than a gimmicky red ‘Reset’ button.”

    ……………….

    Lawyer, mother, First lady of Arkansas, Flotus twice, Senator, Sec of State and Future President……So Carly Shut the fuck up.

  103. Moon

    Lawyer, mother, First lady of Arkansas, Flotus twice, Senator, Sec of State and Future President……So Carly Shut the fuck up.

    You tell her Moon!!!!!!

    In 2005, Fiorina was forced to resign as chief executive officer and chairman of HP following “differences [with the board of directors] about how to execute HP’s strategy.”[3] She has frequently been ranked as one of the worst CEOs of all time.

    Fiorina served as an advisor to Republican John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign. She was the Republican nominee for the United States Senate from California in 2010, losing to incumbent Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer.[8]

    She is actively considering running for President in 2016.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carly_Fiorina

  104. Looking at the internet, Californian republicans would rather swim through lakes of piss to vote Democrat if Carly was running……

    I hate to say the word but she is known for being a first class hated bitch for what she did to HP.

  105. I do not really understand the bit about the Saudi King and Obola. I thought he was a major influence in getting him the Oval Office. All that money behind him, I thought part came from Saudi Arabia. Otherwise, was it just Soros? Or did Obola just double cross them?

  106. Lu4PUMA
    January 24, 2015 at 6:20 pm
    I do not really understand the bit about the Saudi King and Obola. I thought he was a major influence in getting him the Oval Office
    ——–
    He was. But there was tension as well.

  107. I have met Vladimir Putin
    ———-
    So have we.

    Seemed like a nice guy to me.

    Far more trustworthy than Obama.

    Time was Obama stood shoulder to shoulder with him too.

    Only Putin stabbed Obama before Obama could stab him.

    Same with Bibi.

    When dealing with Obama the name of the game is kill or be killed.

  108. Update: Our smart idea is catching on. We still think the Egyptian President and the Mayor of Rotterdam should be next on the list. While Obama whines about the smart GOP move others are coming along with us with additional suggestions. Democrats whine: Boehner broke with protocol by inviting Netanyahu without telling Obama first:

    Let’s hope the Netanyahu invitation is just the first of many, then. One minor but symbolic way that Boehner can strike back at Obama’s executive overreach is to invite various western leaders to speak whose own policies align more with Congress’s than the White House’s. First invitee, obviously, should be Stephen Harper to discuss the benefits of building the Keystone pipeline. Next invite goes to French prime minister Manuel Valls, who declared war on an enemy that our own leaders are now afraid to name. Third invite could go to Iraqi prime minister Haider al-Abadi, who’ll have an interesting view, I’ll bet, on whether Obama was right in the SOTU that we’re making gains against ISIS in Syria. If Boehner can’t stop Obama from blowing up separation of powers, he could at least invite foreign dignitaries to reality-check him.

    ————–
    That is EXACTLY RIGHT Admin.

    There is certainly a POLITICAL basis for this action.

    As you point out.

    There is even a legal basis for this.

    In United States vs. Curtiss-Wright (1936)

    Justice Southerland writing for the court

    Said the powers of the president domestically are limited

    To those enumerated in the Constitution

    But in foreign affairs the president is the sole organ of the nation.

    That formulation no longer holds true.

    Speaker Jim Wright was first to breach these principles

    But the president at the time, Reagan, respected the limited powers domestically

    With Obama however, he defies the constitutions with respect to domestic policy

    And on foreign policy he is a dangerous fool

    Therefore, I see no harm in letting Congress do what Wright, a democrat did a generation ago

    It is madness to simply defer to a man who is putting this nation and its allies in harms way

  109. 21 January 2015. Photo by Kevin Dietsch/UPI License Photo
    [Senator Reid is not looking good these days. Harry we hardly recognize you]
    …Reid returned to work in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday, but a release from his office Wednesday said he’ll need to work from home next week due to surgery.
    “On Monday, as a necessary step to assist in recovering full vision in his right eye, Senator Reid will undergo surgery on his right eye at George Washington University Hospital in Washington, D.C. Senator Reid was notified that this surgery will be necessary following a doctor’s appointment yesterday,” the news release said.
    “Senator Reid is expected to be released from the hospital quickly following the surgery but under doctor’s orders to minimize strain in his right eye, he will have to work from his DC home next week. His broken ribs are healing well and he will continue to maintain a busy schedule next week as his right eye heals,” the release continued.
    This is the second exercise-related injury Reid has sustained in the past four years.
    In 2011, Reid dislocated a shoulder and suffered a black eye while jogging in Washington. He returned to work quickly with his arm in a sling….
    http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2015/01/21/Harry-Reid-must-have-surgery-on-injured-eye/2801421877043/

  110. I like Paula Stern at The Times of Israel.

    She has written articles about Amapour and Clancy.

    Two Israel haters separated only gender.

    And further fact that Amapour is British Iranian.

    They prove to a moral certainty that CNN is anti-Semitic.

    Two gasbags separaated

  111. I feel sorry for people who look to an idiot like Bill Maher for political wisdom.

    My dog has more political wisdom that they schauzer.

    I look to Tom Sowell for my political wisdom and is rapier wit.

    When asked what advice he would give to Obama, he said: resign.

    When asked what he would say to credentialed cretins who surround him, he said: goodbye.

    When pressed for a more fulsome answer he said this:

    They have advocate policies which are profoundly in error

    They have staked their professional reputation on them

    Trying to talk them out of those policies merely because they are in error

    Would be like trying to talk a mafia boss out of a life of crime.

    That statement says it all

  112. holdthemaccountable
    January 25, 2015 at 12:32 am

    ————-
    I think they should hold him there for psychiatric evaluation..

    He was devastated by the November election and his loss of the Majority Leader position.

    This injury may have been self inflicted.

  113. I think they should hold him there for psychiatric evaluation..
    ————————
    Worthy of further consideration. Nothing about him looks healthy in that photo. In fact I’ve seen other copies of it not as well credentialed … and have wondered if it indeed, was his visage.
    Can only imagine the headlines, continuing coverage, had it been GOP in his place.

    And to the point you make, Harry was certifiable as far back as 2012 when he accused Mitt of felonies. IMO

  114. And I am sure we will get that apology around the same time we get the apology for the Duke players falsely accused of rape, for calling Zimmerman a white man and selectively editing his 911 call, for Tawana Brawley etc etc….

    _____________________________________________________

    Snip: “The news has been leaked to the New York Times: the Department of Justice has concluded its federal investigation into the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, and it has reached substantially the same conclusions as the local grand jury that chose not to press charges against police officer Darren Wilson.

    Let’s reiterate that. Eric Holder’s Justice Department has looked at the case and decided that the evidence indicates Officer Wilson was justified in shooting Michael Brown.

    Oh, well never mind then. All that stuff about “hands up, don’t shoot,” or the implication that Brown was killed because black lives just don’t matter to the police—all of that has been thoroughly debunked. And Eric Holder is expected to sign off on that report.”

    Snip: “But it’s clearly time to apologize—for every activist and journalist (but I repeat myself) who bought into the simplistic, self-serving “hands up, don’t shoot” narrative and broadcast it far and wide based on false testimony; who reflexively dismissed Wilson’s side of the story as preposterous and unbelievable; who doggedly upheld a wider narrative that slanders police officers across the country as murderous racists.

    Don’t apologize because I shamed you into it, or because I’m trying to sell you on my advice for how to avoid debacles like this in the future. Do it because if you want to hold others accountable for their action, you need to first make sure you are accountable for your own.

    So it’s time for an apology. And the line should be forming up, appropriately, on the left.”

    http://thefederalist.com/2015/01/22/ferguson-the-line-to-apologize-forms-on-the-left/

  115. wbboei January 24, 2015 at 11:26 am

    and

    wbboei January 24, 2015 at 12:09 pm

    …. progressivism is a word used to describe an elite class who wants to take decision making in all forms out of the hands of the American People, in elections and in the marketplace, and hand it over to progressives who are morally and intellectually superior….

    Your thesis is clear on the face of it, but muddled by the fact that you amalgamate allegedly pompous, over-educated progressives with the agenda they generate, which is necessarily out of kilter with the needs of lesser beings like you and me, plus a perceived high-handed enforcement of that agenda, all of this without bringing Obola’s sociopathic personality into the equation — or mentioning Obola at all, for that matter — or with any reference to an opposition that has no real alternatives to offer other than “Just Say No”, i.e., to give Obola a hard time.

    Now, ignoring Obola for a moment (as you do), on this point of using whatever available means to impose their will, I think you will agree that this power to impose authority is the essential characteristic of any power structure in the world:

    The Founders wanted to invert this natural power structure, i.e., to make the individual citizen the sovereign power and the government his lackey. This idea navigated under the pennant of “self-determination.”

    Self-determination was a noble experiment based more on the French Enlightenment than the English; and it seemed to work for a while because, in fact, the U.S. at the time was a small self-sufficient country with no vital interests to protect in the Euro-centric world; and since people lived miles away from each other, they were at peace with each other and with the Indian tribes too. The world was hunky-dory, a peace that it seemed would last forever.

    But this idealistic reality did not last long. Beginning with the Louisiana Purchase and the expression of Manifest Destiny, Americans began to believe they could impose their idyllic paradise on others.

    This imposition eventually reached the western Indian tribes and the Mexicans; but on the road there, we had to impose freedom on the slaves of the South, and on their masters too, and to educate them both in what “freedom” and “equality” meant.

    You know I’m not making any of this up. The Civil War looms large in our history because it is the tipping point where the collective interest as expressed by the federal government overrode individual and State desiderata in the quest for a more perfect union.

    The people of the South had their idea of freedom for the few in the time-honored vein of self-determination, and they started a war over it. Many northerners were sympathetic to them for that reason and joined their cause, only to be defeated in the end by a federal government that had better materiel and generals on its side.

    And you know the Civil War was not over in 1865. A century later, George Wallace stood firm at the gates of his state’s university to prevent the entry of the first negro student, and stepped aside only in the face of overwhelming federal force.

    So, at least since the Civil War, that idyllic world where the citizen reigns supreme over the government has reverted to the natural order of things: The collective interest prevails, as it should and does everywhere in the developed world.

    Indeed, it can even be said that the Founders also had the collective interest in mind; because they integrated safeguards into the Constitution to prevent a majority from trampling individual or minority rights, which were defined in a Bill of Rights, plus an Electoral College to stave off mob rule that might occur in a vaguely foreseeable future. Within the bounds of those safeguards, the majority could do what it wanted. Collective interest would prevail.

    And to define that collective interest, the Founders created a bicameral legislative branch, the lower house of which controls the purse strings but the upper house of which is a close-knit club of persons with minuscule-to-gigantic constituencies and a slow turnover rate with staggered 6-year terms. The House and Senate are expected to stand 90° from each other on the issues, and they usually do.

    But the Founders still wanted the source of sovereignty to be the individual citizen in his castle. What they foresaw was a non-governmental entity known as the “Fourth Estate” that would educate the public and shape its views without governmental interference.

    Now, you and I are at 0° on the abject failure of the Fourth Estate to do its job, and even on the reasons for it. There’s no call for getting into that right now. What I would like to point out is rather the following:

    The Founders viewed the Fourth Estate as the printed press, as it spoke to the public of that day, which public consisted of men (and not women, btw) engaged in farming and hunting, mostly, who were all independently wealthy in the sense that they did not need riches, and had enough intelligence to address the issues of the day as stated in the press, and react with a common-sense attitude.

    The Fourth Estate itself has evolved greatly since then, with radio, TV, and now the Internet, thus changing far beyond what the Founders could have imagined.

    And the Fourth Estate has evolved not only from the communications standpoint, but far more, even, in its content:

    The Founders did not anticipate, for example, the diversification that was to come with industrialization and the ensuing advent of wager earners and tycoons.

    Most importantly, they did not anticipate the rise of higher education, which has impacted both the issues addressed and the solutions to those issues as expressed in the media — because all of the Fourth Estate is now college-educated, and speaks to a college-educated public that stands at about 40% of the entire population; and if I’m not mistaken, more than 50% of that college-educated population are women, who didn’t even exist in the eyes of the Founders.

    The progressive agenda, as expressed by this college-educated crowd, indeed has a foothold in the national debate.

    In light of this, it surprises me that someone who has himself benefitted from a high-level education (excuse me, but Annapolis offers just about the best education you can get in the country, and then you have a law degree too) has such disdain for the intellectual class, portraying them essentially as pompous bimbos who want to destroy the country, or who don’t care about doing so as long as they get to stay in power and increase their power Orwellian style.

    Whatever the content of their agenda, this brings us back to today’s grunt power struggle between those who espouse progressive ideas and the power of those who don’t espouse them but, unfortunately, have nothing else to offer.

    The latter term themselves “conservatives”. I used to think I knew what “conservative” meant and even called myself a “fiscal conservative”. But now, I don’t know any more. What is “conservative”? Under no circumstances do “conservatives” have any constructive suggestions to address the economy or health care, for example.

    What I gather is that “conservative” just means “no” and trying to make things hard for Obola. I’m sorry, you don’t mention Obola; but I have to: He’s still golfing on government-owned property.

    Not that I sympathize with him, but there are currently two lawsuits by Boner and 25 States that have no effect other than making things hard for the poor guy, and filling up Eric Holder’s day. Both these lawsuits have to do with executive enforcement of laws or lack thereof; both are doomed.

    These lawsuits are driven by “conservatives” who are excited about government overreach. It’s as if they think Obola is sending troops to burn a mile-wide path to Atlanta or to force the University of Alabama to admit niggers.

    The suits are doomed because there are no grounds for them. The federal government has powers of prosecutorial discretion that include regulatory adjustments such as delaying the employer healthcare mandate or deferring action on illegal immigrants.

    Cases dismissed, in my view; and if the cases pass, it’s an insult to American legal process. Incidentally, I know that Justices and prosecuting attorneys are elected officials in some southern states, and are thus subject to public pressure. This, in my opinion, opens the door to mob rule and is one of the big reasons why 95% of the inmates on death row in Texas are black. The founders should have prohibited the election of judges and D.A.’s.

    So, to wind up:

    (1) The power struggle in which you find yourself enmeshed is not one of constitutional principles, the value of the individual, or declining civilization, but rather one of normal political options where progressives have an agenda and nobody else does.

    (2) HRC, who I hope is still a relevant quantity in your regard, has already expressed and will continue to express options that differ from those of Obola ,not so much in content but mainly in that they can be implemented, given an appropriate effort on the part of the president. This is where Obola is sorely lacking, but Hillary shines.

  116. Let me see if I can boil it down to a simple definition.

    A progressive is someone who wants to take decision making out of the hands of the American People and place that power in the hands of an intellectual class who is presumed to know better than we do what is good for us. This pertains to the public life and the private life as well. From who governs this nation, to what policies they pursue, to what we eat for breakfast. The justification for this conviction and overreach is always the same– social justice, as they define it. Camus was forthcoming on this point when he said “the welfare humanity is always the alibi of tyrants”.

    It is the antithesis of “We the people.”

  117. In the law of torts, there is the doctrine of proximate cause. This is a useful concept. Here is how it works. Suppose I am unfortunate enough to get into an automobile accident, and god forbid someone is injured. Suppose further that the question of liability is not clear. In determining fault, we could say the accident never would have happened if I had stayed in bed that morning, which is true as far as it goes. But should I be liable just because I got up? In other words, there is a long chain of events which happened that day which led up to the accident, so where should we draw the line in determining fault? In the Pasgraff case, Justice Cardozo gave us the doctrine of proximate cause which focuses on the most immediate events, rather than those which were tendentious.

    In their insatiable lust for power, the progressive draws no such distinction. For example if a black person commits a crime, he is not liable because people of his skin color were once the victims of slavery. Yet, Thomas Sowell has discovered that if you look at the evidence, what you find is that it was not slavery, but the remedial policies of progressives which are the “proximate” cause of the deterioration of the black community including crime.

    Indeed, the evidence shows that prior to the enactment of these policies, the black family was intact, black employment was higher, black educational results outside the south were comparable with whites. The progressive cannot accept that fact, because if it is true, then the country does not need him. And worse, far from the knight in shining armor he imagines himself to be he is what he loves to call “the root cause” of black crime. Well, as they say, the road to hell is paved with Harvard degrees.

    In all such matters, the progressive ignores the notion of proximate cause, and applies the but for test–the accident never would have occurred but for the fact that the guilty son of a bitch got up that morning and if he had just stayed in bed, then everything would have been perfect. His arguments are false, tendentious, and far from solving problems they either create them or exacerbate them if the already exist.

  118. The more Hillary seizes the mantle of progressive, the less she can claim to be a populist. The two doctrines are polar opposites. For the reasons set forth above it will be a cold day in hell before I ever support a populist. In political terms, Hillary needs to identify with main street, not Wall Street, and surely not Harvard. When 2/3 of the country says they would vote for a third party if they thought it could win, there is no percentage in being an establishment figure and draw your only distinction based on gender.

  119. Progressivism is not just a democrat disease, it is a republican disease as well. It began with Teddy Roosevelt and LaFolette (sp) in Wisconsin, and it is an Ivy League problem like crabs or herpes. Good old Woodie Wilson, formerly the president of Princeton was the most prominent exponent of it in the first half of the last century.

  120. Correction: a cold day in hell before I ever support a PROGRESSIVE!!!!!!!

    I am a populist, which is defined as someone who would rather be ruled by the first 200 names in the Brooklyn phone directory than by the entire faculty of Harvard law school.

