#ReadyForHillary vs. #ReadyForWarren Poll Shockers – Plus Other Shockers

We’re shocked! Like many others we thought Elizabeth Warren, the “Massachusetts Mohican”, was no longer a thing. But then a shock poll emerged, and we were shocked. Like an Apache brave aware of paleface danger we leapt on our high horse and conducted our own poll.

The results of our poll shocked us.

Hillary beat Warren 99.9% to .1%. Indeed, in many instances the results to our poll questions were unanimous in support of Hillary. Other than a persistent poll respondent with the initials S.H. who proved irredeemably resistant to Hillary’s charms the answers to our poll questions consistently proved consistent support for Hillary. For instance, one of our poll questions asked,

Does the fact that Hillary Clinton wakes up in the early morning with a cheerful smile and a ready to work can-do attitude next to a basket of sweet mewling kittens (with colorful ribbons adorning them) on one side of her bed and a basket of playful puppies on the other side of her bed make you (a) more likely to vote for puppy friendly Hillary; (b) less likely to vote for saintly Hillary; or (c) no difference because you hate all living things?

Other than poll respondent S.H. who volunteered that such indecisiveness on the question of kittens versus puppies made him less likely to vote for Hillary and that her early morning cheerfulness to his mind masked a murderous personality, almost 100% of the poll respondents said this information made them either more likely to vote for Hillary or made no difference.

Another question posed in our scientific poll asked,

Does the fact that the feather on Elizabeth Warren’s fake squaw head came from a bird on the endangered species list which Wig-wam Lizzie herself plucked from the carcass of an innocent hatchling she had just bitten the head off of after she slaughtered mama bird and papa bird, smashed the eggs in the nest about to be hatched, and laughed maniacally as she did so make you (a) more likely to vote for the tomahawk wielding Massachusetts murderess; (b) make you wisely reconsider any support for such a vicious killer; or (c) make no difference to those with pathological personalities?

We were shocked that the overwhelming response to this question from our scientifically conducted poll respondents revealed that Elizabeth Warren has zero chance of persuading Americans that she is anything but a vicious Massachusetts ax murderess.

Our scientifically conducted poll utilized methodologies we won’t bore you with, on dates which were very recent, and was conducted by land-line phones, cell phones, as well as weighted for accuracy with on-line interviews. For those who participated in our on-line survey we added a question after the respondent viewed this video which purportedly shows a young Hillary meeting a young Bill:

Does this candid video of animal friendly Hillary make it more likely that (a) you will open your heart and mind to Hillary the same way these loving animals do; (b) you are so embittered and filled with hate that you will not mortgage your house to donate to Hillary Clinton 2016; (c) you are so cold and devoid of humanity it makes no difference to you how loving Hillary is?

The results of our poll are as devastating to Elizabeth Warren as the #ReadyForWarren poll was to Hillary.

Our scientifically conducted poll results are consistent with all polls which survey the 2016 presidential contest.

It’s not all good news for Hillary Clinton 2016 however. Joe Biden has apparently been reading what we have been writing but unfortunately has learned the wrong lesson. In this Friday the 13th shocker, drinking Joe guzzled one too many:

Biden: 2016 is battle for third Obama term

The 2016 Democratic presidential nominee should embrace the notion of a third term of the Obama presidency, Vice President Biden said Thursday, during a speech at Drake University in Iowa.

“I call it sticking with what works,” Biden declared.

The address was billed as a chance for Biden to explain some of the ideas introduced in President Obama’s recent State of the Union address, but the vice president repeatedly returned to a discussion of how he saw the contours of the presidential race.

His trip to the first-in-the-nation caucus state has reinvigorated speculation he could be preparing his own bid for the White House.

The vice president said the election would be “all about” either continuing the Obama economic policies or shifting to Republicans’ “top-down” vision.

Run on what we have done. Own what we have done. Stand for what we have done. Acknowledge what we have done,” Biden said.

Biden argued that the economic opportunities of the next 10-15 years would be determined by the policies that were embraced by the presidential candidates of both parties.

Are we going to continue this resurgence or are we going to return to policies I would argue have failed the country in the past?” Biden said [snip]

But Biden also used a similar tone to take personal credit for the economic recovery, noting, among other things, his role in implementing the stimulus programs.

“I remember the president when he announced the program, he didn’t make me feel very good,” Biden said. “He turned to me and said, ‘Vice President Joe Biden, Sheriff Joe, will run the program,’ and I thought, ‘Oh god. Oh god.’ But I did.”

And he frequently returned to promising statistics about the nation’s economy.

“Almost 12 million jobs have been added since we’ve been in office, over a record 59 straight months of private sector growth. The fact is, America is back. America is leading the world,” he said.

Asked about the possibility of a presidential bid while touring an industrial lab at the Des Moines Area Community College later, Biden deferred.

“That’s a family personal decision I’m going to make sometime at the end of the summer,” Biden said.

We’re shocked. Biden needs to reread our 2013 article The Hillary Clinton 2016 Muddled Message Mess in which we argue that the 2016 election will be either about “CHANGE” or “STAY THE COURSE” and nothing in-between. Biden thinks the message should be “we need more Obama and a third Obama term”. That’s just nuts. It’s not the first time Biden has planted the “stay the course” flag. We’re shocked at the stupidity of drinkin’ Joe Biden.

By 2016 drunken Joe Biden might want to rethink his drink of “stay the course”. We won’t be shocked.

We were shocked today when “settled science” became unsettled. The attacks against cholesterol laid an egg:

The U.S. government is poised to withdraw longstanding warnings about cholesterol

The nation’s top nutrition advisory panel has decided to drop its caution about eating cholesterol-laden food, a move that could undo almost 40 years of government warnings about its consumption.

The group’s finding that cholesterol in the diet need no longer be considered a “nutrient of concern” stands in contrast to the committee’s findings five years ago, the last time it convened. During those proceedings, as in previous years, the panel deemed the issue of excess cholesterol in the American diet a public health concern.

The finding follows an evolution of thinking among many nutritionists who now believe that, for healthy adults, eating foods high in cholesterol may not significantly affect the level of cholesterol in the blood or increase the risk of heart disease.

We’re shocked. We’re unsettled. We’re gonna make an omelet. All those years of cholesterol hate down the drain. Good thing that at the time when cholesterol hate was in vogue the government did not mandate the killing of cholesterol providers. We wonder how this news will affect Michelle Obama lunches force-fed to schoolchildren?

So if we get this right, an egg is not a killer. So much for the science of nutrition as settled. But smoking is still a killer right? Or are smokers to be killed? ISIS implements their form of ObamaCare on smoking:

Islamic State: Smoking will kill you, one way or another

Beheadings have become commonplace in the territories held by the militant Islamic State, but the severed head reportedly found last month in the eastern Syrian city of Al-Mayadeen was nevertheless unusual.

It had a cigarette placed between its lips.

“This is not permissible, Sheikh,” someone had scrawled in Arabic on the decapitated corpse lying nearby, according to an account from the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a pro-opposition monitoring group. The body and head belonged to an Islamic State official, a deputy police chief.

From consuming alcohol to cursing, vices of all types are frowned upon by Islamic State.

But it is the militants’ injunction on smoking, in a region rife with chain-smokers and water-pipe aficionados, that may be the hardest habit to kick. (About half of Syrian men and one in 10 women smoke, according to the World Health Organization.)

Shortly after the group’s takeover of large swaths of Deir Elzur province in eastern Syria, Islamic State began to close tobacco shops and shutter the ubiquitous water-pipe cafes.

Bloomberg for president! We’re shocked the ex-mayor is not a cheerleader of ISIS. Maybe if ISIS kills those that sell large soft drinks Bloomberg will sing their praises. In any case, we’re not shocked at ISIS and their effective anti-smoking killer campaign. But we are somewhat shocked that the latest news from Bloomberg did not make much news. Imagine if a Republican said what Bloomberg said:

Bloomberg Suggests Banning Young Minority Males from Gun Ownership

Speaking to the Aspen Institute on February 6, Michael Bloomberg said cities should ban young minority males from owning guns, both as an effort to reduce crime and to keep those minority males “alive.”

According to The Aspen Times, Bloomberg addressed a variety of topics, and after commenting on poverty and education, he discussed guns. The Times reported that he said, “Cities need to get guns out of [the] … hands” of persons who are “male, minority, and between the ages of 15 and 25.”

He claimed that “95 percent of all murders fall into this category” and that taking guns away from them will not only reduce crime, but will “keep them alive.”

Bloomberg said male minorities from the ages of 15 to 25 do not have a good outlook on life and “think they’re going to get killed anyway because all their friends are getting killed.” He also said having a gun “is a joke” for them, that “it’s a joke to pull the trigger.”

We’re shocked. Good thing Bloomberg used the word “trigger” not that other word that is so racist. But we are shocked that this did not become a thing like that Lizzie Warren poll.

We are also shocked that 47 states have more conservatives than “liberals”. We’re shocked that people won’t accept that Jeremiah Wright is still an Obama guiding light when it comes to “God Damn America” issues such as the Crusades. We’re shocked that Brian Williams did not report, nor did anyone else, that Obama partied with Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn last August.

We’re not shocked that like Joe Biden at a wedding reception in a liquor store, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg was soused on January 20. She had to listen to Barack Obama. Who wouldn’t drink?


149 thoughts on “#ReadyForHillary vs. #ReadyForWarren Poll Shockers – Plus Other Shockers

  1. Sorry to bring this forward from the last page and put it here…but needed to address it…


    Shadowfax February 12, 2015 at 1:54 pm

    Lucy – I started to watch it online but got bored…

    Well, you certainly missed the point(s).

    I’ve watched it 5 times now, and the philosophical statements of professor Norman alone are worthy of attention.
    Excuse me, but I thought you were involved in handling mental patients…


    All’s I can say is WTF!

    I didn’t miss the point on a movie that I found boring.

    I also do not work with mentally ill people, at least not the kind you are thinking of. You don’t have to work with people to know what is going on.

  2. Admin: excellent article. The Age of Fake is all around us. And behind the Potemkin Village of phony news, phony polls and phony politicians, the American People are being systematically disenfranchised. Net neutrality is the latest example. One of the main sponsors of this overreach by the Obama Administration is Comcast which is Obama’s largest political contributor and owns NBC. This takeover will have a chilling effect on free speech and make it impossible for small entrepeneurs to compete against major companies, which is part and parcel of Obama’s full throat commitment to crony capitalism. If you happened to see the grilling of the Justice Department nominee by Ted Cruz then you know that the Obama Administration has taken 22 cases of the expansion of executive power to the Supreme Court and has been struck down by mostly unanimous courts 22 times. The problem with the nominee is she steadfastly refused to acknowledge that there was any limitation on government power, which should make ANYONE who values their freedom doubly suspicious of this Eric Holder appointee and acolyte.

  3. Loved your poll for Hillary and pointing out the evils of WigWam obtaining her prized feather. Also, the first meeting between Hillary and Bill 🙂

    Old Joe, maybe he can take over Jon Stewart’s Daily Show.

    I’ve gotta read up on that cholesterol article. How can we live without the guilt? I bet it will upset some folks that went vegan and parade around us carnivorous like they have just obtained their wings.

    And those ISIS freaks that are upset about ‘vices’ while murder and beheading is the bees knees.

  4. Cruz does a skillful job of picking apart Lynch’s testimony and showing her to be evasive. I doubt you can expect much more from her than we got from Holder.

  5. Admin, this article is comedy gold – my kind of humor. I can’t stop laughing.

    What is wrong with Joe Biden? I’m seriously asking.

    Real Clear Politics average poll numbers for potential Dem. Presidential candidates from 11/18/2014 – 01/27/2015 as follows:

    Hillary – 60 % Biden – 11.4 % One Drop (seriously, that’s how they have her name. lol) -11.1%

    Sanders – 3.4%


    Joe can’t possibly think that he can get elected running as an O third term candidate. Is he just spouting that for PR purposes, in the hope that this will somehow make the public believe that O actually did something good for the country? I just am not getting what the angle is or where this kind of derangement comes from – unless Joe got it in a bottle of Stoli.

    Regarding Warren and her kook supporters. Would it be worth it to them to see One Drop get the nomination (WHICH SHE WILL NOT WIN – IF HILLARY RUNS) even if it meant letting a Republican be elected president in 2016 – which is exactly what it would mean?

    WTF is wrong with the Dims? They have some serious issues.

    I swear, Admin. Seems as if the Dim party is Comedy Central, and you’re John Steward.

  6. Low carbers have been saying for a long time that the evidence against cholesterol and fat has been based on bad science and the low fat doctrine is in fact contributing to the obesity epidemic. Science writer Nina Teicholz recently laid all this out in her very lucid book The Big Fat Surprise, so it’s good to see the tide slowly turning back to focusing on excess sugar in our diet as the real cause of our health problems.

  7. Tony, I heard an interview with the author of that book, and was amazed at how little research had been done in the past to support the recommended dietary guide lines still in place today.

  8. Her book is much more readable for the general public than Gary Taubes’s seminal book Good Calories Bad Calories, which was written for the medical community. You’ll just shake your head repeatedly at the stories in Teicholz’s book, where she interviews the people who published such badly done research in so called peer reviewed journals as well as the scientists who tried to resist or object to the public health policy based on the flimsiest of data imposed on us all. It is a warning for us all to be skeptical of so called consensus-based science, which is not science at all but bad politics.