  121. How can I say on the one hand that I would prefer to be ruled by the first 200 names in the Brooklyn phone directory and then agree with Gruber that the American People are stupid? Simple. First of all, the question is relative—they may not be perfect but they are better than the crimson tide. Second, they are not fundamentally dishonest and self serving. Third, they do live in the real world where they pay a price for being wrong. Fourth, they lack the hubris of the Harvard crowd, that sense of being superior to everyone else. Fifth, if they are given the facts, and if they are forced to think, then they will be informed, and they will do the right thing. Tom Sowell himself says the only thing that would make him happy is if the American People did wake up to the fact that their future is being hijacked by the progressive and decided to do something about it.

  122. jeswezey
    January 25, 2015 at 11:56 am

    ——–
    The history lesson you are discussing with Wbb is about early American history for men, and by men. The rights of the individual, the ‘we the people’ did not include half of the population. The female half of the constitution implied every citizen, when in fact, women were considered property of their husbands. Women could not vote, nor could they hold down competitive jobs nor own property.

    Just a sidebar on reality.

  123. A side note –

    In the world of higher education, the buzz words are not so much ‘progressives’ as they are ‘equity’ and ‘diversity’.

    Equity and diversity imply only African American’s and races other than white.

    Larger quotas and fellowships are awarded to these two groups to make things more ‘balanced’ in admissions. The graduates of these groups that stay in higher education, often admit only applicants of their preferred races.

    Obama falls into this catagory and we see how the results of that set up are going.

  124. Yea, we need the “smart’ Bush to run:

    This weekend in San Francisco while speaking to the National Automobile Dealers Association, former Gov. Jeb Bush (R-FL) said, “First and foremost we need to control our border,” adding, “The 40 percent of the people that have come here illegally came with a legal visa and overstayed their bounds. We outta be able to figure out where they are and politely ask them to leave.”

    Follow Pam Key on Twitter @pamkeyNEN

    Oh, God help us if he wins.

  125. OT…

    …so far Eddie Redmayne has won the Golden Globe and SAG Award for Best Actor in ‘The Theory of Everything’ (the Critics Award went to Keaton for Birdman)…I am pulling for Redmayne for the Oscar although Bradley Cooper, who is also a fantastic actor, is steadily climbing as a dark horse for AS and Michael Keaton has the ‘comeback’ meme going for him with Birdman…)

    Eddie Redmayne’s performance as Stephen Hawking is phenomenal, the movie is a little slow…he truly deserves to win it this year…

  126. In Twain’s novel A Connecticut Yankee In King Arthur’Court he imagines switching place with a king.

    When Obama usurps the legislative function, which is a violation of the Constitution, then it is imperative that Congress return the favor and usurp the executive function, and let cowardly John Roberts sort it out as only he can.

    This would not be necessary IF the Republicans did what they promised their voters they would do and stop that fucking Obama. But they are as cowardly as Roberts, because they know if they do the right thing, the uber corrupt big media will execute them in the world of public opinion. Therefore, they prefer to survive as cowards, than to stand up and be counted.

    As the saying goes, one bad turn deserves another.

  127. The RINO fails to realize that already the base has checked out.

    The election promises and their breach immediately thereafter did it.

    On a different note, what do we do when we ask them politely to get the fuck out of here and they refuse, J.E.B?

    Hint: Al Capone had the answer: you get more with a kind word and a gun, than you do with just a kind word.

    OMG!!! J.E.B. has just fainted.

    Nothing trivial I hope.

  128. They say Obama wants a legacy.

    Ok, I will give him one.

    Below is his true legacy.

    Now, we need to cast it in stone:

    “It’s easy to despise Barack Hussein Obama, perhaps the least qualified man ever to accede to the Oval Office. The empty resume, the imaginary biographies, the laziness, the arrogance, the profligacy with the public treasury, the weakness, the cowardice and the cringing servility when dealing with America’s enemies abroad: his six years as president of the United States — a presidency we will all look back upon someday with wonder, shame and national embarrassment — have been as disastrous and harmful as some of us predicted at the time. The man is a disgrace.” —de mortimus nil nisi bonum

  129. Charlie Hebdo survivor: I’m ‘very happy’ Obama skipped Paris peace march

    …His White House’s record on open government, transparency and freedom of the press are “an absolute scandal,” Mr. Leger said…
    Mr. Leger cited a 2013 reported by the Committee to Protect Journalists, which found that the Obama administration’s “war on leaks and other efforts to control information are the most aggressive … since the Nixon administration,”….
    And his conclusion: If Mr. Obama had shown for the peace march — which was a message of solidarity to terrorists who wanted to clamp down on freedoms of speech and press — it would have been the height of hypocrisy, Mr. Leger suggested.
    “It’s very good he didn’t come to the march that day,” he said.
    Mr. Leger was actually attending a weekly editorial meeting in the Charlie Hebdo officers when a man dressed in black stormed into the room, shouted “Allahu Akbar” and started shooting. Mr. Leger hid beneath a table and survived, the news outlet reported.
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/26/laurent-leger-charlie-hebdo-survivor-im-very-happy/

  130. wbboei January 25, 2015 at 12:35 pm

    Let me see if I can boil it down to a simple definition.

    A progressive is someone who wants to take decision making out of the hands of the American People….

    Jeez, I went to all that trouble of explaining what the “hands of the American People” means; where the idea of self-determination comes from and how it has evolved in terms of the collective interest; how society, the Fourth Estate and the world of higher education has evolved since the writing of the Constitution;

    and all you do is to repeat your silly definition and expand it a little, making it even clearer how silly it is, as if you hadn’t even read what I wrote. Or maybe you disagree with parts of it? Something to add or subtract?

    No, just repeat yourself. Sometimes I wonder… is it worth debating with you?

  131. wbboei January 25, 2015 at 1:05 pm
    *********

    The doctrine of proximate cause is interesting, and it is indeed applicable to the cries of racism when a guilty black is relieved of guilt due to irrelevant causes.

    But this is not the progressive agenda, and you know it.

    You’re trying to pin reverse racism on the top and bottom lines of progressives, as if it were the very essence of their movement. I won’t buy it; but even assuming it were commonly invoked by progressives, there are plenty of other items on that agenda, or that would be on that agenda if HRC were president, that have nothing to do with racism or reverse racism.

    Take universal healthcare coverage for example. Granted that Team Obola views any attempts to change the PPACA or to abort it as racist, i.e., directed against Othello personally because of his off-color skin.

    Does that mean that progressives like HRC have no criticism of the PPACA, nothing to add or delete? (I’ll go into that in greater detail if you wish.)

  132. wbboei January 25, 2015 at 1:10 pm

    The more Hillary seizes the mantle of progressive, the less she can claim to be a populist. The two doctrines are polar opposites. For the reasons set forth above it will be a cold day in hell before I ever support a [progressive].

    Then at last you come clean on the subject of HRC: This bullshit about being “blown out of the water” by the Benghazi cover-up is too small a matter to deter anyone of your caliber from supporting HRC the way you claim to have done in 2008, i.e., as heavy artillery for Team Hillary.

    HRC is just as much of a progressive now as she was in 2007-8. She defined the 2008 for everyone, including pretty boy, Obama and all the others. In the debates, Hillary would say “X” and Obama would say “X+” or “X—”. On the issues, Obama is Hillary lite, as I said the other day to S. You should be accustomed to the fact that she is a progressive because that is the way she presented herself in 2007-8, i.e., those years when you supposedly gave her full-throated support.

    Didn’t you realize, for example, that she had a universal healthcare plan? Didn’t the right-wing meme that it was “socialized medicine” ring a bell in your head, that you were supporting a progressive?

    You want a populist instead? Then support Elizabeth Warren. She whines a lot about Wall Street the way you like.

    Whatever the label you want to pin on HRC — progressive, populist, centrist, hawk/dove, or any other bullshit label —, she has an economic agenda that will benefit Main Street and the country.

    I went to some length explaining that agenda to you the other day, when discussing the woman you view as the Wall Street Candidate. If you didn’t read or understand my explanations, I’m willing to go through them again in proper order and detail.

    In any event, stop bullshitting us about how you prefer a “populist” to a “progressive”, or maybe it’s “conservatives” you want. The definitions of these labels bore me to tears.

    You don’t seem to want to talk about character and competence, which are the real differences between HRC and Obola, and also between HRC and all the Republican candidates.

    So, let’s talk issues. Would you like me to go into the economics of the country and HRC’s agenda again?

  133. Shadowfax January 25, 2015 at 2:12 pm

    The history lesson you are discussing with Wbb is about early American history for men, and by men….

    Oh, you are absolutely correct and the point is very important. There is no way I can ignore that.

    (1) I did mention the absence of women in the minds of the Founders, and their appearance later on in the development of society toward a more perfect union, as part of the “history lesson” that continues up to today. Besides, the mention of beating freedom into the minds of slaves closely parallels the efforts of suffragists to convince other women to demand the vote, and the efforts of feminists to raise women’s consciousness and take their full share of leadership in society.

    (2) I didn’t want to get distracted into a discussion of women’s rights and concerns, despite their importance, because the basic point was the submission of individual will to the collective will, altering the sovereignty of the “man in his castle” over the government beyond recognition. Apparently, this entire discourse went in one ear of wbboei and out the other; if I had elaborated on the rise of women, I was sure to lose him completely because I don’t think he gives a fuck about that.

    This sovereign “man in his castle” was taken quite literally in the early 19th century. There was no such thing as a “woman in her castle”, for instance, either in law or in reality. The man could do exactly as he pleased with the chattel of women and children he kept in his home, which led to physical punishment of both, and even unpunished deaths.

    (3) I’m very pleased that you took the time to read and digest what was essentially a historical analysis. It shows me that history does not always bore you, especially when you have the opportunity to criticize it directly on a blog. Also, not all history is about politics and war, which are traditionally men’s field of predilection. There are histories of ideas and philosophy (my post is one such), of the sciences, mathematics, and so forth, which, even though these fields were also developed by “random men” throughout history, if you will, are very accessible and interesting for women. And my favorite “classical” historian (politics and war) also happens to be that of wbboei: Barbara Tuchmann.

  134. Shadowfax January 25, 2015 at 2:42 pm

    In the world of higher education, the buzz words are not so much ‘progressives’ as they are ‘equity’ and ‘diversity’.

    A point well taken, but wbboei can point out that “equity” and “diversity” are progressive buzz words used by progressives, who are all part of the world of higher education, and thus nefarious for the “American People”.

    The failure of policies developed to achieve “equity” and “diversity” is a failure of the policies themselves, not of the need or desire to achieve these goals as expressed in the buzz words.

    In hindsight, I think we can say that affirmative action was a short-sighted or ill-conceived way of achieving equity and diversity. It was a shortcut that did not attack the heart of the problem. The heart of the problem was not poverty either, for which programs were conceived, but rather the generational propagation of ignorance and hopelessness among blacks.

    For example, Asians faced no such problem despite poverty at the time of immigration. They came from cultures where elders and learning were respected, and they applied themselves industrially tp their schoolwork, following their parents’ examples and admonitions and not getting distracted from their ultimate goal, which was to succeed.

    The same cannot be said for African Americans. And the problem is generational — racists will call it genetic, because the roots of despair run very deep in the African American community, almost like part of the gene pool, dating from you know when. Success stories, if you can refer to that of Michelle Obama’s family as such — and I think you can — are rare in the African American community.

    That’s why I call affirmative action a shortcut that misses the root of the problem. The problem has to be attacked at the level of pre-K on up, or even starting at birth, and bringing the parent(s) on board all through the process. This is what HRC is calling for at CGI with her project called “Too Small to Fail”.

    In any event, there is no need to dismiss the buzz words of “equity” and “diversity” just because they are “progressive” ideas or those of the educational elite. What needs to be revised is the policy.

  135. Jes, this is not my argument, but you are the one guilty of oversimplifying if you are suggesting that wbboei’s issues with Hillary are limited to Benghazi. The truth is not just not coming out, as you imply, he and others here have expressed disappointment that Hillary has been quick to approve of some of Obama’s positions, actions, etc. We have all weighed in on the difference between them in terms of competence and character.

    I think what’s key here is Hillary’s ability to compromise and to work with the Republicans to create a solution with which both sides can live. She has demonstrated her ability and willingness to do so. Regardless of whether she is as progressive as Obama (which I think is an exaggeration), Hillary will move to the center on specific issues in order to get bills past. I don’t think she will force her will on the American people again and again, as has Obama. She has said that regardless of whether people are Republicans or Dims, they are first, Americans and should have a voice. IMHO, should she be elected, that philosophy will be one of the guiding principles of her style of governing.

    Re: the issue of self-determination and American individualism, I am sick to death of the progressives vilifying these concepts. That’s not to say that each person is an island, functioning without support of others. But, often the “others” include family, community, church – offering a hand, providing emotional support, etc. Obviously, the American individualist was, to a great extent responsible for the early successes of this country. But, the relevance of the individual and individualism as not ended, as much as the progressives would like us to believe it has. Nor is individualism the self-obsessed scourge they portray it to be. It can take a village, as Has Hillary’s book rightly asserts. But that does not mean the individual relinquishes her right to rear her child her way, according to her values.

  136. foxy, that horse left the barn long before O was interviewed by GloZell. He has made a fool of himself on a daily basis since election, sometimes on an hourly basis. The man is living proof that even the best con artist won’t betray his true nature all of the time. O only (occasionally) pretends to be a statesman. He actually is a wannabe movie star – making the talk show circuit, being applauded. I can’t imagine that any has-been movie star, however, would sink so low as to consent to being interviewed by these attention seeking U-tube idiots.

  137. S January 25, 2015 at 10:58 pm

    OT…

    *********

    Not at all OT for me. Movies are my favorite pastime, and I see you have a critical eye perhaps better than mine.

    On your word, I’ll file a written petition to my soulmate to go and see “The Theory of Everything,” which neither of us wanted to see. If she doesn’t want to, I’ll have to arrange an appointment with the mortician for her so I can go and see it by myself.

  138. freespirit January 26, 2015 at 10:59 am

    O only (occasionally) pretends to be a statesman. He actually is a wannabe movie star…

    ****

    “Wannabe movie star” is right: He just wants the “star” part of the deal, not all the work that goes into making a movie. Actors have to work at acting for years before they’re up to snuff for “star” status.

    It’s a tough job making believe you’re somebody you aren’t. O wouldn’t even know how to act like himself, because there’s no “self” there, really. Once an empty suit, always an empty suit.

  139. “there’s no “self” there”.

    ___________

    EXACTLY! He must have had a really crappy early childhood. Nothing on which to base the ability to trust or attach, without which development of clear, positive self-identity is not possible.

  140. What’s wrong with this picture?

    Paragraph 1: Admin official says Netanyahu’s “spat in Obama’s face”.

    Paragraph 2: “comment doesn’t reflect the views of this president or this White House.

    Then with whose administration is the “Administration official” affiliated?

    This is typical Bamboozling Barack. The dissonance is astounding, but has always defined Obama.
    _________________

    From The Guardian UK:

    Administration officials told Israel’s Haaretz last week Netanyahu had “spat” in Obama’s face by arranging with Republican House speaker John Boehner to speak before Congress in March without first informing the White House.

    The comment “does not reflect the views of this president or this White House”, McDonough told CBS. He said the importance of the relationship meant it was “above partisan politics”

    http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jan/25/white-house-diffuses-netanyahu-congress-dispute

  141. freespirit January 26, 2015 at 10:49 am
    *********

    Not your argument? But you’re always welcome to the discussion….

    You make an excellent analysis of HRC’s strengths and the real differences between her and Obola. In fact, it matches exactly what I’ve been trying to get across to wbboei and others about what the real differences are. I hope you express it better than I, and that the points will eventually get across.

    But you’re wrong that I’m oversimplifying when I say that wbboei is obsessed with Benghazi and especially the “cover-up”, if indeed there was a cover-up. He expressly stated shortly after the tragedy that the fact that HRC told the parents of a fallen SEAL that the government was going to fix the wagon of that vile video-maker, as if that was the explanation for the whole thing, “stuck in my craw.”

    His view on the “cover-up” has not changed since, nor has it faded with time.

    A few days ago, I went to great lengths to explain that HRC had no responsibility in the matter, even though she was willing to serve as a lightning rod for the whole Intelligence and State community. The reaction to Benghazi, by both the Republicans and by wbboei, is to shower down as much lightning as they can possibly muster onto that lightning rod, in order to bring down HRC’s ratings in public opinion, by showing her up to be a heartless liar and irresponsible. wbboei swallows it all, hook, line and sinker.

    One thing that may be pointed out by the Special Committee, if Trey Gowdy is as honest as I hope he is, is not that HRC has greater responsibility than she has already taken for Benghazi, but that two of the people killed that day, in addition to Stevens and his bodyguard, were CIA operatives not employed by the State Dept.

    This means that CIA operatives were used as collateral security forces at the State output; and indeed, there are two other operatives who are now ready to testify that they were “jocked up” and ready to intervene from the CIA facility nearby, within five minutes of the alarm bell, but that some as-yet undisclosed superior had them stand down during the half-hour of the attack.

    So, has the CIA Director (and who actually remembers who that was at the time?) ever been saddled with a share of responsibility for the Benghazi disaster? or for the deaths of the other four people?

    No, CIA gets off the hook. Both in the eyes of the Republicans and those of wbboei.

    HRC is not so lucky. She accepted to be the lightning rod and the Republicans, and wbboei, are willing to twist every sound bite and factoid they can find into another lightning bolt for HRC.

    *******

    Concerning self-determination and individualism, I’m unaware of progressives “vilifying these concepts.” I may be wrong, because I don’t have the media resources you do, but my thesis is that the progressives have not expressed a reduced value of the individual as part of their agenda; that this agenda has been generated by normal means, albeit not by all the American People; that progressives are expressing that agenda through the normal channels of today, the way anyone else can do; and that their desire to enforce progressive policies stemming from that agenda is also normal, i.e., through executive action.

    When the neocons were in power, they did the same thing. Among other things, they concocted tax cuts for the wealthy, which they later “forced” Obama to continue two years beyond the limit date provided by law.

    They also engaged the country in two costly (blood and money) armed conflicts that Obama was pretty much obliged to continue three years into his presidency, while one of them is still going on now.

    It is very easy to see these tax cuts and the wars as being “forced” on the people, and Obama too, for that matter, against the will of the majority:

    During the two years of his supermajority, Obama could have shut down the two wars without even seeking the approval of Congress, but he did not. During those two years, the Democrats could also have repealed the Bush tax cuts, but they did not.

    Nobody complained about executive overreach, states’ rights congressional powers or individualism at the time while Obama continued Bush’s wars, even though these wars were clearly against the interests of the people from the get-go and were, politically speaking, extremely unpopular by the time Obama got to office — and remember, Obama’s wedge against HRC was that she had voted for Iraq while he had made a speech against it, and Obama pledged to end the Iraq war once he was in office.

    Obama also pledged, as did HRC, that he would end the Bush tax cuts.

    Clearly, Obama was going against the will of the American People, who wanted to end the tax cuts and the wars. And yet no one spoke up in defense of individualism, self-determination, executive overreach, separation of powers or whatever.

    The reason why no such objections were made was because Americans today assume that the collective interest prevails over individual or the minority interests, within the bounds of the Bill of Rights, the Constitutional safeguards, existing statutes.

    The people do not make the law or policy, and never have, with the exception of the Referendum. Otherwise, the people only elect representatives to speak and vote for them, and communicate with those representatives through campaigns and elections, and through the Fourth Estate, which is not organized by the Constitution but is protected as an individual liberty in the First Amendment.

    In such context, as stated above and in light of the historical explanations I gave in the wordy post above:

    (1) I defy you to show that progressives feel that it is necessary to reduce the value of the individual in order to effect their agenda.

    (2) I defy you to demonstrate that this agenda has been generated by any other than normal means.

    (3) I defy you to show that progressives are expressing that agenda through any but the normal channels of today, the way anyone else can do.

    (4) or that their desire to enforce progressive policies stemming from that agenda is anything other than what bodies such as the neocons — or any other political think tanks — have done in the past.

    To conclude: All these accusations stem from perceived sociopathic behavior on the part of the President, which perception I agree coincides with reality. But Obola is careful enough not to overstep his real executive powers when he acts without the consent, advice or approval of a paralyzed Congress.

    The present action of inviting speakers to Congress and assembling a bipartisan veto-proof majority to pass certain laws that Obola might not like, is really the only way to redress the balance of powers.

    But to my mind, this means changing the Congress, not the Executive. So far, it is not the executive that has abused its powers; it is Congress that has resigned its own.

  142. This means that CIA operatives were used as collateral security forces at the State output; and indeed, there are two other operatives who are now ready to testify that they were “jocked up” and ready to intervene from the CIA facility nearby, within five minutes of the alarm bell, but that some as-yet undisclosed superior had them stand down during the half-hour of the attack.

    ——-
    Indeed, and where is the story on this?

    Maybe it’s because the CIA isn’t potentially running for President in 2016, so what does the media and the GOP care?

    Everything that happened that day needs to be investigated and exposed. Not just Hillary’s role, but all the players and Obama.

    Trey has a lot on his shoulders, let’s see if he gets to the truth or just goes on a witch-hunt after Hillary.

  143. “CIA operatives were used as collateral security forces at the State outpost; and indeed, there are two other operatives who are now ready to testify that they were “jocked up” and ready to intervene from the CIA facility nearby, within five minutes of the alarm bell, but that some as-yet undisclosed superior had them stand down during the half-hour of the attack.”

    Shadowfax January 26, 2015 at 2:07 pm

    Indeed, and where is the story on this?
    Maybe it’s because the CIA isn’t potentially running for President in 2016, so what does the media and the GOP care?
    Everything that happened that day needs to be investigated and exposed. Not just Hillary’s role, but all the players and Obama.

    I picked up the story from a video from Fox that was published here at H44. The only information given was what I stated in the above quote. I wouldn’t know how to access that video any more, and we just have to await the final report of the Special Committee, which, I hope, will contain answers to all of the quite pertinent questions you raise. The two CIA operatives would not give the name of their superior who stood them down, saying that was for their testimony before the closed-door committee.

  144. I picked up the story from a video from Fox…

    —-
    Yes, I saw those guys on Fox and I think some guys broke with command at some point and went to help anyway. (I am just digging these memories out of the cobwebs here, but I am pretty sure that’s what was said.)

    There was also the controversy on if help could get there in time, some said yes, some said no…but no one said their orders were from Hillary or the State Department.

    The military doesn’t take command from the State Department in the first place.

  145. wbboei January 25, 2015 at 1:10 pm

    The more Hillary seizes the mantle of progressive, the less she can claim to be a populist. The two doctrines are polar opposites. For the reasons set forth above it will be a cold day in hell before I ever support a [progressive].

    Then at last you come clean on the subject of HRC: This bullshit about being “blown out of the water” by the Benghazi cover-up is too small a matter to deter anyone of your caliber from supporting HRC the way you claim to have done in 2008, i.e., as heavy artillery for Team Hillary.

    ————–
    Heavy artillery?

    That is a curious way to put it.

    I campaigned for her in 4 states, but as a foot soldier.

    I contributed money to her campaign, thinking it might do some good.

    I wrote a book which lauded her crisis management skills.

    I deplored how she was treated by big media.

    I wrote letters to the undecided delegates.

    And I knew people who had a pipeline to Hillary.

    None of that equates to heavy artillery.

    It simply means I was a direct witness to what occurred.

    If I were heavy artillery then I would have to share blame for a poorly run campaign.

    In 2008 I found her message compelling and I believed it.

    She portrayed herself as a populist in 2008.

    She want to re-open NAFTA if it was not working for the American People.

    She took issue with the predatory practices of vulture capitalists.

    She claimed she wanted to make the invisible visible.

    If she cavorted with Wall Street then, I did not see it.

    Obama was the candidate of Wall Street and unnamed foreign contributors.

    Obama was the progressive villain in the piece.

    She portrayed herself as the best qualified candidate to lead the country.

    She did not engage in special pleading on behalf of her gender.

    And again I believed her.

    She portrayed herself as a crisis manager.

    You may recall that commercial who do you want answering that 3 am call?

    I wrote a chapter in the book defending her actions leading up to the Iraq War.

    That is why the Benghazi disaster resonates.

    Now I have a question for you:

    You claim to be a progressive, but I doubt that your realize what a progressive really is, what motivates them, how often they have been wrong, and how they pose a clear and present danger to the liberty and security of the American People.

    That is why I asked you to review the Tom Sowell interview about intellectuals, and give me your reaction. If nothing else it might round out your education and convince skeptics that you have the foggiest notion of what your are talking about. The world is a tragedy to those who feel, a comedy to those who think, and to bots it is a religious experience where, in the words of Clarence Darrow much backward to the glorious age of the sixteen century when bigot burned fagots to set afire those who sought to bring wisdom and understanding to the human race. Whatever you do, don’t be a bot.

  146. Politico is really putting it out there

    Inside Hillary Clinton’s 2016 plan

    Hillary Clinton is in the final stages of planning a presidential campaign that will most likely be launched in early April and has made decisions on most top posts, according to numerous Democrats in close contact with the Clintons and their aides.

    Campaign advisers say the likelihood of a campaign, long at 98 percent (she never really hesitated, according to one person close to her), went to 100 percent right after Christmas, when Clinton approved a preliminary budget and several key hires.

    Most of the top slots have been decided…

    http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/hillary-clinton-2016-elections-114586.html

  147. Clinton’s Ready……announcement in April.

    http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/hillary-clinton-2016-elections-114586.html

    Not only is she running, but we have a very good idea of what her campaign will look like.

    Hillary Clinton is in the final stages of planning a presidential campaign that will most likely be launched in early April and has made decisions on most top posts, according to numerous Democrats in close contact with the Clintons and their aides.

    Campaign advisers say the likelihood of a campaign, long at 98 percent (she never really hesitated, according to one person close to her), went to 100 percent right after Christmas, when Clinton approved a preliminary budget and several key hires.

    Most of the top slots have been decided, with one notable exception: communications director, a job that is now the subject of intense lobbying and jockeying among some of the biggest names in Democratic politics. One top contender is White House communications director Jennifer Palmieri, who is close to likely campaign chairman John Podesta.

    Numerous lessons from Clinton’s failed 2008 campaign are being baked into the 2016 plan, including a determination to improve relations with the news media — or, at the very least, to have a “good cop” role to help her get off on a better foot with the journalists who will help shape her image.

    Reflecting other lessons learned, the campaign is being planned with more of a “big-tent mentality,” as one adviser put it. And Bill Clinton is being integrated from the start, after feeling isolated from parts of her campaign against Barack Obama.

    One component of Hillary Clinton’s emerging strategy involves quietly but aggressively courting key endorsers from the left, who could help increase progressives’ comfort level and take the wind out of a potential challenge. Two top targets: Robert Reich, the economist and former labor secretary in her husband’s administration, and Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), the civil rights icon. In December, she won public endorsements from former Democratic National Committee Chairman and Vermont Gov. Howard Dean and Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.).

    Bill Clinton is already deeply engaged in the campaign, warning that Jeb Bush is a real threat, while New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is probably just a sideshow.

    The former president got a heads-up from the camp of President George H.W. Bush a few days before former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush made his surprise Facebook announcement in December that he would “actively explore” a campaign. The two former presidents have developed a friendly bond, partly because of their work together on relief for the 2004 Asian tsunami.

    The exact timing of Hillary Clinton’s launch is unknown, but close allies expect her to officially enter the 2016 race shortly after the end of this quarter, so that her first fundraising report will be a blockbuster. On March 4, the Clinton Foundation holds its annual gala in New York, with entertainment by Carole King, and it’s expected to be one of the Clintons’ final major events before the campaign.

    Friends and advisers say she is planning this campaign “her way,” without being buffaloed by outside pressure.

    “She is taking her time,” one adviser said. “Part of doing something right is … taking the time to balance the advice she is getting with her own thoughts. She’s in no rush. People have been putting a red ‘X’ on the calendar for a long time, but that isn’t necessarily happening internally.”

    Clinton will enter the Democratic race with a bang — and virtually no opposition to speak of. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who could mount a serious campaign from the left, has said she won’t run, and is making no behind-the-scenes preparations. Vice President Joe Biden says he might very well run — but mainly wants his name in the mix in case Clinton implodes.

    This leaves a trio of long shots with scant money: Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley and former Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia.

    The potential opposition is so weak that Clinton might wind up not even debating during the primaries, which many Democrats view as a mixed blessing.

    The Clinton team knows it can’t campaign with the swagger of a presumptive nominee because the air of inevitability was so damaging last time around. That said, some advisers are already privately talking up potential running mates, with Sens. Michael Bennet of Colorado and Tim Kaine of Virginia dominating the early speculation.

    Some advisers expect a push for diversity on the ticket. So the shortlist also is expected to include Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julián Castro, Labor Secretary Tom Perez, Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey and perhaps California Attorney General Kamala Harris, who is running for U.S. Senate.

    Despite the internal confidence, Clinton won’t enter without substantial concerns and obstacles, some of which are self-evident to her top advisers and are a subject of constant conversation among Democrats during the build-up phase.

    The Warren wing can be expected to continue pounding her for fat speaking fees and chummy Wall Street relations, and try to pull her to the left in ways that are unnatural for the Clintons. If she were to lurch left, she would risk appearing insincere or baldly political.

    These allies also know the past problems of Clinton Inc. that could resurface: the competing Bill and Hillary camps, the questionable donors and backbiting when things get tense or go south. Clinton insiders blame a confused and conflicted ’08 structure for many of her stumbles in that primary race.

    The campaign-in-waiting is working to assuage these concerns by creating a coherent leadership structure and bridging the Bill and Hillary worlds. “There’s an enormous amount of coordination and communication that goes on with his office,” an adviser said. “Everybody recognizes that it’s important.”

    Here’s the rub: A trio of people with substantial juice will be above campaign manager Robby Mook — with Podesta, who is leaving his West Wing post as counselor next month for a short stay at the Center for American Progress until the campaign formally launches, serving as chairman; longtime family counselor Cheryl Mills serving as a top adviser, regardless of whether she is on the inside or outside (a possible title: co-chair); and longtime close aide Huma Abedin, the most important non-Clinton in her orbit. (When the White House wants to reach Clinton, Abedin gets the call.) Philippe Reines, one of the longest-serving Hillary whisperers, will be another crucial outside adviser.

    Toss in Bill and Chelsea, and it’s clear why structure is such a stress point.

    Tom Nides, who returned to Morgan Stanley after serving as Hillary Clinton’s deputy secretary of state, will have a top role in the campaign — probably involving high-level fundraising. Dennis Cheng, the Clinton Foundation’s chief development officer, is expected to move over to the campaign in a top finance post.

    Advisers know that Clinton neither likes nor trusts the press — and feels that it’s mutual. She remains a voracious consumer of news about herself, occasionally complaining about an article’s tone or omissions.

    But she got largely favorable coverage as secretary of state and experienced a press corps that she considered more substantive and less sensational. She visited with reporters in the back of her plane on international trips and discovered they don’t bite. So the campaign plans to include a media-friendly communications official, as a counterweight to the instinctive insularity of Hillaryland.
    “You do see what works and address what works the next time around,” an adviser said. “The default isn’t toward the pit-bull mentality.”

    In addition to Palmieri, other names that have been in the hopper: Eric Schultz, principal deputy White House press secretary; Brian Fallon, an alumnus of New York Sen. Chuck Schumer’s office who is now the top spokesman for Attorney General Eric Holder; Mo Elleithee, the DNC communications director; Karen Finney, a former MSNBC host and alumna of the Clinton White House; and Kiki McLean, a consultant and strategist who has worked at the top of many national campaigns.

    Nick Merrill, who worked with Reines at State and is now Clinton’s spokesman, is trusted and well liked and will remain in the inner circle.

    Clinton has recruited two of the top brains of the Obama campaign — pollster Joel Benenson and media strategist Jim Margolis, who worked for her husband’s campaign in 1992. Now that the architecture of the campaign is clear, the two are helping with the next critical task: developing her message.

    ………………..

    Its building as we expected, Hillary was never really not going to run but has taken it at her pace, won’t be rushed.

  148. Sahdow, you beat me too it, its a interesting read…Its building as we expected, Hillary was never really not going to run but has taken it at her pace, won’t be rushed.

    I never expected her not to run and the last few months were definite clues.

  149. The above article also says that the Shrubs gave the Clinton’s a heads-up before Jeb announced he is running.

    Also, “Bill Clinton is already deeply engaged in the campaign (you betcha he is), warning that Jeb Bush is a real threat, while New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is probably just a sideshow.”

    Sideshow Bob Chris!

  150. Shadow, was there ever any doubt? I would suspect all the signs are there now, hiring would have to start, thats how they know. These people have to leave jobs, position.

  151. Jes, re: progressive vilifying individualism, this is most overt in academia. Pick up almost any college level text that includes a chapter or section on diversity, and you will see individualism portrayed as a white American ideal. Some books I have seen contrast white America’s “selfish” individualism with black America’s ideal of “community”, all working for the good of the group rather than to advance individual interest. Many state universities require that the concepts of social justice, diversity, etc be addressed in every course, in every department – not just within the sociology or social studies departments. I can’t say the extent to which anti-individualm is expressed in each individual course, but I do know that many of the current text books that present information on diversity and social justices specifically criticize the idea of individualism.

    I am presuming that these authors are “progressives” based on the fact that they lean to the left with regard to entitlements. Some even argue that there should be no means testing and people should not have to prove that their income is below a certain level in order to be eligible to receive specific entitlements. I think most people would characterize this belief as “progressive” .

    The anti-individualism concept is more subtle outside academia, but it is prevalent, none the less. The far left in government and media are more likely to stress the importance of community than to attack individualism, but in my view, the message is intended to diminish the validity of individualism as an ideal.

    Can’t prove it, but it’s just something I have observed over the past few years. Check out any kid’s PBS show, if you have access, and you’ll see this.

  152. moononpluto
    January 26, 2015 at 5:26 pm

    Shadow, was there ever any doubt?

    —–
    Yeah, after all – she did tell me she was running in my dream. 😉

    Seriously, I don’t want to get my hopes up and be disappointed over Hillary again. I still had .0001 % doubt.

  153. Moon and the gum story…

    I was just going to say this, I am 99% sure he is chewing nicotine gum.