  9. But cholesterol wasn’t all about weight – it builds up in your eyes (if you have it, that is!). You can have a heart attack if it builds up in that area, or a stroke if it builds up in your head.

    So I wonder if those people are still supposed to diet-control their cholesterol, or are they going to have to now move on to taking drugs everyday to keep the cholesterol from forming.

  10. My first sentence got screwed up – I was trying to say, your eye MD can see it in your eyes, and can show it to you on your eye scans, he can show you the vessels in your eyes that are getting clogged by cholesterol.

  11. freespirit
    February 13, 2015 at 10:26 pm

    Joe can’t possibly think . . .

    But he does have that same imbecilic grin as Obama which tugs on the heart strings of ever deluded bot, and the star struck minions of big media.

    Lizzie Borden Warren, I might add, has that same grin as she lowers the axe on the corporate elites.

    But not the Import Export bank which is the paradigmatic example of corporate welfare.

    Politics gives us the worst people in society—it not only corrupts, but it attracts corrupt people.

    Therefore, when they fail to serve the general welfare, it is hardly surprising.

    To anyone with any sense the conclusion is clear: that government is best which governs least—Jefferson.

    But apart from the philosophical aspect, one is struck by the banality and incompetence of these people.

    They are ugly people in every sense of the word.

  12. When the oil crisis hit in the 1970s, the CIA considered invading Saudi Arabia to get control of the rising price of oil which produced a severe recession in the United States and threatened to destabilize the world economy. That option was tabled however when Kissinger reached a deal with the King of Saudi Arabia which committed us to support and defend the monarchy, in exchange for which, Saudi Arabia agreed that the oil price would be denominated and traded in petodollars as opposed to some other currency. Saudi Arabia was a big supporter of Obama because Soros and others gave them assurances that Obama would continue to protect the monarchy. They had written letters to get him into Harvard, and they helped orchestrate a massive wall of foreign money into his campaign, and disabled the credit card data that would allow that money to be traced back to its source by the FEC–you will recall that piece I am sure. Restoring diplomatic relations with Iran was the main foreign policy objective given to the new Administration by the Council on Foreign Relations about whom Hillary remarked not altogether facetiously they give us the marching orders. However, after all they did to get him elected, Obama has stabbed Saudi Arabia in the back by making Saudi Arabia’s main competitor, Iran, the dominant player and future partner of the United States in the region. He has assured them privately that they will have the bomb but he cannot freely admit this. The end result is Saudi Arabia abandoning its support for the petro dollar and moving to a close relationship with China. This increases the chances of a financial collapse in this country, and that is why he is moving to take over the internet, the food supply and to federalize law enforcement. There is a plan here, and the American People are on the menu. Do they care? No. Why not? Because they are too stupid to think outside the box.

  13. This is whay Kissinger is predicting nuclear proliferation in the middle east. Obama has secretly given Iran the green light–and other nations in the region will be compelled to react. This ISIS thing–the quid pro quo referred to in the letter to Obama by the Supreme Leader, was leaked by Obama on purpose, to lend legitimacy to his plan to let Iran have the bomb. This unholy alliance is well known in the middle east, and it is the real reason why Bibi will be addressing the Congress. This gets back to the old paragdigm given to me by Professor Mangano when I was at Annapolis–that given a choice between will and capacity, always focus on capacity, because the will can change with future administrations. Meaning even if the current Iranian leadership means it when they say they will not use if to annihilate Israel in the name of The Prophet is no guarantee that hardliners in the administration who later accede to power will honor that commitment, particularly if they are religious fanatics. The framework of global retreat by this Administration is likewise revealed: to form strategic partners with dominant players in each region, and not using military force but diplomacy in lieu of remaining the world’s policeman. How similar that mindset is to the thinking that prevailed in Europe during the 1939’s.

  14. The CIA is predicting a financial collapse and has a department which is devoted solely to deterring foreign nations who might seek to engender it. But the real enemy is the enemy within, meaning the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve. In the 1950’s for every dollar invested printed by the federal reserve the return was $2.41 cents. Today it is 13 cents. The federal reserve balance sheet is a mess. It shows $58 billion in assets, and $17 trillion in debt, and $177 trillion in unfunded liabilities. The default position is the International Monetary Fund which has a healthy balance sheet, i.e. the asset/liability ratio is 1 to 3. But it does not deal in dollar denominated currency, but in special drawing rights (in effect world money), but it is controlled by an ugly cast of characters including communists, repressive regimes, western Europeans and enemies of the US who believe we are consuming too much of the world’s resources. That is not a good backstop. Interestingly, Soros is involved in the International Monetary Fund and a plan to displace the dollar with international currency within the next 10 years. He has long been an advocate of replacing the dollar.

  15. Lorac,

    I know it’s very disconcerting to be told repeatedly that cholesterol is bad for you and your health and then to be told that it is actually good for you, which is why I felt duped when I first learned back in 2003 that what I had been previously taught in med school all these years was not based on science but on the personal biases of a lousy researcher named Ancel Keys who managed to convince key people in the government, namely Senator McGovern, to institute the current health recommendations back in the 1970’s. Cholesterol is an essential component of your body’s tissues and makes up most of brain tissue. It is used to repair damage in blood vessel walls caused by inflammation. People have mistaken the buildup to be the cause of disease rather than the body’s attempt to repair damage caused by excess blood sugar. Randomized controlled trials that have attempted to show better health outcomes by lowering cholesterol with low fat diets and drugs have all failed, which is why the tide is starting to turn around as more people are admitting that the cholesterol hypothesis may be wrong. Read Teicholz’s book. She is an excellent writer and never boring.

  16. To anyone with any sense the conclusion is clear: that government is best which governs least—Jefferson.

    There’s absolutely no doubt of that. i’m even more convinced of that fact than I was a few years ago. Obama has taught us just how much damage government can do. The media has taught us to trust nothing we are told by news reporters.

    The far left wants the government in our pocketbooks and in every other area of life. The Repubs want the government in our bedrooms and God (as they perceive HIM -never her – to be) back in our schools.

    If the Hillary of 2008 emerges and asks the people to elect her to run this country, she’s got the job.
    My hope is that when she does emerge, she will do it on her terms (as they were in 2008) not beholden to the liberal wing of the Dim Party, nor any other group, but as the candidate with the smarts, the guts, and the plan to restore this country.

    Let Biden be Obama’s mini-me.

    Let Warren get some experience and develop an understanding of this country – not just the MA liberals. Not just her native American relatives (kidding). Right now, she is about as unqualified to run the country as Obama was when he took the job. Her brand of politics and government may work in MA, but as we have seen with Barack, it doesn’t work for the nation.

    This country can’t survive another incompetent president whose understanding of the needs, lives and values of Americans came only from a poly-sci text book or some socialist manifesto.

  17. 10:34 AM. I know it’s very disconcerting to be told repeatedly that cholesterol is bad for you and your health and then to be told that it is actually good
    I so appreciate this information because it lends credence to some doubts my twitter mind managed to conjure up over the decades….

  18. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2015/02/13/some-obama-fundraisers-slow-to-commit-to-clinton-2016-bid/23301923/

    Obama bundlers slow to back Clinton super PACS

    WASHINGTON — Only a tiny fraction of the fundraisers who helped President Obama secure a second term have made significant contributions to the committee backing a potential run by Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton, a USA TODAY analysis shows.

    Of the 769 individuals and couples who raised money for Obama, just 54 people and firms have donated at least $5,000 to Ready for Hillary, the super PAC that has spent two years working to build grass-roots support for a Clinton campaign, according to the analysis.

    South Carolina lawyer Richard Harpootlian collected more than $500,000 for Obama’s re-election, according to figures released by the president’s campaign. However, Harpootlian, a former two-time chairman of the South Carolina Democratic Party, is sitting on the sidelines in the early stages of the 2016 campaign. “I don’t know that she has generated any sort of enthusiasm or excitement,” he said of Clinton.

    “In 2007, the Clinton campaign was more a corporate entity with layers and layers and layers of consultants — Clinton, Inc. — as opposed to a campaign,” Harpootlian said, referring to the early months of Clinton’s unsuccessful primary battle with Obama.

    “I had hoped that this time around the Clinton campaign would be more agile. But there’s no real feeling that there’s a campaign. They are acting as if she’s the nominee, which is what happened in 2007 — and good golly — that went wrong.” [snip]

    David Garrison, a Nashville lawyer who raised money for both of Obama’s campaigns, has not donated to Ready for Hillary. He said some of Obama’s success relied on giving a broad group of party activists and fundraisers — many of whom were new to politics — meaningful roles early in his campaign. He hasn’t seen those opportunities emerge so far.

    “While the Clintons have established ties with Democrats in Tennessee and all around the country, what we haven’t seen yet is a Clinton campaign that’s built an infrastructure at all various levels of donors and activists,” Garrison said.

    “What she didn’t do in 2008 — and she has to do now — is build a new coalition beyond the Clintons’ storied history in the party,” he said.

    In a statement, Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill said Clinton will “take nothing for granted” if she runs and will “fight for every vote.” [snip]

    The USA TODAY analysis compared the list of 769 individuals and couples who raised money for Obama’s 2012 campaign with donors who contributed at least $5,000 to Ready for Hillary since the super PAC’s launch in January 2013. The 54 matches include companies and spouses of Obama fundraisers that USA TODAY could identify.

    As a super PAC, Ready for Hillary can accept unlimited funds but has capped its contributions at $25,000. It has built a list of 3 million supporters that will be a valuable asset for a Clinton campaign.

  19. Seems there is more on this ambulance chasing Obama loving bundler dickhead Haponotian,

    You know, the jackal who refuses to support Hillary and dismisses her as not generating any excitement.

    His website makes him out to be the wizard of the South Carolina courtroom, who routinely channels the thoughts Erskine, Blackstone, Webster, Calhoun Holmes etc.

    That is pretty exciting but it is as nothing compared to his deep seated racism which he bellows from the roof tops every chance he gets.

    For example, this wizard has said they need to send the female Governor of his state, whose parents migrated from India, back to wherever the hell she came from (meaning India).

    On another glorious occasion, he referred to Haley as Hitler’s mistress–and refused to apologize for his irrational exuberance.

    It is a waste of time trying to recruit this turd to any campaign.

    Someone needs to just pull his chain and flush him down the toilet.

    He will be much happier there.

    And so, for that matter, will we.


  20. holdthemaccountable
    February 14, 2015 at 1:17 pm
    That is the whole problem with conventional medicine.

    It is run by big pharma.

    My cholestrol was a little high–212.

    My doctor was insistent that I get on statins.

    Statins are something that is bad, and will damage the body.

    He told me 80% of doctors take them.

  21. I neglected to mention that Harpontian also describes himself as a LEGENDARY courtroom lawyer.

    More like a legend in his mind.

    How about it jb?

    Would you like to face this one man wrecking ball in a court room.

    If I had that distasteful task, I believe I would side bar with him just before opening statements, and tell him that Obama is a traitor.

    Sure as hell he would lose it, and that would throw his whole case off stride.

    Then I hire a man with an Obama mask to shoot spit wads at him every time he rose in the courtroom to object.

  22. On Judge Jeanine just now, Scott Brown said that everyone can see that Obama has “checked out”. I get his point, but I object to that phrase – it assumes that he ever “checked IN”. He’s never been anything but what he is, a narcissist.

    On republican websites, I keep seeing them say that he is working to get Hillary elected, or he’s doing this or that to help democrats. They can’t seem to understand that whatever he does, he does it because somehow it’s good for him. Whomever else it may help is incidental.

  23. Tony Stark, thanks, something to look into. I haven’t even eaten cholesterol since 1985, and now they’re telling me I should take a medicine for cholesterol. Pisses me off lol

  24. “I don’t know that she has generated any sort of enthusiasm or excitement,” he said of Clinton.


    The self-proclaimed “legend” wants another “light bringer” that will have the kids swooning and fainting, one who will have the support of the likes of Bernadine Dorhn and William Ayers? He wants another self-proclaimed legend like Obama to tingle Chris Matthews thighs, one the limo-libs will throw elaborate parties for? He want’s Oprah to be overcome with emotion, and the far left Dims to be inspired to conspire on behalf of someone – as they did for Obama. Oh, if only there were another Obama this self-important lawyer could be excited about.

    I guess he has been in a coma for the past six years or he would be aware that “exciting” turned out not to be the most important quality in a president. And those who were so “enthusiastic” about Obama in 2008 have found there was little to be enthusiastic about. Tingles has finally seen the light (or has lucid moments, at least). MSNBC viewership has dwindled to about 13 viewers, and they’re terminally stupid. Oprah lost her television show. The Dims lost both the house and the senate in 2014. I don’t think they’re as excited about Obama as they used to be. And the only thing the limo-libs are left with, after Obama turned out NOT to be the One they had been waiting for is their hatred for the Clintons. Oh, and those kids – the most excited of all the Obamanuts in 2008? Well, they have either turned Republican or lost their interest in politics. Seems they are nowhere to be found.

    Maybe that SC lawyer could get on Bernie’s bandwagon. He has 3.4 % worth of excitement. Biden and One Drop are generating around 11 % excitement each. Maybe he could get behind one of them.

  25. We just had dinner with our neighbors who are left wing Democrats. They just told us that they attended some kind of fund raising reception in Seattle for Senator Lizzie Borden Warren, and they thought she was a great speaker. I had to be polite and bite my tongue as they rhapsodized about her. My conclusion from this is that Warren is speaking with a forked tongue if she claims not to be running.