    “The president, who has been known to use nicotine chewing gum…”

  154. Go Kurds!

    Send ISIS to their virgins. (Yeah right) I’m sure burqua covered virgins are just waiting……………………………..for these murderers.

  155. Does anyone know, how just a regular person, like me, can get into the Dem Convention in 2016?

    Being outside in Denver just wasn’t good enough.

  156. I thought you had to be a state delegate to get into the convention, but that may not be correct. I was a delegate for my local area once. Local delegates who were willing to commit to serve as state delegates were eligible for election to district/regional caucus, where if they were very lucky and knew the right good ole boys, could be sent to the state convention. At the state convention, a few well-connected Dims would be selected to go to convention.

    Although I didn’t seek to go any higher than local, I did want the opportunity to attend convention as a non-voting Dim, if work and family obligations permitted (which they did not), but was told that only the delegates and alternates could go.. Possibly, that meant that only those parties could attend as actual representatives of the state, and all other attendees were on their own as guests, unaffiliated with the state party. I was never certain about that.

    After the Dim Bastards turned on Hillary and stole the nom for Barack, I resigned my position as local delegate, and from the party, itself. I wanted to go to Denver with the PUMAs but personal and professional obligations made it impossible.

    Every state may have different rules and policies. I don’t know about that, but for my state, at least, my understanding is that with few exceptions,, only delegates, party big wigs, and media can actually attend the convention.

  157. Thanks for the update in your case Free.

    Girl, I went with the PUMAs and it was an experience I will never forget. Somehow, I was never in the right place at the right time to see Hillary in person. All of us were in tears as we jumped the first plane to get out of Denver while the Fraud was giving his jackassPlastic speech. We did sit together to listen to Hillary lay down her sword…it was heartbreaking.

    I would like to somehow go back in 2016 when Hillary finally triumphs. I guess us peons will always be the outsiders at the convention.

    Jeeze, I am already counting on her running…I have to reel myself back in a little.

  158. Wbb

    You and I think so much alike on Hillary. You many be 90% opposed to Shawdow, but I think I am 160…
    She has become so disappointing. ..she wants the title more than to champion the American middle class..Benghazi…it sticks in my throat like a chicken bone..

  159. wbboei January 26, 2015 at 3:51 pm

    I’m sorry if “heavy artillery” seems inappropriate to you. It’s just a simile, a label. Perhaps “high-caliber ammunition” would be better? “Footsoldier” seems too small to describe all of your activities at the time, because HRC had many “footsoldiers”, and if all of them had done half of what you did, she would have won easily. Again, all I did was provide funds — probably more than you did, and longer, but just money. Nothing else.

    So, pick the label you want for yourself, that’s your business. Labels don’t count so much for me.

    As for the labels you want to stick on Hillary, though, they’re getting more and more confusing. “Left,” “Right” or “Center would be just as confusing as trying to figure out why universal health care was “populist” when it came from HRC’s mouth in 2008, when Hillary styled herself a “progressive,” but is now “progressive” because of the PPACA and its faults, enforcement, such that, if HRC does anything now to modify the PPACA, you’ll have to call her a progressive and be unable to support her.

    You’re just playing a shell game with the labels and getting me confused, because I think you’re confused yourself. In any event, I don’t know what you’re talking about even if you do, or think you do.

    What I’m asking you is to forget the labels and talk about the issues. I’m ready to do that; but I don’t want to hear any more bullshit about populists and progressives. Or Left, Right, Center, Conservative, Liberal. Even the party labels, while clear, are unimportant when discussing the country’s interests.

  160. BREAKING NEWS:

    An audio document has just been leaked from Seattle’s WBBOEI PLATONIC ARCHIVES in which William F. Buckley condescends to review the test scores of one jeswezey, at a moment when Mr. Buckley was about to flunk him and throw him out of his debating class.

    Only the following excerpt of the transcript has been released to the press so far:
    **********

    Mr. Buckley: Mr. jes, I’m astonished that you could only answer 2 of the 10 questions on this exam. The third one should have been easy: It was multiple choice, with just two options. Didn’t you even have the time to check off your preference?

    jeswezey: I spent a lot of time on it. Most of the hour, in fact.

    Buckley: What was so hard? Let me read it to you again…

    Question 3 — “Would you rather be governed by:

    (a) the entire faculty of Harvard University?

    (b) or the first 200 names from the Brooklyn phone directory?”

    What was so hard about that? You know my own personal preference, but you could have said “Harvard” if you wanted. I wouldn’t have failed you for that….

    jes: There was no room for an essay. You wanted one or the other and there just weren’t enough options. There had to be at least a third! Or room for an essay….

    Buckley: So, what third option would you offer?

    jes: Before I got to that third option, there was another matter that had me turning in circles for a few minutes….

    Buckley: Which was?

    jes: Well, you see, I don’t want to be governed by Harvard, Brooklyn or anybody else, really. I just want to be left alone.

    Buckley: What is this, anarchism? You don’t want any government at all?

    jes: Oh, I want government, all right… plenty of it if necessary, with strictly applied laws that will protect me from all the people who might harm me, physically or otherwise.

    Buckley: I see: you get to do what you want… You get full privileges and let other people get beaten down by big government?

    jes: You can look at it that way, I guess; but it’s a matter of individualism, actually. You see, I, as an individual, live according my own moral code that is in keeping with the mores and laws of western civilization as we know them in America. I act consistently in a manner that will never bring the police to my doorstep, or any civil individuals or groups who have any complaints to make about my behavior. So I think I have every right to be left alone to my own devices.

    Buckley: But how about the “uncivil” individuals and groups – like robbers? You don’t think they can come to your doorstep?

    jes: That’s exactly why I want lots of government for everybody else – to protect me from those uncivil groups.

    Buckley: … … And you trust the police to do that?

    jes: About trusting the police to do their job, I intuit that Harvard and Brooklyn would have two complementary approaches that each have their upsides and downsides.

    For example, in matters of physical security, I think Harvard would press for strict gun control or banning guns altogether, and I do favor that solution.

    On the other hand, I think that Brooklyn would opt for strict police surveillance and control of the streets. And that would be necessary anyway, even if guns are banned, because criminals are always going to get their hands on guns, and then they can prey on an unarmed population. So, Brooklyn is right on that too, in the NRA vein of thinking.

    So, as concerns physical security, I would have checked both Harvard and Brooklyn. That had my mind spinning for a long time, because the list of such fields where both Harvard and Brooklyn would be good for the country is very long indeed.

    Buckley: But what about unjust or stupid laws the government might impose on you? Laws that don’t suit you or the way you want to live your life? Unnecessary laws and regulations?

    jes: Well, that is what I spent the rest of the hour trying to hammer out. Essentially, the question is, “How do we create fair and equitable laws that everybody can live by — and I mean everybody, including me! — so that the police will actually be less and less necessary, because everybody accepts the law, and so that everybody prospers, is happy, and winds up not needing the police at all anymore.”

    Buckley: So from individualism, your heading toward anarchism again!

    jes: You can see it that way, yes. My goal is a world where the best government is one that governs less and less, and then least — I think somebody said something like that before me, a long time ago…. Maybe Jefferson?

    Buckley: Now you want to build on the shoulders of giants like Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton and others, and you think Harvard and Brooklyn can do it together?

    jes: Yes, I would like to build on what our Founders left us; but no, I don’t think it can be done with the tool they left us — the Constitution — without major amendments; and I don’t think that either Harvard or Brooklyn has the intellectual wherewithal to do it.

    Buckley: Now you’re being a pompous ass! You think you know better than the Founders, Harvard, Brooklyn or even me?

    jes: Look, I don’t really care how smart you think I am, nor how smart you think your are, or Jefferson, Harvard or Brooklyn are. What I’m trying to do is to think “outside the box” of hackneyed solutions of the past and trying to find a way to solve future problems effectively….

    Buckley: Well, we only have a few minutes before lunch, so spill the beans: What is this magic third solution you’ve dreamt up in your oh-so-fertile imaginary world garden? In a nutshell, what third option would you have checked on this Question 3?

    jes: Option 3: 2000 TECHNOCRATS.

    Buckley: Whaaaaaat??? You want to be governed by a bunch of bureaucrats? Apparatchiks? A communist dictatorship where nobody has any say in the laws, “truth” is doled out by the government, and the people have no freedoms whatsoever? Christ almighty!!

    [EDITOR’S NOTE: The archive dates from 1970. The reference to apparatchiks and communist dictatorship had some relevance at that time.]

    Buckley: I don’t have time for this nonsense. Let’s go to lunch. And you go by yourself!

    jes: Please, Mr. Buckley, I’ll pay for lunch at the Seven Caesars if you will just give me a few minutes to explain….

    Buckley: … Well, if it’s for the Seven Caesars on your nickel, I guess I can put up with a few minutes of bullshit. Go ahead.

    jes: First of all, I didn’t say “bureaucrats” or “apparatchiks”. Bureaucrats are cogs in the executive wheel that actually have no say themselves in making the laws they apply, they just apply them willy-nilly, not caring about the country’s interests or those of the individual in front of them. Sometimes, in fact, they may even twist the law to favor their own political proclivities, party, or that of the person who gave them the job, thus making their own laws, in a way, and that’s really bad….

    Buckley: That does it. You’ve just put enough nails in the bureaucrats’ coffin to bury them and your third option forever and a day. Now, off to the Waldorf!

    jes: Yes, but I didn’t say “bureaucrats, Mr. Buckley”!! I said “technocrats”. Please try to understand the difference!

    Buckley: … … …

    jes: A technocrat would be someone with special training in various aspects of law and society, mainly economics and business, statute and case law, standards and regulations in all kinds of fields, health insurance, retirement funds, anything that may be necessary to create a society that functions normally and best, and that everyone will be happy with.

    Buckley: “Everyone”? Come on, you can never please everyone. Sometimes you can’t even please the majority that voted for the law! And anyway, how would you find these “technocrats”? From the Harvard faculty?

    jes: Give me a minute for both these questions….

    The technocrats would be picked by a head technocrat appointed by the elected officials of each State. These head technocrats would be appointed for a long term, let’s say six years like the Senate, or maybe the same length as their governor’s term, but staggered so they don’t depend entirely on the governor.

    These head technocrats would then be in charge of selecting the trained technocrats of their choice, some of which might come from the Harvard faculty you so fear, but many of which would come from the Brooklyn population, as long as the Brooklynites got the necessary training.

    I can imagine that a lot of these guys and girls would be graduates of Wharton Business School. In fact, Mr. Buckley, if you had offered the option of Wharton graduates instead of Harvard faculty, I would have been sorely tempted to check it.

    In any event, the technocrats would be selected by the head technocrat for their competence in a given field. These subordinates would be permanent staff, not political appointees, so their competence and pay would both increase by seniority. They could also ask questions to specialized consultants, or conduct opinion or other polls, to broaden their knowledge database.

    Buckley: OK, so let’s say you’ve got competence nailed down. What was the other question?

    jes: Pleasing everybody.

    Buckley: Now, this ought to be good: … …

    jes: There’s no way you’re going to win the game with the first pitch off the mound. A home run on the first pitch is less use, anyway, than a home run with bases loaded….

    Buckley: … …

    jes: So, we begin with the concept of consensus — unanimous consensus, not majority, but unanimous consensus among all the technocrats.

    Buckley: And you think you’re going to get unanimity among — how many was it? — 2000 technocrats?

    jes: Sorry, I meant the “head technocrats”, not all of them. There would be 50 of them, one for each state. That’s still a lot, I know; but I think it would be doable, because one of their first jobs would be to unify the bodies of law of all the states into a more perfect set of unified federal law. That’s the kind of thing that can be worked out by the technocrats I have in mind. They would of course incorporate the safeguards of the Constitution too, such as the Bill of Rights.

    Another thing they could handle would be to organize a national healthcare system that would…

    Buckley: Socialized medicine!! There it is!! The road to communist dictatorship mapped out clear as a bell to hell! I told you that’s where you were headed: Anarchy and Communism, antithetical concepts in theory, but both leading to the same thing: a police state….

    Well, I have simple tastes: I think I’d like herring and warm potatoes as an appetizer. Do they have that at the Seven Caesars?

    jes: I think so, but before we go, I’d just like to say that anything we do about healthcare — anything at all that involves the government — is always called “socialized medicine” like the medical systems they have on the god-awful Old Continent or in decaying old England with its nationalized medicine.

    In fact, anything the government does in any field whatsoever is called “socialism” and the implication is that it’s un-American and pro-Soviet, and people who propose it are traitors.

    Buckley: Oh come on, the McCarthy era is over….

    jes: It is not! It lingers on! A lot of people still think that way. And what is the result? The new Conservative. You liked Barry Goldwater, didn’t you? And what did he propose? Nothing, actually, except nuking Vietnam before the war even started. On matters of Civil Rights, his solution was to do nothing: play by the old rules. That was how he defined “Conservative”: Do nothing, or apply the old rules even more strictly.

    Buckley: This has nothing to do with your reign of technocrats, I don’t want to get into it. It’s time for the Seven Caesars….

    jes: Oh, but it does! Technocrats can take a lot of measures under the protection of permanent employment, without being subject to the pressure of buzzwords like “socialism” — or “equality”, for that matter. Their job is to put acceptable ideals into acceptable form, then have the existing executives apply those measures. They replace the legislative branch.

    Buckley: … And in international affairs? Would you get 50 people to agree to go to war in Vietnam?

    jes: Well, it would actually take 51 people to agree on that, because you would need the agreement of the South Vietnamese government to go and bomb their country; but you have a good point: Many of the technocrats would think twice about getting involved in a mess like that, and a consensus would be very hard to get. Are you sure that’s bad? Sounds good to me! We could have nipped the Vietnam war in the bud.

    But if Mexico ever decided to invade Arizona, for example, I think the technocrats would vote even faster than the Congress to send down the National Guard.

    Buckley: Well OK, Mr. jes, I can see there’s no sense talking about the real world with a whackjob like you, so why don’t we just call it a morning and go get lunch?

    What I’ll do, in return for the impending lunch, is to give you full credit for question 3. That is very far from a passing grade, so you flunk the exam anyway; but you can stay on for the second term of the class. OK?

    *********

    [EDITOR’S NOTE: A copy of a police complaint is attached to this audio tape, saying that the Seven Caesars did not serve herring and warm potatoes that day; so Mr. Buckley took head cheese instead, thinking it was a dairy product. He fainted at the sight of it and was hospitalized for a day.

    After downing the whole meal, including Mr. Buckley’s order, jeswezey said he felt ill and went to the bathroom. It is not known if he returned the head cheese to the national trust. What is certain is that he climbed out the bathroom window and ran for it, skipping out on the check.

    He was last seen fleeing the stiffed waiter down 53rd Street in Manhattan. The waiter was too hampered by the tray of Champagne glasses he was carrying to catch up with Mr. jes, who was not known to be athletic, but the problem was, the waiter had to fend his way through the crowd of people reaching for the Dom Pérignon…. Well, you get the picture: Mr. jes shook the waiter and was never seen again.

    Never, that is, until 37 years later when someone of the same name re-surfaced at a site called HillaryIs44. Other bloggers at the site have informed us that the jeswezey in question now lives in the EU, happily governed by a flock of technocrats, which fits the description Mr. Buckley gave of him that fateful day from his hospital bed:

    “That guy [jeswezey] is a fucking WHACKJOB!”

    The Seven Caesars closed in 1988. No charges have ever been filed against Mr. jes, but the stiffed waiter, now in 91 years old, would like to get in touch with him and collect his tip from the meal, because his insurer won’t pay his medical bills any more. He never applied for Medicare because its “gummint invasion of privacy — socialism!”, and hopes Mr. jes will understand and fork over the dough he owes him.]

  161. Just one thing I would like to point out about the story I just posted at January 27, 2015 at 7:38 am. It is:

    Though the evidence is overwhelming that this so-called “jeswezey” named throughout the leaked story is me, IT IS NOT.

    First of all, while it is true that I could very well have said all the things this “Mr. jes” said to Mr. Buckley, I never met Mr. Buckley in my life.

    It is also true that I have been known to bribe someone for a few minutes of his time by inviting them to a restaurant. But not to someone I never even met!

    I also went to the Seven Caesars upon several occasions around that time period — but not that time, not with some phantom guest I had never met!

    I have also been known to wolf down somebody else’s meal or eat their leftovers. But I insist I was not there and would not do it in a high-class restaurant. McDonald’s maybe, but the Seven Caesars? Some manners, please. You had to wear tie and jacket to get in there.

    Finally and most importantly, I have never, ever in my life ordered head cheese, because the very sight of it makes me vomit, as it almost did to Mr. Buckley — who apparently had an empty stomach, so he couldn’t vomit anything anyway — but I would at least have forewarned him that it wasn’t a dairy product. I mean, I have that much courtesy in me, even when I invite a vile anti-socialist conservative to a meal.

    And how about this crazy suspicion that, after eating the head cheese plus two meals, which were probably delicious, I would have gone to the bathroom and selectively vomited the head cheese? Come on, that’s not even possible, physiologically!

    About skipping out on the bill:

    I did do that once, at a French restaurant on 57th street; but I was with two friends; we were dissatisfied with the service and the cuisine; and all three of us together didn’t have enough money to pay the whopping check. We ran down the street and nobody followed us. But if the waiter had come running, I’m honest enough that I would have stopped and at least given him his tip. Besides, we had a waitress, she was attractive, I would have asked her out on a date — in another restaurant!

    Which gives me an idea: One of those two friends who escaped with me was French = XG. Knowing XG and his linguistic activities in New York, he would be just the type to attend debating classes with the articulate William Buckley, give my name as a cover, and invite him to a high-class restaurant on my nickel.

    Furthermore, though I didn’t know his political opinions at the time, I still know him now and our opinions are quite similar. He lives in Annecy (France), a few hundred yards from the Swiss border (not EU, but Switzerland is known for other qualities).

    Iirc, XG likes head cheese. Also, XG was the first to run out of the French restaurant on 57th. He had a girlfriend at the time and wasn’t interested in the waitress. Also, XG hates Champagne.

    XG has a lot of money now. I’ll call him to ask if he wants to come clean now after these 45 years, and give the poor waiter his tip.

    But anyway, Buckley had money too. He should have volunteered to pay the restaurant, because I know he went often to the Seven Seasons, and he could have tipped the waiter too. But you know these conservatives: all worn-out principles and no heart.

    Incidentally, there is a note in wbboei’s handwriting stapled to the police investigation. It reads, “Buckley never mentioned this third ‘Technocrats’ bullshit in class and never said it in public. It has to be Harvard or Brooklyn, nothing else will do.”

  162. Shadow, I’m jealous. It didn’t work out for me to go to Denver, but I was so proud of the Hillary supporters who went to support her and to protest The Fraud’s coronation as nominee. There is still lots of unfinished business from 2008, and unless Hillary runs again, for many of us it will remain unfinished. Like you said in an earlier post, if Hillary decides to run, she will be treated like shit by media and the Republicans as well as the Obama-dims. If she decides not to run, it will be understandable. But, I really hope she does – for several reasons.

    Jes, wow! What a post! I would say something else but for once, I’m speechless.

  163. freespirit
    January 26, 2015 at 10:59 am

    foxy, that horse left the barn long before O was interviewed by GloZell. He has made a fool of himself on a daily basis since election,

    _______________

    Well said Free. 😀

  164. Currently at foxnews dot com:
    HOUSE SELECT COMMITTEE ON BENGHAZI HOLDS HEARING. Launch live player.

    Dow:
    minus 388 dot 46
    —————
    Berghdahl. Wonder if news will report with background?

    [I’ve just begun reading Sharyl’s Stonewalled]

  165. wbboei January 26, 2015 at 3:51 pm

    You claim to be a progressive, but I doubt that your realize what a progressive really is, what motivates them, how often they have been wrong, and how they pose a clear and present danger to the liberty and security of the American People.

    Look, I’m asking you to bypass the labels and get down to facts and theories, because I don’t know what you mean by all these labels, and they’re of no use anyway, especially if you want me to attach a given label to people who “pose a clear and present danger to the liberty and security of the American People.” If that’s the case, then we’ll get together a posse and shoot them down. Or send the National Guard under the orders of the governors.

    Now, you’re sticking one of your labels on me, by putting words in my mouth, with “You claim to be a progressive.”

    I have been defending progressives, yes. But I have also defended John McCain, Mitt Romney, Michele Bachmann and Hillary Clinton in my time, therefore people whom you probably consider to be conservatives, or “populist” if you think HRC was that in 2008. But I have never assumed any such label as “progressive” for myself.

    The only label I have ever assumed is “socialist”, because people know what that means in Europe, and that’s because Europe gets to define what “socialist” means since, aside from Israel, Japan and now Chile, Europe is the only socialized zone on the planet. Maybe the Chinese would say they are socialist, but they’re not up to snuff yet.

    I know that “socialist” is misunderstood in the US and is a buzzword for decaying Europe and un-American activity. I’m comfortable with that because I have no political aspirations or even a life to defend in the US.

    But if you therefore think that I am “a clear and present danger to the liberty and security of the American People,” I’m afraid you’re going to have a lot of explaining to do to me on that count.

  166. Shadowfax January 26, 2015 at 5:10 pm

    Thanks for the link. Note that the article is topped by “big-tent mentality” and ’good cop’ for the press.

    I’ll be interested to see how she makes the press into a “good cop”. I mean, she can’t influence the questions, the misquotes, misconstrued sound bites, or the tone of articles from Hillary haters, for example, so how does she make a “good cop” out of the press?

    There is a strong traditional focus in some press & media organs on everything that can be turned into negative spin about HRC. There is a corresponding hatred of the media by HRC herself. She can change her own attitude; but she can’t control the media. “Good cop”? Not so fast…. What can this Jennifer Palmieri do, really? Does she have some magic wand? Big job.

    What they do say in addition to this Pamieri babe is that HRC “got largely favorable coverage a secretary of state and experienced a press corps that she considered more substantive and less sensational.” But how is that press corps going to translate into national coverage? They offer five other people mostly from the Obama orbit who might be called on board, in addition to Reines, who has a reputation of answering reporters questions with a chip on his shoulder.

    Pittance to the left: Robert Reich??

    One look at the possible VPs tells me something:

    Julian Castro
    Tom Perez
    Cory Booker (yay!)
    Kamala Harris

    What I see is that the only candidate from the legislative branch is Booker, and all of his experience is executive (mayor of Newark). Harris is a AG of California and Castro and Perez are secretaries, which is an unusual source of presidential (= VP) timber because they don’t have any coattails to speak of. Harris might be better as AG, but I think HRC will nominate Cheryl Mills for that job. So, HRC’s VP options are not taken from the ordinary pool of governors and senators. She’s looking for executives from outside the ordinary pool.

    Anyway, the article ends with the phrase that I hoped the entire article would be about: “… the next critical task: developing her message.” Indeed, I wish I could help with that.

  167. freespirit January 26, 2015 at 5:31 pm

    Re: progressive vilifying individualism, this is most overt in academia.

    OK, thanks for the explanation.

    (1) Rrom the examples you give, I would say “vilify” is probably too strong or misleading. I think one could see in the historical analysis I gave the other day that I was tending to “downplay” individualism, because I was saying that individualism as the Founders saw it in their time had changed because the collective interest, which they were indeed provided for, has evolved greatly since then (industrialization, freeing the slaves, rise of women, foreign wars, appearance of poverty and great riches,… …) and the individual’s elbow room has shrunk in response.

    (2) Thus, today, individuals must band together, both through government and NGOs, to effect changes that are viewed as necessary for the common good. Nobody can spend their time in autarky on a self-sufficient farm, like the population of the Founder’s Day.

    (3) If the goals and principles of these collective efforts are viewed as progressive, then I’ll accept that label for that. But in that case, what does something like “Conservative” mean? (a) Does it just mean “No”? (b) Does it mean some other set of ideals or programs? (c) Or does it just mean “restraint”, as Clint Eastwood claimed before the 2012 Republican Convention? In the latter case, we would have such a thing as “Conservative Progressives” and “Assertive Progressives”. I have not seen anything that could be defined as (b) a set of conservative programs to supplant the progressive ones.

    (4) Assuming then that we have a known progressive agenda, programs will be developed from them that may not be well conceived. One example of that is Affirmative Action, which I described to Shadowfax yesterday as something that was ill-conceived and should be abolished. But eliminating that faulty program would not mean the goal itself — that is, of reaching an equitable balance of races in higher education — is nefarious or a danger to the Republic and should be dropped. On the contrary, all it means is that another “progressive” agenda is needed to achieve that goal.

    (5) If, in the execution of a faulty program like Affirmative Action, the government does not revamp the program but persists or increases its demands, or exceeds its constitutional limits, then we can speak of a danger to the Republic.

    Perhaps (5) is what is happening now. Perhaps that is why we are all up in arms about the “progressives”, executive overreach and the fall of individualism.

    But if you sit back and think about it, which I have the privilege of doing this week, the progressives are not harming the country, and their ideals and goals even less so. Because the progressives themselves are not the ones persisting or increasing their demands; it’s the government. The program is in need of revamping or repeal; but it is up to the “progressives” to find a new approach. And the supposedly higher education of the progressives is not a drawback in this process, but an advantage.

    HRC has and will have new ideas that can only be labeled “progressive”. As she expresses these ideas, I’m ready to explain them on this forum. And it’s not because HRC is highly educated and rich that she is not aware of happening on Main Street from which she comes. She will hopefully be the “Candidate of Wall Street”, but remember she said to Wall Street, “We’re all in this together.” “We’re all” clearly means:

    Wall Street + Main Street + Team Hillary

    I am definitely not going to try to bring HRC down by labeling her a “progressive” or judge her by whether or not she is “populist” enough for my taste. At that point, we’re just throwing around meaningless labels.

  168. jeswezey

    You know how to tell a good yarn.

    I can envision you in a decade or two, sitting on the porch of the neighborhood market, entertaining the old men of town.

    Stories about Hillaryis44, old times in America and all the fancy restaurants you left in the dust.

  169. freespirit
    January 27, 2015 at 9:34 am

    Shadow, I’m jealous. It didn’t work out for me to go to Denver…

    ——-
    Hey Free, we might have a second chance. Maybe if Hillary runs and wins, we can join some Hillaryis44 folks and all celebrate together?

    Admin, are you up for it? We would have to make up some pink Hillaryis44 t-shirts to wear with a huge photo of ‘Hillary in the rain’.

  170. Gonzotx

    ….You many be 90% opposed to Shawdow, but I think I am 160…

    ——-
    When it comes to Hillary, I agree.

    Many other topics…not so far apart.

  171. freespirit January 27, 2015 at 9:34 am

    Jes, wow! What a post! I would say something else but for once, I’m speechless.

    Glad you liked it, it was meant to be thought-inspiring and funny at the same time.

    If you can get your tongue back, here’s some suggestions:

    (1) Guess which parts of the news release are for real and which are faked.

    (2) Guess which parts of the comment immediately following it and faked, and which are real.

    (3) Guess what my profession is. (Screenwriter?)

    (4) Tell me what you think of my expression of individuality in the talk with Buckley.

    (5) Tell me what you think of my idea of being governed by 2000 technocrats, as opposed to Harvard and/or Booklyn. (Mind you, my idea, like Buckley’s, is to replace the legislative branch and nothing else.)

  172. Gonzotx

    Wbboei: You many be 90% opposed to Shawdow, but I think I am 160…

    Shadowfax January 27, 2015 at 1:02 pm

    When it comes to Hillary, I agree.
    Many other topics…not so far apart.

    I see the angle idea is catching. Of course, you are at different angles on different subjects. But these angles also change over time and by debate.

    I don’t know where to place my HRC angle with respect to wbboei right now; but I’m trying my damnedest to bring him around to 0° with himself, i.e. as he was in 2008.

    He says he was not “heavy artillery” in 2008, but a “footsoldier”. OK for the footsoldier bit, but I’d like him to be a join the footsoldier ranks again going forward.

    And the same goes for gonzotx. I’m pulling for her too.

  173. Shadowfax January 27, 2015 at 12:50 pm

    You know how to tell a good yarn.

    I can envision you in a decade or two, sitting on the porch of the neighborhood market, entertaining the old men of town.

    Then try your hand at the questions to freespirit at 1:04 pm, starting with question (3).

    Glad you read it and liked it. That should already give you a hint to (3). I’ve given hints before, though.

    Hey, why would I entertain only “the old men”? How about the chicks? And the young’uns?

  174. Shadowfax:

    Please go back, read and comment on my remarks to freespirit at “jeswezey January 27, 2015 at 12:30 pm”, because I’m sure you can enlighten us on this matter of a new kind of individualism expressed by Sartre.

    I didn’t read much Sartre, but I remember he was a member of the Communist Party (PCF) and expressed a new form of individual as “engagement”. The individual is worth nothing unless “engaged”.

    Could you enlighten me/us on that? Pretty please?

  175. Sartre was a total downer, more like let me kill myself before I finish reading this…

    I am more of a Kafka fan, always was.

    When reading your story, I thought it was pretty clear what was real since ideas would pop up out of ‘nowhere’ (which were from somewhere).

    No time to go back and answer all your questions, I am working and also sneaking a listen to the hearings in the background.

    I don’t envision you entertaining the ladies on the market stoop, too many tangents going off into mankind-like-weeds. 😉

  176. It seems to be over……Not one pundit or journo is now predicting any challenge to Hillary.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/01/27/hillary_stands_alone_125403.html

    Hillary Stands Alone

    WASHINGTON — And now for a look at the Democratic presidential field for 2016 — hey, hold on, where’d everybody go?

    All right, at the moment there’s little suspense. Make that no suspense. If Hillary Clinton wants the nomination — and there’s no indication to the contrary — she can have it. Winning the general election is another story, but the Republican Party seems willing to be more of an aid than an impediment.

    I’ve been in the minority that believed Clinton had made no final decision about running, but I’m switching to the majority view. If she were going to step aside, party loyalty would dictate she should have done so by now so that other Democratic contenders could begin to assemble campaign teams, court donors and introduce themselves to the nation. Instead, Clinton continues to draw away all the political oxygen.

    In the primaries, she faces just one significant — and familiar — opponent: her own inevitability. This year, however, already differs from the 2008 cycle in important ways.

    The last time Clinton was expected to cruise to the nomination, it was clear at this point that a charismatic young challenger was days away from announcing an insurgent candidacy. It did not seem terribly likely that Barack Obama, then a first-term U.S. senator, could defeat the Clinton machine. But it did not seem impossible.

    This time, the only plausible figure who could fill the Obama role — Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts — firmly denies she is running. More to the point, she has done nothing to put together a campaign apparatus. If Clinton somehow falters, one must assume all bets are off. For now, however, Warren seems content to use her standing with the party’s progressive wing to muscle Clinton toward more populist positions on economic issues.

    As for other challengers, well, let’s be real. Vice President Biden says he might run, but he’s no Obama. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont is not going to win the nomination, and neither is former Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia. Realistically, former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley’s candidacy is more about putting himself in the running for vice president.

    And remember how Obama won — not just with soaring rhetoric but with a smart, well-executed strategy for ambushing the Clinton campaign, especially in caucus states, and building an insurmountable lead in convention delegates. If this is allowed to happen again, Clinton doesn’t deserve to be president.

    Would a dearth of competition in the primaries leave Clinton untested and untempered for battle against a Republican opponent who presumably will be in midseason form? I’d like to meet the politician who would rather endure a hard-fought campaign against a dangerous foe than cruise to nomination virtually unopposed. And Clinton, after a life in politics, is nothing if not experienced. She knows how to do this.

    A recent Washington Post poll showed Clinton with a commanding advantage over a number of potential Republican opponents. She leads New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie by 53 percent to 40 percent; former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush by 54 percent to 41 percent; Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul by 54 percent to 41 percent; 2012 GOP candidate Mitt Romney by 55 percent to 40 percent; and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee by a yawning 56 percent to 39 percent.

    Of course, those are just five of the many potential candidates for the GOP nomination. Florida Sen. Marco Rubio seems relevant again, or at least not irrelevant. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker is still generating lots of buzz. Neurosurgeon Ben Carson, a political novice, is actually putting together a campaign. Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry is asking for another chance, while Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal is straining to be heard. South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham has formed an exploratory committee. And does anybody doubt that Texas Sen. Ted Cruz is planning some sort of grand entrance, perhaps via golden chariot?

    At this rate, they’ll have to hold the Republican primary debates in shifts.

    The Democratic Party’s message — which Clinton is free to choose and hone — should be clear and focused, pretty much from the day she makes her candidacy official. The GOP message, on the other hand, will be in flux. Will it include Huckabee’s anti-Beyonce stance? Bush’s views on education? Paul’s skepticism about the use of U.S. military power? Graham’s eager hawkishness? On immigration, does Romney still believe in “self-deportation”? Does Rubio still support his own reform bill?

    You have to admit, Clinton has handled this whole pre-campaign period quite well. Her silence, so far, has been golden.

    ————–

    Democrats seem to have cleared the field completely, no appetite for any challenge

  177. Moon

    …This time, the only plausible figure who could fill the Obama role — Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts — firmly denies she is running. More to the point, she has done nothing to put together a campaign apparatus. If Clinton somehow falters, one must assume all bets are off. For now, however, Warren seems content to use her standing with the party’s progressive wing to muscle Clinton toward more populist positions on economic issues.

    —–

    I would love to see AlmostOneDrop toss her entire headdress of feathers into the ring.

    It would be like bringing a tambourine to a gun fight.

    Come on Featherhead, announce you are running. Try to gather up all the Kooks you can to sing your praises.

    Let’s see some debates against Hillary.

    Someone bring the big hook to the debates.

  178. Oh Admin…………….

    You should be happy to hear Hillary is on the same page as Big Pink.

    —-

    Hillary Clinton Has Been M.I.A. Lately — and Here’s Why

    (WASHINGTON) — At a time when many potential 2016 presidential contenders appear to be starting the ignition of their campaigns, Hillary Clinton has pressed the brake pedal.

    Or so it seems.

    Clinton’s calendar, which was jam-packed throughout most of last year with paid speeches, award ceremonies, fundraisers, book tour stops, campaign appearances and official Clinton Foundation business, is now virtually empty.

    Over the past six weeks, the likely Democratic presidential candidate has made just two public appearances — both on the same day, and both in Canada. She doesn’t have another event scheduled until late next month.

    Although Clinton still insists she hasn’t decided whether she’ll run, it is widely believed that she will, and an announcement is expected this spring.