  26. admin
    February 14, 2015 at 4:34 pm
    The Obola-infected are becoming more visible. HRC should continue to stay quiet and out of the limelight to draw these roaches out into the open and stay the hell away from them and their blood money.

  27. wbboei
    February 14, 2015 at 8:21 pm
    My advice is to continue to stay away from statins. No study (without a lot of fudging of data and stretching the limits of statistical analysis to get the desired outcome) has convincingly shown that they truly prevent heart disease nor do they decrease overall mortality. As I mentioned earlier, science writer Gary Taubes was the first to bring this inconvenient fact to light in his book Good Calories Bad Calories, and Nina Teicholz went further by talking to the people who came up with these faulty conclusions in her book The Big Fat Surprise. A dirty secret in medicine is that many busy doctors just read the abstracts in medical journals and accept the authors’ claims without question, even if their study is poorly done. The reviewers in so called peer reviewed journals most of the time don’t have a background in statistics and would be hard pressed to detect faulty data and the limitations of statistics. It doesn’t surprise me that your doctor wants you to be on statins since he is most likely one of those who blindly accepts the consensus instead of critically reviewing the evidence.

  28. Tony Stark
    February 15, 2015 at 3:23 am
    February 14, 2015 at 8:21 pm

    Thank you for the thoughtful analysis.

    That is one mistake I managed to avoid—I never started.

  29. When all your enemies want you to do something it may not be in your interest.

    Case in point:

    If Obama wants Hillary to be Obama III, and–

    If the Republicans want to paint Hillary as Obama III,

    Then it should be obvious that it is not in Hillary’s interest to be Obama III,

    Therefore, to avoid being perceived as Obama III,

    And painted into that indefensible corner,

    Then it follows as day follows night

    Hillary must define the differences between herself and Obama.

  30. We just had dinner with our neighbors who are left wing Democrats. They just told us that they attended some kind of fund raising reception in Seattle for Senator Lizzie Borden Warren, and they thought she was a great speaker. I had to be polite and bite my tongue as they rhapsodized about her. My conclusion from this is that Warren is speaking with a forked tongue if she claims not to be running.
    More magic thinking.

    They just don’t fucking connect the dots.

    If I were a “left wing democrat”, I would not be running around in some pink haze about Obama.

    I would be saying, as Chris Hedges does, that he is a fraud to left wing values.

    Which is what credentialed liberals like Ralph Nader are also saying.

    He is brand Obama

    So lets go to the deeper darker truth about well to do people who fall for these charlatans

    who they characterize as great speakers because they tell them what they want to hear

    I thought of this many times before, but until a couple days ago I had never seen it in writing

    Being a limousine is part of the golden handshake of their class

    In other words, yes we are rich, and materialistic, but we are morally superior

    And we are willing to take care of the less fortunate with opm (other people money)

    That may not be the case with your neighbors, but it is true with people I have known.

    I tend to dismiss them as political fashionistas who are a mile wide and six inches deep.

  31. This is why wealthy people are often the targets and victims of con men.

    They think they are smarter than the average bear, because they have money and because they have expertise in a given field.

    The only thing they lack is common sense.

    For them, the test is not whether the figure who appears before them can do anything he or she promises.

    The test is whether they are new, exciting, fashionable, or amusing.

    If the subject can meet THAT test, then magic thinking fills in the blanks.

    And the wallet or purse springs open.

    The question is not longer why Elizabeth Warren, but why not Elizabeth Warren—the burden of proof shits to the nayesayer.

    Suddenly, experience, the ability to deliver etc, become irrelevant, because even if they are wrong, the damage will not affect them.

    It is an arrogant, assine mindset, but in an information based society, beset with images and little reflective thought it is the passport to paradise.

  32. 8:21 PM: That is the whole problem with conventional medicine. It is run by big pharma.
    Based upon my most recent MD visit, the conversation between the two of us is now predetermined by an agenda which lends itself to digital processing. [I was expressing dismay at having to repeat a situation she already knows when she explained: “I have to ask.”]

    Glad I’m old. End of rant. Hillary2016

  33. This, from an article in Forbes. Rickards is the favorite economist of Rand Paul, which means we may hear more about this when the Republican Primary shakes out:

    Rickards concludes that

    There are few more tendentious comments on gold than the a priori statement that a gold standard cannot work today. In fact, a well-designed gold standard could work smoothly if the political will existed to enact it and to adhere to its noninflationary disciplines. A gold standard is the ideal monetary system for those who create wealth through ingenuity, entrepreneurship, and hard work. Gold standards are disfavored by those who do not create wealth but instead seek to extract wealth from others through inflation, inside information, and market manipulation.

    This columnist, while in general agreement, has some quibbles with Rickards. The one that matters most is this: resistance to the restoration of the classical gold standard does not come from a failure of “political will.” It comes from a lack of familiarity with it on Capitol Hill.

    This columnist, on behalf of American Principles In Action for which he serves as Senior Advisor has briefed well over 100 Congressional legislative aides on the importance of good monetary policy for creating a climate of equitable prosperity. “Political will” makes it sound as though adopting the gold standard is a painful counsel of rectitude rather than one of equitable prosperity. Rather the opposite.

    As Forbes.com’s own Nathan Lewis has pointed out, in The Correlation Between The Gold Standard And Stupendous Growth Is Clear, possibly the most prosperous epoch in world history correlated tightly with the era of the true gold standard in America. Lewis teaches us that real GDP grew almost sevenfold over around 40 years. By contrast, over the 40+ years of fiduciary dollar management ushered in, on August 15, 1971, by Richard Nixon, industrial production grew by a paltry 159%.

    Congresspeople universally favor equitable (especially the Democrats) prosperity (especially Republicans). Adopting a policy — the classical gold standard — that has a plausible chance of dramatically increasing the rate of equitable economic growth does not require “political will.” It merely requires more “demonstrable data and reasonable inference.”


    Chris Wallace Grills John Boehner Over Netanyahu Visit, Homeland Funding Fox News Sunday
    www dot youtube.com/watch?v=tUoqdfsYQag
    Published on Feb 15, 2015
    on fox news sunday, chris wallace grills speaker john boehner on a variety of subjects from netanyahu, homeland funding, benghazi and more.
    john Boehner: There’s no secret here in Washington about the animosity that this White House has for netanyahu. Boehner on not consulting White House on netanyahu invite: “I wanted to make sure there was no interference.” Boehner on @netanyahu invite: “We have every right to do what we did. I wanted the Prime Minister to come here.” Speaker Boehner on Benghazi: If trey gowdy thinks Hillary Clinton should testify…”So be it.”Boehner on #Benghazi investigation as way to hurt Hillary Clinton candidacy: The idea is to get American people the facts. Boehner: I don’t believe authorization the President asked for will give him tools he needs to defeat ISIS. Boehner on AUMF: POTUS is asking for less authority than he has today under previous authorizations. I don’t think that’s smart.
    Boehner: We want to hear what @netanyahu has to say – we’re trying to strengthen Obama’s hand.

  35. It’s always easy to tell when the Clinton haters in media get really nervous about Hillary – they trot out the tired old sex theme, accusing Bill of a multitude of transgressions. I’ve noticed an increasing number of articles about his association with “convicted pedophile, Jeffrey Epstein”. This NY Post article is the latest, and one of the sleaziest I’ve read.

    The title implies that Bill’s out screwing everyone in sight – “Bill Clinton’s Libido Threatens to Derail Hillary Again” . Written in present tense, it implies that Bill’s libido is out of control. Hell, the man’s 69 years old, has had by-pass surgery, and appears to be in no shape to be tom-catting around. The alleged sexual adventures were supposed to have occurred back in the day. The focus is on the alleged 11 trips he took with Epstein.

    The word “again” implies that it was Bill’s “libido” that cost Hillary the 2008 primary election. We, of course, know that it was so-called journalists like the author of this article, and the news papers and TV news outlets that employ them that deliberately attempted to destroy Hillary’s campaign. Hillary’s “defeat” (which was not a defeat at all) was orchestrated by the DNC, Clinton hating Dims, and media.

    Media couldn’t succeed by bringing up the Lewinsky incident every five minutes. So this time, they figure they’ll be more successful in “derailing” Hillary by linking bill to a “pedophile”. This topic will dominate the conversation in liberal media and on FOX, no doubt.

    Thing is, the Republicans tried like hell to pin any and everything they could on the Clintons. They spent 40 million dollars trying to nail them. They failed. They will fail again – and that’s what drives them crazy.


  36. I noticed at Real Clear Politics a MoDo editorial entitled “Clintons’ War Room is Now a Slime Room”. Interesting plural reference there. “Clintons’ war room”. Also interesting use of the term “war room”.

    I didn’t click on the link nor am I posting the link. Maureen Dowd is a parasite who gets subsists by attacking people, not with facts but with innuendo and opinion, which NYT apparently feels is worth something.

    If Hillary runs for president, Dowd will be thrilled – no doubt. She will get to repeatedly slime her favorite target of that drivel she calls a newspaper column.

  37. Foxy, that skit was priceless!

    Obama gets the peace prize for his “accomplishments in not being George W. Bush”. No other accomplishments could be cited. lol

  38. Will he throw a hissy fit?? 😆

    These strained relations between the White House and Silicon Valley were placed in sharp focus Friday after the chief executives of Google, Facebook, Microsoft and Yahoo declined White House invitations to attend the summit — and a private lunch with the president.

    These companies are among a number of tech giants that have pushed Washington to end the bulk collection of private data because of customer privacy concerns, but little has happened to curb the NSA’s practices.

    The White House’s cyber security gathering, which took place at Stanford University, marked the first time the administration has hosted a summit with corporate, government and privacy officials to discuss issues around how to protect U.S. computer systems as well as consumers’ privacy.


  39. From Paris to Copenhagen.


    One needn’t approve of offensive videos about a faith practiced by more than a billion people. Nor should we insist that satirists skewer Muslims rather than Mormons. But the plain fact of the matter is that French editors and writers who were brave enough to mock Islamists who threaten the freedoms of the world were gunned down today in Paris while those who take aim at easier targets rake in profits without fear of being attacked. If that doesn’t constitute a clear and present danger to free speech, then nothing does.

    The proper response to the attack on Charlie Hebdo involves greater vigilance in the West about homegrown Islamist terror. The effort by some, especially in the liberal mainstream media, to shut down discussions about the danger from Islamists living in the West has helped create an atmosphere in which police and intelligence officials may be deterred from doing what is necessary to defend us. The myth of a post-9/11 backlash against American Muslims has played a role in promoting a false narrative in which radical Islam is made the victim of the story rather than the religious inspiration for terrorism. But we need more than better police work. What the West needs more than ever is a willingness on the part of our leaders and opinion makers to tell the truth about the danger from radical Islam. We should make it clear that while we are not at war with Islam, neither will we tolerate a war on democracy and free speech by European Islamists or their allies in the Middle East.

    What we should be thinking about today is whether at long last the West is prepared to stand up and defend its civilization and its values against a growing sense on the part of the Muslim world that it has the right to censure speech with which it disagrees. Until Europe and America stop apologizing and engaging in self-censorship out of fear of offending Islamists, the slaughter in Paris won’t be the last such outrage.

    The last sentence says it all.

  40. The “heckler’s veto” becomes the “assassin’s veto:


    Today, Valentine’s Day, a café in Copenhagen hosted a discussion on “Art, Blasphemy and Freedom of Expression”. Islam knows not “freedom of expression”, and the inclination of a certain proportion of its adherents is to respond to any “discussion” by opening fire.

    Why wouldn’t they? As President Selfie told the UN General Assembly, “The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam.” The fanatics of Islam take him at his word, and act accordingly.

    So at that café this afternoon they came in shooting and yelling “Allahu Akbar!” – which is Arabic for “Can’t we all just get along?” Three policemen are wounded and one member of the public – a 40-year-old man – is dead. And, in a small hitherto peaceable Scandinavian kingdom, another little bit of European cultural life and artistic spirit shrivels and dies.

    The principal speaker was the Swedish artist Lars Vilks, with whom I had the honor to share a stage in Copenhagen four years ago when I was given the Danish Free Press Society’s Sappho Award. If you don’t know Lars, here’s what I had to say about him a while back:

    They have a tradition in Sweden of roundabout dogs – canine scultptures that pop up mysteriously on Swedish roundabouts – and Lars Vilks decided to do a drawing of Mohammed as a roundabout dog. He wound up with a fatwa on his head. And one night he came home to find the jihad boys had firebombed his kitchen. As they escaped across the field heady with the thrill of their glorious victory, they noticed that in the course of setting Mr Vilks’ home alight they’d also accidentally set their trousers on fire, and, after some effort to extinguish their smoking pantaloons, were forced to discard them. Unfortunately, in abandoning their pants and scampering off through the icy night in their jihadist underwear, they neglected to remove the charred driver’s licenses and other identifying documentation, from which police were able easily to track them down. When Mr Vilks told this story in Copenhagen, the whole room was roaring with laughter.

    Indeed. Afterwards we all went to dinner. And it emerged that in the course of the day a one-legged Chechen from Belgium, seething with resentment at Lars and the rest of us infidels, had prematurely self-detonated in his Copenhagen hotel room while assembling his package. And we all had a grand laugh about that, too. [snip]

    Today they were competent. And so a Danish citizen is dead because he went to a discussion on free speech.