    Until then, Clinton appears to be lying low and staying out of the public eye. Meanwhile, much of the focus has turned toward potential Republican candidates like Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush and Rand Paul. A dozen others tested out their possible stump speeches at a summit in Iowa last weekend.

    A Clinton spokesman declined to comment on reasons for her light public schedule. But, according to Democratic strategists and Clinton insiders, this is exactly how it should be.

    http://www.kmbz.com/Hillary-Clinton-Has-Been-M-I-A-Lately-and-Here-s-W/20791152

  179. Shadowfax…best way to do it…..

    Sit back, rest, make your self less tired, get a big makeover, let the others duke it out when you don’t need to.

    Hillary will arrive when she’s damn good and ready.

    Think of it as Rocky preparing for the big fight, you hide away, train, build up your muscle then knock the shit out of them all.

  180. Moon

    Hillary will arrive when she’s damn good and ready.

    ——–
    Yeah Moon, this isn’t her first rodeo.

    If no one substantial steps in to oppose her in the primary, she will be focusing more on beating the pants off of the GOP with hopefully a turn to the middle.

    If she ends up against Shrub3, she at least won’t be fighting with the extreme right candidate, which also might mean that unless Jeb hooks up with a VP choice from the far right…many Repubs won’t go to the polls.

  181. S

    chilling…ISIS makes a direct threat on O and says they will transform American into a Muslim province

    ——-
    Let’s see if Obola responds to this threat.

  182. “chilling…ISIS makes a direct threat on O…”
    ****
    I’m surprised that ISIS hasn’t issued a Fatwa calling for Obama’s death as an apostate. His father was a Muslim, therefor his children are Muslim and Obama says he is Christian.

  183. In an email from Ready4Hillary

    Sarah Palin inadvertently gave herself a new title — Co-Chair of Ready for Hillary’s National Finance Council!

    Yesterday, we sent an email to our supporters telling you how Sarah Palin held up a Ready for Hillary car magnet during a recent speech.

    The response we got was overwhelming — hundreds of supporters stepped up and Sarah ended up raising Ready for Hillary over $25,000 in grassroots donations.

    Here’s the kicker — by raising $25,000, Sarah officially qualifies as a Co-Chair of our National Finance Council.

    (We will wait until Sarah calls before officially adding her name to the list.)

  184. jes, whatever you choose to call the far-left, anti-white, anti-anything associated with traditional American values, very much anti-conservative, pretty much anti-states rights – you get the pic – these are the people to whom I was referring as “progressives”. Now mind you, I didn’t look up the term in the Progressives -R -Us handbook, so you might find another term for them more appropriate.

    You’re mistaken if you think they are doing no harm. Only harm can come from attempting to create racial strife or discouraging respect for the basic legal framework upon which the country is based. If you see no problem, for example, with the public education system attempting to manipulate the minds of school-age children encouraging them to embrace a more liberal ideology – or any ideology – I really have nothing else to say about the issue. Anyone with school-age children knows that’s happening in our public schools.

    Case in point: A friend of mine has a 6th grade girl. When talking with this child recently I asked how she was doing – just making small talk. She replied that she was unhappy because she was “too white”. I assumed she was talking about the fact that she looked better with a tan, and that in the dead of winter, her summer tan had faded. I was wrong. The sixth grade classes in her school had viewed a film called “Black White, Black White” (title may be slightly off, but close). The film was about white racism against blacks in the 1950s and 60s, and was fairly detailed and graphic from my understanding. No info was presented about the efforts of whites and blacks to end racism and ensure civil rights of blacks, according to this child’s account.

    Obviously, we cannot deny the fact that racism occurred that it was wrong. But failure to give credit for efforts to right that wrong amounts to little more than propaganda to encourage racial strife. Now, my guess is that a conservative did not make this film. Nor did a more moderate Dim or Republican. If so, I believe the story would have been more balanced. I believe the film was made by a far-left, radical liberal individual or group – a group I would label “progressive”.

    I hope this adequately responds to some of the points you made in your response to my post. I think we’ve pretty well covered this topic, and I probably won’t respond again on this subject,. Debate based on semantics, parsing words, and analyzing minutia just requires more time than I can devote to this discussion.

  185. This time, the only plausible figure who could fill the Obama role
    —————
    Are you forgetting the First Dog—the Portuguese Water Dog?

    No. He cannot play basketball.

    But he knows more about foreign affairs than Obama.

    I would say he could fill Obama’s role rather easily.

  186. I don’t know where to place my HRC angle with respect to wbboei right now; but I’m trying my damnedest to bring him around to 0° with himself, i.e. as he was in 2008.

    He says he was not “heavy artillery” in 2008, but a “footsoldier”. OK for the footsoldier bit, but I’d like him to be a join the footsoldier ranks again going forward.

    —————
    You have the skill and perseverance of Bill Clinton.

    I would say there 0 degrees difference between you and him.

    Course you understand, I am just a’guess’n.

    The life that loves the valley is lonely on the hills.

  187. We should ask Holder whether the leader of ISIS is a racist?

    Obviously he is too cowardly to have an honest discussion about that.

    For him, racists come in only one skin color–white.

    And everyone else is too scarred by the legacy of slavery

    To be accountable for their actions

    And if they try to kill policeman and get killed in the process

    Then they are not thugs, but victims.

  188. jeswezey
    January 27, 2015 at 10:52 am
    wbboei January 26, 2015 at 3:51 pm

    Look, I’m asking you to bypass the labels and get down to facts and theories, because I don’t know what you mean by all these labels, and they’re of no use anyway, especially if you want me to attach a given label to people who “pose a clear and present danger to the liberty and security of the American People.
    ————-
    I have given you a definition of progressive: A progressive is someone who wants to take decision making out of the hands of the American People (where Madison put it) and place that power in the hands of an intellectual class who is presumed to know better than we do what is good for us (as we saw with the Bolsheviks). This pertains to the public life and the private life as well. From who governs this nation, to what policies they pursue, to what we eat for breakfast. The justification for this conviction and overreach is always the same– social justice, as they define it. Camus was forthcoming on this point when he said “the welfare humanity is always the alibi of tyrants”. They are citizens of the world, more so than patriots of this nation.

    The two interviews I posted by Tom Sowell explain in haec verba how they operate and the damage they have done to this nation. Their approach to race is one of many examples (See The Vision of the Annointed). This is why I asked you twice to review them and give me your reaction. Progressives have conflated the word liberal with the word progressive. I differ. I draw a clear distinction between liberals and these people. With respect to liberals I would say what Goethe said namely that the eternal feminine moves us forward. They have their roots in heaven, whereas progressives, with all their mind control, censorship, attacks on privacy, and divine right of kings outlook etc. have their roots in a very different place.

  189. Obama preached ‘hope’ and the ignoranti bought it. Only now do we learn the meaning of the word hope as he uses it. Hope is false optimism to disguise oriental fatalism and a earnest desire to be seated when the music stops. Rather than re-examining failed policies, the progressive mind doubles down on them because he cannot afford to admit he was wrong. There is no class at Harvard that teaches those spoiled and pampered pets of the elite class the difference between their ass and third base. But there is one class worth three credits on how to eat caviar without spilling it in your lap. That course is mandatory.

  190. Shadowfax January 27, 2015 at 2:59 pm

    Sartre was a total downer, more like let me kill myself before I finish reading this…

    LMAO !! That’s exactly why I didn’t read much Sartre! But I thought that you might have been forced to, as a philo major. I was also a big Kafka fan, but he didn’t produce any direct philosophy stuff, did he? It was more like the general tenor of his work.

    Anyway, Sartre was a founding member of the socialist newspaper “Liberation” (the communist rag “L’Humanité” already existed for decades, which felt like centuries to me), and I do remember some public statements of his to the effect that life has no meaning unless you are “engaged”, or the individual is a zombie unless he commits himself (or herself, in the case of Beauvoir) to the worthy cause, which cause, for Sartre, flew the red flag.

    There were many who sported the black flag of Anarchy in his day, expressing much the same view of individualism as this jeswezey guy did to Buckley. Funny thing was, as this Buckley guy noted, the black and reg flags marched side by side in parades and demonstrations, in May 1968 and on May 10, 1981 (Mitterrand’s election). Mitterrand was later to blow them both out of the water, and the labor unions along with them.

    That’s one big reason why I thought Mitterrand was the best president France ever had. The other was that I met the motherfucker and his cohorts in 1973 and felt the “death kiss” coming long before it came; and my knowledge of his inner circle was what got me asset status with the CIA 2 years later. I had wanted to work for the CIA since 1970, but they never did accept me as an operative. I think they saw me as an expatriate commie-lover, and wanted to keep me at “arm’s length”.

    I figured you or any attentive reader would figure out what was real and what was faked in those posts. But there were details that were real and details that were faked. For example, my disgust for head cheese is real, but the sight of it does nothing to me. I did try it once, didn’t like it but didn’t vomit either. It’s just the knowledge of what it is that disgusts me: cartilage of pig’s noses and and ears, plus a little meat and fat. Ugh. But it is nonetheless true that some people have taken it for a dairy product, ordered it, and then sent it back to the kitchen.

    What I hoped you and freespirit would do is to take a stab at my profession. I’ll mention that in my upcoming post about women in the economy anyway; but I’ll give you another hint: My profession is a woman’s profession par excellence, dominated 5-to-1 by women, and they make as much money in it as the men do. Also, it’s not prostitution, any more than any other legitimate profession is — although to a true individualist, you are prostituting yourself by working for someone else!

  191. Shadowfax January 27, 2015 at 4:38 pm

    “Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts firmly denies she is running.”

    I would love to see AlmostOneDrop toss her entire headdress of feathers into the ring.
    It would be like bringing a tambourine to a gun fight….

    ROTFLMAO !!!! rotflmao !!!! … …. !!!! !!: take me to the hospital, my soulmate, my heart has given out …..

  192. “Sarah Palin held up a Ready for Hillary car magnet during a recent speech…. hundreds of supporters stepped up and Sarah ended up raising Ready for Hillary over $25,000 in grassroots donations.”

    Well, if this was intentional, it’s really a very, very big deal.

    If not, it’s an extrapolation of what I’ve already noticed about Palin: She has a strong posture and some good comments to make, but she’s a lousy public speaker, even when her remarks are prepared. I think she’s goof-prone, a little like Biden but not as funny.

  193. to all: happy to see your excitement as HRC’s campaign begins signalling. Meantime there is this anniversary I cannot leave unattended.
    —————————————
    Thirty years ago, 45 of the biggest (and most diverse) names in American pop music came together on Jan. 28 to record a song with one purpose: ending famine in Africa. [from the title “We Are the World” on Its 30th Anniversary: 5 Things to Know. People Magazine]
    The song was called “We Are the World” and megastars like Michael Jackson, Tina Turner, Bob Dylan, Cyndi Lauper, Willie Nelson, Ray Charles, Stevie Wonder, Bruce Springsteen, and many more gathered together to record the track in one legendary night.
    “We Are the World” sold over 20 million copies and won numerous awards, including three Grammys – but the most important number is the money it raised: an unprecedented $63 million for humanitarian aid.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2W4-0qUdHY

    This is what real Americans managed to do without you, POTUS, POUTUS.
    BTW. Barack Obama … Michelle Robinson exactly what were YOU doing 30 years ago today? It would be 8 more years until you married.

  194. Glad you posted this hold’em. It’s frustrating to see how racially divisive America’s first Selected half-black president has been.

  195. jes

    I was also a big Kafka fan, but he didn’t produce any direct philosophy stuff, did he? It was more like the general tenor of his work.

    —–
    He didn’t profess to being a philosopher, however, my major specifically was the Philosophy of Literature. The graduate classes I took were concentrating on one person per semester. Kafka had his own semester, Freud had his own semester…etc.
    The undergrad classes deal with the big topics and lump many in to the same group, existentialists, religion…bla, bla, bla. Sartre didn’t have his own semester class, if that tells you anything…plus I wouldn’t have taken it if he did.

  196. I think they saw me as an expatriate commie-lover, and wanted to keep me at “arm’s length”.

    ——
    Sounds like a couple of people on Big Pink… 😉

  197. Bergdahl is going to get a lighter sentence, WE putting pressure on military.
    Such BS. Six men died, died for this traitor, many more could have as he walked off his post, as sentinel, that night. Asswipe…
    He will get time served and “less than ” honorable D/C…
    He is up the road from me in San Antonio. ..surprised no one has seen to his having an accident.
    Military Brass are morally corrupt.This would happen in a Patton Army tribunal. .

  198. wbboei January 28, 2015 at 12:33 am

    A progressive is someone who wants to take decision making out of the hands of the American People (where Madison put it) and place that power in the hands of an intellectual class who is presumed to know better than we do what is good for us (as we saw with the Bolsheviks)….

    OK, please listen: I’m getting edgy about this “debate”. I would like to settle it and get on with the discussion. I think I have found a way that I can accept your definition and at the same time show you that there is no evidence of HRC ever having been a “Progressive” and no reason to suspect that she will ever become one.

    We can overcome this problem, to my mind, by looking at how our vocabulary is constructed, i.e., the difference between names, labels and ordinary words.

    Names are for legal entities like the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, Liberal and Independent Party (New York), Socialist or Communist Party, and so forth. Such names are capitalized, that is, first letter caps, just like companies — General Electric, General Motors, Ford, Goldman Sachs….

    Such entities are represented by executives and officers and staffed by personnel, all of whom can be referred to under the generic Name.

    Labels, on the other hand, are ordinary words used to describe nebulous groups of people and ideas.

    For example, we know what a Democrat is: a member of the Democratic Party, elected or not. But a democrat with a small “d” need not be the member of any party. Same thing for a “republican” — someone who defends republican ideals and the Republic against monarchists and would-be dictators.

    Accordingly, when I identify myself as a “socialist” with a small “s”, I am telling people that I have socialist ideals and concerns, but am not a member of the Socialist Party, which is an existing legal entity. At the same time, I will say that I am both democratic and republican, because of my democratic posture and because I defend republican ideals, incidentally living in a Republic, with a capital letter because it can be identified.

    Now, what I would like to suggest is that we distinguish between “Progressive”, “progressive” and “populist”. But most of all, between “Progressive” and “progressive”.

    First of all, “populist” and “progressive” are ordinary words you can find in the dictionary. When you use them to describe a person or group of people, they are a label that is nebulous, because you have to have your own idea of what a populist or progressive idea is, and then weigh the viewpoint of the speaker you are listening to, and of those who are listening to the speaker. This can get pretty hairy.

    I’m going to haggle over “populist” just now. There was once a Populist Party and Populist Agenda, but that was a long time ago and I think we can both refer in the dictionary. “Populist”, along with “left”, “right”, “liberal”, “conservative”, “hard left”, “hard right” and so forth should be left in lower case letters because they are ordinary words of vague meaning in politics, used as labels that don’t really identify anyone.

    A special case is “neoconservative” or “neocon”. I use “neocon” to mean the group that put Dubya & Cheney into power and provided him with his agenda. But actually, I don’t know who these people are. I think they published some books and mag articles, but I don’t think they have established any legal entity; or if they did, I doubt it still exists. I think it was just a group of like-minded people with some pretty lousy ideas that are now deprecated. Personally, I don’t refer to them often but I always take care to use the lower case.

    A propos to our broader discussion, though, I have heard that the “neocons” are eager to support HRC. Also, some Obola supporters have referred to her as “a fucking neocon”. Does that make her a neocon of the Dubya school? I doubt it very much; but then again, there is no reason to believe that HRC is a member of the Progressive school either, or following the Progressive Agenda (which I know nothing about). Quite the contrary.

    This calls for a definition of “Progressive” with a capital, because it has to be distinguished from the ordinary word “progressive” in lower case.

    I think we can do this by pinning “Progressive” on MoveOn.org, which is a legal entity with executive structure, partners, idea contributors mainly from academia and the press, financial contributors (Soros?) — and thus the over-educated intellectuals you disdain — plus millions of “members” connected to its website. It’s a kind of shadow political party or SuperPac. Mainly, it is a legal entity that exists

    MoveOn.org can thus be identified, and, since to my recollection MoveOn.org was the organ that originally assumed the title “Progressive” for itself at the end of the 1990s, propagated that term and produced a set of programs that we could term the Progressive Agenda, replete with ideals and principles and all that, I would be willing to accept your definition with the following tiny alteration:

    A Progressive is someone who wants to take decision making out of the hands of the American People (where Madison put it) and place that power in the hands of an intellectual class who is presumed to know better than we do what is good for us (as we saw with the Bolsheviks).

    With that tiny style change of “progressive” to “Progressive”, and understanding “Progressive” to be MoveOn.org and any emanations of it, I am ready to accept your definition and move on with the debate.

    On the other hand, I insist that the opprobrium be removed from the ordinary word “progressive” in the lower case.

    Ideals, ideas and programs can be termed “progressive” if they fit with the dictionary definition of the word:

    1. favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, especially in political matters: “a progressive mayor”
    2. making progress toward better conditions; employing or advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods: “a progressive community”.
    3. Characterized by such progress, or by continuous improvement.
    4. (initial capital letter) of or relating to any of the Progressive parties in politics.
    5. Going forward or onward; passing successively from one member of a series to the next; proceeding step by step.
    6. Noting or pertaining to a form of taxation in which the rate increases with certain increases in taxable income.
    7. Of or relating to progressive education: “progressive schools.
    8. [grammatical usage]
    9. [medical usage]
    10. (noun) a person who is progressive or who favors progress or reform, especially in political matters.
    11. (initial capital letter) a member of a Progressive party.

    As you can see in these definitions, two of them (4 and 11) expressly state that “Progressive” — with a capital — refers to a political party or a member of it; and though MoveOn.org is not exactly a political party, it is very close to being one. The least that can be said is that it is an existing entity with backers, leadership, membership and wants to influence or control policy.

    The rest of the definitions all point to definition 10, which was the one HRC used in 2007 when she said “I view myself to be a modern progressive” in answer to a journalist’s question about whether she was “liberal” or “conservative”. She said nothing about “conservative”, but did a quick history of the “liberal” label since the early 20th century, saying it no longer meant what it used to, and called herself a “progressive.”

    Nobody at the time — and this apparently includes you — thought this meant “Progressive.” Whether or not her proposals fit the Progressive Agenda, the Progressives were throwing all the weight they could against HRC.

    I know this because I connected to MoveOn.org for 3 weeks. Actually, it was only about 10 days, because it took me 2 weeks to disconnect from it. They wouldn’t let me go.

    If you accept my little change to your definition, I can say in return that I think your vilification of these supercilious, disingenuous bimbos who think too much of themselves is spot-on. While I was connected, I got nothing but sling, slant and spin in favor of Obama, and sling, slant and spin against HRC. That’s why I tried so desperately to disconnect. It wasn’t that they favored one over the other, but the whole filthy toilet bowl of their style.

    I didn’t have time to see anything of their Agenda, but if anything in it aligned with what HRC was saying, it was purely coincidental. And so it will be going forward.

    HRC is not taking her ideas from the Progressives. She has her own ideas and agenda. They are therefore “progressive” but not “Progressive”. Besides her not caring about the Progressives, the Progressives return the favor: They don’t care about her either and want Featherhead to give her a rough time.

    Remember, MoveOn.org dates from just after the Lewinsky scandal. They have no love for the Clintons.

    As to the allegation of your definition, that the Progressives are a clear and present danger to the country, I won’t defend them a bit. I just hope, for the country’s sake, that your exaggerating. In any event, you needn’t fear HRC ever becoming a Progressive.

    As to “populist”, we can talk about that next time, OK?

  199. What I hoped you and freespirit would do is to take a stab at my profession.

    —–
    Here’s my first guess…professional editor. (Clue, why you like to go bonkers on my typos.)

  200. holdthemaccountable
    January 28, 2015 at 8:46 am

    Yup, thanks to the Oh gang and their high maintenance puppet, this seems like decades ago that the race war was healing.

  201. jeswezey
    January 28, 2015 at 12:41 pm

    This discussion is based on words and their meaning…besides the political discussion in the sidebar.

    If you aren’t an editor, are you a document writer of some sort?

    I know you aren’t an English teacher, so I am trying to think of how a person that is an editor somehow takes financial risks with multiple businesses and is co-owner of some?

    You’re not a legal secretary because you would think more like Wbb on the law if you were.

  202. moononpluto January 27, 2015 at 4:18 pm

    …they’ll have to hold the Republican primary debates in shifts.

    LMAO!

    Great article, great tongue-in-cheek but spot-on analysis too!

  203. wbboei January 28, 2015 at 12:01 am

    You have the skill and perseverance of Bill Clinton.

    I would say there 0 degrees difference between you and him.

    Wow, I take that as an enormous compliment! (I didn’t understand the rest of the post, though, so maybe this was tongue-in-cheek? Don’t tell me if it was!)

    As for the “perseverance”, though, I think you’re about right: WJC has believed in Hillary’s star since they first met, and I see the same qualities in her that he does.

    And ideologically, there is indeed about 0° difference, ‘cept he’s into the global warming thing and I’m not.

  204. Wow, I take that as an enormous compliment! (I didn’t understand the rest of the post, though, so maybe this was tongue-in-cheek? Don’t tell me if it was!)

    ——
    I agree, best not to know if it’s t-i-c.

  205. Shadowfax January 28, 2015 at 12:44 pm

    my first guess…professional editor. (Clue, why you like to go bonkers on my typos.)

    Not bad! That’s not it, but close enough for a consolation cigar, because editing/proofing and is part of the work, but mainly editing my own work.

    So you followed the clue very well….

    Shadowfax January 28, 2015 at 1:02 pm

    If you aren’t an editor, are you a document writer of some sort?

    Yes, I write; but very few of the documents contain my own ideas. Would you like two cigars for that one?

    I know you aren’t an English teacher, so I am trying to think of how a person that is an editor somehow takes financial risks with multiple businesses and is co-owner of some?

    Very good thinking, but 2 things: I used to be an English teacher long ago (teaching English as a foreign language), in fact it was my only job for a while, and it served as a springboard into my profession.

    “Taking financial risks” is true, but that’s entrepreneurship, not my core profession (though half my income is from dividends). Also, the last business I launched failed miserably and left me penniless. So, I’m not much of an entrepreneur after all.

    But since I was an entrepreneur, you get a third cigar. I hope your not choking….

    You’re not a legal secretary because you would think more like Wbb on the law if you were.

    Well now, that’s pretty good thinking too, because my profession is known as a woman’s profession 5-to-1, as is that of legal secretary.

    But the reason I don’t think like wbboei on law is because US and European law and process are significantly different.

    If you had guessed ‘legal secretary’, I would have given you a fourth cigar (cough, cough). But since you nixed it: no cigar. You have escaped a slow, painful death.

    Here are two other clues:

    (1) The interest or competence you sense in legal matters actually covers many other very diverse fields, like physics, architecture, finance, aviation, navy, marketing, electronics and computer science, nuclear power, luxury products…. the list goes on. It’s not that I’m a genius or anything, but I have to master these fields in my work. A sort of “passive competence”. None of these other fields are discussed on the blog, so you don’t realize it.

    For example, I used to participate on a Yahoo! Astrophysics Forum (now defunct) and people took me for one of the two leading bloggers. I debated with the other one, so they thought of me as some big specialist on the subject. The others were mainly university professors. Me? My Dad gave me a low-power telescope when I was a kid. Aside from that, all I know about astrophysics is what comes across my desk.

    (2) It’s Euro-centric work, practically non-existent in the US or anywhere else — now what does Europe have that is lacking in the US? And that lack is actually an advantage for the US in many respects….

  206. sirmrks January 28, 2015 at 2:11 pm

    jeswezey is not even worth reading. I gave up a long time ago.

    LOL!!

    I agree with you. I reads my posts a coupla times before posting, and I says to myself, I says “Jeez, who’s gonna read this shit? Not me anymore, I’m fed up.”

    So then I do Ctrl X on it, post it and go have a smoke… no trace left on my computer.

    Your posts, on the other hand, are very readable and interesting. I always read them, understand, agree and record them for prosperity, but rarely answer when I agree, just disagreements — Shadowfax says that’s why I’m in hot water so much here.

  207. (2) It’s Euro-centric work, practically non-existent in the US or anywhere else — now what does Europe have that is lacking in the US? And that lack is actually an advantage for the US in many respects….

    —–
    The only thing I can think of that western Europe has is open borders in the EU. The same money system.

    Different languages, governments, and food.

    I have no idea.

  208. Shadowfax January 28, 2015 at 3:11 pm

    The only thing I can think of that western Europe has is open borders in the EU. The same money system.

    Different languages, governments, and food.

    You have no idea??!! But you hit it right on the head — not the profession, but what is plentiful in Europe but lacking in the US!!

    Now you can guess the profession prettily easily, I think.

  209. 1. jeswezey
    January 28, 2015 at 12:41 pm
    wbboei January 28, 2015 at 12:33 am

    OK, please listen: I’m getting edgy about this “debate”
    ———-

    2. jeswezey
    January 28, 2015 at 1:26 pm
    wbboei January 28, 2015 at 12:01 am

    You have the skill and perseverance of Bill Clinton.

    I would say there 0 degrees difference between you and him.

    Wow, I take that as an enormous compliment! (I didn’t understand the rest of the post, though, so maybe this was tongue-in-cheek? Don’t tell me if it was!).

    ———-

    3.jeswezey
    January 28, 2015 at 2:16 pm

    You’re not a legal secretary because you would think more like Wbb on the law if you were.

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

    FIRST: I take that last comment as an enormous compliment as well.

    As you may or may not know, legal secretaries often no more about the law than lawyers, and surely more than law professors.

    Especially when they go on to become community organizers and bamboozle their way to the presidency.

    Legal secretaries, like nurses, are the ones who save their professions from doctors and lawyers.

    Gonzo: care to comment?)

    SECOND, I note if you are not WJC (in which case you had best be careful, because in that case you are complimenting yourself, and we have seen far too much of that from the big media beloved messiah.

    In the alternative, let us stipulate that you are his alter ego.

    And you keep avoiding my request to watch the Sowell interviews posted above and comment. (Why?)

    THIRD, you make an elegant, sustained and exhaustive argument for why Hillary is a progressive, but not a PROGRESSIVE.

    It does not make me edgy, because like Bill O’ I am a “simple man.”

    What I gather from your exegesis is that all comes down to the difference between an adjective and a noun.

    Or, if you prefer, the difference between a democrat and a Democrat.

    Not all democrats are Democrats. Some are Republicans, and some, like me, are independents

    Who like George Bernard Shaw believe that political parties are like every profession a conspiracy against the laity.

    Likewise many Democrats are not democrats–Shellie Silver being one shining example.

    “I seen me opportunities, and I took ’em”

    My solution to the problem is to reject the word progressive altogether.

    Because it provides a convenient disguise for totalitarians.

    This is why I insist on the term liberal, and find myself in agreement in many respects with honest men of the left.

    But if I were a politician, the only vice I have avoided, then I might wish to conflate the two to unite my party.

    Again, the difference I focus on is the difference between Madison and Marx.

    And now, my friend, I need to get back to other business.

  210. wbboei January 28, 2015 at 3:55 pm

    … legal secretaries often no more about the law than lawyers, and surely more than law professors. Especially when they go on to become community organizers and bamboozle their way to the presidency.

    LMAO !!

    “My solution to the problem is to reject the word progressive altogether.”

    At last! Thank you, that’s what I was suggesting before I went into that “elegant, sustained and exhaustive argument” that you seem to have understood very well.

    Now we can get on with the “populist” label, and leave Progressivism to the Progressives — they don’t interest HRC, or me, she will never be a Progressive, and despite the danger you see in them, well, I hope your behaving like a horse: The kind of horse that will charge full tilt into battle without a concern for the arrows and sword flashing around him, but the following day will recoil and rear up at the sight of a mouse…. That is, I think you’ve been making too much of a thing about these Progressives. They will shrink under the weight of Elizabeth Warren’s headdress.

  211. wbboei:

    Oh, there was one other thing:

    “the difference I focus on is the difference between Madison and Marx.”

    My recollections of Madison have faded as concerns anything that might differ significantly from Marx, and my knowledge of Marx was never more than rudimentary anyway: I engaged in heated discussions with Communists and always lost because they were too pigheaded or stupid to think for themselves. Since, I’ve always had a dictate for strongly held widespread ideologies based on unquestionable sources. Like the Bible: the early Protestants had a rough time with the Catholic Church, as you’ll remember.

  212. Mindful of the fact that there are doctors on this site, allow me to modify my comment ever so slightly:

    There are great doctors in this country, no question about that. But a good nurse is better than most young doctors, bad doctors aka quacks, and CDC doctors who take their marching orders from the big media beloved messiah who is the biggest quack of all.

  213. jeswezey
    January 28, 2015 at 4:22 pm

    Now we can get on with the “populist” label,

    ————
    What do you mean me, pale face?

    For the fifth time read and comment on what Sowell has to say.

    And spare me a dissertation on King Catfish and Tobacco Row.

    If you want me to respond further you must prove to me that you have read and digested what Sowell has to say.

    That will give you insight into what a true populist stands for.

    It will also be informative in re. Madison.

  214. OK, OK, then Sowell it is.

    I overlooked those references ’cause I was too consumed with the imminent bloodbath over the Progressives.

    Now I’ll have to go back and find the references again. = about an hour of time that I just don’t have. Could you save me the time and link to the references again? Thanks in advance.

  215. jeswezey
    January 28, 2015 at 4:31 pm

    the early Protestants had a rough time with the Catholic Church, as you’ll remember

    ——————

    Ya think?

  216. And so the bottom line for me is this: the more Hillary says me too to Obama, the more she salts her campaign with his people and the more she invokes the word progressive, the harder it will be for her to position herself as a Roosevelt liberal. The legacy of Obama is one of domestic division, run away bureaucracy, and foreign policy failure writ large. That is not the resume the nation will be looking for in 2016.

  217. jeswezey
    January 28, 2015 at 4:45 pm
    ———
    Yes, please do that for me.

    Like I said before I will be away from the blog for awhile, but will read your comments on this when I return.

  218. Obama’s response to terrorism and to the threat it poses to Americans is inadequate, according to former head of Defense Intelligence Agency. One of the most glaring problems is that Obama won’t speak the name of the enemy. If you can’t identify it – or won’t, you damn sure can’t defeat it.
    ________

    Former Defense Intel Chief Blasts Obama

    2:14 PM, JAN 27, 2015 • BY STEPHEN F. HAYES

    Lt. General Michael Flynn, former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, blasted the Obama administration’s approach to the War on Terror in a hard-hitting speech to a meeting of intelligence professionals. “The dangers to the U.S. do not arise from the arrogance of American power, but from unpreparedness or an excessive unwillingness to fight when fighting is necessary,” Flynn said, in an unsparing critique first reported by the Daily Beast.

    The Obama administration doesn’t understand the threat, Flynn said, noting that the administration refuses to use “Islamic militants” to describe the enemy. 
    “You cannot defeat an enemy you do not admit exists,” he said.
    The administration, he continued, wants “us to think that our challenge is dealing with an undefined set of violent extremists or merely lone-wolf actors with no ideology or network. But that’s just not the straight truth.”

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/former-defense-intel-chief-blasts-obama_826593.html

  219. Free

    The Obama administration doesn’t understand the threat,

    ————
    Obama doesn’t understand because he is an idiot.

    His Ph. D. is as worthless as his Peace Prize, and his ‘Presidency’.

    The guy was gifted with all of these ‘accomplishments’ because he was groomed to be Prez. He didn’t earn any of them.

    He is a total lazy, moron.

  220. Where did you get that info Lorac?

    Everyone talks about his being a ‘professor’, focus on Constitutional Law…but he sounded more like a lecturer that might have been in a Ph. D. program…who knows the truth when his bio has been scrubbed.

  221. Who knows his real history, check this from a bio website –

    After law school, Obama returned to Chicago to practice as a civil rights lawyer, joining the firm of Miner, Barnhill & Galland. He also taught part time at the University of Chicago Law School (1992-2004)—first as a lecturer and then as a professor—and helped organize voter registration drives during Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign.

    http://www.biography.com/people/barack-obama-12782369#law-career

    I don’t know if his law school is that much different from most Universities I know, that someone teaches as a lecturer then as a ‘Professor’ without being in a Ph. D. program?

    Wbb and jstonesfan…do you know?

    I stand corrected on his being a lawyer, Lorac.

  222. Shadowfax January 27, 2015 at 5:36 pm

    Oh Admin…
    You should be happy to hear Hillary is on the same page as Big Pink.

    Indeed she is, according to the article you link.

    Notice, the article quotes Donna Brazile several times, and this whore just happens to exhibit a very good understanding of why HRC is doing, or not doing, what HRC is doing or not doing.

    Gotta hand it to her, Donna might be a scumbag for what she did in 2008 and beyond, but she has a fine-tuned mind for political strategy. That’s why she was so instrumental getting Obola elected… twice.

  223. Shadowfax January 28, 2015 at 6:47 pm

    No clue, we don’t have ‘them’ here…how would I know?

    By putting yourself in other people’s shoes! You should be good at that, knowing you.

    Two more clues, one minor and the other big:

    1. You mention ‘food’, but I should have told you that’s not very important. After all, there are lots of different kinds of food in the US too, but they don’t need people like me to tell them about head cheese and stuff.

    2. You mention languages and governments, which is spot-on, but also think of the thousands — what am I saying? — think of the tens of millions of companies exporting/importing goods and services among all those different language-government structures. And please don’t think of forwarding agents or customs agents. The EU doesn’t have trade barriers any more. Even if it did, I doubt there would be 20,000 of them doing the same job.

    Not really a hint: My profession is estimated at an annual market turnover of over €100 billion, of which my company’s €90 million is a drop in the bucket. But speaking of drops in a bucket, the US market for my profession barely reaches $50 million! — just a little more than my company’s operating revenues.

    Now, if you guess one of two “parallel” professions that fit the hints, you get the whole box of cigars, because I should stop smoking anyway. Of course, you probably don’t want to start smoking cigars, so my enticement is two magnums of Dom Pérignon. I’ll have to save up to July of next year to pay for them, or else jump out the bathroom window and scram…

  224. freespirit January 28, 2015 at 10:10 pm

    … Obama won’t speak the name of the enemy. If you can’t identify it – or won’t, you damn sure can’t defeat it.

    Not to rub it in, wbboei, but this is exactly why I was getting edgy about our tug-of-war over progressives and the Progressives, and why I took the trouble to distinguish between Names, labels and ordinary words.