    This is usually the point at which we’re expected to do the not-all-Muslims-want-to-shoot-you-dead shtick. And that’s true. But Islam itself has no feeling whatsoever for the spirit of free speech. For example, Bushra Qasim Khan doesn’t want to shoot anyone dead herself, but, via Blazing Cat Fur, we learn this:

    Copenhago: Firing is continue. May Allah help those gun men. End the blasphemers.

    Bushra Qasim Khan is a Pakistani “journalist” who claims “knowledge is oxygen”.

    As much as I loathe these fanatics, I despise even more Obama and the European political elite that gives them succor and trades our liberties to appease madmen. They have seeded a cancer in the heart of the west that will consume us all.

  41. Another of what Obama will say is a “random attack”:


    Police say they killed the man in the Norrebro district after he opened fire on them.

    It came after one person was killed and three police officers injured at a free speech debate in a cafe on Saturday.

    In the second attack, a Jewish man was killed and two police officers wounded near the city’s main synagogue.

    Police say video surveillance suggested the same man carried out both attacks. They do not believe any other people were involved.

    “We assume that it’s the same culprit behind both incidents, and we also assume that the culprit that was shot by the police task force… is the person behind both of these assassinations,” Chief Police Inspector Torben Molgaard Jensen told a news conference.

  42. admin
    February 15, 2015 at 11:16 am

    From Paris to Copenhagen.

    Adin I blame the POTUS, for this, he put a bulls eye on every one that believes in free speech.
    He got up in front of the UN and the world and declared that the future must not belong to those that disparage Mohamed. 👿

  43. From Lars Vilks to Charlie Hebbdo back to Lars Vilks:


    After the initial, near-universal rallying to the banner of free speech, some on the left have begun to assert that the magazine’s targets – racial and religious minorities – took it outside the bounds of permissible speech. (Let’s ignore for the moment that Charlie seemed intent on insulting everyone, from Catholics and Jews to Charles de Gaulle, not just Muslims.) Many are now debating whether speech like Charlie’s deserves the freedoms we accord it or whether there isn’t some less scurrilous speech to celebrate.

    Unfortunately, very rarely do tests of freedom involve the popular, the tasteful and the acceptable. For what should be obvious reasons, our tolerance is generally tested by the intolerable – and, most often, this is represented by those on the fringes of society, not the powerful and dominant.

    Back when I used to practice law, the bulk of my work involved the First Amendment. At one point, I was asked to defend the First Amendment rights of a (rightly) unpopular group. I didn’t really want to do it, but, since I actually believe that freedom of speech does and must extend even to speech I revile, I really had no excuse to avoid handling the case other than the discomfort it would cause me personally. That discomfort was not insignificant. I received threats resulting in police protection for several days. For a while, I wouldn’t go out with friends to avoid placing anyone else at risk.

    Let me explain why I think such speech merits protection. You learn three things pretty quickly when you litigate civil liberties cases:

    1. Every American believes him- or herself an expert on the Constitution.

    2. Every American believes strongly in freedom of speech, except for speech with which they strongly disagree.

    3. Every American believes the famous Oliver Wendell Holmes line about “crying ‘fire!’ in a crowded theater” is the slam-dunk argument-ender on any speech to which they object.

    There’s hardly anyone who didn’t end a discussion with me about the limits of free speech by pointing to whatever it was they rejected and asserting, definitively, “That’s like yelling ‘fire!’ in a crowded theater!” – usually with the concluding comment, “It’s inflammatory.” But the neat coincidence between the cry of “fire” and the adjective “inflammatory” actually has nothing to do with why yelling “fire!” in a crowded theater isn’t protected by the First Amendment, or whether any other speech should be. [snip]

    Now, it’s sometimes the case that independent, rational thought isn’t involved, and these are circumstances that can make mere words responsible for ensuing harms – where, for instance, they can be understood as an order that the speaker reasonably knows will be followed, or a violent threat that the hearer can reasonably fear will actually be carried out. That’s why yelling fire in a theater isn’t protected speech: It can be fully expected to incite a dangerous panic. But where the opportunity exists for rational thought, an action is the responsibility of the person who chooses to take it, not the one who suggests or “incites” it.

    And that takes us to the unsettling reaction by many to the Charlie Hebdo killings. Somehow, the argument goes, freedom of speech doesn’t extend to criticizing a minority religion, culture, or ethnic group, and those who engage in offensive speech deserve the consequences. Similar logic applies to the argument that Sony is “responsible” for bringing upon itself the attack reportedly launched by North Korea by producing the puerile comedy “The Interview” – or, for that matter, that women who express themselves through suggestive clothing are “responsible” for whatever men choose to do in response.

    This gets responsibility backwards. Except in rare instances that occur in the real world about as often as similar “ticking time-bomb” justifications put forward for torture, words do not cause harm. It is the people who act on them that do.

    Let me be clear: I found most Charlie Hebdo cartoons I’ve seen offensive. I wouldn’t publish them myself. I feel the same way about the musical “The Book of Mormon,” frankly. But those on the left who urge that speech protections shouldn’t extend to statements that offend their sensibilities (while finding “Book of Mormon” hysterically insightful) ought to remember that suppression, by definition, emanates from majorities or those who otherwise hold power. It is always a tool of the powerful, not the weak and the downtrodden.

    Humankind’s advance is due to the development and spread of new ideas. Virtually everything that comprises modern life – from the scientific revolution to each of the three monotheistic religions – was originally considered unacceptable and repressed by authorities of the day. To stifle expression of thought – and, with it, thought itself – would be to consign humanity to stagnation and extinction.

    The assertion that one shouldn’t express controversial views because they will engender predictably violent reactions – and that such speech can and should therefore be suppressed – has been a frequent one, directed mostly against the civil rights and anti-war movements. Arguments that words can be equated to weapons, and ideas therefore suppressed, tend to arise from those intent on protecting status quo ideas and elites – like, perhaps most famously in American constitutional law, Robert Bork. When “progressives” join such positions, it’s a very sad day for progress.

  44. Obama’s willingness to protect certain groups, including Islam, even if it means infringing on the right of free speech is not extended to everyone.

    There was no call to limit public anti-Semitic remarks that were so rampant toward the end of last year. In fact, Obama and Kerry incited them. There was no concern for the safety of law-enforcement officers or of non-African American citizens of this country when Obama and/or his surrogates incited racial tension in the Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, or Eric Garner cases. He certainly felt free to criticize Christians for the Crusades – as he attempted to defend the present day heinous murders and terrorist acts committed by radical Islam.

    Obama wants people to exercise caution and watch what they say when free speech is used to criticize or satirize the groups and individuals he values and supports. The others, from his perspective are underserving of protection. He has no problem with free speech when it is used against those designated as unworthy by King Barack.

  45. wbboei

    February 14, 2015 at 8:21 pm

    February 14, 2015 at 1:17 pm
    That is the whole problem with conventional medicine.

    It is run by big pharma.

    My cholestrol was a little high–212.

    My doctor was insistent that I get on statins.

    Statins are something that is bad, and will damage the body.

    He told me 80% of doctors take them



    this is why the whole Ocare Oscam is just that a scam
    notice how O had his secret deal making with big pharma so they would be taken care of

    notice how our govt is never allowed to negotiate drug prices for Americans even though drug prices for Americans are the most expensive in the world (of course, sucker the american middle class)

    all of us have witnessed a parent or a friend with their plastic containers filled with multiple drugs they have to take every day…it is freaking mindboggling

    every time I see these medical plans out there with their supposed great copays, etc for their drug plans I want to SCREAM out loud to the patients…stay away from that junk

    the dirty little secret with our health care system is once these doctors get you in their clutches…and worse…you are under the control of the hospital and their regular peddeling of drugs they make you take…even if you are so drugged you cannot stand…and then they want you to get up to “walk around” while your head is collapsing on your body because you are so doped up…at that stage, the so called medical professionals and the drug companies have enslaved you…

    this is not to offend many, many people who work in the medical profession and try earnestly to help others…but for the ones that make these poor seniors and others slaves to drugs…and drugs that often compete against each other…I say run…

    …there is so much going on in traditional/corporate medicine that is flat out wrong…wrong, wrong, wrong…

  46. on a more positive note…

    wbboei…Maurice Chevalier is one of my all time favorites…he never disappoints…
    Gigi…love it…
    ‘Fanny’ one of my favs with such a great cast, Maurice as Panisse pulled my heart strings…i’ve seen it so many times and get hooked again every single time…always makes me tear up even though I know what is going to happen…
    wbboei, i am sure you must have seen Fanny, if not, I highly encourage you to try

  47. Islam is the religion of peace.

    Fuck that!

    There is no current religion that murders for the effin’ sport of it, like the people of this religion. Some are moderates, but for those ‘normal’ Muslims that cover up their women, treat them like property and mutilate their women sexually, from the waist down…so THEY don’t commit ‘adultery’ and will never enjoy love making……..these are male monsters.

    About a week ago, I just happened to go to one of my bookmarks, an Egyptian website to see what was going on. They were talking about FGM. I didn’t know what that stood for, so reading further and doing more research on the subject…I am not only shocked but have zero sympathy for anyone that practices this disgusting religion and cuts their little girls. Egypt, I thought was a pretty civilized place in the middle east…nope. They used to mutilate 100% of their little girls, now since it has been outlawed in 2008, only effin’ 93% still do it. Christian’s do it in that area too. Not only do they remove all their external lady parts below the belt, with blades or razors, but sew them up until cut open when they are married off at a young age.

    These superassholes are barbarians. Giving machine guns to wipe out their men would be a good solution.

  48. Shadowfax
    February 15, 2015 at 6:24 pm

    Amen. I fail to see the rational of a religion that prays to a god that approves the killing of infidels in the most brutal way, mutilating girls in an attempt to maximize control over them, not imprison thieves but rather chop of their hands, and yet claim that it is somehow a RELIGION OF PEACE.


    Hillary 2016

  49. John Fund has written an article on how Hillary scares off Wig-wam.


    One of the usually unspoken reasons that potential rivals are scared of running is that they know Team Hillary pulled its punches against Obama in 2008 — in large part because he was African American. When Bill Clinton compared Obama’s primary victory in South Carolina historically to those of Jesse Jackson in the same state, he was viciously attacked; for the rest of the campaign, he was relatively mute. “I think that they played the race card on me,” Clinton complained to WHYY Radio in Philadelphia in April 2008. “We now know, from memos from the campaign and everything, that they planned to do it all along.”

    It’s fairly certain that Elizabeth Warren, if she ran, would not receive such a pass from Team Hillary, which is famous for playing both mean and creatively. In 2008, it saw many of its anti-Obama themes injected into the media mainstream via the Drudge Report. An investigation by Britain’s Daily Telegraph established that Clinton supporters, especially an ex-deputy attorney general in Pennsylvania, were “largely to blame for starting” the untruth that Obama had been born outside the U.S.

    A ready-made army of liberal bloggers and surrogates would stand ready to belittle Warren’s lack of political experience and foreign-policy credentials.

    And then there would be the character shots. Anti-big-business liberals would be reminded frequently that for all her populist rhetoric, Warren opposes a bill to audit the Federal Reserve and supports funding for the Export-Import Bank, a favorite of crony capitalists.

    Then there is the “Fauxcahontas” scandal. In April 2012, the Boston Globe broke the news that while Warren never claimed American Indian heritage as an undergraduate or law-school student, she began doing so in her 30s as she sought jobs at highly competitive law schools such as Harvard.

    The Association of American Law Schools requires law professors to answer ethnicity questions on its questionnaire. Only Warren can release a copy of her original questionnaire, and she has refused to do so. Back-channel Hillary surrogates would make hay out of that.

    Then there is the scandal-in-waiting concerning her sleazy scholarship while a law professor. She co-authored a highly-publicized study in 2005 that claimed that 54.5 percent of all bankruptcies have “a medical cause” and that 46.2 percent have a “major medical cause,” telling interviewers that those findings demonstrated the need for national health care. In fact, the proportion of bankruptcies caused by catastrophic medical losses is more like 2 percent. Her numbers were inflated by including “uncontrolled gambling,” “alcohol or drug addiction,” “death in family,” and “birth/addition of new family member” as “a medical cause.” In addition, spending as little as $1,000 in unreimbursed medical expenses over the course of two years — hardly unusual for a family — was enough to get a bankruptcy classified as “a major medical cause” even when the debtor himself or herself did not list illness or injury as a cause of the bankruptcy. A number of scholars have criticized the study as intentionally misleading.

    Nor was this the only blot on Warren’s scholarship. George Mason University law professor Todd Zywicki told Breitbart News in 2012:

    Questions about the validity of Warren’s scholarly findings have haunted her since early in her career. Reviewing her first major scholarly work [her 1990 study on bankruptcy], a co-authored book, noted bankruptcy professor Philip Schuchman (now deceased) stated bluntly, “In my opinion, the authors have engaged in repeated instances of scientific misconduct.” Similar questions have continued to nag her scholarship throughout her career, especially her usage and handling of empirical data and the conclusions she draws from it.

    All of the above, along with other opposition research, would provide endless fodder for Team Hillary.

  50. At DailyKooks the attention on us recently is “If Hillary wants to run she must shut down HillaryIs44.” Nothing changes for the Kooks and their Muslim style belief in free speech.

    At Democratic Underground they’re discussing “How to handle Hillary haters” (which many believe refers to Democratic Underground because, well, they’re Hillary haters.)

    Someone in the discussion brings up good ol’ Big Pink as “Here’s a bunch of her fans who are nutty, but they do stick up for her no matter what”. Then we are described as “Funny, entertaining, and irreverent.”