    Put a name on the enemy: MoveOn.org

    Now we can start getting the posse together. Alternatively, we can watch them do their mighty Rain Dances under the leadership of Elizabeth Warren’s bountiful headdress, and then watch them suffocate under the weight of the thing.

  225. “The Obama administration doesn’t understand the threat,”

    Shadowfax January 29, 2015 at 12:31 am

    Obama doesn’t understand because he is an idiot.

    Not perspicacious, Shadowfax:

    Obola doesn’t understand the threat because he himself is the threat. When he looks in the mirror, which he does constantly, all he sees is a beautiful empty suit with a nice face that is supposed to be changing the way the world looks at us.

    How could he ever realize that his empty self is the biggest threat the Defense Department has ever faced? If he ordered his generals to kill the enemy, there would be Armageddon between the armed forces and the Secret Service.

    Hey, that’s a pretty good storyline for an action movie! But I told you, I’m not a screenwriter — a wannabe, yes, but no.

  226. This idea for an action movie storyline is developing…

    To avoid direct parallels with Obola, I would cast not a black man but someone in the John Edwards mold — another narcissist who thought his hair stylist could make people believe there was something in his well-groomed head.

  227. Rachael Ray will air an interview with WJC today.

    Bill Clinton suggests nickname ‘Adam’ if wife becomes president

    Former President Bill Clinton has had plenty of nicknames but if his wife becomes president, he’ll need another one — and he already has an idea for what it could be.
    “Let’s say, if a woman became president, we could, I could be called Adam,” Clinton said in an interview with the “Rachael Ray Show” airing Thursday, referring to the first man of Judeo-Christian scripture.
    Though Clinton joked about a nickname for his potential role as presidential husband — Todd Palin suggested “first dude” — he stressed that running in 2016 is a “serious decision” and a “big deal.”
    “I’m happy to joke about it but, look, I love my wife, whatever she wants to do, I’m for,” he said of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s 2016 prospects.
    If, on the other hand, his wife’s seemingly inevitable second bid for the Democratic presidential nomination doesn’t pan out, he has a backup plan.
    “If she decided not to do it, I’d give her a bucket list and we’d go check ‘em off,” he said.
    http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/bill-clinton-rachael-ray-114652.html

  228. “If she decided not to do it, I’d give her a bucket list and we’d go check ‘em off,” he said.

    _____________

    Well my bucket list includes seeing Hillary inaugurated as the first female POTUS. Of course, seeing the Big Dawg residing in the WH again will be nice too. I’m sure the right-wing media and other haters will trash both Bill and Hill on an hourly bases but they’ll really get down and dirty in their treatment of Bill. Of course, these two seasoned fighters will be able to handle it.

    I remember feeling relieved and hopeful in 1992 when Bill won the presidential election. After 8 years of fake hope and change for the worse, it will be nice experience real hope again when Hillary is Madam President. And, it will be a huge relief.

  229. Put a name on the enemy: MoveOn.org

    Now we can start getting the posse together. Alternatively, we can watch them do their mighty Rain Dances under the leadership of Elizabeth Warren’s bountiful headdress, and then watch them suffocate under the weight of the thing.

    ____________

    Woo hoo! I like the sound of that, jes. I’m ready to saddle up.

  230. jeswezey
    January 29, 2015 at 5:39 am

    Nope, out of ideas of what your land has that mine doesn’t.

    Out of guesses and don’t smoke nor like cigars anyway.

    Not a real drinker either…so you will just have to expose your profession without a bribe.

  231. freespirit
    January 29, 2015 at 8:40 am

    ——
    Oh how the Clinton’s love to wait until the masses beg for more.

    I remembering Hillary doing this for years, on running for the Senate.

    Bill has considered his ‘First Dude’ name as ‘Adam’…but hasn’t come up with a bucket list yet?

    She’s running.

  232. Free

    …Well my bucket list includes seeing Hillary inaugurated as the first female POTUS. Of course, seeing the Big Dawg residing in the WH again will be nice too.

    —–

    It’s pretty high on my bucket list too, Free.

    We have been waiting, and waiting, and frickin’ waiting for so darn long.

  233. Aw c’mon, Shadowfax, give it one last try: There are two parallel professions in my field, people often confuse the two. If you guess either one, you get your Dom Pérignon X 2 magnums. It’s a big deal!

    What about freespirit? Wouldn’t you like some free spirits?

    Maybe it’s the brand…

    I can send you a 35-year-old bottle of Soviet champagne, but just one. I tasted the first bottle and I decided I didn’t want the second, but even the Soviets insisted that a sale was a sale and they forced me to take it out of the country.

    That makes it an exported champagne, and everybody knows that exported products are the best… California wines taste better in France than in California, and so on and so on….

    So that means this Soviet champagne, aged no less than 3 or 4 days in a Moscow bathtub and 35 years about 80 miles from Dom Pérignon country, has got to be superb.

    And valuable too, in case you want to sell it. Or auction it — you know the horrendous prices these decades-old labels can fetch…

    Just don’t tell anybody I bought it for 40 rubles. The official price of 40 rubles was $40, very precisely, no more or less. If the price had been $41, then you would have to find 41 rubles. Or if it was 39 rubles, then you only had to pay $39. Arithmetic was cinch in those days and times.

    But nobody had any rubles and nobody wanted them in the stores. In fact, in the real world, they were worthless little pieces of paper smaller than Monopoly money and everybody got their food with food stamps anyway. If you paid in dollars, you would get rubles back, and then you were royally screwed — what is this, a souvenir?

    So, I found myself with 80 rubles left over from change and wanted to get something in return and not take them home with me; so I found these two bottles of Soviet champagne selling for $80, and began to haggle. First, it was a matter of Russian, English and French. Then it was a matter of showing the storekeeper the ticket from the exchange agency, marked “1 ruble = 1 dollar”.

    Actually, it was a lot of fun. I was with friends and the storekeeper and son broke out the vodka (nobody paid for it) and the haggling went on happily for maybe half an hour. Finally, we all got up, gave the guy a hug, and walked away with the champagne, leaving the 80 rubles and no real money on his counter. Everybody was happy.

    It was a state store. It wasn’t the storekeeper’s champagne, and the vodka wasn’t his either. The storekeeper didn’t want the useless paper because he didn’t want to have to sweep it up later.

    So don’t tell anyone the champagne was worth 40 rubles in 1980, because they’ll know that means $0 and, what with inflation and all, it’s worth less than that now.

    Furthermore, a lot of people gage the value of champagne, like wine and fine automobiles, by its price. If they know the price, they’ll know what the champagne tasted like in 1980.

  234. Apologies if anyone has mentioned this before or asked this question. Testifying before the House once more will she have the opportunity to put distance between herself and Slender Man? In my mind I see it as an opportunity for her to do just that.

  235. jeswezey
    January 29, 2015 at 12:33 pm

    Aw c’mon, Shadowfax, give it one last try:

    —–
    I don’t know, I don’t drink, nor smoke.

    Okay, this is my last guess…no more!!!!

    You convert written information from documents of one country to another inside of the EU. Since I don’t think you speak all languages, you might take on only certain languages or use some translating software to do it.

    That’s it, the LAST guess.

    So you now owe me a bottle of Drambuie, that will last me about 10 years.

  236. Shadowfax January 29, 2015 at 1:27 pm

    That’s it, the LAST guess.

    The last one, but the right one. You hit it right on the head. It’s called “translation”. I’m a translator, plus entrepreneur which you had already guessed. What I do is:

    convert written information from documents of one country to another inside of the EU.

    Exactly, “written information”. A person who translates the “spoken word” is called an “interpreter”. That’s the “parallel” profession, and a lot of people confuse the two. People in either of these professions, though, don’t view the other profession as parallel, but as perpendicular: 90°. Small correction: A lot of the documents go outside the EU.

    Since I don’t think you speak all languages, you might take on only certain languages or use some translating software to do it.

    Nobody speaks all the languages. Interpreters generally speak 3 or 4, and interpret every which way. But translators who speak 3 or 4 languages translate only into their mother tongue, which in my case is English (UK English is seen as a different language and, for a serious translator, it is. But I’ve mastered enough of it to advertise myself as “US or UK”).

    Now, I knew you could guess it and I really appreciate your sticking it out. I really want to come good on my bribe. Tell me what you would like most…. You wouldn’t have to drink the Dom Pérignon all by yourself in one sitting; you could save it for an all-night party with friends in November 2016 !!!

  237. I have a better idea, instead of alcohol that I don’t like or want…find me a way into the Dem. Convention in 2016 if Hillary runs.

    That’s all I want.

  238. …find me a way into the Dem. Convention in 2016 if Hillary runs

    I understand; but in fact that whole thing is beyond my understanding and even more beyond my powers to produce.

    You were asking freespirit about that, I’m afraid you’re better off trying to find a way between you two.

    There used to be a blogger here — BASIL99 maybe? pm317? — who had actually been to Denver in 2008. Wish we could dig her up again.

    For my part, considering what I’ve already told you about my profession, you know there’s no way I’m ever coming back to the US until I retire or until HRC wins in 2016, in which case I will come home to die in peace.

  239. In any event, I’m very sure you have to be a member and activist of the Dem Party.

    That involves a lot of extracurricular work. Can you take it?

    In any event, be ready with your ReadyForHillary card and start right now.

  240. Felix_the_Infidel January 29, 2015 at 12:34 pm

    Testifying before the House once more will she have the opportunity to put distance between herself and Slender Man? In my mind I see it as an opportunity for her to do just that.

    Sure, it’s an opportunity, but she wouldn’t be going before the Special Committee for that. She would be there to defend herself, if anything, because that’s what the Committee is all about: Nailing as much liability on HRC as they can, and have it crash down on her as hard as they can.

    She’s already testified for 5 hours and given all the information she can give. She had no responsibility in the matter, but took that responsibility simply because the attack happened in her department on her watch. If somebody had attacked an HES post in Kalamazoo, for example, do you think the Republicans would go to the trouble of grilling Kathleen Sebelius for 5 or more hours?

    This whole thing is about bringing down HRC’s popularity to a point where some Republican stands a chance against her.

    And Obola had even less responsibility in the matter, so there’s nothing she can say to throw some bad vibes his way.

  241. Shadowfax January 29, 2015 at 1:58 pm

    I have a better idea, instead of alcohol that I don’t like or want…

    Still, if you see how little I can do to help you get to the D Convention, you might think again —

    If you remember when jbstonesfan was going to host a party in case of a Romney win, I told him I drink only the finest Champagne or mineral water. So I’m not a drinker either (I was at the time of my Moscow visit in 1980, but noooo moooore! Oh, the hangovers!).

    Champagne is special. It’s no stronger than Drambuie (which they don’t sell in Europe, I don’t think): You get a little tipsy, and have a lot of fun with your friends if they do the same as you. With 5 friends, a Magnum would serve 2 glasses each. Nobody gets drunk and you have a lively party. So, in view of Nov 2016, I offer a single magnum of Dom Pérignon, just so you don’t think I’m trying to get you drunk enough to accept another marriage proposal….

    Or:

    I could send you a case of my favorite bubbly water: Badoit. Natural bubbles right out of the spring, and a slightly salt taste due to the mineral content. Healthy stuff. It’s a favorite in French restaurants.

    Mineral water in France is actually mineral water. From what I saw in Florida and NJ, “mineral water” in the US is distilled water: just add H2O. No mineral content is marked on the label: I looked at several different kinds of this “mineral water” and asked the storekeeper why there was no mineral content, wasn’t it required? He looked at me like I came from an earth-like planet not quite like his. He didn’t know what I was talking about. All the brands of “mineral water” had various slogans praising the “purity” of the water, pasteurization, homogenization, “no fluorine added”, “lightly fluorinated” or “de-fluorinated.” I think one even said “distilled”. Mineral water in the US is H2O, period.

    So here’s another offer: A six-pack of Badoit, which now comes lime-flavored too. When you test it, I’m sure you’ll accept a marriage proposal with your head as clear as a bell.

  242. jes

    I understand; but in fact that whole thing is beyond my understanding and even more beyond my powers to produce.

    —-

    Ah sucks.

    Some of us at PUMApac went to Denver, but as far as I know, none of us actually got into the Convention. We were outside, in the freakin’ air-less heat, protesting, dehydrated, yelling, crying, laughing and walking until we were exhausted.

    I will support Hillary any way I can, while holding down a full time job and dealing with family stuff on half of my weekends. If I were retired with a decent bankroll, I would go Hillary 100%.

  243. Thank you Jes! I figured that about the hearing too. Still, she’s brilliant and can certainly come up with a way to do both things at the same time.

  244. Here’s a recap of WJC on Rachael Ray. His interview took up the first half of the show. It was warm and wonderful. The all female audience loved him. He has had an alliance with Rachael regarding children and health and obesity FOR OVER 8 YEARS. Kind of put a dent in Michelle’s “work” re school lunches.

    The vegan black bean chile recipe he helped her cook is available for download.

    President Bill Clinton Cooks Game-Day Chili With Rach –
    Get ready for one of our biggest shows ever! Former President Bill Clinton is here, and he’s giving us an update on what it’s like to be a first-time grandparent, plus how he’s helping to fight childhood obesity. Then, he’s joining Rachael in the kitchen to make a healthy game-day chili. –
    http://www.rachaelrayshow.com/show-info/on_this_week/#THU

    [It was a great soft campaign launch, if that’s what it was.]

  245. holdthemaccountable
    January 29, 2015 at 4:29 pm

    Thanks for the tiny video clip of the Big Dawg on that link.

    He still has it, and looking good Bill!

    Always loved Bill.

  246. Shadow – I agree with you, who knows what degrees he really has, I think maybe someone “assembled” him, gave him degrees, etc. And yes, they called him a constitutional law professor when he was a part-time lecturer, and IIRC, his “constitution” class was about – wait for it – race.

    I don’t know how law schools handle “teacher terms”, but I remember in graduate school, some faculty would get pissed if you referred to a lecturer as “professor” (you were considered to be elevating the lecturer).

    In terms of the PhD, though, remember that means “doctor of philosophy”, so they are always addressed as “Dr. so and so”. Their position may be “professor”, but their title is “Dr.”

    Perhaps some programs are different, but I believe most PhD programs are 5 years long (post B.A.), and include a dissertation. I think law school is always 3 years (post B.A)…?

    So, Obama wasn’t in school long enough for a PhD, and he is never referred to as “Dr.”. And I don’t believe he even deserved the law degree, as he seems to know very little about the law (as you know!).

    With all that he is doing, I’m worried we may not make it 2 more years. I’m starting to believe he is trying to collapse our country – our economy, our culture, our history of striving to be the best and the brightest…..

  247. I’ve read admin’s newest article. It is brilliant, uplifting.
    How can admin see accurately so far into the future?

    In the overall scheme of Obama’s influence on our nation it is important to note the following which surprisingly, has received some air time via NYC TV:
    30 Jan 2015
    Bronx Defenders Advocated Police Killing In Music Video, City Investigation Finds
    The Bronx Defenders, a group of defense lawyers in Bronx, New York City, had taken part in the making of a video that advocated violence against police officers, according to a city investigation on Thursday. The video “Hands Up,” with lyrics, “time to start killing these coppers,” showed singers pointing guns at the head of a person pretending to be a police officer.
    The video was released shortly before the December shooting of two police officers in New York by a gunman, who said he was avenging the deaths of the African-Americans who were killed by white police officers in the U.S.
    Two Bronx lawyers had appeared in the music video, some of which was filmed in the firm’s office, Reuters reported, citing the investigation. Bronx Defenders, which is funded legally by the city, had later apologized for the anti-police video, which cited them as sponsors in the credits.
    “We were appalled that lawyers who are part of the criminal justice system that are funded by city tax payer dollars would willingly take part in a video that they knew advocated the killing of police officers. That is absolutely unacceptable behavior,” Mark Peters from the New York DOI, said, according to ABC News New York.
    The DOI report said the two lawyers had encouraged the organization to take part in the video, after the company that produced the video approached them, The Wall Street Journal reported. There was “serious misconduct” by the two lawyers and “gross mismanagement” on the part of Robin Steinberg, the organization’s executive director, who failed to discipline the lawyers and sent “misleading letters” about the video to officials, media reports said, citing the investigation report.
    “The actions of your employees and the Executive Director have put in jeopardy the effectiveness of the services that they are obliged to deliver to indigent clients in the city,” Elizabeth Glazer, director of the Mayor’s Office of Criminal Justice, wrote in a letter to the chairman of Bronx Defenders’ board of directors, according to the Journal. In the letter, the city gave the firm until next Wednesday to come up with a “detailed plan of action” to address the issues mentioned in the DOI report.
    The video, featuring artists Uncle Murda, Maino and Jay Watts, was reportedly released on YouTube and WorldStarHipHop in December and is still accessible on these platforms.
    Bronx Defenders had issued a statement on its website Thursday that it regretted any involvement in the video and “never approved the music video ‘Hands Up,’ and never saw it before it went online.”
    Police Union President Pat Lynch reportedly demanded that the organization be shut down permanently. “It is clear that Bronx Defenders who knowingly participated in this despicable video calling for the murder of police officers have violated their oath as officers of the court and should be disbarred as a result,” Lynch said, according to ABC News New York.
    http://www.ibtimes.com/bronx-defenders-advocated-police-killing-music-video-city-investigation-finds-1800104

    Mayor deBlahs is withholding comment.

Comments are closed.