  51. The Religion of Peace gets interesting as Al-Sisi threatens to release the Kraken:


    CAIRO – President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi said on Sunday that Egypt reserved the right to respond in a way it sees fit to the Islamic State’s beheading of 21 Egyptians in neighboring Libya.

    Sisi warned Cairo would choose the “necessary means and timing to avenge the criminal killings”. He was speaking on national television hours after Islamic State released a video purportedly showing the beheading of 21 Egyptian Christians in Libya.

  52. We should consider it a huge compliment to be called “nutters” by the DU kiddos. Apparently, they just don’t know how to relate to people who refuse to be dictated to by the party. Refusing to echo the tired, ludicrous talking points of Barack and his supporters is foreign to DU.

    The last time I checked over there they were running Hillary down like she had ebola or something. They were singing One Drop’s praises to the heavens. WTF has happened? Maybe they see that Hillary has the nomination if she wants it – whether One Drop, Joe and/or Sanders run or not. Maybe the DU kids don’t want to be on a losing team.

    Too bad. That ship has sailed.

    How the hell do the Kooks think could Hillary “shut Hillary is 44 down” even if she wanted to? I guess she could pressure Admin, but Admin doesn’t seem like someone who caves to pressure to me.

  53. Shadowfax
    February 15, 2015 at 6:24 pm
    Islam is the religion of peace.

    Fuck that!

    There is no current religion that murders for the effin’ sport of it, like the people of this religion. Some are moderates, but for those ‘normal’ Muslims that cover up their women, treat them like property and mutilate their women sexually, from the waist down…so THEY don’t commit ‘adultery’ and will never enjoy love making……..these are male monsters.

    Preach it, Shadow!!

  54. TheRock
    February 15, 2015 at 5:59 pm
    Somebody needs to tell Rand that the U.S. Government isn’t high school. Wait, the way they act, maybe it is. I guess they are guided by the latest Glee episode for their refresher course on inter party discourse.


    Rock, that’s a spot on description of Rand. He’s like a spiteful kid. Rather than making a cogent argument against Hillary’s policies and positions, he just spouts insults. Like a kid in a fight he knows he can’t win, the only thing he has is hatred for and anger at his opponent.

  55. The Hill reporting an updated list of the Dims who will skip the Bibi speech:


    House (19)

    Rep. Earl Blumenauer (Ore.) — Wrote a Jan. 29 column in The Huffington Post explaining his decision, saying the Constitution “vests the responsibility for foreign affairs in the president.”

    Rep. G.K. Butterfield (N.C.) — The head of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) focused on Boehner undermining Obama in a statement and emphasized he’s not urging a boycott.

    Rep. Andre Carson (Ind.)

    Rep. James Clyburn (S.C.) — Clyburn is the highest-ranking Democratic leader to say he’ll skip the speech.

    Rep. Keith Ellison (Minn.) — He is head of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC), a member of the CBC and the first Muslim in Congress.

    Rep. Raúl Grijalva (Ariz.) — Grijalva is a co-chairman of the CPC.

    Rep. Luis Gutiérrez (Ill.) — A spokesman told the Chicago Sun-Times that Gutierrez has a “strong” record on Israel but called the speech “a stunt.”

    Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.)

    Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (Texas) — “The Congresswoman has no plans to attend the speech at this time,” a spokeswoman said.

    Rep. Barbara Lee (Calif.) — A member of the CBC and former head of the CPC.

    Rep. John Lewis (Ga.) — His office confirmed he’s not going but emphasized he’s not organizing a formal boycott

    Rep. Betty McCollum (Minn.): “In my view Mr. Netanyahu’s speech before Congress is nothing more than a campaign event hosted by Speaker Boehner and paid for by the American people,” McCollum said in a statement.”

    Rep. Jim McDermott (Wash.) — “I do not intend to attend the speech of Bibi,” he said in an email to a Seattle newspaper.

    Rep. Gregory Meeks (N.Y.) — A CBC member.

    Rep. Beto O’Rourke (Texas)

    Rep. Chellie Pingree (Maine)

    Rep. Charles Rangel (N.Y.) — “I’m offended as an American,” he said on MSNBC.

    Rep. Bennie Thompson (Miss.)

    Rep. John Yarmuth (Ky.) — “We know what he is going to say,” the Jewish lawmaker said in a statement.

    Senate (3)

    Sen. Patrick Leahy (Vt.) — Leahy called it a “tawdry and high-handed stunt,” according to a Vermont newspaper.

    Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) — Sanders, who caucuses with Democrats, said it’s “wrong” that Obama wasn’t consulted about the speech.

    Sen. Brian Schatz (Hawaii) — “The U.S.-Israel relationship is too important to be overshadowed by partisan politics,” said Schatz in a statement. “I am disappointed in the Republican leadership’s invitation of Prime Minister Netanyahu to address a joint session of Congress with the apparent purpose of undermining President Obama’s foreign policy prerogatives.”

  56. Glenn Greenwald asserts that the media has been transformed from being public watchdogs to serving those in power. They lead the way in demanding there be no accountability or investigations. “If you look at, say, a host on MSNBC, what you’re actually seeing is a very high ranking employee of what was General Electric and now is Comcast, who makes many millions of dollars a year…Why is the son (NYT’s Bill Keller) of the CEO of Chevron and the fiancé (CNN’s Erin Burnett) of the second highest ranking executive at Citigroup scornful of Wall Street protesters? It’s because this is who our media class is; they are integrated fully into the political class.” He continues to say, “Of course, if you are a high ranking employee of major corporations making millions of dollars a year, things like mass joblessness and homelessness and foreclosures is not something that’s in your personal range of experience.”[31]
    Spot on Glenn. As always. An honest man of the left. If only there were more of them, and less of these fucking poseurs.

  57. S
    February 15, 2015 at 1:30 pm
    I too am a Maurice Chevalier fan.

    Looking at the early pictures of him, he was something of an ugly duckling.

    He became an elegant swan however in his later years.

    Normally, it is the reverse.

    He was the paramour of the true belle of the Belle Epoque:

    the French actress Mistinguett who was 15 years his senior.

    She had that slight over bite that Tolstoy talked about in War and Peace as the mark of a beautiful woman.

    She used her influence with the King of Belgium to get Maurice released from a German Prison in World War I.

    Better there I suppose than at the Battle of the Somme.

    Here is a picture of her, and her story.

    Traces of a by-gone era, which is now beyond the memory of living men.


  58. A moderate Muslim?

    You mean one who offers you a blindfold and a cigarette before he beheads you.

    Question: is Obama a moderate Muslim–or a braying jackass?

    Is a cat’s ass punched or bored?

    How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

    Is Rand Paul a two headed dentist or a pin headed proctologist?

    To such profound questions there are alas no sufficient answers.

    Therefore, we must abid in a state of uncertainty in the great empty.

  59. so is O going to come out in an outrage over all those Christian men that were just beheaded…will he give equal time to christians…those ‘crusaders’ he evoked (provoked) a week ago?


    isis sends out video “The video, being widely circulated on the Twitter accounts of ISIS supporters, is entitled “A Message Signed With Blood To The Nation Of The Cross.”

    In a message to the “crusaders,” a masked man holding a knife says the group is “chopping off the heads of those that have been carrying the cross illusion.”

    “Safety for you crusaders is something you can only wish for,” the man says.

    The men’s heads are then shown removed from their bodies, while blood mixes with the waves.


  60. S
    February 15, 2015 at 11:57 pm


    and Louis Jourdan, the romantic lead in Gigi…died yesterday on Valentine’s Day at 93…sigh!

  61. Admin

    I’m glad some of the Obot’s see that your Big Pink is entertaining. After six years of Obama failures, humor is the only way we can keep going and know that in less than 2 years, the ObamaDrama will finally be over.

    We’ve shed our buckets of tears, ranted against the corruption and slacker’s ways until we are blue in the face.

  62. S
    February 15, 2015 at 11:57 pm


    and Louis Jourdan, the romantic lead in Gigi…died yesterday on Valentine’s Day at 93…sigh!

    I can’t believe he was 93, He was so handsome, I had such a crush when I was a little girl…where has the time all gone?

  63. Put me under oath and I will tell you what I really believe.

    I really believe that Obama is a snake and he is so bent on getting a deal–any deal that he can call a deal so he can call critics racist and his big media acoyltes could then chime in and plant a new round of stories about slavery etc. that he welcomes the slaughter of innocents in the middle east, because this gives him the opportunity to say yes we sold out our allies in the middle east, but I got a selfie with the Supreme Leader and a promise that he will get on the right side of history and do the dirty work on ISIS for us, and by the way, what is my tee time. That is one meeting I cannot afford to miss. I am green with envy that I am not one of those seekers of wisdom and truth known as big media who are poised to recorronate him as a greater than Lincoln as the join with the political class to become the new aristocracy of the information age. Question: if it came down to saving either ISIS, the last small pox virus, or big media which would you save? Answer: that is a tough question. Let me get back to you—in twenty years.

  64. The spectacle of big media turns my stomach.

    I spoke to Brian Williams yesterday. He told me he has filed for unemployment. They declined to pay him because he is suspended not fired. He is very unhappy about that. As he pointed out a $10 million salary goes only so far. Besides that little maggot Lauer whose parents came here from Transylvania makes a cool $19 million. No wonder Brian felt compelled to inflate his resume. How else can he ever hope to attract the big bucks, and to wipe that superior grin off the little maggots face. He plans to spend the next six months writing up his version of Indiana Jones—-he has not settled on a title, and I suggested Benghazi Brian. He liked it. Or maybe he just liked the fact that someone–even me was still talking to him. He sends his regards to all of you. He wants you to know that right now it is not easy being Brian, and then he delivered an aria called Don’t Cry for Me Argentina, which sounded less like Patty LuPone, and more like the news reader he is, correction, was.

  65. admin February 15, 2015 at 11:16 am

    …. The proper response to the attack on Charlie Hebdo involves greater vigilance in the West about homegrown Islamist terror ….

    In “the West”?? In Europe, the problem is less a matter of “homegrown Islamist terror” and more a mundane problem of sealing off the leak of weapons into the EU generally. Things aren’t viewed this way in the US because there is no gun control anyway.

    What the West needs more than ever is a willingness on the part of our leaders and opinion makers to tell the truth about the danger from radical Islam.

    This definitely holds for the US; but EU opinion is much more balanced on the subject, even though the EU is an average 5000 miles closer to the source of the evil than the US, and has been living with it longer.

    “Leaders and opinion makers” don’t need to “tell the truth” to the people about the terror threat. Everybody knows about it, and they have known about it for a long time.

    Conclusion: It doesn’t do any good to try to whip up the populace into hysteria against “radical Islam” or Muslims. What is the population going to do on its own? Play cops and robbers? It’s up to each country to have feelers in the Muslim community, to detect any wildcat violent types.

    In the 2012 presidential campaign, Sarkozy bragged that the French terrorist services had thwarted 35 terrorist plots during his presidency. The Charlie Hebdo attack was a failure of this strategy; but as I said, there’s no need to alert the population to a problem they’re already quite aware of….

  66. If you have ever been to the Algonquin Hotel in mid-town New York City, the birthplace of the New Yorker magazine and the watering hole for the Dorothy Parker crowd who lunched and drank and drank and drank at the legendary round table. Above the main floor are the sleeping rooms and the corridors connecting them to the elevator are lined with wall paper containing cartoons that once appeared in that magazine. One of them shows a frustrated executive on the phone with someone he does not really wish to talk to who is begging him to go to lunch, and he says okay fine, how about the twelfth of never. Presciently that coincides exactly with date that Brian Williams will go back on the air to report the news. NBC may be corrupt, but they ain’t (completely) stupid.

  67. jeswezey
    February 16, 2015 at 1:08 pm
    Your comments reflect the fear of the mob by the elites. It was part and parcel of Hamilton’s thinking–and the idea that they cannot handle the truth. That may be true to a point, and the devil’s tooth justice metted out by the rabble of Paris in 1789, and again the drumshead justice seen in 1945 which took the lives of 40,000 people I read some place, where the mere accusation is sufficient cause to send someone to the gallows, highlights the concern. But it is hard to reconcile this fear, with the confidence which the Constitution places in the judgment of the people, therefore I would be inclined to err on the side of freedom, rather than repression, truth rather than lies, openess rather than censorship, because sunlight is the best disenfectant, electric light the best policeman. In sum, Jefferson and much later Brandeis got it right.

  68. The weak point in my argument is this: WE DO NOT HAVE IN THIS COUNTRY TODAY A BIG MEDIA WHICH IS CAPABLE OF NOT INCITING THE MASSES. Instead, we have a cacophony of useless cocksucker pretending to be journalist, and an executive layer which is part of the elite class which routinely throws the country to the wolves.

  69. Sarkozy bragged that the French terrorist services had thwarted 35 terrorist plots during his presidency. The Charlie Hebdo attack was a failure of this strategy; but as I said, there’s no need to alert the population to a problem they’re already quite aware of….
    Baseball great Ted Williams, who is neigher dead not living, but preserved in ice for the future day when he is revived, would kill for a batting average like that. But it fails to define what is meant by the term “terrorist plot”.

    By the way, you have had two weeks to watch and respond to the two Sowell tapes which you asked me to dig up for you and your promised to give your reaction to. The statue of limitations has now expired, and you are free to disregard the request. But I am free to take this as an admission that what he says, which is essentially an indictment of socialism, is valid and cannot be refuted/

  70. Ted Cruz:

    “The biggest divide in politics is between career politicians in both parties in Washington and the American people,” the senator says.

    Cruz is most proud of his efforts to stop the train wreck that is Obamacare. As he travels around the nation, he hears of lost health care coverage, lost jobs, and rising premiums. Yet, he says “career politicians in both parties are perfectly happy to let Obamacare remain a permanent feature of our economy.” Cruz elevated the Obamacare debate, and leadership still hasn’t thanked Cruz for waging the battle that galvanized a nation, convincing enough voters last November that Republicans might really fight to stop Obama’s transformation of the nation.

    The Texan thinks the only way to change what Pat Caddell is talking about is for the American people to rise up. From all he can see from the inside, “Washington is not listening.”

    Cruz tells the revealing insider story of the 2014 debt ceiling battle, where too many Republicans said one thing and then did another, when it came to restraining out of control spending. Cruz said he wasn’t surprised when President Obama audaciously demanded Congress raise the government credit card limit without any spending reforms. But the House approved it, with only 28 Republicans voting with 190 Democrats to pass a clean debt ceiling per the President’s request, to the acclaim of Wall Street and media elites.

    Next the Senate had to pass H.R. 325. Just as the Senate is now experiencing with the current battle over DHS spending that contains a defunding of executive amnesty, to proceed to consider a bill takes 60 votes. But the 60 vote threshold can be altered if the Senate changed it by unanimous consent. Senate Republican leaders, not objecting to more spending, more debt, wanted to “kick the can down the road.” Cruz reports GOP leaders asked all their senators to affirmatively consent to lower the threshold from 60 to 50 votes. The result? If we lowered it, Cruz says, it would “allow us to vote no on the substance and tell our constituents that we opposed what we just consented to allow happen.”

    Cruz objected to the game, and says “nothing has engendered more animosity and vitriol in Washington than that.” It’s interesting to note that this Wall Street Journal editorial wrongly predicted Cruz’s battle would result in the Democrats retaining the majority in the fall 2014 elections, but no public apologies have been issued to Cruz from the Journal editorial page.

    The senator told Republican leaders, “I can’t lie to the people who elected me.” The truth is “shining the light on the game being played in D.C. is worse than insulting another” senator, he says.

    Discussing President Obama’s State of the Union address, he said he felt like he was “Alice in Wonderland.” The “president described facts that have no bearing on reality.”

    Despite the Washington environment, Cruz is optimistic because his travels reveal “people are waking up across the country.”

    “2016 will be an election like 1980,” he says. “We win by drawing a line in the sand. There is a better path for this country. Back to the free market principles and constitutional liberties that have made America the best country in the world.”

  71. admin February 15, 2015 at 12:00 pm

    Except in rare instances that occur in the real world about as often as similar “ticking time-bomb” justifications put forward for torture, words do not cause harm. It is the people who act on them that do.

    “Words do not cause harm?” Who pays this guy Vilks to write this kind of bullshit?

    Vilks is giving words a pass here because he thinks they’re just vibrations in the wind.

    He’s also giving a pass, inadvertently, to shouting “fire” in a crowded theater, because that does no harm either — Just blame the suckers who stampede for the door! The victims are at fault!

    I’m not the kind of person that gets insulted easily: I don’t think I’m very smart or very nice to look at; so people can throw just about any kind of shit my way — in fact, anything at all, except bullshit; but I rebut the bullshit calmly, without hurting the other person’s feelings.

    However, my own invulnerability doesn’t give me any particular right to insult someone else, or to bullshit them, on the principle of “free speech”. Why? Because I know my words can cause injury. In France, if I make a racial slur, anyone within earshot can bring criminal and civil charges against me.

    And that’s the way it should be.

    Vilks first two hypotheses are:

    1. Every American believes himself an expert on the Constitution.

    2. Every American believes strongly in freedom of speech, except for speech with which they strongly disagree.

    The silliness of these hypotheses is self-evident. Yet, it is incredible to me nowadays, but looking back on my experience in the US, I can say that these two hypotheses are perfectly true, and that they speak very badly for “free speech” in America.

    Vilks goes on to make an insipid pronouncement about humankind’s advancement being “due to the development and spread of new ideas.” As if he has a few “new ideas” to share with us!!

    This rubbish is just one more defense of “irresponsible speech”, not “free speech”.

  72. Gonzotx…I was also surprised he was 93…I think many of us boomers, when we were kids, had a crush on Louie and so many of the romantic leads from that ‘gone by era’ Wbboei speaks of…



    February 16, 2015 at 1:19 pm


    another one of my favorites…

    http://www.kingcolebar.com/ (love, love Maxfield Parrish)

  73. Paris and its architecture are a grand tribute to the Belle Epoque.

    That halcion period of culture learning and the arts

    Which began at the close of the Franco-Prussian War in 1870 and ended with the Guns of August in ’14.

    How ironic that a Prussian architect would have designed the tribute to the Belle Epoque

    That we still see fleeting glimpses of today.

    When I think of romantic cities around the world, for me, Paris has no equal.

    Learner and Lowe captured its essence in bold colors on celluloid in the movie Gigi.

    But no one I know captured the essence of that Paris in the Belle Epoque

    better than the writer of the obituary of its foremost show girl–and Chevalier’s one true love


    Upon her death, writer Jean Cocteau observed in Misinguette’s obituary, “Her voice, slightly off-key, was that of the Parisian street hawkers—the husky, trailing voice of the Paris people. She was of the animal race that owes nothing to intellectualism. She incarnated herself. She flattered a French patriotism that was not shameful. It is normal now that she should crumble, like the other caryatids of that great and marvelous epoch that was ours”.

    The Latin expression is ‘tempus fugit”

    The Holmes quote: society (including its culture) does not improve. It merely evolves.

  74. jeswezey
    February 16, 2015 at 2:08 pm
    Salami, salami, baloney.

    The question is not whether speech can cause harm. The question is under what circumstances should that harm be actionable. And prior restraints, of the kind Obama wants in order to control our bodies and our minds, making us nothing more than robots, are a problem–and have been ever since the glorious days of the Alien and Sedition Acts by Adams, which sought to restrain the political actions and speech of the French Revolution enthusiasts of that day.

    Holmes, on the other hand, believed in free speech, and told us that the test of truth of an idea was its ability to compete in the marketplace of ideas. That marketplace is now threatened by Obama’s actions to take over the internet, without a whimper. This is the way democracy will end, not with a bang but with a whimper, as TS Eliott might say.

    You may be troubled by the fact that every American believes that he understands the constitution, but in a world of multi cultural confusion, collapsing creeds, and feckless leaders where else can we turn to validate our identity as Americans? Yes these are symbols, more honored in the breach than in the observance, but they give us some sense of solace, unity and purpose, when all we have to look forward to is the great empty.

  75. foxy…

    I would expect no less than predictable, silly, reactionary comments from the CrooksandLiars crowd…it is more of the group think mentality…they have to hate her whether there is a reason to or not…

    like Sarah or not…she is her own person and not afraid to say what she thinks…she was actually a progressive governor who went against the hypocrisy of her own party in Alaska…but the left is so blinded by their own hypocrisy they only see black and white…no shades of grey…or other colors…

    I used to check crooksandliars years ago, along with rawstory, etc until I started seeing the ‘light’…mostly all the same far left group think dribble talking points weaved into condescending towards anyone that would dare think for themselves…

    …then most of us witnessed what they really were about when they came out swinging against Hillary…hell, even Randi Rhodes went anti Clinton…i no longer respect their opinions…

    …and Sarah doesn’t give a damn what they say or think…she keeps smiling and doing her thing…

  76. http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/16/politics/cnn-poll-isis-obama-approval/index.html

    Washington (CNN)—Americans are increasingly unhappy with President Barack Obama’s handling of ISIS, and a growing share of the nation believes that fight is going badly, according to a new CNN/ORC survey released Monday.

    The CNN/ORC poll found 57% of Americans disapprove of how Obama is handling the threat posed by ISIS, a significant decline in support for the President over the past few months. In late September, that number was 49%.

    Fifty-seven percent disapprove of his handling of foreign affairs more broadly, and 54% disapprove of how the President is handling terrorism. Another 60% rate Obama negatively on his handling of electronic national security.

    The declining approval ratings for Obama on national security come as a weekend of international turmoil further underscores the growing threats abroad.

    Denmark’s capital was rocked by two shootings, one at a free speech event featuring a controversial cartoonist and another just hours later outside a synagogue. The attacks left two dead and five police officers wounded.

    And Egypt launched a second round of airstrikes against Islamic State strongholds in Libya on Monday, in retaliation for a video released Sunday that appeared to show ISIS militants beheading a group of 21 Egyptian Christians.

    Obama issued a statement condemning the killing of the Christians on Sunday night, though Obama’s Republican opponents have consistently made the case that the growing Islamic State threat is exacerbated by what they see as his weak leadership.

    In the poll, Americans increasingly believe the U.S. military action against ISIS is going badly, with 58% saying so in the latest survey, up from 49% who said the fight wasn’t going well in October.

    Even among Democrats, nearly half — 46% — say things aren’t going well in the battle against ISIS.

    And about half of respondents, 51%, say they trust the President as Commander-in-Chief of the military.

    But with ISIS affiliates continuing to commit brutal, gruesome murders and multiple terrorist attacks abroad grabbing international headlines over the past few months, support for sending ground troops to Iraq and Syria to confront the threat appears to be growing.

    The survey suggests Americans are warming up to the idea of sending ground troops to combat the terrorist organization.

    In November, just 43% supported deploying ground troops, while 55% of Americans opposed it; now the number in support has ticked up to 47%, the highest level of support yet measured, with just half of Americans opposed.

    Still, the parties have become more polarized on the prospect since November, with 61% of Democrats opposed and a similar majority of Republicans supportive of the prospect, an eight-point increase. Independents, meanwhile, are split, with 48% in favor and 50% opposed.

    The prospect of sending in ground troops remains a sticking point for both congressional Democrats and Republicans in the debate over Obama’s Authorization for the Use of Military Force, which would give him legal authority to combat ISIS.

    But the AUMF, and Obama’s decision to go to Congress for the official authority to continue battling ISIS, is widely popular, according to the new poll.

    Seventy-eight percent of Americans say Congress should give Obama the authority to fight ISIS, a slight decline from 82% who supported it in December. A similarly large majority say Obama was right to ask Congress for the authority, rather than proceeding with the battle unilaterally.

    The survey was conducted among 1,027 adult Americans from Feb. 12-15, and has a margin of sampling error of 3%.

  77. OH MY GOD.



    Question: what deadline are you talking about THIS TIME big media?

    Ohhh . . . you mean the deadline on funding of amnesty . . . right.


    The House has done its job, the Senate has failed to do its job (pausing for air)

    And if you in the House do not turn around and negotiate against yourself and endorse Obama’s illegal act

    Then terrorist will swarm across our border (as if they haven’t been doing that all along)

    And annihilation will be just around the corner—according to Chris Wallace.

    The Republican senate douchebags like McCain are sitting around asking why can’t we all just get along and give Obama everything he wants.

    That useless cocksucker even goes so far as to say the American People gave us the majority so we could move the process forward by caving in to Obama.

    That is a false, self serving and treasonous reading of the election which ignores every poll on subject.

    But when you have megalomania like Alzheimer McCain does it becomes understandable. Perhaps.

  78. not sure anyone has posted this yet…

    oh – oh…dims starting to find out what Pelosi said they would after they passed Ocarescam…and now they are freaking scared of backlash

    …sounds like what the Dims are asking for is what others are driving to the Supreme Court for clarification…


    APNewsbreak: Democrats seek relief from health law penalties

    WASHINGTON (AP) — The official sign-up season for President Barack Obama’s health care law may be over, but leading congressional Democrats say millions of Americans facing new tax penalties deserve a second chance.

    Three senior House members told The Associated Press that they plan to strongly urge the administration to grant a special sign-up opportunity for uninsured taxpayers who will be facing fines under the law for the first time this year.

    The three are Michigan’s Sander Levin, the ranking Democrat on the Ways and Means Committee, and Democratic Reps. Jim McDermott of Washington, and Lloyd Doggett of Texas. All worked to help steer Obama’s law through rancorous congressional debates from 2009-2010.

    The lawmakers say they are concerned that many of their constituents will find out about the penalties after it’s already too late for them to sign up for coverage, since open enrollment ended Sunday.

    That means they could wind up uninsured for another year, only to owe substantially higher fines in 2016. The fines are collected through the income tax system.

    This year is the first time ordinary Americans will experience the complicated interactions between the health care law and taxes. Based on congressional analysis, tax preparation giant H&R Block says roughly 4 million uninsured people will pay penalties.

    The IRS has warned that health-care related issues will make its job harder this filing season and taxpayers should be prepared for long call-center hold times, particularly since the GOP-led Congress has been loath to approve more money for the agency.

    “Open enrollment period ended before many Americans filed their taxes,” the three lawmakers said in a statement. “Without a special enrollment period, many people (who will be paying fines) will not have another opportunity to get health coverage this year.

    “A special enrollment period will not only help many Americans avoid making an even larger payment next year, but, more importantly, it will help them gain quality health insurance for 2015,” the lawmakers added.

    So far, administration officials have deflected questions about whether an extension will be granted. Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia M. Burwell has authority to grant special enrollment periods under certain circumstances.

    Supporters of the law say an extension would mainly help low- to middle-income uninsured people, the same group that Obama’s coverage expansion was intended to serve. But Republicans may criticize it as another tweak to what they see as unworkable “Obamacare.”

    The health care law imposes fines on uninsured people whose incomes are deemed high enough to enable them to afford coverage. The goal is to broaden the pool of insured people, helping to keep premiums in check for everybody.

    The law also offers subsidies to lower the cost of private coverage for people who don’t have job-based health care. That financial assistance is provided through a new tax credit.

    Although the tax credit subsidies cover most of the premiums for many people, the coverage requirement and the fines that enforce it remain deeply unpopular.

    And the cost of being uninsured in America is going up significantly.

    For 2014, the fine was the greater of $95 per person or 1 percent of household income above the threshold for filing taxes. That fine will be collected when taxpayers file their 2014 returns.

    But this year the fine will jump to the greater of 2 percent of income or $325. By 2016, the average fine will be about $1,100, based on government figures.

    Polls show that many taxpayers are unaware of the potential financial exposure.

    Floyd Cable, a real estate agent from Wichita Falls, Texas, said the escalating fines were part of the motivation for him and his wife to sign up last week. Both are self-employed, and stretching to pay health insurance premiums has been a struggle.

    “We have been going without insurance the last couple of years just because the rates are so astronomical,” Cable said.

    But they were also concerned they could wind up on the wrong side of rising penalties. And, being in his early 60s, Cable said he recognizes the value of having health insurance against unexpected illness.

    An extension would probably help people still on the fence, like he was.

    “Anything that could be done to give people more time to sort through this, is not only a good move for the administration, but just makes common sense,” Cable said.

    Since both the subsidies and penalties under the health law are administered through the tax system, some experts have urged the Obama administration to permanently schedule sign-up season to overlap with tax-filing season.

    Associated Press

  79. …their “Ocarescam” is showing…you pay tax penalties and get nothing in return…
    every year given up another percentage of your yearly salary and get zippo…

    Oscam gives “subsidies” to who they want…as illegals approach the slippery slope with their new found “status” and social security cards…they can even get tax returns on no taxes paid…but americans taxpayers to get penalized and keep paying…

    I am waiting for the candidate that addresses this injustice and speaks out against this BS

  80. a President and admin with no regard for the law or the American middle class of our country



    See the full timetable:

    Timeline: How the Obama Administration Bypassed Congress to Dismantle Immigration Enforcement


    btw…with all the beheadings and terror that went on this week, O golfed all Presidents wknd and MO and daughters went to Aspen

  81. From National Review article Admin posted above:

    Elizabeth Warren, if she ran, would not receive such a pass from Team Hillary, which is famous for playing both mean and creatively.


    “Team Hillary may be famous for being mean in the view of the National Review, but Hillary and her campaign acted like a group of girl scouts compared to Obama, his supporters, and his staff, with their cheating and sleaze tactics. And if National Review is concerned about “mean” politics, they should look at W’s run against McCain in 2000 for party nominee. With Karl Rove running W’s campaign, and with the Bush family no strangers to down and dirty politics, they brought “meanness” to a new level.

    You have to wonder how National Review would describe the campaign of a Republican male candidate, conducted exactly as Hillary’s was in 2008, with exactly the same tactics, same campaign plan, etc. Would that male Republican candidate be described as “mean” by NR? Hell no. And if NR did make such a reference, it would have been in a congratulatory tone – not a sleazy one.

    If Hillary’s campaign was mean, I’m damn glad of it. I hope she’ll be every bit as mean in 2016 if she runs. As the saying goes, “Well behaved women seldom make history.”

    From Article:

    Reviewing her first major scholarly work [her 1990 study on bankruptcy], a co-authored book, noted bankruptcy professor Philip Schuchman (now deceased) stated bluntly, “In my opinion, the authors have engaged in repeated instances of scientific misconduct.” Similar questions have continued to nag her scholarship throughout her career, especially her usage and handling of empirical data and the conclusions she draws from it.

    These issues from her background give the impression of someone a little too willing to bend the truth, to play fast and loose with ethics and the truth. She has given that impression in the past about a number of issues.

    If the above statement from the article is accurate – and there seems to be enough smoke around Lizzie’s professional conduct to show there was a fire or two somewhere along the line – this is would indicate an unfitness for the office of president. People make mistakes. They may exercise bad judgement occasionally. Sometimes it’s even possible for them to unknowingly engage in unethical conduct. All of these actions are forgivable and and the person is totally redeemable. But if a person is capable of deliberately and repeatedly engaging in sleazy, dishonorable actions to bolster their professional image, to increase their financial worth, or other self-serving purposes, there’s a character deficit somewhere.

    And, we don’t need another president who is long on image and short on integrity and competence.


    From Article:

    Reviewing her first major scholarly work [her 1990 study on bankruptcy], a co-authored book, noted bankruptcy professor Philip Schuchman (now deceased) stated bluntly, “In my opinion, the authors have engaged in repeated instances of scientific misconduct.” Similar questions have continued to nag her scholarship throughout her career, especially her usage and handling of empirical data and the conclusions she draws from it.


    If Hillary wants to get mean in 2016, some of us will have 8 years worth of anger built up by then and ready to be as mean as hungry pit bull with a tooth ache. I’m ready to get mean in 2016!

  82. In France, if I make a racial slur, anyone within earshot can bring criminal and civil charges against me.

    And that’s the way it should be.

    OMG. I think that’s just ridiculous.

    Well, I certainly hope then that they have the same criminal and civil liabilities against people who slur women – especially since we’re the majority.

    Let’s see – direct slurs against women – b*mbo, sl*t, wh*re, nice piece of a*s, she must have slept her way to the top”, and “c*nt” should rightly be called “the c word” if there is going to continue to be an “n word”.

    And also the indirect slurs against women, those which presume and reinforce that women are “less than” men – calling men – b*tches, pans*es, c*nt, “hello ladies” to a group of men, girlie boy, etc.

    Because I know my words can cause injury.

    Well, it can hurt when a kid gets a “F” in school, but we’re not doing them any favors when we pretend they didn’t and pass them through anyway.

    The point is for people to develop coping skills, not to put duct tape on people’s mouths in one case, and dumb down schools in the other.

    I’m all for decorum, but you can’t control everyone – at least not in a free society as America has been. Don’t French kids learn “sticks and stones….”?

  83. wbboei February 16, 2015 at 1:28 pm

    Your comments reflect the fear of the mob by the elites.

    They most certainly do not.

    I am not part of any elite, nor am I subject to any of their yearnings.

    I simply live in a country that prides itself on being a “society of law”. I am a foreigner in that country, but necessarily live by its laws and recognize their value.

    A society of law recognizes that no freedoms, including that of speech, can be enjoyed, sustained, protected or nurtured unless everyone — repeat, everyone — accepts the rules and limits of those freedoms.

    This society of law regards racial slurs as injurious language, and has enacted a law against it.

    How is that law enforced? The injured party is not necessarily the one who brings charges, but anyone within earshot can do so. Criminal charges are then filed by the State, and the civil party can also file suit for damages.

    I’d have to look at the law more closely to know this; but I think it can be extended to apply to any person hurt by language injurious to one’s gender or religion.

    In any event, Charlie Hebdo also lived by the above rules. Its jokes, though apparently distasteful to this Lars Vilks character, were directed at Jihadist terrorists, not Muslims or Mohammed, and these Jihadists could have brought suit against the magazine; but since the Jihadists don’t live by the rules anyway, they acted instead of getting the joke.

    I might add that my wife was of the same nature as the terrorists.

  84. Me: In France, if I make a racial slur, anyone within earshot can bring criminal and civil charges against me.

    lorac February 16, 2015 at 11:20 pm

    OMG. I think that’s just ridiculous.

    Well, I certainly hope then that they have the same criminal and civil liabilities against people who slur women – especially since we’re the majority.

    Please refer to my post to wbboei just above at 3:38 am.

    In short, I don’t agree with you that it’s ridiculous; but I’m not sure that it applies to gender-slurs or religious bias. I wish it did, anyway. Gotta look up the law.

    I don’t think any charges have actually been filed against anyone, though the threat of them has shut up Jean-Marie Le Pen, who was known for his anti-Arab and antii-Jewish slurs.

    That’s the way it works in a society of law: If you pass a law acceptable to everyone, there’s no need to enforce it.

  85. wbboei February 16, 2015 at 4:42 pm

    Paris and its architecture are a grand tribute to the Belle Epoque.

    That halcion period of culture learning and the arts

    Which began at the close of the Franco-Prussian War in 1870 and ended with the Guns of August in ’14.

    Except for the dates, the entire discourse is quite true: Paris is known for its Haussmannian architecture, and most of the monuments visited were built in the period from Haussmann up to the “Guns of August”.

    And people still love the story and music of “Mistinguette”.

    But the Guns of August did not end the Franco-Prussian War either, nor did the Treaty of Versailles.

    The war came to an end on May 8, 1945, a date which is still a holiday in France. The Franco-Prussian war lasted 75 years.

  86. wbboei February 16, 2015 at 5:13 pm

    The question is not whether speech can cause harm. The question is under what circumstances should that harm be actionable.

    I agree with the latter question: It is indeed an issue.

    But can I then take it that we agree on the first question too? That is, that speech can cause harm?

    I ask this because, for the jihadists who attacked Charlie Hebdo, they decided for themselves that the magazine’s speech was injurious to them, and that such speech was a call to action.

    If you apply “freedom” for Charlie Hebdo, then the same “freedom” applies to the Jihadists.

  87. wbboei February 16, 2015 at 2:03 pm

    Ted Cruz: “The biggest divide in politics is between career politicians in both parties in Washington and the American people,” the senator says.

    There may be a great deal of truth in Cruz’s remark, but he doesn’t realize that it also applies to himself.

    That is, he found a majority of crackpots to vote for him in Texas, a state where such crackpots are a dime a dozen.

    He represents those crackpots in the Senate, but:

    (1) What about the other Texas citizens that didn’t vote for him? Are they represented in any way?

    (2) Cruz talks as if he were a Representative from Texas, not a Senator. The Senate is concerned not so much with Texas issues or citizens, but with national and international issues.

  88. but I’m not sure that it applies to gender-slurs or religious bias.

    That sounds discriminatory.

    If they’re trying to avoid people being offended, what gives race the only standing? Someone could offend me because of my gender, sexuality, religion, ability to play chess, ability to match my clothing – they could even offend me because they don’t like my mother’s choice of army boots.

    But I, or anyone who hears me being offended, have no automatic recourse to a lawsuit, simply because it’s not about race?

    Seriously, that’s way discriminatory.

  89. Wow, imagine if the major of New York (forbids big sodas, etc) ruled the same territory as whomever in France gives race preference in their attempt to squelch free speech (oops I mean people getting their feelings hurt) – that place would become totalitarian in the blink of an eye.

  90. wbboei February 16, 2015 at 1:33 pm

    The weak point in my argument is this: WE DO NOT HAVE IN THIS COUNTRY TODAY A BIG MEDIA WHICH IS CAPABLE OF NOT INCITING THE MASSES. Instead, we have a cacophony of useless cocksucker pretending to be journalist, and an executive layer which is part of the elite class which routinely throws the country to the wolves.

    I am at 0° with you, both sentences.

    Like the populace it “serves”, Big Media exercises irresponsible speech, just on a grander scale than the average Joe Schmoe.

    The masses can only be incited to riot, and that is the purpose served by the Media, driven by its advertisers, who want to shove there mass-produced widgets down the gullets of the unsuspecting.

    When the Founders consecrated Free Press and freedom of expression, they were living in a different world.

  91. lorac February 17, 2015 at 5:36 am

    Wow, imagine if the major of New York… attempts to squelch free speech – that place would become totalitarian in the blink of an eye.

    Please refer to my reply to you at 3:47: If you pass a law acceptable to everyone, there’s no need to enforce it.

  92. lorac February 17, 2015 at 5:31 am

    If they’re [the French] trying to avoid people being offended, what gives race the only standing?

    Someone could offend me because of my gender, sexuality, religion, ability to play chess, ability to match my clothing – they could even offend me because they don’t like my mother’s choice of army boots.

    Yes, it’s a good point: gender, sexuality, religion. I think those three items would pass muster and be part of the law, if it is properly worded (I still haven’t looked up the law).

    However, remember, as I’ve already said several times now, that (1) the law is accepted by everyone, and (2) that since it is accepted and applied by everyone — not the police, but the man in the street — it never actually leads to any court cases because the mere threat of such suits is enough to stop people from making such slurs.

    (BTW, the same applies to the Ledbetter Act — How many cases has it prompted? Maybe none, but it’s possible that the threat of them has led to some results.)

    As for one’s ability to play chess, match one’s clothing, your mom’s choice of army boots, it is clear that the law makes no reference to such things.

    In fact, when I was coming home from shopping early this morning, I came across a neighbor lady about 85 years old, who was taking her little dog for its morning walk. We both spent a few minutes joking about our footwear: She was wearing what looked like combat boots, and I was wearing beach sandals in the middle of winter.

    Such things are not covered by the law, but not because they are insignificant. Rather, it is because any law affecting any given human right has to target a specific item, such as race, gender, sexuality, religion.

    That is why it is not up to the injured party to decide whether or not he is injured. He needs the help of anyone within earshot, which may or may not include a policeman.

    That is also why I have to look up the law to tell you if it contains language encompassing gender, sexuality and religion. But your mom can definitely feel free to visit France in a badly chosen pair of combat boots or mismatched clothing.

  93. They don’t pass laws outlawing behaviors unless there are people doing those behaviors. So if they agree to a certain behavior, they wouldn’t be doing it, and you wouldn’t need a law, which then you wouldn’t have to enforce.

    And in what world can an entire country agree on issue x? I don’t believe for a second that everyone in France agrees with that law.

  94. … your mom can definitely feel free to visit France in a badly chosen pair of combat boots or mismatched clothing.

    However, she cannot visit France naked, or with privates exposed. Running naked is a human right, or freedom if you will, that is allowed only in nudist colonies and nudist beaches.

    US law denies people this right just about everywhere. Maybe there’s a nudist colony on Martha’s Vineyard? I ask that question to Lil Ole Grape in particular, or to my sister-in-law who owns a house there.

    In any event, this is a point where human rights are more restricted in the US than they are in France.

    So, I repeat my point from above (3:38 am): “no freedoms, including that of speech, can be enjoyed, sustained, protected or nurtured unless everyone — repeat, everyone — accepts the rules and limits of those freedoms.”

    Everyone in the US seems to accept that showing one’s privates in public — “streaking” — is offensive to others. The streaker is arrested and put in the cooler for a few days.

    I should specify that the law against racial slurs specifies that civil suit is filed first, and the State brings criminal charges later, after the offending party is convicted in civil court.

  95. lorac February 17, 2015 at 6:34 am

    They don’t pass laws outlawing behaviors unless there are people doing those behaviors.

    That’s generally true, yes.

    The original object of the law was originally to put a clamp on the pronouncements of the Front National led by Jean-Marie Le Pen, who regularly issued anti-Arab and anti-Jewish sentiments in public and was pulling in about 12% of the national vote.

    Le Pen continued once and only once with his anti-semitic epithets, and then the threat of imprisonment put a stop to his talk, and in fact to his reign over the Front National.

    The Front National today is led by his daughter, Marine, who has never issued any such epithets and even defended an Arab against deportation (she’s a lawyer). As a result, the FN garnered 19% of the presidential vote in 2012.

    And in what world can an entire country agree on issue x? I don’t believe for a second that everyone in France agrees with that law.

    I suppose you might find someone who disagrees with the law if you look hard enough; but it did not prompt any opposition either in the National Assembly or in the population, and there has never been any attempt to repeal it.

    As an aside, refer to my “interview” with Buckley of last January, in which I state that I would prefer to be ruled by 2000 technocrats than by Harvard or Brooklyn, because among technocrats, unanimity is possible.

  96. The French Wikipédia has an article about “Laws against racism and hate speech” that is not available in the English Wikipedia. The following is my translation/rendition of the article:

    Many countries have laws against racism and hate speech.

    Some laws prohibit race-based discrimination, i.e., choices made because of the purported or real rate of a person. Others prohibit “hate speech”, which are calls for violence or simple denigration against a category of the population.

    The stated purpose of such laws is to protect a breach of values that are the foundations of democracy, but also to prevent violence.

    The article then lists laws in

    South Africa; Brazil; Canada; Jordan; Singapore; the Council of Europe and its member countries, including Germany, Denmark, Finland, France, Ireland, Iceland, Norway, the United Kingdom; Serbia, Sweden, Switzerland, Australia and New Zealand.

    There are thus 18 countries in the world that have laws against racism and hate speech; but apparently, there are no such laws in the United States.

    Lorac says, and I agree, that there is no need for a law if everyone agrees on the principle of the thing from the get-go. This, imo, is why the Netherlands is not included in the list. The Dutch have a sizable Muslim population from their days of Indonesian colonialism; but they live very well with these “foreigners” in their midst, and with other minorities (witness the Mayor of Rotterdam).

    Such was not the case with Jean-Marie Le Pen and the burgeoning anti-Semitism in France against Arabs and Jews (both being Semites).

    So, since we’re still on the case of the fucking French, I’ll translate what Wikipédia has to say about it in an upcoming post, and try to lay my hands on the law itself (available on line).

  97. That is, he found a majority of crackpots to vote for him in Texas, a state where such crackpots are a dime a dozen.


    Lucky for you Jess, that Texas doesn’t have that law.

  98. “Hate speech” laws are the refuge of totalitarians. We’ll stick with freedom of speech. When speech is deemed “offensive” by the state and coercively punished that is when real “liberals” take to the barricades in defense of free speech.

  99. De mortimus nil nisi bonum.

    Say only good things of the dead . . .

    Things like:

    1. Martin Short: ‘Roof Collapse’ During SNL Special ‘Would Be Least of NBC’s Problems’

    Appearing on the Saturday Night Live 40th anniversary special Sunday night, comedian Martin Short mocked NBC for the ongoing scandal surrounding Nightly News anchor Brian Williams, declaring to the audience of A-list celebrities: “Do you realize that if this roof were to collapse right now, it would be the least of NBC’s problems?”

    2. Jim Carrey to Today Hosts During SNL Red Carpet Show: ‘Where Are You Hiding Brian Williams?’

    During the red carpet show leading up to the 40th anniversary special of NBC’s Saturday Night Live, actor Jim Carrey ended his interview with Today co-hosts Matt Lauer and Savannah Guthrie on a rather awkward note by suddenly asking them where NBC is “hiding” suspended NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams. Carrey interjected with: “Can I ask you guys a question? Where are you hiding Brian Williams? Where is he?”

    3. CNN: Brian Williams’s SEAL Team Six Tales Don’t ‘Pass the Smell Test’

    Thursday’s Anderson Cooper 360 on CNN spotlighted another set of questionable accounts by Brian Williams regarding a supposed relationship with Navy SEAL Team Six. Williams claimed that he traveled with the unit into Iraq just three days after the 2003 invasion; that SEAL “friends” of his sent him a piece of the wreckage from the helicopter that crashed on the 2011 raid that killed bin Laden; and that a SEAL once sent him his knife. Two guests cast cold water on Williams’s claims.

  100. Such was not the case with Jean-Marie Le Pen and the burgeoning anti-Semitism in France against Arabs and Jews (both being Semites).
    This is precisely the kind of conclusory statements which are passed along as gospel without challenge.

    Same crap we saw when the elites in this country fearing an assault on their own estates, started planting seeds in the public mind that because Obama is half black, anyone who criticizes his toxic policies is, per force, a racist.

    Show me three direct quotes which prove that Le Pen is anti-semitic, and give me the context as well.

    Otherwise I will assume you are simply parroting someone who has slipped a little poison into the public debate for other reason.

    Today, in the Democrat Party and the media, this frontal assault on truth and due process has become de rigeur.

  101. That is, he found a majority of crackpots to vote for him in Texas, a state where such crackpots are a dime a dozen.

    Question: if you slipped into Texas, made a wise crack like that, and they put a bounty on your head, are you absolutely certain that would make you a crack pot.

    I will defer to Gonzo on that one.

    Or, the Texas Rangers.

    Evidently, in your book, anyone who believes that Washington is corrupt and the constitution should be respected is, per force, a crack pot.

    In my book, you have the wrong pot.

  102. Here is the Wikipédia article about French laws against racism and hate speech. As you will see, there is no need for me to look up the laws themselves, or the case history (16 cases, though under different laws).

    Since 1881, France prohibits publication of defamatory or insulting language that would incite parties to discrimination, hatred or violence against a person or group because of their place of origin, their ethnicity or lack of it, nationality, race or specific religion. The law prohibits incitement to discrimination, hatred or violence against persons because of their sex, sexual orientation , or handicap. The law prohibits declaration that justify or diminish the perspective on crimes against humanity (such as holocaust denial).

    French criminal law represses deeds that are a manifestation of racism.

    The “Freedom of the Press” law of 29 July 1881 and the Criminal Code repress various activities considered to be racist. Racist defamation is a misdemeanor since 1881.

    This legal structure was complemented in order to repress all forms of racism more effectively, with “imprisonment of one month to one year and a fine of FRF 1000 to FRF 1,000,000 [1881 francs].”

    Act 72-546 of July 1, 1972, against racism introduced other ideas, especially he misdemeanor of provocation of “discrimination, hatred or violence with regard to a person or group because of their origin or belonging to a given ethnic group, nation, race or religion.” The same law also punishes discrimination exercised by a public agent.

    The Gayssot Act of 1990 also represses denial of Nazi war crimes.

    The penalty stipulated today is “one year of imprisonment and €45 K fine, or only one of theses penalties,” with the minimum one-year penalty introduced at the Criminal Code reform of 1992. The Gayssot did not change much at this level. It was the 1992 Criminal Code reform that modified certain articles and stiffened the possible penalties.

    The 1881 act concerns infractions committed by the press and other means of communication: provocation of discrimination, hatred or violence, defamation and injury because of a person belonging to a certain race or ethnic group, nation or religion, apology of and denial of crimes against humanity. The author of written words or images that are racist in character can be punished when the attacks address the public by any means of communication, including the Internet, even if the site is based abroad, only on condition that the disputed language is disseminated in France.

    The Prosecutor of the Republic can officially take the initiative of filing suit against the author of the racist infraction without prior intervention on the person or group that were victims of the remarks.

    It was the Gayssot Act that I was referring to in my previous remarks. The Wikipédia article states, as you can see above, that this Act was only the fruition of a long line of laws regulating freedom of the press, going back to 1881. I don’t have to look up Gayssot. What Gayssot did was to prompt a reform of the Criminal Code.

    All the other 16 laws listed and the five cases brought against individuals (Brigitte Bardot alone was convicted five times) can be translated if you wish.

    The point is that there are laws governing the press and free speech in France. People generally accept these rules and live by them, and feel more free in their verbal and written communications than when the rules were not applied.

    The second point is that the American idea of freedom is that of being unfettered by any rules or limits. This leads to extreme and pernicious interpretations of the Bill of Rights, in particular the First, Second, Fifth and Ninth Amendments.

    As I said above, when the Founders conceived the Bill of Rights and enshrined it in the Constitution, they were living in a world very different from the one we know today.

  103. Humphrey Bogart once noted that those who are getting “it” are not talking, and those who are talking most likely are not.

    To the extent that is a universal statement, you may be better served to worry about the people who plan acts of violence covertly, than those who stand up on a podium and show themselves to be a fool.

    What you do not understand—and given your predilections will never understand, is that free speech is a central component of liberty and censorship even of the kind you advocate is the tool of totalitarians down through the ages.

    Rather than obsessing over what people should not say, perhaps you should reflect upon what they should say.

    It is the same with blacks demagogues. Rather than obsessing over so called white privilege, they should ask themselves what are they doing that we are not doing, so we can achieve the same level of success.

    That insight was conspicuous by its absence in Megan Kelley’s recent dialogue. On that point, she sounded like an airhead.

  104. admin February 17, 2015 at 8:41 am

    “Hate speech” laws are the refuge of totalitarians. We’ll stick with freedom of speech. When speech is deemed “offensive” by the state and coercively punished that is when real “liberals” take to the barricades in defense of free speech.

    You have proven a dozen times in your articles and posts that you insist on equating irresponsible speech with “free speech”.

    Suffice it to say that France is not a totalitarian country, and that I personally feel freer in my expression than when I am in the US.

    I have also explained at length that the State — does not deem anything “offensive”. The Prosecutor can take the initiative, as I pointed out in the above translation, but the civil case usually comes first.

  105. [Cruz] found a majority of crackpots to vote for him in Texas, a state where such crackpots are a dime a dozen.

    freespirit February 17, 2015 at 7:54 am

    Lucky for you Jes, that Texas doesn’t have that law.

    LMAO !!

  106. jeswezey
    February 17, 2015 at 9:34 am
    You need to run for office–not here, in France.

    The French socialist party is always looking for true believers.

  107. You have proven a dozen times in your articles and posts that you insist on equating irresponsible speech with “free speech”.

    Who is to decide what is “irresponsible”?

    Suppose I decide that what you say is irresponsible, and I get others to agree.

    Would you be content to be censored?

    This comes damned close to declaring those who are not of the commune heretics.

    And how are they to be punished?

    You and your ilk would march us back to the glorious age of the 16th century when bigots burned fagot to prevent inconvenient views from being heard.

    Galileo whose theories challenged the flat earth society of his day was executed for this.

    Before you close your mind entirely, go spend an hour or two with Madison and Jefferson so you understand the value of liberty, and that service to the collective is not what you perceive it to be, namely perfect freedom.

    Or, better yet, go read Orwell.

  108. When Charlie Hebdo was boomed there were several articles referencing the anti-Semitic speech that apparently is not being prosecuted in France. In one article a Jewish parent said that Jewish children were so maligned and mistreated at school, the Jewish community opened a private school to protect their children from extreme anti-Semitic behavior.

    Why did the law not protect these children. Was it because their parents failed to avail themselves of existing legal protections ? If not, why not? Could it be that prosecutors choose not to prosecute these cases?

    Several years ago, the French government rounded up the Romani or Gypsies throughout the country, and put their asses on a plane to Romania.

    There seems to be some kind of disconnect here. France has laws to protect SOME of the people from the insulting words of others. But, this protection is either not accessed (likely, because the process is difficult) or not available to all. And, while the government might protect people from insults, it feels free to just kick them the hell out of the country.

    My personal preference, if given one – If you’re ignorant enough to insult me based on my ethnicity, gender race,whatever, have the hell at it. But, please don’t put me on a plane against my will and send me to Romania.

Comments are closed.